As usual, Curtis' words have provoked many thoughts, which in turn have provoked many words. :-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Turq, > > In support of your view of the lengths believers will go to > perpetuate the fantasies of their leader: > > Mao had many cockamamie ideas about agriculture. One was that he > could get ten times the production by planting ten times the rice. > It ended up killing the rice and causing a famine but when he > traveled to see his successes, there was a train ahead of him that > would go out and plant rice in that way in a prefab village so he > could see it for himself. They filled the rice silos to prove that > he was right and had revolutionized rice farming. Bingo. But there's a major difference IMO between the toadies who do this for a political despot like Mao who could either reward them with power and riches or have them killed, and the toadies who do this sort of thing with spiritual teachers. In my opinion the latter phenomenon is sometimes fueled by fanatical belief in the teacher and what he/she stands for, but *most often* it's fueled by the "I'm important because I get to hang with Swami Whoopdeedoo, and he is ALL important" syndrome. > If you have been around MMY for five minutes while people tell > him news you quickly realize that : good news big strokes, bad > news stony silence or anger, often at the messenger. And your position within the org and the level of attention you get from your fellow students and the thing that lifts you above the level of "peon student" to the level of "important student" ALL depends on how many strokes you get. > What interests me about the Guru Dev advance letter is its > use of the claims for magical powers in the hype. Old as the hills. Been around as long as there have been people. > "He combines in himself the Knowledge of the self with the > mysterious powers -- the sidhis arising out of yogic > perfection and hard penances, which he has undergone > throughout his life." > > What an interesting claim! But please do recognize that this is *Maharishi's* claim, not (as far as we know) Guru Dev's claim. All the difference in the world. The former is very much "I'm important because I get to hang with Swami Whoopdeedoo, and he is ALL important." That's STUDENT-GENERATED self-importance, not necessarily TEACHER-GENERATED self-importance. If we had records of Guru Dev *himself* saying stuff like "You (my students) are important because you get to hang with me, Swami Whoopdedoo, and *I* am ALL important," then you'd have a different situation. Been there, seen that, still trying to wash the taste out of my mouth. But by far the more common phenomenon in spiritual circles is when the STUDENTS start saying shit like this about their teacher, to make THEMSELVES seem more important, just for getting to hang with him. That's what *I* see in Maharishi's toadying, not any claim by Guru Dev himself. And don't get me wrong here...I'm not trying to "protect" any of my idealized notions about GD; I don't really think I have that many. I never had much of a feel for him and still don't. I'm just giving you some feedback as to what I think the real SOURCE of this miracle stuff is, and that it's more *likely* that it came from the guy who was trying to make *himself* seem more important (and thus worth attending a lecture by) because he had hung with a guy who could do miracles and pull money out of his ass. Ooops, sorry...out of a magic box. > Mysterious powers, unnamed and without a shred of proof > offered. As you have pointed out about stage magic (and as the recent film "The Prestige" made even more clear), the audience doesn't *want* proof. They want to BELIEVE. > But asserted as part of his PR image, a man who can do > magical things that you and I who have not lived in the > woods for years don't have. This claim and the money > thing takes him out of the regular religious guy camp > and he goes into the spoon benders bin. If you're speaking of Maharishi, I agree with you. I've still seen no real indication that GD himself used...or needed...this approach. Again, don't get me wrong...he might have. It's just that I haven't seen any quotes that make me believe that he needed to do such stuff. > Claiming supernatural powers is bogus and if he had them > he could demonstrate them if he wanted to be fair. Instead > it is just asserted and the claim is protected from any > challenge. That's exactly why, historically, almost all tales of spiritual teachers performing miracles don't appear on the scene until AFTER they are safely dead, and the claim is unchallengable. > It is also interesting that MMY twice invokes that his > teacher is the highest, bestest, most fantastical saint > in India. Competitive thing isn't he? Yup. I think that the "best" thang is MAHARISHI's particular hangup. To me it's one of the most destructive things he brought to his teaching and instilled in tens of thousands of followers. One way that I think it's possible to view MMY is as having an inner "little boy" who is still trying desperately to "prove himself" to his beloved guru so that he can get some strokes. The constant deference to Guru Dev is (in some senses) a way of still trying to impress him, wherever and whatever he is. Put this behavior together with the tantrums that Maharishi is famous for throwing when one of his high-profile students rejects him, and you've got a picture of the classic narcissistic personality, measur- ing his own worth by how much ATTENTION he gets. >From his teacher, from the world, and now from his own students. It's the quest of someone who doesn't really have that strong a sense of who they are, and needs outside reinforcement to prop it up. Sorta like the great one-liner, "I have an inferiority complex, but it's not a very good one." > Best in spirituality. That reminds me of people who > claim to be the best in art. Exactly. And yet, millions of people (not just TMers) claim to be "the best" or practice "the best" or brag about getting to hang with "the best" every day. Go figure. Thanks for bringing these things up, Curtis. It's interesting to be able to talk about Guru Dev or Maharishi AS IF THEY WERE "JUST GUYS." They ARE "just guys." When considering them or trying to figure them out, NOTHING is "out of bounds," nothing "heresy" or "off the program." And none of the ways we are discussing them lately are *exclusive*. They could be all these things that we're suggesting, and be OTHER things as well. People have different sides or aspects to their personalities, so there is no reason that the same person couldn't be a narcissistic little boy inside, doing pretty much everything in his life to get strokes from the teacher he loves, and AT THE SAME TIME be well-meaning and do a lot of good for the world by teaching what he knows. Just as "angel" and "devil" are the flip sides of the same coin, so are "little boy desperately seeking approval" and "great saint trying his best to help the world." I have no problem with Maharishi being both.
