Comment below: **
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I can always count on an interesting, reasoned response from you > Marek! Thanks. Really excellent discussion of Guru Dev's private > funding. > > In my own case, my life of privilege made it easier for me to renounce > it and become a monk for MMY. I didn't really understand the hard > earned value of the life my father had provided. That perspective has > been corrected big time in the ensuing decades! I give GD less > credit for feeling as if he didn't need to worry about money, that it > would come to him. Lots of rich kids believe this. Most of the > fulltime people I worked with in Sidhaland came from good families > with plenty of cash. It can make you more confident to take the risk > of a road less traveled. As I have said before, I am not impressed > with his minimalistic camping skills. I know guys who pull that off > here too. > > I view this magic money claim as significant. It may even be the > first thread in unraveling a carefully constructed mythology about his > life. I think that the very act of using the claim in an advocacy > piece in advance of his visit is a blatant manipulation of readers who > were in no way able to confirm or refute such a claim. In fact even > asking the question would be viewed as an assault on his holiness. > This kind of claim is an obvious con and I do believe that Guru Dev > was in control of his press, so I doubt it was just MMY doing > something stupid without his approval. But it cuts to the quick of > what we think about his integrity so it is important. > > For the story about his integrity to be meaningful one has to believe > that he did in fact have a magical source of money as claimed. There > were bills to pay in the ashram and I am not sure what exactly is > being claimed here. It is purposely vague and leaves the > superstitions credulity of the reader to fill in the blanks. That its > intention is to prove by a physical claim that Guru Dev has magical > powers is clear. It is one of the tools MMY uses to try to convince > the reader that they must view GD as a special magical person. Like > the claims of Jesus' miracles in the Bible, they play on our > confidence in how the world works and uses it to show that he is > different from you and I. Like the Bible, if you decide that the > physical proof claims lack validity, you can still believe if you want > and may may even construct a "reason" why such proof is not needed. > But the writer's intention is to use a claim about the physical world > to increase credibility. It engages the part of our critical thinking > that would rightly be impressed if such a claim was backed by good > evidence. > > Let me put it a different way. I smell a rat here. I believe that > MMY was lying about the money thing. We are left with an absurd > implication that Guru Dev is a magic money maker. I think that this > was a show to build confidence at first. Later when a person was > sufficiently hooked, MMY shook them down as efficiently as he has done > his own movement all these years. They no doubt welcomed the fleecing > and felt special from it. I think MMY has got more than a little PT > Barnum in him and I am getting an idea where he may have learned it. > I think it does tarnish GD's rep for being so pure and holy to see > through a such a ploy. I just need to see the one time that a person > bends spoons with magic to conclude that I have seen enough of their > "real magic". Perhaps he felt the end justified the means, but I say > the means suck. You don't have to tell lies to get people to think of > you in a spiritual way do you? > > Isn't it funny how MMY uses a claim about material conquest as his > credibility in the spiritual area. It reminds me of those wealth > preachers who use their flamboyant riches as a way to attract people > and convince them of their special religious powers. Of course free > public lectures are a great way to expand the believer base. I see > some spiritual people do this today. They make a big fuss out of > refusing money at first, but then they let you give a lot more later > when you are an insider. It is a tactic for increasing confidence and > is a part of most good confidence games. A good con knows that > making a show of not taking the small stuff sets you up for the real > killing later. > > I can hear MMY talking really quickly here: " Of course as you know > his Divinity doesn't take any donations, but he does let true devotees > fund their own projects. Here are a few projects that you can fund > without giving any donations." What do ya bet that there was an > elaborate way that non-donations got collected? > > Seeing this use of ridiculous hype makes me much less apt to see Guru > Dev in an innocent light. Since he went from "camper" to being > worshiped as a god, I think he just might have gotten sick of sleeping > outside. > > Thanks Marek. You make using one of my posts worth it! > **snip to end** Thanks, Curtis, hut I think you're making some assumptive leaps here that aren't wholly supported by the evidence available. First of all, the documentation that Guru Dev actually had signs posted about his ashrams, including Jyotir Math, re his refusal to accept donations seem real enough. Secondly, there does seem to be ample evidence that he did live the life of an ascetic from 9 or 10 till the time he was made Shankaracharya when he was 72. Certainly, that doesn't mean that he always lived in caves and, India being India, the fact that he was recognized early on as being an enlightened saint had to mean that whenever he chose to come in out of the jungles or the rain he could easily stay at any number of devotees' home (and the bios speak of affluent devotees), and most likely did. He probably did not have to, and very well might not have, lived the lived of a penniless sadhu for very much of his pre-Shankaracharya period. Nevertheless, the bios and ancillary anecdotal evidence all testify to a personality that was seriously focussed in spiritual sadhana and for a long time (20 years) refused the comfort and power that being Shankaracharya would have provided. Moreover, his eventual acceptance was also characterized as reluctant. In this context (and maybe others would argue in other contexts, as well) Maharishi may not be the most credible or unbiased source, but it does seem that Guru Dev continued to live a spartan life even as Shankaracharya according to that press release. And others have said similarly. Furthermore, Guru Dev's personality seemed authentically a renunciate's, and in the most traditional style. The likelihood that he truly did not want to be involved with management decisions (and actually wasn't) isn't unreasonable. And a personality like Maharishi would be a natural fit to take on those type of tasks; he would have been drawn to them as the most natural way to be of service. You're 100% correct about Maharishi being totally into PR; it's something that he naturally does, though clearly seems out-of- synch with what lots of folk feel would be more effective. The scenarios you speculate about, re Brahmachari Mahesh doing the behind-the-scenes lobbying for rupees as a backhanded way of obtaining donations that Guru Dev was publically refusing, is more of a projection backwards in time of a contemporary and critical view of Maharishi, and wholly unsupported by the evidence as to Guru Dev. I have confidence (for whatever that's worth to you) that Br. Mahesh was a totally real guy just sincerely in love with Guru Dev and he was just doing anything and everything he could to show him how much that was so. One of the emotions I cherish the most is that wonderful sense of surrender -- of giving it up and giving your all -- and knowing that it's right and all good and that you're saved. It's the same in many religious conversions and spiritual traditions and such a part of India's history, of course. I'd expect that many here, though they no longer experience that emotion and don't expect that there is anyone or anything that could evoke it again, still remember it's intensity and unique configuration. I'm sure that true bhakti was underlying Maharishi's intitial career and lasted long into the 70s. I don't know, maybe it still does to some degree or maybe even large measure. No way of knowing. Anyway, that's some more grist for the mill. Thanks for the discussion, as usual. Marek
