--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > > > Good for oxes and morons? Well I'm not an Ox in Chinese astrology. So > > that only leaves...(-: > > > > Cosmic ego, maybe? I think that was actually Maharishis expression, was it? > Or was that cosmic accident? > > Share, for all what I know of you - I rather see your comment as lighthearted > and humorous - I don't group you with the dogmatic and fundies. > > That was srijau and he already got some flak. I guess his 'opinion' is > something that grows in a spiritual mono-culture. For me, being out of it for > decades now, this is rather some curious strange phenomenon, which I still > remember, but I wonder at that sort of spiritual naivety, the almost innocent > exhibition of ego. Is it really like this? Are there really many people in > the movement, who believe this? I guess there are. But to anybody outside the > mono-culture of the movement, this will only lead to eye-rolling. > > Don't get me wrong, I appreciate Maharishi for what he did, I appreciate his > role in popularizing meditation for the mainstream in the west, at our > generation, I admire how he helped many people to make a major turn toward > spirituality, again in our generation, lots of stories of a lot of people, > myself included. > > But then I wonder at the unreflected exhibition of ego as in srijaus remark. > ANY belief of 'My Guru/Hero/Avatar is the greatest of all time, far greater > than any known historic person' is just that: plain materialistic ego > projected on a spiritual ideal.
It's just strong love, nothing wrong with that. Maharishi never ever indicated that he was great, let alone the greatest. The teaching yes, himself, no. The greatest for him was Guru Dev, a notion strongly supported by Benjamin Creme who places Guru Dev at 6,0, one of the most senior and highest in evolution of all the Masters of Wisdom now guiding this planet.
