--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > In the case of your ex-Guru Rama, people channeling him > > were doing so on an established authority within the > > community, which they were using to give messages. > > Michael, you should stick to what you actually > know something about. When you try to make things > up, they usually *sound* made up. :-)
And what if you try to read properly? > There IS no "established authority" within the > Rama "community." Of course he himself was the authority. So, speaking on his behalf, like most channelers do, they use the authority of the person they channel. I guess there was not mach interest in these channelings outside the Rama community, but the interest within that community was due to the authority their master enjoyed. In comparison to that: 1)MMY did not channel GD 2)GD was unknown in the west were MMY started to teach. > He failed to leave one. He just > croaked himself and left nothing behind but a > foundation to give away what was left of his > money and a buncha students who didn't know > what to do next. > > So anybody who felt like "carrying on his work" did > so on their own, without any kind of "authority" or > organization backing them whatsoever. Some did so > cleanly in my opinion, limiting themselves to teaching > the only thing they were qualified to teach, basic > meditation, and doing so for free. > > A few others set themselves up as gurus, and some > of them claimed "direct communication" from Rama to > do so. So they used Ramas authority within the community. They claimed it. > Since there are suckers everywhere, a few of > those suckers fell for this routine for short periods > of time. Now, a few years later, none of these poseurs > have any followers left any more. It became evident > very quickly that they couldn't walk their talk. > > > Maharishi OTOH didn't give messages from > > Guru Dev to people. That's a big difference. > > True. > > > He took GD's advice for himself... > > Uh, excuse me...it seems to me that Maharishi did > the *opposite* of taking Guru Dev's advice. According > to witnesses, that advice, given directly to Maharishi > in public while Guru Dev was alive, was that he should > *not* teach. Yet within a few years of Guru Dev's death, > there he was teaching. That doesn't strike me as > following one's teacher's advice. I was talking about the advice of the vision. He took this advice for himself and not for others. Its a big difference, if I get some message, and take this vision relating to myself, or start channeling messages to others what they should do. Big difference. In one case, I trust in my own experience and act upon it. In the other case I impose a foreign authorithy to others. > > ...and simply traces himself to the tradition of his > > master whom he served for more than 13 years. > > And within whose tradition he would never have been > allowed to teach. Never. Sure, so far we understood. Nevertheless, he was an integral part in it, because we have GD word, that non Brahmins could be disciples. And as I have pointed out before, the reason was all external, ultra-orthodox convention. There were many Brahmins who believe that these injunctions aren't truely 'vedic'. (and as far as I can tell, you wouldn't really care). Point is, they weren't personal. > > Can you see the difference at all? > > Sure. Totally different situation in some ways, but > similar in other ways. Maharishi rode to short-lived > fame in India on the coattails of a famous teacher and > then later to short-lived fame in the West by riding > on the coattails of some famous musicians. The Rama > poseurs rode to even shorter-lived fame on the coattails > of the teacher they worked with for a few years (in > some cases, longer than MMY spent with GD). Your interpretation. To me it seems he effected the life of many in a positive way. He indeed made meditation a household word in the west. > I'm really not making a case for Maharishi being as > much of a charlatan as some of these poseurs were. > MMY accomplished a few good things in his time, and as > far as I can tell, the poseurs didn't. But Maharishi > *did* get famous initially by riding on his teacher's > coattails, and has consistently ever since tried to > give the impression that he had Guru Dev's blessing > to go into the teaching biz. As far as I can tell, > this claim is not true. When he started in Kerala, he was surrounded by orthodox Brahmins, and it seems he easily convinced them. He also easily convinced a few Gurubhais, who incidently were also Brahmnins. That is, according to GD, they were all eligable to teach. > But all this is moot. Ya meet one of the people > making these kinds of claims, whether they are for > real or simply spiritual poseurs, and ya makes yer > decision whether to believe them or not. And then > ya lives with it. No one on earth will ever be able > to prove whether ya made a good decision or a bad > one. If there is anything like 'good' or 'bad' at all. My point is: its always a personal thing. Why bother about the personal decision of others, and try to convince them they were wrong, Barry? 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/
