As usual when I post an honest, heartfelt, and *non*-putdown opinion of Maharishi, one of the terribly attached TBs reacts to it as if it was a putdown (not true), and as if she were feeling terribly threatened by the opinion itself (true).
Allow me to clarify, for those who are less anal retentive about the things they believe. In the past on this forum, we have discussed whether it would really *matter* to people with regard to the benefits they have received from TM if Maharishi had, in fact, had sex with a bunch of his female students. The general consensus was No, it wouldn't matter. Why then are so many people so attached to the idea that he is enlightened? Would it really *matter* if he wasn't? Would the benefits they have received from practicing TM be any less? By their actions -- overreacting almost any time this subject comes up and getting all defensive about their belief (and that is all it is) that he is enlightened -- one really has to assume that it *would* really matter to them. My question is, Why? My completely honest, no bullshit, pondered-over- for-almost-40-years opinion is that Maharishi is *not* enlightened, and never has been. In all the time I spent in the TM movement, I never once heard him claim that he was, and based on reports here, I don't think he ever has. And yet people persist in believing that he is. Again, why, and more important -- *what difference would it make?*" My perception of Maharishi is of a well-meaning ordinary guy who had the fortunate experience of spending some time around someone who *was* enlightened, was inspired by that experience, and who decided *on his own*, and against the advice of that teacher, to try to spread the inspiration that he felt around, so that other people could feel as inspired as he did. This is *NOT* a putdown; it's a compliment. I *commend* Maharishi for his devotion to this desire to inspire. By contrast, I've worked with several other teachers who periodically threw tantrums and decided to *stop* teaching; Maharishi never has. That, in my book, makes Maharishi far more devoted to his desire to inspire others than the other teachers were. I *do* believe that he went against the direct advice of his own teacher in making this decision to teach, and at his own peril. Spiritual teaching is a perilous task; there are pitfalls and dangers in it, especially for those who still have a strong ego that would be easy prey for these pitfalls and dangers. *That* is what I believe that Guru Dev had in mind when he told Maharishi not to teach, and to follow his *own* example and spend his time in meditation, far away from the teaching process. (This information came from Sattyanand, many years ago.) We are talking, after all, about a guy (Guru Dev) who tried as hard as humanly possible to *avoid* being forced into the position of being a teacher himself. He *understood* the pitfalls and dangers. When they tried to make him the Shankaracharya, he literally disappeared for 21 days, hoping that they would change their minds and choose someone else. I think he had Maharishi's best interests in mind when he made the suggestion that he *not* teach; he must have known that Maharishi was not *ready* to teach, and *would* fall victim to the pitfalls and dangers that awaited him if he chose that path. And I believe that Maharishi did, in fact, fall prey to them. But that doesn't mean that I don't feel gratitude to him for what he taught me. TM, as cobbled-together and untested as it was, helped to start me on a spiritual path, and I am grateful to Maharishi for having made it available. But at the same time, unlike most of the other TM teachers I have met, I have never really considered him enlightened, and still don't. Many people would *like* Maharishi to be enlightened. They have various reasons for why they believe that. I have my own reasons for believing that he is not. My reasons may be correct or they may not, but it doesn't really matter, because it wouldn't *matter* to me whether he was enlightened or not. The benefit for me was in learning a useful beginner's technique of meditation, one that left me open to more inter- esting experiences with other techniques and other traditions. Maharishi didn't need to be enlightened to accomplish that. Haven't you ever considered the possibility that Maharishi coined his "learning to read" analogy (you remember the one -- the kid goes to school and learns "A, B, C" and then goes home and teaches his younger brothers and sisters "A, B, C") to describe *himself*? I guess my questions for the group as a whole are: 1. *Is* it important to you to believe that Maharishi was/is enlightened? 2. If so, *why*? 3. What *difference* do you think that would have made in his ability to teach you what you have learned from him? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
