Since Barry has already done the heavy lifting (I agree with everything he said about how seriously we took this role and what kind of scumbaggery is afoot when someone violates that trust) I would like to add two more things that I'll bet Ravi can relate to.
Have you ever met a very attractive chick between the ages of 28 and 34, never married, and you are at first surprised by how quickly she seems attracted to you. (Your lucky day you think!) On your first date she hits you with a question about your views on kids before the salad arrives and it comes to you that you are not on a date, you are on a job interview. No questions about what you have read lately to see if your intellectual compatibility will lead to long discussions into the night, but how well you fit into a role as a daddy to her mommy. There is something oddly impersonal about this interaction that always left me cold. The initial show of attraction was no longer flattering, it was never about YOU. Same chick doesn't even make the effort to pretend to dig into her purse when the check comes so you can gallantly wave her off with an "I got this". She just sits back, looks you dead in the eye and conveys, "That's right, this is how this is going down. All applicants pay for their own interview, that is how I can run the numbers I need to find him." Chicks attracted to teachers had some of this vibe. The second point that I'll bet you have seen is that cults have so many little unspoken cultural rules that it is less likely that you would be genuinely attracted to a person at a different level of involvement than you. In TM the diet thing was huge. I was eating our version of a vegetarian diet and 95% Indian food with Ayur Vedic this and that, so something as seemingly innocuous as someone who ate garlic was a total turnoff. If they announced that they wanted a nice juicy burger (a statement that today would make me appreciate her more for her lust for life and sensual foods) would send me running. Like attracts like and when you have mistaken your conditioned preferences for "refined" enlightened tastes, that doubles the effect. I was only seriously romantically interested in teachers of TM when I was a teacher. There were too many secrets to maintain if they had not been through the training, and their soul was at stake. Abusing the power differential, this attitude of really not taking the person seriously for a relationship and just using them, was a characteristic of the escapades of the Maharishi. It sounds so far that the Girish may have been running the same version of hit and run. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula <chivukula.ravi@> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:04 AM, curtisdeltablues < > > > curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Suspension till case is adjudicated or settled in some > > > > manor!!! All are & stand innocent in law, till proven, > > > > in law or other wise! > > > > > > I hear this invoked a lot and can appreciate that until > > > we have the facts we don't know what went on as I said > > > in my post about this. > > > > > > But the legal standards of judging cases really has little > > > to do with how we judge things in our daily life. (I don't > > > even know if what the legal standard in India is, do you?) > > > Throw in the very dubious influence peddling in India by > > > the rich and powerful and it is probably unrealistic to expect > > > us not to weigh in as the statements are published about what > > > went on, to form opinions as best we can with what we know. > > > I mean are you expressing faith that an Indian justice system > > > (or ours for that matter) will deal impartially with a rich > > > guy like Girish who has probably cultivated many powerfully > > > alliances. Remember how well connected Sai Baba was. that > > > basically made him untouchable. > > > > > > Settled in law doesn't mean guilty or innocent to me. OJ got > > > off remember. But he did it. > > > > Yes - of course. What I would be interested is your experiences > > around this topic as a teacher in the TM cult. Surely it was > > just not the Gurus - I'm sure you teachers got a piece of the > > pie sometimes too yeah - smiley, wink, wink, smiley. > > I will address this, because Ravi so clearly illustrates > the "just not getting it" mentality I spoke of in my earlier > rap about Paris movies. Ravi is projecting what *he* might > do, or thinks he might do, in a situation in which he found > himself surrounded by young, nubile students not averse to > developing a crush on their teachers and either trying their > best to seduce them, or being willing to be actively seduced > by the less-than-honorable ones. > > Yes, it happens. And yes, all too frequently. But *not* to > all of us. Although I have taken a lot of heat on this forum > for my unapologetic tales of how much nookie I got during my > time as a TM teacher, all of that nookie was shared with fellow > TM teachers, not any of my direct students. Did the opportunity > present itself? You betcha. Did I go for it, or was I even > tempted? No way, Jose. > > This is something that those who have never been placed in the > position of being a teacher in a spiritual context will not > fully understand. If you take it seriously -- as I did when > teaching TM and later when teaching meditation for Rama - Fred > Lenz -- you "just don't go there." The temptations *TO* go > there are many, and powerful. On TM residence courses, one of > the games I had to warn potential teachers about when it was > still my job to prep them for teaching such courses was the > phenomenon of "Fuck the course leader." Lovely young women > (or men, if the course was taught by a woman) would get them- > selves all jizzed up from all that meditation and try their > best to get not only into the teacher's head, but into their > pants as well. > > But IMO if you really "get" the essence of being placed in > the position of being a spiritual teacher -- even on the minor > level of being a TM teacher -- you really don't even *think* > of "going there." The students are *your* responsibility; > their welfare is *your* responsibility. Who in their right > mind would fuck with that by fucking *them*? > > Which brings us to the subject of those who *aren't* in their > right minds. > > That includes, of course, Maharishi, Rama, and now Girish. > While on the level of compassion I can understand these guys' > weakness, and on a personal level I have actually *experienced* > the powerful temptation to channel some adoring spiritual > groupie's attention in the direction of sexual attention, I > believe personally that it's one of the biggest mistakes any > spiritual teacher could ever make. And yes, I consider all > three of the people named above utter scumbags for having > done it. > > They might have had *other* qualities that were more admirable, > and they might have done things that will help to balance the > "karmic scales" when they're cruising the Bardo destined either > for a higher rebirth or one in the hell worlds, but I'm think- > ing that fucking your students is pretty much the same as > fucking *over* your students, and that's a shitload of karma > that would be difficult to balance in anyone's eyes. > > There is simply too much of a power differential for "mutually > consensual sex between equals" to ever happen in a spiritual > context. Even if the teachers themselves don't present them- > selves as "more than human" or almost god-like (and many of > them do just that), the students tend to *project* such qual- > ities onto them. Who can legitimately say "No" when a person > you've been trained to view as a saint or enlightened asks > you to "Come up and see my etchings?" Almost no one. In my > opinion, sex between a teacher in a position of power within > a strong spiritual organization -- be it Catholic priest, > TM teacher, or teacher in any other organization in which > people are led to believe that "teacher knows best" -- is > ALWAYS a form of rape, or at the very least, coercion. > > So, to answer your question, Ravi, yes, the temptations were > there. And no, not all of us succumbed to them. The fact that > you could even assume we would speaks to my point in my earlier > Free Man In Paris rap. Those on this forum who have never had > the opportunity to teach meditation simply *cannot comprehend* > what it is like, and how seriously one can take it. IF you > take it seriously, your life becomes a matter of trying to > do the best you can *for someone else*. THAT is the very > *benefit* of teaching -- ideally it takes you out of your ego, > and makes you remember at all times that it's not *about* you; > it's about doing something right and something appropriate > for the student or students in front of you. > > Several people here have never had that experience. For them, > as far as I can tell, "mastering the knowledge" has been about > learning to parrot the dogma taught by Maharishi or other > teachers so that they can use it to "win" their silly ego- > arguments, and puff up their own shoddy self-esteem. And I > understand, to some extent. They've never been in a position > in which someone *else's* welfare is more important than their > own. But the very fact that they've never experienced this > necessity to push one's *own* ego and one's *own* desires > into the background and focus on what is best for a student > often leaves them unable to comprehend WHY we did what we > did as teachers, and often for so long. > > I experienced some good moments while teaching TM. I experienced > even more of them while teaching for Rama, in totally different > circumstances. There I taught in a big room of people, 10-30 > at a time, teaching them all how to meditate without any puja > or any other spiritual bells and whistles, and like Amelie > turning around in the movie theater to watch the audience I > got to see the change that took place in their faces between > before the meditation and after it. I even wrote a story about > it once, so I'll pass it along: > > http://www.ramalila.net/RoadTripMind/rtm41.html > > Does that answer your question? >
