[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel babajii_99@ wrote: From reading between the lines, it just seems to me that you have some kind of hatred towards Maharishi, some jealousy or envy maybe? I don't know. Is your +agenda+ just to diss Maharishi, or to crucify him, for all to see. I'm just not sure where you first started feeling so much animosity toward him. Am I +wrong+ about the way you feel toward him? Yes, you are wrong about the way I feel towards Maharishi, and you're starting to sound like an insane cult fanatic to boot. :-) I think you should go back and re-read the two posts you are commenting on above. In them I said absolutely NOTHING negative about Maharishi. Not one word, not one line. All that I did say was that I don't believe he is enlightened, and then I explained why. Somehow, in your mind, reading between the lines, that became hatred, jealousy, envy, an attempt to diss him, and/or an attempt to crucify him. Do you even REALIZE this? I didn't bother to reply to this cult crap last night, but I will this morning because I really think that you should become a little more aware of how your *own* mind works. All that happened in this series of posts was that someone (me) said that he didn't believe that Maharishi is enlightened, and then explained why. YOU turned that into hatred, jealousy, envy, and an attempt to crucify Maharishi. Clearly, you seem to believe that all of these descriptions apply to anyone who doesn't believe that Maharishi is enlightened. Doesn't that strike you as a bit drastic and...uh...cult-like? I'm beginning to understand how you can justify nuking the people of Iran. You must be reading between the lines with regard to them, too. :-) Hi again, I wasn't trying to justify the bombing of Iran with Nukes; I was just pointing out, that as I was feeling it; my intuition was telling me, that the two regimes, ours and theirs seem to be on a collision course, to this end, and I wanted people to consider the ramifications of that. And I wanted to emphasize what Maharishi had said concerning the state of danger at hand. Now lately, you are hearing discussed, in the main stream press, and the Bush administration, exactly what I was predicting, would be the same mentality. So, I was trying to play that scenerio out beforehand so people could see it was coming... Now my main point with Maharishi, which you seemed to have side- stepped, in your editing of my words; Has to do with the love I feel for him; and as you know sometimes love is irrational by it's mysterious nature. As I said before, I immediately felt a heart opening when I am(was) in his presence that doesn't dissolve, It is real to me, as anyone else, whom I've truely loved. Love is unconditional if it is to be called love. And if I feel that you do not share that love for him, but rather seem to be quite resentful towards him; I was just questioning your passionate statements and what was your true agenda concerning Maharishi, or his teaching or his movement. Did he personally hurt you in some way? Did he take you off your path, (you say, that you followed his advice to follow your path, towards more and more, right). For me, I have done the same thing. ~~~ through the years; Studied Kriya Kundalini Pranayama, a technique of Babaji; I have studied Eckart Tolle's material; Tibetan form of Tai Chi w/Mudras, I dance, I listen to 'Holosync CD's (found this to intensify TM and Siddhis); I've worked with a councilor who works with soul energy and opening chakras; Gangaji's stuff; Plan to get to India soon, as I would like to study more in depth, and just experience where this knowledge is most lively. So, the love and connection, which I feel toward Maharishi, transcends the movement, or anything anyone can say about him. Some of us had a reading with a fellow named Ron Scolastico(past life reading guy)-- 'back in the day', and the question was asked, Why people were so emotionally attached to Maharishi; And the answer was: The answer was, that some of us, had been with Maharishi, In a past life, where he was martyred. And we all felt this sort of undying love for him, from that experience. so... That's about all I can think of to write now; Let me know if you need anything else clarified. R.G. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
Nothing you said changes my opinion of where you're at. Clearly, you seem to believe (because you've said it again it in this post) that if someone (me) doesn't feel the same unconditional love for Maharishi that you do, that means that they are resentful and have some sort of secret agenda. I'm sorry, but that's insanity, not bhakti. I have *never* suggested that you shouldn't feel about him the way you do. Kindly give me the same respect. I consider Maharishi Just Another Guy, not special in any way. He's just a guy like any other who has done a number of positive things in his life and an equal number of negative ones. I cut him no more slack than I would any other human being, and I hold him to no higher standard than I would any other human being. And, like any other human being, I reserve the right to praise the positive things he's done and criticize the negative things he's done. That doesn't mean that I have some agenda against him, only that I consider him Just Another Guy, no more important or special than you or me or anyone else on this planet. If the fact that I believe this makes you uptight, that's *your* problem, not mine. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel babajii_99@ wrote: From reading between the lines, it just seems to me that you have some kind of hatred towards Maharishi, some jealousy or envy maybe? I don't know. Is your +agenda+ just to diss Maharishi, or to crucify him, for all to see. I'm just not sure where you first started feeling so much animosity toward him. Am I +wrong+ about the way you feel toward him? Yes, you are wrong about the way I feel towards Maharishi, and you're starting to sound like an insane cult fanatic to boot. :-) I think you should go back and re-read the two posts you are commenting on above. In them I said absolutely NOTHING negative about Maharishi. Not one word, not one line. All that I did say was that I don't believe he is enlightened, and then I explained why. Somehow, in your mind, reading between the lines, that became hatred, jealousy, envy, an attempt to diss him, and/or an attempt to crucify him. Do you even REALIZE this? I didn't bother to reply to this cult crap last night, but I will this morning because I really think that you should become a little more aware of how your *own* mind works. All that happened in this series of posts was that someone (me) said that he didn't believe that Maharishi is enlightened, and then explained why. YOU turned that into hatred, jealousy, envy, and an attempt to crucify Maharishi. Clearly, you seem to believe that all of these descriptions apply to anyone who doesn't believe that Maharishi is enlightened. Doesn't that strike you as a bit drastic and...uh...cult-like? I'm beginning to understand how you can justify nuking the people of Iran. You must be reading between the lines with regard to them, too. :-) Hi again, I wasn't trying to justify the bombing of Iran with Nukes; I was just pointing out, that as I was feeling it; my intuition was telling me, that the two regimes, ours and theirs seem to be on a collision course, to this end, and I wanted people to consider the ramifications of that. And I wanted to emphasize what Maharishi had said concerning the state of danger at hand. Now lately, you are hearing discussed, in the main stream press, and the Bush administration, exactly what I was predicting, would be the same mentality. So, I was trying to play that scenerio out beforehand so people could see it was coming... Now my main point with Maharishi, which you seemed to have side- stepped, in your editing of my words; Has to do with the love I feel for him; and as you know sometimes love is irrational by it's mysterious nature. As I said before, I immediately felt a heart opening when I am(was) in his presence that doesn't dissolve, It is real to me, as anyone else, whom I've truely loved. Love is unconditional if it is to be called love. And if I feel that you do not share that love for him, but rather seem to be quite resentful towards him; I was just questioning your passionate statements and what was your true agenda concerning Maharishi, or his teaching or his movement. Did he personally hurt you in some way? Did he take you off your path, (you say, that you followed his advice to follow your path, towards more and more, right). For me, I have done the same thing. ~~~ through the years; Studied Kriya Kundalini Pranayama, a technique of Babaji; I have studied Eckart Tolle's material; Tibetan form of Tai Chi w/Mudras, I dance, I listen to 'Holosync CD's (found this to intensify TM and Siddhis); I've worked with a councilor
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nothing you said changes my opinion of where you're at. Clearly, you seem to believe (because you've said it again it in this post) that if someone (me) doesn't feel the same unconditional love for Maharishi that you do, that means that they are resentful and have some sort of secret agenda. I'm sorry, but that's insanity, not bhakti. Of course, he *didn't* say that. I have *never* suggested that you shouldn't feel about him the way you do. Kindly give me the same respect. He never suggested you shouldn't feel about MMY the way you do, either. And his posts to you have been *far* more respectful than yours to him. I consider Maharishi Just Another Guy, not special in any way. He's just a guy like any other who has done a number of positive things in his life and an equal number of negative ones. I cut him no more slack than I would any other human being, and I hold him to no higher standard than I would any other human being. And, like any other human being, I reserve the right to praise the positive things he's done and criticize the negative things he's done. That doesn't mean that I have some agenda against him, only that I consider him Just Another Guy, no more important or special than you or me or anyone else on this planet. If the fact that I believe this makes you uptight, that's *your* problem, not mine. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel babajii_99@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel babajii_99@ wrote: From reading between the lines, it just seems to me that you have some kind of hatred towards Maharishi, some jealousy or envy maybe? I don't know. Is your +agenda+ just to diss Maharishi, or to crucify him, for all to see. I'm just not sure where you first started feeling so much animosity toward him. Am I +wrong+ about the way you feel toward him? Yes, you are wrong about the way I feel towards Maharishi, and you're starting to sound like an insane cult fanatic to boot. :-) I think you should go back and re-read the two posts you are commenting on above. In them I said absolutely NOTHING negative about Maharishi. Not one word, not one line. All that I did say was that I don't believe he is enlightened, and then I explained why. Somehow, in your mind, reading between the lines, that became hatred, jealousy, envy, an attempt to diss him, and/or an attempt to crucify him. Do you even REALIZE this? I didn't bother to reply to this cult crap last night, but I will this morning because I really think that you should become a little more aware of how your *own* mind works. All that happened in this series of posts was that someone (me) said that he didn't believe that Maharishi is enlightened, and then explained why. YOU turned that into hatred, jealousy, envy, and an attempt to crucify Maharishi. Clearly, you seem to believe that all of these descriptions apply to anyone who doesn't believe that Maharishi is enlightened. Doesn't that strike you as a bit drastic and...uh...cult-like? I'm beginning to understand how you can justify nuking the people of Iran. You must be reading between the lines with regard to them, too. :-) Hi again, I wasn't trying to justify the bombing of Iran with Nukes; I was just pointing out, that as I was feeling it; my intuition was telling me, that the two regimes, ours and theirs seem to be on a collision course, to this end, and I wanted people to consider the ramifications of that. And I wanted to emphasize what Maharishi had said concerning the state of danger at hand. Now lately, you are hearing discussed, in the main stream press, and the Bush administration, exactly what I was predicting, would be the same mentality. So, I was trying to play that scenerio out beforehand so people could see it was coming... Now my main point with Maharishi, which you seemed to have side- stepped, in your editing of my words; Has to do with the love I feel for him; and as you know sometimes love is irrational by it's mysterious nature. As I said before, I immediately felt a heart opening when I am (was) in his presence that doesn't dissolve, It is real to me, as anyone else, whom I've truely loved. Love is unconditional if it is to be called love. And if I feel that you do not share that love for him, but rather seem to be quite resentful towards him; I was just questioning your passionate statements and what was your true agenda concerning Maharishi, or his teaching or his movement. Did he personally hurt you in some way? Did he take you off your path, (you say, that you followed his
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
+ (Snip) + I consider Maharishi Just Another Guy, not special in any way. He's just a guy like any other who has done a number of positive things in his life and an equal number of negative ones. I cut him no more slack than I would any other human being, and I hold him to no higher standard than I would any other human being. And, like any other human being, I reserve the right to praise the positive things he's done and criticize the negative things he's done. That doesn't mean that I have some agenda against him, only that I consider him Just Another Guy, no more important or special than you or me or anyone else on this planet. If the fact that I believe this makes you uptight, that's *your* problem, not mine. You have spoken your agenda here quite loud and clearly; That Maharishi is just another guy. You certainly have the right to feel, that he's just another guy. As a matter of fact you could be more fond of the dog down the street, than you are towards Maharishi, that's ok in my book. You have complete freedom to do as you wish anytime you wish, my dear. Just try not to be so bitchy; it's unbecoming, someone of your stature, as I feel that you are not: Just another guy? Just like the late great Princess Diana was not 'just another girl' But, on the other hand, I know exactly what you mean, at that very detatched level: Like that old saying goes: If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him. R.G. R.G. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
(snip) YOU turned that into hatred, jealousy, envy, and an attempt to crucify Maharishi. Clearly, you seem to believe that all of these descriptions apply to anyone who doesn't believe that Maharishi is enlightened. Doesn't that strike you as a bit drastic and...uh...cult-like? I'm beginning to understand how you can justify nuking the people of Iran. You must be reading between the lines with regard to them, too. :-) When I used the word 'crucify', I meant it in the context in which it is used in A Course in Miracles; Where the word crucify signifies 'attack thoughts' or thoughts originated from the ego; much of 'A course in Miracles', addresses this issue. But in reality, the crucifixion is a powerful symbol as we know; As it is used in mostly all the churches of Christianity. Everywhere you go, there you see, the crucifixion, statues of torture. So, is Christianity a cult also, by your definition? That we have to be tortured to get to Heaven? And isn't it the same in the Islamic world; in the cult of Iran? Can we see how these two cults could clash and destroy much of humanity? Like crucifying each other... Much like the cult of the Third Reich did a half century ago. Many millions died; hard to imagine, I used to think; How could that have happened; how can people be so stupid... How soon we repeat what we don't learn. So, sure this Christian cult, and this Islamic cult; Can decide to annihilate each other in the name of God. I would tend to fear these larger cults, of religious nationalism, wouldn't you? Because: Nobody's is right, if everybody's wrong R.G. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel babajii_99@ wrote: From reading between the lines, it just seems to me that you have some kind of hatred towards Maharishi, some jealousy or envy maybe? I don't know. Is your +agenda+ just to diss Maharishi, or to crucify him, for all to see. I'm just not sure where you first started feeling so much animosity toward him. Am I +wrong+ about the way you feel toward him? You're losing it, Robert. Sal 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From reading between the lines, it just seems to me that you have some kind of hatred towards Maharishi, some jealousy or envy maybe? I don't know. Is your +agenda+ just to diss Maharishi, or to crucify him, for all to see. I'm just not sure where you first started feeling so much animosity toward him. Am I +wrong+ about the way you feel toward him? Yes, you are wrong about the way I feel towards Maharishi, and you're starting to sound like an insane cult fanatic to boot. :-) I think you should go back and re-read the two posts you are commenting on above. In them I said absolutely NOTHING negative about Maharishi. Not one word, not one line. All that I did say was that I don't believe he is enlightened, and then I explained why. Somehow, in your mind, reading between the lines, that became hatred, jealousy, envy, an attempt to diss him, and/or an attempt to crucify him. Do you even REALIZE this? I didn't bother to reply to this cult crap last night, but I will this morning because I really think that you should become a little more aware of how your *own* mind works. All that happened in this series of posts was that someone (me) said that he didn't believe that Maharishi is enlightened, and then explained why. YOU turned that into hatred, jealousy, envy, and an attempt to crucify Maharishi. Clearly, you seem to believe that all of these descriptions apply to anyone who doesn't believe that Maharishi is enlightened. Doesn't that strike you as a bit drastic and...uh...cult-like? I'm beginning to understand how you can justify nuking the people of Iran. You must be reading between the lines with regard to them, too. :-) 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel babajii_99@ wrote: From reading between the lines, it just seems to me that you have some kind of hatred towards Maharishi, some jealousy or envy maybe? I don't know. Is your +agenda+ just to diss Maharishi, or to crucify him, for all to see. I'm just not sure where you first started feeling so much animosity toward him. Am I +wrong+ about the way you feel toward him? Yes, you are wrong about the way I feel towards Maharishi, and you're starting to sound like an insane cult fanatic to boot. :-) I think you should go back and re-read the two posts you are commenting on above. In them I said absolutely NOTHING negative about Maharishi. Not one word, not one line. Think maybe Robert is including in his comments some of the many posts in which Barry *has* said negative things about MMY? Also note what Barry chooses to overlook, that Robert said he was reading between the lines. Barry's quite skilled at giving himself plausible deniability in the way he words his criticisms. That way, when someone sees through the veneer of compassion and neutrality in which he cloaks them, Barry can label the person a cult fanatic. All that I did say was that I don't believe he is enlightened, and then I explained why. Somehow, in your mind, reading between the lines, that became hatred, jealousy, envy, an attempt to diss him, and/or an attempt to crucify him. I'd guess it's stuff like this, where Barry hasn't laid onr *quite* enough veneer to disguise his feelings, that Robert has in mind (just from Barry's posts since he's been back): - 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 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. - It's *Maharishi* who has the hangup about 'loyalty,' and who views anyone who isn't completely 'faithful' to him forever as weak and a failure, or an actual enemy. It's *Maharishi's* mindset we see in the words of the TBs, spoken by people who don't even know that the mindset they're expressing is not their own. And interestingly, I think the reason Maharishi feels this way is that he's doing the same thing the TBs on FFL and elsewhere in the TMO are doing, projecting his own internal dis-ease outwards. IMO Maharishi feels 'betrayed' by those who don't do everything he says because *he* didn't do what Guru Dev told him to do. He was told to go off and meditate, and *not* to teach, and he did the opposite. I honestly think that inwardly he feels that he betrayed his teacher, and that these feelings come to the surface for him whenever someone 'betrays' him by not doing exactly what *he* tells them to do. As with the TBs he's trained to think like him, when this happens Maharishi blames the person who has made him feel this way, and often does his best to demonize them for leaving, or for not following his advice as if it were the word of God. But what I think he's really angry at them for is making *him* feel emotions he doesn't like to experience. What he's feeling when his students don't do what he tells them to do is his own karma. It's just so sad that he's never been able to realize that. - How difficult is it to run an organization that only consists of a couple of thousand people in an ethical manner? If it had been run that way all along -- as Rick says so well, if Maharishi had actually walked his talk -- the enormous inter- national organization sparaig imagines and is trying to use as an excuse for inefficient and unethical behavior might still actually exist. - Naw, no attempts to disrespect MMY in any of this, is there? Nothing negative, not one word, not one line, right? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It really baffles me, how some people could question whether he is enlightened or not; can't relate to this notion at all. As you say, Robert, it's a matter of experience. Yours convinces you to consider him enlightened; mine convinces me to not consider him enlightened. As for *why* I don't personally believe that Maharishi is enlightened, I'll be happy to explain it, although it'll be a little long, and I can promise you that it won't do you any good or affect what you believe one way or another. My reasons are based on my subjective experience, and are therefore irrelevant to anyone else's subjective experience. First, I do not believe that it is possible to ever know for sure whether *anyone* is enlightened. I don't believe that there will ever be a scientific test to verify the realization of enlightenment, and there certainly are none available right now. So we, as seekers, are left with *only* our own subjective perceptions. That suits me just fine; I'm comfortable with never knowing for sure. I don't know for sure whether *any* of the many teachers I've met and worked with in my life were enlightened, and I never will. However, there are two criteria -- both subjective, both experiential -- that I use to determine whether I think someone *might* have realized their enlighten- ment, at least at the moment I interact with them. The first criterion is the strongest, in my opinion. Just meditate with them. In my experience, if the person you are meditating with is really going into clear, several-minutes-long periods of samadhi (an ability that seems to be part of almost every trad- ition I know of), that experience is unmistakable. If you're sitting in the same room with the person as they meditate and slip into samadhi, within say 100 feet of the teacher, it is almost *impossible* to have a thought in your *own* meditation. If the teacher's period of thoughtless samadhi lasts for twenty minutes to an hour, then *your* period of thoughtless samadhi lasts for twenty minutes to an hour, with not a single thought or perception popping into your mind. Suffice it to say that this was never my experience meditating with Maharishi, not once in 14 years, whereas it was my consistent experience of meditating with several other teachers. The second criterion has to do with something Jim has spoken about here on FFL, and has gotten a lot of very nasty flack for. It's the issue of recognition. Basically (and pardon me Jim if I paraphrase), it's the notion that while you personally are experiencing periods of awakening (which I define as consisting of periods of total mental clarity along with 24/7 witnessing -- the equally clear experience of trans- cendental consciousness, or in TM-ese, TC), you can recognize others who are having that same experience. I agree with Jim that this is a real phenomenon, limited only by the rule that both parties have to be having that realization experience at the same time. My first experience with this was in Fiuggi, on the last leg of my teacher training. For whatever reason, several people I knew there -- about a dozen -- began experiencing 24/7 witnessing. The first person that this happened to, after about a week of the experiences continuing for her 24/7, every day, went to the course leaders and told them about what was happening. She was sent home from the course. Immediately, the next day. They sent someone to her room to pack all her things, and didn't allow her to say goodbye to anyone. The other folks who were having similar experiences, by now three or four of them, weren't stupid and learned from this event, and kept their experiences to themselves, discussing them only with close friends. I happened to be one of those close friends. I found it all quite interesting, but nothing like what they were experiencing was going on for me and I honestly didn't expect it to, so I didn't pay much attention to it all. And then one day one of my meditations went on for longer than I had planned -- about four hours longer, without my intending it to -- and when it finally ended, the experience of strong, clear, thoughtless transcendence did not. I got up and dressed and went to dinner and it still didn't go away. It didn't end that night during sleep, and it didn't go away for a couple of weeks. It was *during* that couple of weeks that the experience Jim talked about became apparent. I would meet someone I didn't know, someone who was having the same exper- iences (but without me knowing that) and look into their eyes, and both of us would smile or laugh. It was instant- aneous, unquestionable *recognition*, without either of us saying a word. It was like Self meeting Self, unmistakable. When this happened, we'd often follow up on the recognition with some quiet discussion (away from the ears of the course leaders, of course) about when it started
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- In India, isn't Swami Swaroopanand considered by the other Shankaraychara Peethams to be the head of Jyotir Math shortly after the passing of Guru Dev. Paul would know, which means the Shantanand line has been in great question, and if I were them and saw how successful Maharishi was, I don't think I would oppose him in his activities. S. Shatananda was declared the Shankaracharya by the courts in 1953. It wasn't until he died AND S. Vishnudevananda died that a new lawsuit was brought. That one was successful at least partly becaause S. Vasudevananda was not a direct disciple of Gurudev's, unlike S. Shatananda and S. Vishnudevananda and S. Swaroopananda. The Shankaracharyas may not have seen S. Shantananda as the successor to Gurudev, but famous saints like Matanda Moi Ma received him, and her official biography mentions him by name to clarify that HE was the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath that she met with. MMY didn't become famous until many years after the first court case, so your speculation doesn't make much sense anyway. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel babajii_99@ wrote: It really baffles me, how some people could question whether he is enlightened or not; can't relate to this notion at all. As you say, Robert, it's a matter of experience. Yours convinces you to consider him enlightened; mine convinces me to not consider him enlightened. As for *why* I don't personally believe that Maharishi is enlightened, I'll be happy to explain it, although it'll be a little long, and I can promise you that it won't do you any good or affect what you believe one way or another. My reasons are based on my subjective experience, and are therefore irrelevant to anyone else's subjective experience. First, I do not believe that it is possible to ever know for sure whether *anyone* is enlightened. I don't believe that there will ever be a scientific test to verify the realization of enlightenment, and there certainly are none available right now. So we, as seekers, are left with *only* our own subjective perceptions. That suits me just fine; I'm comfortable with never knowing for sure. I don't know for sure whether *any* of the many teachers I've met and worked with in my life were enlightened, and I never will. However, there are two criteria -- both subjective, both experiential -- that I use to determine whether I think someone *might* have realized their enlighten- ment, at least at the moment I interact with them. The first criterion is the strongest, in my opinion. Just meditate with them. In my experience, if the person you are meditating with is really going into clear, several-minutes-long periods of samadhi (an ability that seems to be part of almost every trad- ition I know of), that experience is unmistakable. If you're sitting in the same room with the person as they meditate and slip into samadhi, within say 100 feet of the teacher, it is almost *impossible* to have a thought in your *own* meditation. If the teacher's period of thoughtless samadhi lasts for twenty minutes to an hour, then *your* period of thoughtless samadhi lasts for twenty minutes to an hour, with not a single thought or perception popping into your mind. Suffice it to say that this was never my experience meditating with Maharishi, not once in 14 years, whereas it was my consistent experience of meditating with several other teachers. The second criterion has to do with something Jim has spoken about here on FFL, and has gotten a lot of very nasty flack for. It's the issue of recognition. Basically (and pardon me Jim if I paraphrase), it's the notion that while you personally are experiencing periods of awakening (which I define as consisting of periods of total mental clarity along with 24/7 witnessing -- the equally clear experience of trans- cendental consciousness, or in TM-ese, TC), you can recognize others who are having that same experience. I agree with Jim that this is a real phenomenon, limited only by the rule that both parties have to be having that realization experience at the same time. My first experience with this was in Fiuggi, on the last leg of my teacher training. For whatever reason, several people I knew there -- about a dozen -- began experiencing 24/7 witnessing. The first person that this happened to, after about a week of the experiences continuing for her 24/7, every day, went to the course leaders and told them about what was happening. She was sent home from the course. Immediately, the next day. They sent someone to her room to pack all her things, and didn't allow her to say goodbye to anyone. The other folks who were having similar experiences, by now three or four of them, weren't stupid and learned from this event, and kept their experiences to themselves, discussing them only with close friends. I happened to be one of those close friends. I found it all quite interesting, but nothing like what they were experiencing was going on for me and I honestly didn't expect it to, so I didn't pay much attention to it all. And then one day one of my meditations went on for longer than I had planned -- about four hours longer, without my intending it to -- and when it finally ended, the experience of strong, clear, thoughtless transcendence did not. I got up and dressed and went to dinner and it still didn't go away. It didn't end that night during sleep, and it didn't go away for a couple of weeks. It was *during* that couple of weeks that the experience Jim talked about became apparent. I would meet someone I didn't know, someone who was having the same exper- iences (but without me knowing that) and look into their eyes, and both of us would smile or laugh. It was instant- aneous, unquestionable *recognition*, without either of us saying a word. It was like Self meeting Self,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
Robert seems to have missed the point of what I said more than I believed it possible for any human being to have missed the point of anything ever said. :-) I don't expect him to do any better with this followup, but I'll give it a shot in-line below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel babajii_99@ wrote: It really baffles me, how some people could question whether he is enlightened or not; can't relate to this notion at all. As you say, Robert, it's a matter of experience. Yours convinces you to consider him enlightened; mine convinces me to not consider him enlightened. As for *why* I don't personally believe that Maharishi is enlightened, I'll be happy to explain it, although it'll be a little long, and I can promise you that it won't do you any good or affect what you believe one way or another. My reasons are based on my subjective experience, and are therefore irrelevant to anyone else's subjective experience. First, I do not believe that it is possible to ever know for sure whether *anyone* is enlightened. I don't believe that there will ever be a scientific test to verify the realization of enlightenment, and there certainly are none available right now. So we, as seekers, are left with *only* our own subjective perceptions. That suits me just fine; I'm comfortable with never knowing for sure. I don't know for sure whether *any* of the many teachers I've met and worked with in my life were enlightened, and I never will. However, there are two criteria -- both subjective, both experiential -- that I use to determine whether I think someone *might* have realized their enlighten- ment, at least at the moment I interact with them. The first criterion is the strongest, in my opinion. Just meditate with them. In my experience, if the person you are meditating with is really going into clear, several-minutes-long periods of samadhi (an ability that seems to be part of almost every trad- ition I know of), that experience is unmistakable. If you're sitting in the same room with the person as they meditate and slip into samadhi, within say 100 feet of the teacher, it is almost *impossible* to have a thought in your *own* meditation. If the teacher's period of thoughtless samadhi lasts for twenty minutes to an hour, then *your* period of thoughtless samadhi lasts for twenty minutes to an hour, with not a single thought or perception popping into your mind. Suffice it to say that this was never my experience meditating with Maharishi, not once in 14 years, whereas it was my consistent experience of meditating with several other teachers. The second criterion has to do with something Jim has spoken about here on FFL, and has gotten a lot of very nasty flack for. It's the issue of recognition. Basically (and pardon me Jim if I paraphrase), it's the notion that while you personally are experiencing periods of awakening (which I define as consisting of periods of total mental clarity along with 24/7 witnessing -- the equally clear experience of trans- cendental consciousness, or in TM-ese, TC), you can recognize others who are having that same experience. I agree with Jim that this is a real phenomenon, limited only by the rule that both parties have to be having that realization experience at the same time. My first experience with this was in Fiuggi, on the last leg of my teacher training. For whatever reason, several people I knew there -- about a dozen -- began experiencing 24/7 witnessing. The first person that this happened to, after about a week of the experiences continuing for her 24/7, every day, went to the course leaders and told them about what was happening. She was sent home from the course. Immediately, the next day. They sent someone to her room to pack all her things, and didn't allow her to say goodbye to anyone. The other folks who were having similar experiences, by now three or four of them, weren't stupid and learned from this event, and kept their experiences to themselves, discussing them only with close friends. I happened to be one of those close friends. I found it all quite interesting, but nothing like what they were experiencing was going on for me and I honestly didn't expect it to, so I didn't pay much attention to it all. And then one day one of my meditations went on for longer than I had planned -- about four hours longer, without my intending it to -- and when it finally ended, the experience of strong, clear, thoughtless transcendence did not. I got up and dressed and went to dinner and it still didn't go away. It didn't end that night during sleep, and it didn't go away for a
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
The photo was taken some years ago, perhaps the time when MMY took the stage with Shantanand? Don't know if/when Sattyanand passed on, the best I have is your mention of him about a year ago.included in the discussion about the killing of bugs #56705 If anyone has any bio on Sattyanand I could add a page on him to Guru Dev's webpages. So far I have shied away from collecting material on Guru Dev's disciples, as there were so many mixed messages and now, I just hope I am not too late to gather some useful information about them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 8/28/06 3:20 PM, Paul Mason at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You might be interested in this photo of Sattyanand in company of two of his fellow-disciples at:- http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Shantanandji.htm#Narayanand Satyanand died a few years ago, didn¹t he? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Didn't say that. I said that I (and the others) were experiencing the kinds of things that had been described as CC experiences. Clear, 24/7 experience of transcendence, during waking, dream- ing and sleeping. I have experienced this same state (*whatever* it is or *whatever* you choose to call it) many times since; that was just the first time I experienced it. And yes, such states can come and go, no matter how much you have been told that once they come they are permanent, and no matter who told you that. FWIW, I've never heard *anybody* say in the TM context that once you start to experience clear, 24/7 experience of transcendence, it is permanent. To the contrary, it was always made very clear that this experience can come and go for years before it becomes permanent. snip From my experience, I did have clear transcendence in the presence of Maharishi; Good for you. Did I suggest otherwise? Did I try to convince you of anything or try to get you to change your mind about anything? As I remember, I started my little rap by expressly telling you that I *wasn't* trying to convince you of anything, and that it *wasn't* going to change your mind about anything. Did you read that part? Did Robert suggest otherwise? Or did he explicitly say he was describing *his* experience, just as Barry described his? What an exceedingly strange response! Almost sounds as though Barry feels *threatened* by Robert's experience. Almost sounds as though he feels personally attacked because Robert described an experience different from his. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
-From Hinduism Today: PASSED ON: Senior, retired, Shankaracharya of Jyotir Peeth, Swami Shantanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj, age ninety, on December 7, 1997, in Allahabad, India. Senior leaders of the VHP participated in final rites. Swami became Shankaracharya in 1953 after the death of his guru, Brahmanand Saraswati. Swami Basudevanand Saraswati is his successor. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The photo was taken some years ago, perhaps the time when MMY took the stage with Shantanand? Don't know if/when Sattyanand passed on, the best I have is your mention of him about a year ago.included in the discussion about the killing of bugs #56705 If anyone has any bio on Sattyanand I could add a page on him to Guru Dev's webpages. So far I have shied away from collecting material on Guru Dev's disciples, as there were so many mixed messages and now, I just hope I am not too late to gather some useful information about them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer groups@ wrote: on 8/28/06 3:20 PM, Paul Mason at premanandpaul@ wrote: You might be interested in this photo of Sattyanand in company of two of his fellow-disciples at:- http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Shantanandji.htm#Narayanand Satyanand died a few years ago, didn¹t he? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
It seems to me that reports from people who have experienced a teacher as enlightened (e.g., deep transcending and silence in the teacher's presence) are inherently more persuasive as to the teacher's enlightenment status than reports from those who have *not* experienced the teacher as enlightened. That's not to say that it's *impossible* for someone to experience a teacher as enlightened when the teacher really isn't, by any means; it's just counterintuitive. It's not especially counterintuitive, in contrast, for someone to experience an enlightened teacher as not enlightened. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert seems to have missed the point of what I said more than I believed it possible for any human being to have missed the point of anything ever said. :-) I don't expect him to do any better with this followup, but I'll give it a shot in-line below: I read this again. Contrary to Barry's claim, I can't find *anywhere* that Robert radically misinterpreted what Barry wrote. There were a couple of terminological issues; and Robert asked for clarification on several points. Was that what freaked Barry out? Or was it the fact that Robert didn't seem inclined to question his own experience that MMY is enlightened on the basis of Barry's experience that he isn't? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert seems to have missed the point of what I said more than I believed it possible for any human being to have missed the point of anything ever said. :-) I don't expect him to do any better with this followup, but I'll give it a shot in-line below: Hi Barry, I'm not sure how to respond to being a human being who has missed your point so completely...so infinitely. Exactly what is your point again? From reading between the lines, it just seems to me that you have some kind of hatred towards Maharishi, some jealousy or envy maybe? I don't know. Is your +agenda+ just to diss Maharishi, or to crucify him, for all to see. I'm just not sure where you first started feeling so much animosity toward him. Am I +wrong+ about the way you feel toward him? Is it more about the way he's structured his movement; What is it really? What are you so angry about? Robert. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Barry, Hi. I'm not sure how to respond to being a human being who has missed your point so completely...so infinitely. Exactly what is your point again? My point was that some folks -- really admirable, spiritually-oriented folks -- seem to have become so enraptured by the First (or even the second) Guru They Ever Met that even after all the silliness they've seen along the Way, they have never considered searching for a second (or third) opinion. That phenomenon -- whatever you choose to call it, and in however many spiritual traditions you may have found it -- strikes me as pretty damned interesting. It's a Class-A Mindfuck. I think it's a phenomenon worthy of investigation. What *is* this feeling that tells some spiritual seekers follow that it's Ok for them to *stop* seeking, that they have found everything worth seeking *for* I don't claim to know whether this tendency to want to cling to one particular guru as the ultimate authority is better, or to know whether the tendency to keep looking, to see whether somebody else might have more of a clue, is better. I really don't have a fuckin' clue. I don't know *which* is better or worse. I don't even think I believe in the whole *concept* of better and worse as valid. So shoot me. I really don't know. Given a choice, I will probably *always* keep searching, no matter who or what I may have run into earlier along the Way. That's just who and what I am, and where my particular predilection leads me. Other seekers have other predilections, and I honestly believe that their predilections are neither higher nor lower than mine. They are just the predilections that These Kinda People prefer. Now, to be honest, one of the things that still keeps me here at FFL is figuring out the puzzle of why These Kinda People seemingly cannot conceive of having a predilection *without* assuming that their particular predilection is better than other predilctions, or that it is the best possible predilection. Hey. I'm weird. I *can* conceive of the path that I choose to follow, even if I follow it only for a short time, being no better nor worse nor more important nor less important than any other. It's just the fuckin' path I chose to follow for one short segment of my ongoing sequence of lifetimes, man. You want me to get all serious about this *particular* incarnation and *its* spiritual teachers? Get real. If you have a problem with this, might I suggest that you take it up with the guy who implanted in you the the natural tendency of the mind is to seek greater fulfillment meme. And who then told you to *settle* for it, to settle for the first level of fulfillment you stumbled across, as if it were the best. Me, I took the guy who sold me this meme at his word, and am still following the natural tendency of my mind to this day. I kinda like where it's led me. How's your life going? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel babajii_99@ wrote: Hi Barry, Hi. I'm not sure how to respond to being a human being who has missed your point so completely...so infinitely. Exactly what is your point again? My point was that some folks -- really admirable, spiritually-oriented folks -- seem to have become so enraptured by the First (or even the second) Guru They Ever Met that even after all the silliness they've seen along the Way, they have never considered searching for a second (or third) opinion. That phenomenon -- whatever you choose to call it, and in however many spiritual traditions you may have found it -- strikes me as pretty damned interesting. It's a Class-A Mindfuck. I think it's a phenomenon worthy of investigation. What *is* this feeling that tells some spiritual seekers follow that it's Ok for them to *stop* seeking, that they have found everything worth seeking *for* I don't claim to know whether this tendency to want to cling to one particular guru as the ultimate authority is better, or to know whether the tendency to keep looking, to see whether somebody else might have more of a clue, is better. I really don't have a fuckin' clue. I don't know *which* is better or worse. I don't even think I believe in the whole *concept* of better and worse as valid. Interesting exercise: Read this whole post of Barry's and see if you think his claim not to rank these two approaches as better/worse or higher/lower is confirmed by how he describes them. So shoot me. I really don't know. Given a choice, I will probably *always* keep searching, no matter who or what I may have run into earlier along the Way. That's just who and what I am, and where my particular predilection leads me. Other seekers have other predilections, and I honestly believe that their predilections are neither higher nor lower than mine. They are just the predilections that These Kinda People prefer. Now, to be honest, one of the things that still keeps me here at FFL is figuring out the puzzle of why These Kinda People seemingly cannot conceive of having a predilection *without* assuming that their particular predilection is better than other predilctions, or that it is the best possible predilection. Hey. I'm weird. I *can* conceive of the path that I choose to follow, even if I follow it only for a short time, being no better nor worse nor more important nor less important than any other. It's just the fuckin' path I chose to follow for one short segment of my ongoing sequence of lifetimes, man. You want me to get all serious about this *particular* incarnation and *its* spiritual teachers? Get real. If you have a problem with this, might I suggest that you take it up with the guy who implanted in you the the natural tendency of the mind is to seek greater fulfillment meme. And who then told you to *settle* for it, to settle for the first level of fulfillment you stumbled across, as if it were the best. Me, I took the guy who sold me this meme at his word, and am still following the natural tendency of my mind to this day. I kinda like where it's led me. How's your life going? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip My point was that some folks -- really admirable, spiritually-oriented folks -- seem to have become so enraptured by the First (or even the second) Guru They Ever Met that even after all the silliness they've seen along the Way, they have never considered searching for a second (or third) opinion. Say, Barry, whatever happened to Trust your own experience? horselaugh 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
Turquoise, you name Sattyanand as being the source of the quote about MMY being told to go and meditate, and not to teach. Did you hear this from Sattyanand himself or from someone else? Can you remember anything else that was said? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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*?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turquoise, you name Sattyanand as being the source of the quote about MMY being told to go and meditate, and not to teach. Did you hear this from Sattyanand himself or from someone else? Can you remember anything else that was said? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: 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? Sorry, but seeing this quote from Barry's post again in Paul's message, I can't resist reiterating how grossly *dishonest* it is. First, my response to Barry that he refers to was *not* insisting that MMY was enlightened--and he knows it. It was a comment on Barry's hypocrisy. Second, because he and I have discussed this many times before, he also knows I'm *not* attached to the idea that MMY is enlightened. I do *think* MMY is enlightened, but I realize I couldn't possibly know for sure. By the same token, however, *Barry* can't know for sure either. And my view of Barry's powers of discernment is such that I don't give his opinion on this point much if any weight--so there's no way it could possibly threaten my sense that MMY is enlightened. (And see the first point above-- I wasn't even arguing that MMY is enlightened in my response to him in any case.) Finally, he claimed in another post not to be interested in my answer to his question as to whether it's important to me that MMY be enlightened, and suggested it was a foregone conclusion that my answer would be that it *is* important. But we've discussed this as well, and Barry knows that my answer is actually no, it's not important, for the reasons he goes on to state: I think MMY is enlightened because of the depth of his teaching, including of the TM technique; but of course his teaching would be what it is even if he weren't enlightened, so it makes no difference whether he is or not. If I'm wrong that he's enlightened, that doesn't somehow change what I've learned from him. The value to me of MMY's teaching, and his enlightenment status, are unrelated issues. As I say, Barry knows this is my view because we've discussed it before. His entire rant directed at me is a pack of lies from top to bottom. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turquoise, you name Sattyanand as being the source of the quote about MMY being told to go and meditate, and not to teach. Did you hear this from Sattyanand himself or from someone else? Can you remember anything else that was said? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turquoise, you name Sattyanand as being the source of the quote about MMY being told to go and meditate, and not to teach. Did you hear this from Sattyanand himself or from someone else? Can you remember anything else that was said? Paul, I know your post isn't directed at me, but I got to spend some private time with Sattyanand in Canada and again at Rishikesh. He went into great detail, once, about the various phases through which the night technique had gone. While it was interesting, I also, later, learned from Richard Scott's book (? Transcendental Misconceptions?, I'm no longer sure of Richard's title) that the night technique he got from Sattyanand was different in some respect from the one I got from Sattyanand. Richard and I were friends and got our night techniques on the same course, but at different sittings. There were also many complaints about Sattyanand not knowing The Teaching as well as he should have: which, I guess translates as we big egoed Initiators know The Teching better than Sattyanand. -- Sattyanand had a very casual way of going about things as if, possibly, he had been told how to teach or told what to teach but had never gone through the structured process other TM teachers had gone through. He kind of gave the impression of winging it. I would not be at all surprised to discover that Turquoise B had very accurately quoted Sattyanand. -- I'm still searching for T's response to your question, so I hope I haven't been repetitive or something here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
Title: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened? on 8/28/06 1:31 PM, gerbal88 at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There were also many complaints about Sattyanand not knowing The Teaching as well as he should have: which, I guess translates as we big egoed Initiators know The Teching better than Sattyanand. -- Sattyanand had a very casual way of going about things When I got the night technique from Sattynand in a small group at Estes Park (which is probably where you and Richard Scott got it) he paused in the middle of the puja for what must have been at least two minutes. I couldnt figure out whether he was transcending, forgot the lines, or what. Richards book was called Transcendental Misconceptions. He wrote it after becoming a Jehovahs Witness. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
Thanks Gerbal, I'm not sure how long Sattyanand spent with Guru Dev, it would be nice to get a better idea of where he fits in. I do get the idea he did talk about the past, I have heard stuff he is supposed to have said which hasn't surfaced on any of the forums. He gave me an advanced technique in Rishikesh, unfortunately I never thought to interview him. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gerbal88 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: Turquoise, you name Sattyanand as being the source of the quote about MMY being told to go and meditate, and not to teach. Did you hear this from Sattyanand himself or from someone else? Can you remember anything else that was said? Paul, I know your post isn't directed at me, but I got to spend some private time with Sattyanand in Canada and again at Rishikesh. He went into great detail, once, about the various phases through which the night technique had gone. While it was interesting, I also, later, learned from Richard Scott's book (? Transcendental Misconceptions?, I'm no longer sure of Richard's title) that the night technique he got from Sattyanand was different in some respect from the one I got from Sattyanand. Richard and I were friends and got our night techniques on the same course, but at different sittings. There were also many complaints about Sattyanand not knowing The Teaching as well as he should have: which, I guess translates as we big egoed Initiators know The Teching better than Sattyanand. -- Sattyanand had a very casual way of going about things as if, possibly, he had been told how to teach or told what to teach but had never gone through the structured process other TM teachers had gone through. He kind of gave the impression of winging it. I would not be at all surprised to discover that Turquoise B had very accurately quoted Sattyanand. -- I'm still searching for T's response to your question, so I hope I haven't been repetitive or something here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 8/28/06 1:31 PM, gerbal88 at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There were also many complaints about Sattyanand not knowing The Teaching as well as he should have: which, I guess translates as we big egoed Initiators know The Teching better than Sattyanand. -- Sattyanand had a very casual way of going about things When I got the night technique from Sattynand in a small group at Estes Park (which is probably where you and Richard Scott got it) he paused in the middle of the puja for what must have been at least two minutes. I couldn¹t figure out whether he was transcending, forgot the lines, or what. Richard¹s book was called ³Transcendental Misconceptions.² He wrote it after becoming a Jehovah¹s Witness. A JW! wow. I remember Richard was totally freaked out because he found his mantra in an illustrated tantra book. I wonder, how many people do we know who simiply went over the edge and ended up elsewhere while *on the path*. It would be interesting to discuss. Except, for me, Richard and two friends from MUM are the only ones I know about. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
You might be interested in this photo of Sattyanand in company of two of his fellow-disciples at:- http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Shantanandji.htm#Narayanand --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Gerbal, I'm not sure how long Sattyanand spent with Guru Dev, it would be nice to get a better idea of where he fits in. I do get the idea he did talk about the past, I have heard stuff he is supposed to have said which hasn't surfaced on any of the forums. He gave me an advanced technique in Rishikesh, unfortunately I never thought to interview him. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gerbal88 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: Turquoise, you name Sattyanand as being the source of the quote about MMY being told to go and meditate, and not to teach. Did you hear this from Sattyanand himself or from someone else? Can you remember anything else that was said? Paul, I know your post isn't directed at me, but I got to spend some private time with Sattyanand in Canada and again at Rishikesh. He went into great detail, once, about the various phases through which the night technique had gone. While it was interesting, I also, later, learned from Richard Scott's book (? Transcendental Misconceptions?, I'm no longer sure of Richard's title) that the night technique he got from Sattyanand was different in some respect from the one I got from Sattyanand. Richard and I were friends and got our night techniques on the same course, but at different sittings. There were also many complaints about Sattyanand not knowing The Teaching as well as he should have: which, I guess translates as we big egoed Initiators know The Teching better than Sattyanand. -- Sattyanand had a very casual way of going about things as if, possibly, he had been told how to teach or told what to teach but had never gone through the structured process other TM teachers had gone through. He kind of gave the impression of winging it. I would not be at all surprised to discover that Turquoise B had very accurately quoted Sattyanand. -- I'm still searching for T's response to your question, so I hope I haven't been repetitive or something here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gerbal88 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: Turquoise, you name Sattyanand as being the source of the quote about MMY being told to go and meditate, and not to teach. Did you hear this from Sattyanand himself or from someone else? Can you remember anything else that was said? Paul, I know your post isn't directed at me, but I got to spend some private time with Sattyanand in Canada and again at Rishikesh. He went into great detail, once, about the various phases through which the night technique had gone. While it was interesting, I also, later, learned from Richard Scott's book (? Transcendental Misconceptions?, I'm no longer sure of Richard's title) that the night technique he got from Sattyanand was different in some respect from the one I got from Sattyanand. Richard and I were friends and got our night techniques on the same course, but at different sittings. There were also many complaints about Sattyanand not knowing The Teaching as well as he should have: which, I guess translates as we big egoed Initiators know The Teching better than Sattyanand. -- Sattyanand had a very casual way of going about things as if, possibly, he had been told how to teach or told what to teach but had never gone through the structured process other TM teachers had gone through. He kind of gave the impression of winging it. I would not be at all surprised to discover that Turquoise B had very accurately quoted Sattyanand. -- I'm still searching for T's response to your question, so I hope I haven't been repetitive or something here. I replied to Paul via email, not here. Basically, Sattyanand's comments on this particular matter were to a mutual friend, not to me directly in this case. I did get to spend some time with him, however, and liked him a lot. He could get loose and fun to be around and just one of the guys, something that Maharishi could never pull off in a million years, so it was fun hanging with Sattyanand and hearing stories of what things were like back before it all got big and out of control. (One of his quotes.) 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Gerbal, I'm not sure how long Sattyanand spent with Guru Dev, it would be nice to get a better idea of where he fits in. I do get the idea he did talk about the past, I have heard stuff he is supposed to have said which hasn't surfaced on any of the forums. He gave me an advanced technique in Rishikesh, unfortunately I never thought to interview him. I suppose the only thing to do is to share what you know and see how many can confirm it and possibly expand on it from their own experiences with Sattyanand. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gerbal88 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: Turquoise, you name Sattyanand as being the source of the quote about MMY being told to go and meditate, and not to teach. Did you hear this from Sattyanand himself or from someone else? Can you remember anything else that was said? Paul, I know your post isn't directed at me, but I got to spend some private time with Sattyanand in Canada and again at Rishikesh. He went into great detail, once, about the various phases through which the night technique had gone. While it was interesting, I also, later, learned from Richard Scott's book (? Transcendental Misconceptions?, I'm no longer sure of Richard's title) that the night technique he got from Sattyanand was different in some respect from the one I got from Sattyanand. Richard and I were friends and got our night techniques on the same course, but at different sittings. There were also many complaints about Sattyanand not knowing The Teaching as well as he should have: which, I guess translates as we big egoed Initiators know The Teching better than Sattyanand. -- Sattyanand had a very casual way of going about things as if, possibly, he had been told how to teach or told what to teach but had never gone through the structured process other TM teachers had gone through. He kind of gave the impression of winging it. I would not be at all surprised to discover that Turquoise B had very accurately quoted Sattyanand. -- I'm still searching for T's response to your question, so I hope I haven't been repetitive or something here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You might be interested in this photo of Sattyanand in company of two of his fellow-disciples at:- http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Shantanandji.htm#Narayanand Thanks, Paul. I need to keep more abreast of your wonderful web site. I met Shantanand at the Kumbha Mela in 1974 -- he seemed quite 'self- contained' although I am not exactly sure how to expand on that. I gave him a mango and he cleverly flipped it back to me with a big smile. It was nice. I got some books from him (well, one of his disciples) and got to see/touch the claw-footed chair that Guru Dev sat in. That seemed special. The chair and other things I have forgotten were sitting in a very old van. I wonder who drove the van in Guru Dev's day. Knowing the condition of Indian roads in that region, it is difficult to imagine Guru Dev or anyone sitting in that chair and being driven from place to place. Hopefully he had some more comfortable means of getting from place to place. From the reports I got from people I met who knew him, he was very open and accessible to just ordinary folks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: Thanks Gerbal, I'm not sure how long Sattyanand spent with Guru Dev, it would be nice to get a better idea of where he fits in. I do get the idea he did talk about the past, I have heard stuff he is supposed to have said which hasn't surfaced on any of the forums. He gave me an advanced technique in Rishikesh, unfortunately I never thought to interview him. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gerbal88 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: Turquoise, you name Sattyanand as being the source of the quote about MMY being told to go and meditate, and not to teach. Did you hear this from Sattyanand himself or from someone else? Can you remember anything else that was said? Paul, I know your post isn't directed at me, but I got to spend some private time with Sattyanand in Canada and again at Rishikesh. He went into great detail, once, about the various phases through which the night technique had gone. While it was interesting, I also, later, learned from Richard Scott's book (? Transcendental Misconceptions?, I'm no longer sure of Richard's title) that the night technique he got from Sattyanand was different in some respect from the one I got from Sattyanand. Richard and I were friends and got our night techniques on the same course, but at different sittings. There were also many complaints about Sattyanand not knowing The Teaching as well as he should have: which, I guess translates as we big egoed Initiators know The Teching better than Sattyanand. -- Sattyanand had a very casual way of going about things as if, possibly, he had been told how to teach or told what to teach but had never gone through the structured process other TM teachers had gone through. He kind of gave the impression of winging it. I would not be at all surprised to discover that Turquoise B had very accurately quoted Sattyanand. -- I'm still searching for T's response to your question, so I hope I haven't been repetitive or something here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: 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.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
Have been reworking the intro to the Guru Dev webpages, with added quotations http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/gurudev.htm I'm hoping to get a better quality image of that photo I linked to. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gerbal88 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: You might be interested in this photo of Sattyanand in company of two of his fellow-disciples at:- http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Shantanandji.htm#Narayanand Thanks, Paul. I need to keep more abreast of your wonderful web site. I met Shantanand at the Kumbha Mela in 1974 -- he seemed quite 'self- contained' although I am not exactly sure how to expand on that. I gave him a mango and he cleverly flipped it back to me with a big smile. It was nice. I got some books from him (well, one of his disciples) and got to see/touch the claw-footed chair that Guru Dev sat in. That seemed special. The chair and other things I have forgotten were sitting in a very old van. I wonder who drove the van in Guru Dev's day. Knowing the condition of Indian roads in that region, it is difficult to imagine Guru Dev or anyone sitting in that chair and being driven from place to place. Hopefully he had some more comfortable means of getting from place to place. From the reports I got from people I met who knew him, he was very open and accessible to just ordinary folks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: Thanks Gerbal, I'm not sure how long Sattyanand spent with Guru Dev, it would be nice to get a better idea of where he fits in. I do get the idea he did talk about the past, I have heard stuff he is supposed to have said which hasn't surfaced on any of the forums. He gave me an advanced technique in Rishikesh, unfortunately I never thought to interview him. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gerbal88 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: Turquoise, you name Sattyanand as being the source of the quote about MMY being told to go and meditate, and not to teach. Did you hear this from Sattyanand himself or from someone else? Can you remember anything else that was said? Paul, I know your post isn't directed at me, but I got to spend some private time with Sattyanand in Canada and again at Rishikesh. He went into great detail, once, about the various phases through which the night technique had gone. While it was interesting, I also, later, learned from Richard Scott's book (? Transcendental Misconceptions?, I'm no longer sure of Richard's title) that the night technique he got from Sattyanand was different in some respect from the one I got from Sattyanand. Richard and I were friends and got our night techniques on the same course, but at different sittings. There were also many complaints about Sattyanand not knowing The Teaching as well as he should have: which, I guess translates as we big egoed Initiators know The Teching better than Sattyanand. -- Sattyanand had a very casual way of going about things as if, possibly, he had been told how to teach or told what to teach but had never gone through the structured process other TM teachers had gone through. He kind of gave the impression of winging it. I would not be at all surprised to discover that Turquoise B had very accurately quoted Sattyanand. -- I'm still searching for T's response to your question, so I hope I haven't been repetitive or something here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have been reworking the intro to the Guru Dev webpages, with added quotations http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/gurudev.htm I'm hoping to get a better quality image of that photo I linked to. Hi Paul. Your site is superb. A while back you mentioned the a lecture given by, or written by Bal Brahmachari Mahesh in 1952, urging residents of...was it Delhi?...to attend one of Guru Dev's upcoming lectures there. I've lost the post and now can't find it on your site. Can you give the link again please? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
The site needs a map I guess... Incidentally, if anyone has any early
movement publications or Shankaracharya Ashram stuff ?..?
The Press Statement
The Great Saint of the Himalayas is Coming
to Shower His Blessings on the Metropolis.
The Statement issued by: BAL BRAHMACHARI SHRI MAHESH JI.
Press conference convened by Shri Shankaracharya Reception Committee,
Delhi on the 15th Oct., 1952 at 5 p.m. in the Young Man's Tennis Club
Queen's Gardens, in connection with the visit of HIS HOLINESS SHRI
JAGATGURU SHANKARACHARYA MAHARAJ OF JYOTIRMATH.
http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/sources/text/Maheshspeech.htm
a little while later 0n 4th December 1952 the The President of India,
Dr Rajendra Prasad, came to see Guru Dev for darshan. He told him
clearly:-
' jaba se mahaarshhiyoM kaa samparka raajaa{}oM ne chho.Daa tabhii se
rasaatala ko chale gaye .'
('[Things] have gone to hell since raajas neglected to keep the company
of maharishis.')
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@
wrote:
Have been reworking the intro to the Guru Dev webpages, with added
quotations http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/gurudev.htm
I'm hoping to get a better quality image of that photo I linked to.
Hi Paul. Your site is superb. A while back you mentioned the a lecture
given by, or written by Bal Brahmachari Mahesh in 1952, urging
residents of...was it Delhi?...to attend one of Guru Dev's upcoming
lectures there. I've lost the post and now can't find it on your site.
Can you give the link again please?
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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
(snip) 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? 1. Yes it is important to me; and from my experience being with him, and listening to him, I feel he is the most enlightened person, I've ever come in contact with. So, it's not a belief, it's an experience; my own experience with him and listening to him, observing him. 2. It is important to me, to study with one who has the knowledge from his experience; why would I want to study about enlightenment, from someone who is not enlightened? 3. Listening to Maharishi over the years, has given me a breadth of understanding of enlightenment, so that I am able to use many of his examples, especially used in the SCI course; I've also some other accounts of enlightenment, such as from Echhart Tolle, which has also helped in describing and teaching to others... 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
If Guru Dev told Maharishi not to teach, why would Satyanand have joined Maharishi, knowing full well that the whole TM movement was against his masters wishes. Its one thing if Maharishi disobeyed Guru Dev, but its another thing that two disciples (MMY and Satyanand) would disobey Guru Dev's instructions. It doesn't make sense to me that this could happen and therefore seems to take away from the credibility of this idea that has been floating around that Guru Dev told Maharishi not to teach. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jyouells2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gerbal88 no_reply@ 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rmy108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And I forgot to ask... If Guru Dev told MMY not to teach, why have the shankarachaya's (Shantanand, Vishnu Devanand, and Vasudevanand) supported MMY and his movement? Surely if Satyanand suppossedly knew Guru Dev told MMY not to teach, these other disciples would have found this out. And don't tell me its because MMY was giving lots of money to support them. I know for a fact from when I was in India a few years ago, that MMY is giving the current shankaracharya (Vasudevanand) very little. If Guru Dev told Maharishi not to teach, why would Satyanand have joined Maharishi, knowing full well that the whole TM movement was against his masters wishes. Its one thing if Maharishi disobeyed Guru Dev, but its another thing that two disciples (MMY and Satyanand) would disobey Guru Dev's instructions. It doesn't make sense to me that this could happen and therefore seems to take away from the credibility of this idea that has been floating around that Guru Dev told Maharishi not to teach. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jyouells2000 jyouells@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gerbal88 no_reply@ 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] I guess my questions for the group as a whole are: 1. *Is* it important to you to believe that Maharishi was/is enlightened? No, because the operative word is believe. Belief has nothing to do with it. He either is or isn't and since I cannot prove it one way or another, who cares? I certainly believe he is, but it's not that important for the reasons I've just said. 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? None whatsoever. Why? Because the person who initiated me was not MMY and that person was, I suspect, not enlightened and it worked from the way he did it. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: [snip] I guess my questions for the group as a whole are: 1. *Is* it important to you to believe that Maharishi was/is enlightened? No, because the operative word is believe. Belief has nothing to do with it. He either is or isn't and since I cannot prove it one way or another, who cares? *Barry* obviously cares, Shemp. He asked this question over and over again on alt.m.t, and now he's starting with it here. (Or maybe he's already asked it here; I can't remember.) 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
Title: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened? on 8/28/06 8:57 PM, rmy108 at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If Guru Dev told Maharishi not to teach, why would Satyanand have joined Maharishi, knowing full well that the whole TM movement was against his masters wishes. Its one thing if Maharishi disobeyed Guru Dev, but its another thing that two disciples (MMY and Satyanand) would disobey Guru Dev's instructions. It doesn't make sense to me that this could happen and therefore seems to take away from the credibility of this idea that has been floating around that Guru Dev told Maharishi not to teach. It took a while for MMY to convince Satyanand to join him. Sat. wasnt convinced at first that MMY was representing GD. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
Title: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened? on 8/28/06 3:20 PM, Paul Mason at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You might be interested in this photo of Sattyanand in company of two of his fellow-disciples at:- http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Shantanandji.htm#Narayanand Satyanand died a few years ago, didnt he? __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 8/28/06 8:57 PM, rmy108 at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If Guru Dev told Maharishi not to teach, why would Satyanand have joined Maharishi, knowing full well that the whole TM movement was against his masters wishes. Its one thing if Maharishi disobeyed Guru Dev, but its another thing that two disciples (MMY and Satyanand) would disobey Guru Dev's instructions. It doesn't make sense to me that this could happen and therefore seems to take away from the credibility of this idea that has been floating around that Guru Dev told Maharishi not to teach. It took a while for MMY to convince Satyanand to join him. Sat. wasn¹t convinced at first that MMY was representing GD. So what changed his mind? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rmy108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If Guru Dev told Maharishi not to teach, why would Satyanand have joined Maharishi, knowing full well that the whole TM movement was against his masters wishes. Its one thing if Maharishi disobeyed Guru Dev, but its another thing that two disciples (MMY and Satyanand) would disobey Guru Dev's instructions. It doesn't make sense to me that this could happen and therefore seems to take away from the credibility of this idea that has been floating around that Guru Dev told Maharishi not to teach. Not to mention Swami Shatananda and Swami Vishnudevananda, both of whom were senior to MMY in the ashram heirarchy AND were officially head of the Shankaracharya order according to MMY. That's some kind of influence that clerk managed to get over some senior monks, eh? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
-- In India, isn't Swami Swaroopanand considered by the other Shankaraychara Peethams to be the head of Jyotir Math shortly after the passing of Guru Dev. Paul would know, which means the Shantanand line has been in great question, and if I were them and saw how successful Maharishi was, I don't think I would oppose him in his activities. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rmy108 rmy108@ wrote: If Guru Dev told Maharishi not to teach, why would Satyanand have joined Maharishi, knowing full well that the whole TM movement was against his masters wishes. Its one thing if Maharishi disobeyed Guru Dev, but its another thing that two disciples (MMY and Satyanand) would disobey Guru Dev's instructions. It doesn't make sense to me that this could happen and therefore seems to take away from the credibility of this idea that has been floating around that Guru Dev told Maharishi not to teach. Not to mention Swami Shatananda and Swami Vishnudevananda, both of whom were senior to MMY in the ashram heirarchy AND were officially head of the Shankaracharya order according to MMY. That's some kind of influence that clerk managed to get over some senior monks, eh? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer groups@ wrote: on 8/28/06 8:57 PM, rmy108 at rmy108@ wrote: If Guru Dev told Maharishi not to teach, why would Satyanand have joined Maharishi, knowing full well that the whole TM movement was against his masters wishes. Its one thing if Maharishi disobeyed Guru Dev, but its another thing that two disciples (MMY and Satyanand) would disobey Guru Dev's instructions. It doesn't make sense to me that this could happen and therefore seems to take away from the credibility of this idea that has been floating around that Guru Dev told Maharishi not to teach. It took a while for MMY to convince Satyanand to join him. Sat. wasn¹t convinced at first that MMY was representing GD. So what changed his mind? Guru Dev. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: [snip] I guess my questions for the group as a whole are: 1. *Is* it important to you to believe that Maharishi was/is enlightened? No, because the operative word is believe. Belief has nothing to do with it. He either is or isn't and since I cannot prove it one way or another, who cares? *Barry* obviously cares, Shemp. He asked this question over and over again on alt.m.t, and now he's starting with it here. (Or maybe he's already asked it here; I can't remember.) I still think it matters, because besides the technique, which was taught, there is all the intellectual knowledge; And ironic as it may seem, I think Maharishi attracted to him, at least at first, people who were willing to question, him, about the experience of enlightenment; people who were more mental than devotional...a more intellectual path... And his main trademark: 'Life is Bliss isn't this the main aspect of the experience of enlightenment; and notion of 'spontaneous right action', so many thousands of questions, over the years, and so many answers; I think I even recall him saying one time, something about asking good questions, is the only way to 'draw the knowledge' out of him... It really baffles me, how some people could question whether he is enlightened or not; can't relate to this notion at all. I would say this: Even in Jesus' time, there were some that would not, or could not recognize him, for who he was; And when asked to perform a miracle to prove who he was; he refused... Enlightenment cannot be proved to someone who does not believe in enlightenment. Some people are not open to see, what is there... R.G. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. large snip to end of post Barry, I am suggesting, in fact I am asking, that you consider NOT READING the posts of those who upset you, like Judy. Please, you can let your eyes glaze over when you come across their words that have infilatrated another's response to you. And you should never ever ever read a direct post from her on ANY subject.You know from long long experience that her words upset you ( my stomach gets tight, actually). So, stop it - just NEVER READ THEM AND NEVER RESPOND. There are at least 10 people on FFL that I will never read no matter what the topic. It is a waste of time. You don't HAVE to respond to people. If you want to expand on your ideas, fine, but just do that and forget the jabs. I am glad you are back, but PLEASE practice selective reading. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Barry, I am suggesting, in fact I am asking, that you consider NOT READING the posts of those who upset you, like Judy. While I appreciate your intent, her words don't upset me. In this case, they provided me with an opportunity to post a question to the group as a whole that I've been meaning to ask for some time. It's the *other* posters from FFL whose responses I'm interested in hearing, not hers. I think we agree that we know what hers will be. :-) Please, you can let your eyes glaze over when you come across their words that have infilatrated another's response to you. And you should never ever ever read a direct post from her on ANY subject. You know from long long experience that her words upset you ( my stomach gets tight, actually). I am sorry you feel that way. I tend to feel pity, or on better days, compassion. If her posts affect you that much just reading them, try to imagine what it must be like to *be* her, and to be stuck in that mindset all the time. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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). LOL!! It *was* a putdown, and I wasn't the least bit threatened by it. Barry's opinions, in fact, are less likely to threaten me than anyone else's here. What I was doing as usual was pointing out that Barry had--also as usual--contradicted himself in order to be able to make the putdown. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
Back in 1975 at a meeting with Rabbi Levine, the rabbi stated that MMY was 'God Conscious at least!' If MMY is in no special state of consciousness it is misleading to allow such statements to be made without correcting them!? Below is a transcript of the meeting. God Realization: The Fulfilment of all Aspirations Science and Religion: Two Paths to the Same Goal 20th July 1975, Courchevel, France Miss Emily Levin Member World Plan Executive Council asks: Each religion has its own Scriptures. Do they each express the same reality? Rabbi Levine: Are you asking it of Maharishi or me? Emily Levin: (very nervously)... either... Rabbi: (to MMY) How shall we handle this? Shall we each say something about it? MMMY: I think you will be speaking more because you are authority on religion. Rabbi Levine: (incredulously) I'm authority on religion? (significant pause and lots of laughter) You who are, who are in God Consciousness, at least? MMY: (lots of laughter) I'll be following you wherever I can. (more laughter) Rabbi Levine: But don't correct me TOO much. MMY (more laughter) Rabbi Levine: Yes, the answer is a very simple yes. There is only one reality but there is an infinite ways of trying to discover it. And each religion has its own path to God. However, the only time that path will ever lead to God is if it is paved with love. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: Barry, I am suggesting, in fact I am asking, that you consider NOT READING the posts of those who upset you, like Judy. While I appreciate your intent, her words don't upset me. In this case, they provided me with an opportunity to post a question to the group as a whole that I've been meaning to ask for some time. It's the *other* posters from FFL whose responses I'm interested in hearing, not hers. I think we agree that we know what hers will be. :-) Actually Barry *does* know what mine would be, because he's asked the same question so many times before and I've responded to it, but it's not what he implies here. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On my TTC, Paul, Mahesh said again and again: the actor can play god better than god. -- He was, of course, talking about himself and the joke was on us because we didn't get it. Mahesh could fool anybody and usually make a point of doing so every chance he got. It really stroked his ego to pull the polyester over the eyes of people who should have known better. -- I wonder if he was thinking I fooled Guru Dev and I can fool a putz like you. Back in 1975 at a meeting with Rabbi Levine, the rabbi stated that MMY was 'God Conscious at least!' If MMY is in no special state of consciousness it is misleading to allow such statements to be made without correcting them!? Below is a transcript of the meeting. God Realization: The Fulfilment of all Aspirations Science and Religion: Two Paths to the Same Goal 20th July 1975, Courchevel, France Miss Emily Levin Member World Plan Executive Council asks: Each religion has its own Scriptures. Do they each express the same reality? Rabbi Levine: Are you asking it of Maharishi or me? Emily Levin: (very nervously)... either... Rabbi: (to MMY) How shall we handle this? Shall we each say something about it? MMMY: I think you will be speaking more because you are authority on religion. Rabbi Levine: (incredulously) I'm authority on religion? (significant pause and lots of laughter) You who are, who are in God Consciousness, at least? MMY: (lots of laughter) I'll be following you wherever I can. (more laughter) Rabbi Levine: But don't correct me TOO much. MMY (more laughter) Rabbi Levine: Yes, the answer is a very simple yes. There is only one reality but there is an infinite ways of trying to discover it. And each religion has its own path to God. However, the only time that path will ever lead to God is if it is paved with love. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: 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*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it matter if Maharishi wasn't enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. 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
