--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gerbal88 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ > wrote: > > I guess my questions for the group as a whole are: > > 1. *Is* it important to you to believe that Maharishi > was/is enlightened? > > At the time, I think it made me feel really special that *I* was so > special as to have found a great teacher. Personally, I think the > mystical aura Mahesh cultivated around himself, quite intentionally, > both stroked his ego and enhances his marketability. > > 2. If so, *why*? > > As above. > > 3. What *difference* do you think that would have > made in his ability to teach you what you have > learned from him? > > That's a matter of what I know now, isn't it. I really admired the > compelling structure, uniformity and graspableness of the way he > taught. > > *** > > With respect to what you say below, I kind of agree. It's one thing > to know your stuff, it's another to let it ripen (and I am talking > about this business of spiritual stuff we perceive in what little we > know of Guru Dev). Without being "established" in that purity of the > perfectly controlled ego, the teacher is always at great risk. Mahesh > may indeed have felt he had fooled Guru Dev (oh, see how absolutely > devoted I am to you! I am so wonderful.) But I suspect Guru Dev could > see through the devotion or at least the appearance of the great > actor playing god and perceive the risky business of the ego beneath > that. > > It's good to hear what Sattyanand had to say. He was there. He > certainly knew. If only someone could have interviewed him the way > Mahesh interviewed people: picked their brains and got everything. >
Does anyone have more detail on what Sattyanand said - context - who did he say it to? JohnY > 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. 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/
