Good analysis Barry - if one can believe the memories of Joyce Collin Smith, Maha might have been legit from the 50's till he hit the West.
The following is from her obit in the Guardian - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/8317131/Joyce-Collin-Smith.html "Perhaps inevitably, in the early 1960s Joyce moved on to the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who initiated her into the practice of Transcendental Meditation (TM) in his early days in the West. Feeling that she had finally found "a genuine master – a Guru", she spent about eight years with the Maharishi and also served as his driver. After a while, however, she began to feel that the guru was beginning to lose "his cleanness of intent". She noted that he was becoming "rather ruthless" in the use of his spiritual power, showing no concern when people began breaking down as a result of practising TM (she herself was once driven to the brink of suicide as a result of overindulging in the practice), demanding big fees for "spiritual benefits", and discarding those followers who could not pay. It was the beginning of her disillusionment with him. The final straw was the arrival of the Beatles" ________________________________ From: wgm4u <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 20+ trillion debt when Obama leaves office! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > > > Do you see any difference between Bernie Madoff and Marshy? > > > > Yes, Madoff was a criminal possessed by Greed and MMY > > was a Hindu fundamentalist with a Messiah complex. > > (At least MMY has done some good.) > > For the record, I agree with BillyG's distinction here. > > I think his short description of Maharishi is somewhat > accurate, and that -- unlike Bernie Madoff -- he was > driven in his early years by a genuine desire to "save > the world." As the years progressed, and he got more > and more attention from his followers and the press, > I believe that desire shifted to "save the world, as > long as *I* get the credit for saving it." Towards the > end of his days, I suspect that his desire shifted > again to "save India, get the rest of the world to pay > for it, and gather as much money as I can towards that > end so that after my death *I* will still get credit > for it in India, the only place that matters." > > Unlike some, I don't believe that he set out to be a > charlatan. I believe instead that -- like so many other > teachers who ignored the advice of *their* teachers and > began to teach before they were ready to handle the > pressures of doing so, that he was taken out along the > way by ego, by his own previously sublimated desires, > and finally by "believing his own PR," meaning that he > began to believe the projections of near-godhood beamed > at him by his naive Western followers and some of his > Indian ones. > > I have a good friend who went to India, studied there > for a long time, and began to teach as well, *but* > making it perfectly clear in *every* talk that he gave > that he was *not* enlightened, *not* a guru, and *not* > anything more than an enthusiastic guy wanting to spread > what he felt was uplifting knowledge. He loved India and > wanted to stay there, but he finally had to leave because > the Indians were having none of it. They would call him > guru despite his protestations, they would show up at his > door at all hours of the night seeking darshan, and they > finally made his life there untenable, so he left. I feel > that this is a *very* wise decision on the part of my > friend, and I commend him for it. He, like me, has seen > many teachers who *succumbed* to this level of attention, > projected onto them by their followers, and allowed it > to inflate their egos and turn them into something that > they themselves would have abhorred in the early days > of their teaching. My friend didn't want that to happen > to him, so he beat feet. Wise man. > > My honest assessment of Maharishi, in one word, is "naive." > He didn't believe it when Guru Dev suggested that he was > not ready to teach, and did it anyway. He thought he could > "handle" it. Same with the Rama guy I studied with for a > while...he very much thought that he could "handle" it. > Neither could. Both changed a great deal over the course > of their teaching careers, and not in positive ways. > > In other words, Michael, I'm again presenting a different > way of looking at the same scenario to avoid the temptation > of seeing it in completely black-and-white terms. I don't > see Maharishi as an evil guy, or even one motivated entirely > by money, like Bernie Madoff. I see him instead as a pretty > normal guy with narcissistic tendencies, tendencies which > were amplified over the years to become Class-A Narcissism. > > And yes, as BillyG suggests, along the way he did some good > *anyway*. Many people *did* benefit from TM, even if that > benefit was using it to set them on other spiritual paths, > or better, on their own path. > > Did Maharishi and the TMO do some questionable and even > illegal things along the way? You betcha. Did Maharishi's > willingness to use his students as literal guinea pigs > for his experiments in "techniques" that he invented > himself cause some damage and some distress along the > way? You betcha. But cut the guy a bit of a break. Could > *you* have handled the fawning and toadying and outright > worship projected onto you by naive Western (and Indian) > students without going a little funny in the head behind > it? I know that I couldn't. He (MMY) should have been more upfront about his enlightenment status, since he wasn't we'll just have to asume he was not enlightened but was a sincere Monk. (I liked your thought out analysis, just sayin'.)
