Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was What is Enlightenment? - MMY
On Jun 3, 2009, at 2:24 AM, emptybill wrote: And Bill thanks for trying to elevate me to guru, but you have no clue what my credentials and authorizations are, because I've never discussed them with. So stop spreading lies about what you think my credentials and authorizations might be. It's just a childish uptight game you're playing. Well gosh Vaj. You mean you're not a nath-guru? But that can't be true 'cuz your disciple Kaladevi told me she received teachings and initiation from you and that you were a real nath-acharya. I think you're just being too modest. You really don't want to present yourself that way because you would be embarrassed by all the accolades. I just spoke to Kala. You're lying again Bill.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was What is Enlightenment? - MMY
On Jun 1, 2009, at 11:46 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: Well lets see. I have been to Guru Dev's ashram in Allahabad 4 times. The last time was this past April, but Vasudevanandaji was not there so it was pretty quiet. I just walked around a bit. There is a beautiful altar in the middle of the courtyard of the ashram that has a statue of Adi Shankara and one of Guru Dev and a pair of Guru Dev's sandals that have been bronzed. I believe they do puja to the altar every morning. On previous occasions I have met with Vasudevananda in his meeting room, which is the same room and has the same seat that Guru Dev sat on and the energy in there has always been palpable. Vasudevanandaji has always been very low key, pretty relaxed and would answer any questions (not that I really had any) and was always appreciative that we were with MMY. Jyotir math was also very nice and not much going on. There a few monks who are disciples of vasudevanandaji and very welcoming. I attended evening puja to Vasudevanandaji sandals that were there and it was lovely. The monks asked me to stay for a few weeks, which I had no time to do, but it was nice that they asked. Both ashrams seemed very traditional ashram like. Not at all TM like. I plan on visiting Kanchipuram in the fall. Take pictures please!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was What is Enlightenment? - MMY
On Jun 2, 2009, at 2:58 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Jun 1, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Randy Meltzer wrote: Thanks Vaj for saying that. I am not here to do the pile on Vaj thing. Its just when you make statements like the shankaracharya order is Vaishnavite and my experience is s the oposite I had to chime in. I couldn't agree more, Randy...every time Vaj or anyone else makes a dumb-ass statement like that I just want to punch them. The shankaracharya order is Vaishnavite indeed! And yes, I did have a small axe to grind about you as someone pointed out in a previous post, because I felt your comments in the past about my experiences were disrespectful. In any case, its nothing personal. Just trying to keep the facts staight Yes, the facts about the shankaracharya order being Vaishnavite or not is as clear-cut as crystal, and how anybody could miss that is beyond me. Thanks for clearing all that up! The facts are that you guys are arguing about whether an obscure religious sect worships one imaginary deity or another. From the outside, without being a part of that obscure religious sect. I think that's only a small part of it. We're not talking about whether or these people hang out in airports singing teary-eyed bhajans to Lord Krishna. The point has more to do with the style of organization we're dealing with. In the west we might say an organization is patriarchal and that invokes a certain sense of how the org operates compared to, say, a matriarchal one. Similarly calling an order or line Vaishnavite invokes a certain idea as to what type of org it is: puritanical, priests--lots of priests, few or no priestesses, large draw from the merchant and Brahmin classes, big emphasis on ritual by priests, purity-freaks, separation of men and women: men on top, women on the bottom, no sex on ashram grounds, etc. Vaishnavism is meant, in this context, to invoke the type of org we're dealing with and less so a preference for a specific deity, although often (as in this case) the orgs primordial guru will be Vishnu or a form of VIshnu.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was What is Enlightenment? - MMY
On Jun 2, 2009, at 1:21 PM, emptybill wrote: No doubt, just for Vaj, they must have brushed off Adi-Shankara's disagreement with Pancharatra theology as discussed in his Brahmasutra Bhasya. Thus his now it can be told - this is more insider revelation that only Vaj-duta would claim. I think the easiest inside claim for Shankara being primarily a Vashnavite is that his core works, the ones the most will agree were actually written by him, not merely attributed to him, proclaim saguna Brahman as synonymous with narayana or vasudeva! ;-) Dead give away if you ask me! That's of course not to say that he didn't have Smarta leanings as well. Of course he did. And Bill thanks for trying to elevate me to guru, but you have no clue what my credentials and authorizations are, because I've never discussed them with. So stop spreading lies about what you think my credentials and authorizations might be. It's just a childish uptight game you're playing.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was What is Enlightenment? - MMY
On Jun 1, 2009, at 1:23 AM, Randy Meltzer wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: Vaj, Again you make the statement that the tradition is not Shaivite. On what basis are you saying this? Have you been to Jyotir Math? Have you been to Guru Dev's ashram in Allahabad? It would seem not. Because if you had been there, it would be obvious. Even the sandalwood tilak on Guru Dev's face is shaivite style, not vaishnavite. The vaishnavites always wear their tilak in a vertical style. Shaivaites always horizontal. Where did you specifically find out that the shankaracharya order is vaishnavite? Please mention specifics? Bhaja Govindam is not a good argument. In India many people sing that. Next, you will be telling me that the Kedarnath temple in the Himalayas is a Vaishnavite temple. And the again I will state for the record that Shankara is a name of Shiva. Anyone in India knows that. But perhaps you are right and I am wrong. I guess my 16 trips there taught me nothing. Yes, I did say it again. I'm not going to lie. But at the same time, I've seen the same thing with numerous people associated with Vedic and puritanical Hindu movements. I spent a good amount of time involved with the Shankarcharya of the south and got to observe the inner workings close enough that I'm familiar with their workings. The Smartas are very inclusive, so they do not reject Shiva but they are not a Shaivite line. Being basically Brahmin, they have their version of history, told from their point of view. Yes, Shankara is a adjective of Shiva and some people do even consider Shankara an incarnation of Shiva. Of course some Shaivite lines also consider him a demon and destroyer. There are even tantric works attributed to Shankara which believers believe to actually be by Adi-Shankara. Historians however recognize that these come from a later date than Adi-Shankara. What some people aren't aware of is that orgs like the Shankaracharya while essentially deriving from Upanshadic thought and the Vedas, they also amalgamated a certain number of other sects which was part of a trend whereby older sects were brought into the newer Vedic ones. Really by the time of Shankara, the amalgamation of what was left of Vedic religion had already developed a symbiotic relationship with earlier forms of ecstatic religion like Shaivism. For that reason you can go to many Hindu temples and for one purpose they'll do a Vedic rite, for another they'll do a tantric one. But it's a sanitized, ritualized presentation of Shiva set in a puritanical religion. The original Shaivite gnosis was an ecstatic religion of the countryside, on the fringes of society. It's most recent revival would have been around time of Christ with the Shaivite saint Lakulisha who was considered the 28th avatar of Shiva. His followers considered him the last of the avatars mentioned in the Puranas. Most of these lines were oral, that is they were not written down and if they did, most existed in Dravidian languages. The Shaiva gnosis of Lakulisha was to last about a thousand years. A period of invasions by the Hun and the adherents of Islam put a stop to Shaivisms expansions. The Brahmans for a long, long time represented the dominant intellectual class began to gradually take over the various philosophical and scientific conceptions of the Shaivites. Utilizing a crafty exegesis, this essentially Vaishnavite Brahmanism(puritanical, hierarchical city religion), dominated by a wealthy merchant class, tried to connect Shaivism to a mythical vedism. So that how Puritanical Vaishnavite leaning hierarchical city religions incorporated ecstatic occult fringe religions into their growing power base. Or I should say, that's it in a nut shell, given off the cuff. It's the classic story of the religion of the city vs. the religion of the countryside. The city-merchant class, Vaishnavite puritanical ones take on the pagans, borrow their techniques and rites, putting them into their own new language, Sanskrit, and then suppress and destroy the original source documents. From the time of Shankara and to the present a religion emerged, named Vaishnavism, based mostly on Jainism but linked to the cult of Vishnu. Many Jains converted to this new Vaishnavite religion and it grew greatly in popularity during the time of the invasions. Many of the popular ideas associated with India: reincarnation, karma and Vedanta, come from this Vaishnavizing-Jainist trend. Of course if you hear this story from the Brahmin side, you'll likely get a very different story, but it sounds like the one you probably already heard.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was What is Enlightenment? - MMY
On Jun 1, 2009, at 1:17 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Lurk, do *you* stay on the line when the person on the other end clearly has his dick out of his pants waving it around and saying, Can you match this, bozo? I don't know about you, but I tend to get a little tired of the heavy breathing on the other end of the line and hang up. :-) Then again, I am unimpressed with real academics in the field of spirituality, and even less so with armchair academics who play dueling sources in what are clearly oneupsmanship ego games. Your mileage may vary. If it does, I hope that the payoff you're waiting for...uh... measures up. :-) Hell hath not seen nor heaven created the one who can prevail against me! - Don Quixote, after his windmill escapade You gotta know when to hold up, know when to fold up... -Kenny Rogers, probably after knocking back a few Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was What is Enlightenment? - MMY
On May 31, 2009, at 9:26 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote: Randy Meltzer rm...@... wrote: Any comments Vaj? I have noticed sometimes at this point the call gets dropped. Depends on a number of things really Lurk. A big one for me is 'what do I perceive as their underlying intention?'. Another is 'is this just another pile on post? I'm not a fan of digital rugby. Do I have enough time and is it worth it? It's also good to feel people are interested in responding to the topic, not just shooting off some obtuse remark. For any of these reasons I may decide not to waste my time. Randy seems like a guy interested in actually having an intelligent conversation and he's had some interesting things to share as well.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was What is Enlightenment? - MMY
On Jun 1, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: Depends on a number of things really Lurk. A big one for me is 'what do I perceive as their underlying intention?'. Another is 'is this just another pile on post? I'm not a fan of digital rugby. Do I have enough time and is it worth it? It's also good to feel people are interested in responding to the topic, not just shooting off some obtuse remark. For any of these reasons I may decide not to waste my time. Randy seems like a guy interested in actually having an intelligent conversation and he's had some interesting things to share as well. Thanks Vaj for saying that. I am not here to do the pile on Vaj thing. Its just when you make statements like the shankaracharya order is Vaishnavite and my experience is s the oposite I had to chime in. And yes, I did have a small axe to grind about you as someone pointed out in a previous post, because I felt your comments in the past about my experiences were disrespectful. In any case, its nothing personal. Just trying to keep the facts staight I think the crux of the issue Randy is that you saw Shiva worship going on at the Maths and so assumed the lineage was Shaivite (even though it's not), but it's more accurate to say the Smartas had a very all-embracing view of Hinduism, and that's also probably why Shankara's line was so incredibly popular, eventually helping to dowse Buddhism's spread (although I'm sure the invasions also helped create a surge in Hindu nationalism and an appreciation of Hinduism's own diversity). They later even integrated Shakta practices, so it's rather profound what they did. I was hoping now that you've shared that you've been to a number of the Maths, you'd also share some of your experiences there. Seriously.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was What is Enlightenment? - MMY
On Jun 1, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Randy Meltzer wrote: Thanks Vaj for saying that. I am not here to do the pile on Vaj thing. Its just when you make statements like the shankaracharya order is Vaishnavite and my experience is s the oposite I had to chime in. I couldn't agree more, Randy...every time Vaj or anyone else makes a dumb-ass statement like that I just want to punch them. The shankaracharya order is Vaishnavite indeed! And yes, I did have a small axe to grind about you as someone pointed out in a previous post, because I felt your comments in the past about my experiences were disrespectful. In any case, its nothing personal. Just trying to keep the facts staight Yes, the facts about the shankaracharya order being Vaishnavite or not is as clear-cut as crystal, and how anybody could miss that is beyond me. Thanks for clearing all that up! Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was What is Enlightenment? - MMY
On May 30, 2009, at 6:43 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: Like Judy pointed out, it's totally common for Indian devotees to extol assumed enlightened saints and gurus with over the top honorifics, and the idea that one of Maharishi's early followers gave him that designation out of their own reverence and pride. While that is a possibility and worth investigating further, if you examine Sanskrit-Hindu literature, esp. in Vaishnavite groups like the Shankaracharya, you'll see it's typical to have a sannyasi name as the primary title, with additions to this name given by the guru (e.g. Yogananda's guru gave him the title Paramahamsa indicating that he believed him to belong to a certain class of yogins, a paramahamsa). You can see this trend going back as into the middle ages. A list of many other Hindu commercial gurus reveals this same pattern. While honorifics like 'His Holiness' may be added out of devotion to one's guru, in Mahesh's instance we definitely know this was not the case. It's important to distinguish between honorifics, like 'His Holiness', and order or ordination names, titles indicating attainment and titles indicating a certain skill (yogi). In Mahesh's instance, he had the problem of being in the Shank. Order as an assistant and wanting to launch himself into the guru biz. What's a non-twice-born Hindu to do? After all he could not become a swami. You have someone confer a title on you or you make up one yourself. Usually the one conferring the title is the guru. And we do know SBS never conferred any titles on Mahesh. I guess the important here is if someone was dishonest from the get go, what does that tell us?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was What is Enlightenment? - MMY
On May 31, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Randy Meltzer wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: Vaj, What makes you think that the shankaracharya tradition is a vaishnavite group? Because the guru-parampara originates with Narayana and Shankara was a Vaishnavite. Have you read Shankara's Bhaja Govindam? The shankaracharya order has always been a shiva tradition, not a Vishnu tradition (vaishnavites are vishnu/krishna followers). Its obvious even from the name. Shankara is a name of shiva, not vishnu. Shankara just means do gooder or one who does good. It is an adjective used for Shiva. For someone who presents himself on this forum as being knowledgeable about this stuff, at least get your facts straight. You don't sound very familiar with Shaivism.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was What is Enlightenment? - MMY
On May 31, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: Yes I have read Bhaja Govindam. Shankara is famous for being an advaita teacher but also having the ability to have the devotional aspect of bhakti. Just because he refers to Govinda in that treatise does not make him a vaishnavite. And just because Narayana is mentioned in the tradition does not make him one either Have you been to Guru Dev's ashram in Allahabad? There are no Krishna/Vishnu images there. There is however a huge shiva lingam in the middle of the ashram. No self respecting Vaishnavite would a shiva lingam without a vishnu or krishna statue. And have you been to Jyotir math? No Vishnu images there either. The point is you know nothing of the tradition of which you claim to speak. Everything about the shankaracharya tradition is shaivite. Anyone else what to chime on this other than Vaj. I am open to someone else who is knowledgable to comment on this. Vaj thinks he knows something about this, but I don't believe he does. You are correct, all the Maths do perform Shiva-lingam worship. It is common to see the admixture of Vedic ritual and tantric and it is common to see Shiva-lingams in the Maths. It sounds to me like you're confusing the fact that Shiva lingam worship is ubiquitous within Vedic ritual with the line being a Shaivite one. When I was initiated into a Shaivite sampradaya the origin of the line was Adi-shiva, not Narayana.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was What is Enlightenment? - MMY
On May 31, 2009, at 7:20 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptyb...@... wrote: Hey empty bill Thanks for your words of encouragement. I have already had a previous run in with Mr. Vaj. When I said in a previous post that as far as I am concerned, I have experienced pretty much everything Maharishi promised that I would, Mr. Vaj could not accept that and said that I only think I have experienced something, but in fact he was arguing that in his mind I really have not. The arrogance was sickening. How can Vaj know what you or I or anyone for that matter have experienced. I think we've had this discussion before R. And as before I'll tell you reread what I had said. I'm glad it works for you and it's great that you enjoy your experiences--and no you're not first person to acknowledge problems, nor will you be the last. I don't know what else you want me to say. It's useless to say anything if people don't want to hear. I get a kick out of the Empty Bill anti-Vaj posts, he's very creative in his mixture or lies and facts. Hopefully you can spot the lies. He's been on a vendetta ever since I nailed him on some BS he was pulling. I don't have a problem with him or anyone else being anti TM or antiMaharishi. To each his own. But I do have problem when someone invalidates me with no basis of anything to invalidate on. Any comments Vaj? Just see the above. I find it interesting the need for people to demonize others when a controversial topic comes up. You never know exactly what will hit the nerve of certain people. Apparently finding out their tradition is not Shaivite is one of them--although I have to admit, I was shocked when I had found I had been mislead, as it was a misunderstanding I once held as well. This is actually an old topic here, at one time we had a number of people who had had the same experience. But I suspect the openmindedness of the Smartas does appeal to many people, so that's the up side of all this IMO.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was What is Enlightenment? - MMY
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 5:50 PM, shukra69 shukr...@yahoo.ca wrote: Don't think he has an employer to worry about , he would be self employed at a Colorado Shamballa center or selling paraphenalia http://www.odiyana.com/contact_us.php But Vaj says that he has to be very careful to conceal his identity because he's in the past received death threats from TM people. This implies that he has been perceived as a great threat against things TM. Perhaps more of Vaj's self-puffery?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was What is Enlightenment? - MMY
On May 29, 2009, at 10:59 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: Jay Randolph Coplin, in his dissertation on the history of the SRM, writes that in an interview with the then-Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, Vasudevananda (the successor to Guru Dev's successor, Shantanand, and predecessor of the current Shankaracharya, Vishnudevananda, in Shantanand's line) -- Vasudevananda told Coplin that it was the Jyotir Math Peeth, itself, that bestowed the title Maharishi. Interesting, nothing I've read by Coplin recently includes that, nor does it appear to be mentioned in any official movement history. Being a hardcore TB, I consider Coplin a questionable source. It also seems questionable for a low caste person in the Shankaracharya. It also goes against the fact that some Shankaracharyas refused to call him Maharishi, instead referring to him simply as Mahesh. I suspect this probably came from one of the bought Shankaracharyas. Given that the people I've met at the Shankaracharya considered MMY some sort of demon who was destined for hell, I have to question the utter disparity. With no independent source to verify this, I'd have to consider the assertion TB tinkering or just tinkering from the broken and embattled lineage of the north. Certainly the most reputable remaining Math, Srinigiri, doesn't recognize him. In fact the Shankaracharya of the south didn't even know who he was and commented that his mind seemed like a supermarket. None of the silence and bliss he loved to brag about. It would be interesting to see this manuscript. I've notice a number of questionable claims from Coplin on the web. It's curious that the manuscript can be found nowhere. Perhaps someone could post it to the files section?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was What is Enlightenment? - MMY
On May 30, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Marek Reavis wrote: The only thing I ever heard Maharishi say about it was that people started using it, and he didn't object. Exactly. So someone must be lying.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was What is Enlightenment? - MMY
On May 30, 2009, at 12:01 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Like you, I've only read the few chapters of Coplin's dissertation that appear in a google search. I'd like to read the rest, too. And these titles, like referring to Guru Dev as His Divinity, all seem to be purely honorific. I hadn't heard about the use of maharishi as a pathfinder title, but I agree that it's appropriate should that be so. The flip side may be that, as I suggested, it would indicate he wasn't claiming either an official spiritual rank or to be the successor in a *lineage* per se. I'd bet such subtleties would be fairly obvious to Indians familiar with the spiritual-title game. I seem to recall that in MMY's explanation for why MIU had an M in it, that he referred to a rishi as someone who was enlightened, and a maharishi as someone who could teach others to be enlightened, and that therefore, the name was to refer to the goal of the school (and maybe as an hommage to all [other?] maharishis throughout the ages). I think you're missing the point. Is it a self-serving title, coming from the ego, or one given by the guru or some institution? Unfortunately, without any official announcement in the historical record we're forced to assume the former. And certainly for someone without any spiritual accomplishment prior, it seems even more suspect, esp. say when compared to a spiritual giant like Ramana Maharishi who had a long history of spiritual accomplishment prior. Since we know the other aliases, Yogi and His Holiness were self- assumed, it's further support for a self-aggrandizing person taking lofty titles. A more honest one might read Mahesh Varma, meditation teacher, philosopher, businessman and former secretary of Swami Brahamananda Saraswati. It also raises the question of all the other titles like The world's foremost scientist in the field of consciousness. Are appellations like these from Mahesh or from his disciples? I would assume his disciples, but ones does start to wonder. At a certain point, a person would start sounding like any number of whacky dictators the world has seen.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was What is Enlightenment? - MMY
On May 30, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: Not necessarily, but that's not the point. However he got the honorific, Maharishi certainly felt it was appropriate and never demurred. Many agreed with him and lots didn't. Sorry to be a stickler but you're assuming it's honorific without any evidence to support that. All we truly know is that it's an alias (esp. since it's not the actual name on his passport). What would be helpful is to see a transcript of the alleged Cochlin interview or to hear an MP3 of a recording!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was What is Enlightenment? - MMY
On May 30, 2009, at 5:31 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 30, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Marek Reavis wrote: The only thing I ever heard Maharishi say about it was that people started using it, and he didn't object. Exactly. So someone must be lying. Has it ever occurred to you that you have substituted one Fundamentalist World View for another? Has it occurred to you I'm laughing or smiling my ass off as I'm writing! I actually find the psychological and psycho-sexual ramifications of spiritual leaders who take grandiose titles themselves, have numerous product lines named after them, absurd titles lauded on them by their students (in the absence of any major outside recognition or objective validity) and huge phallic buildings built/planned in 'their honor' (yet control freashishly designed by them) to be really just SO interesting in a weird Kim Jong-Il sorta way. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was What is Enlightenment? - MMY
On May 29, 2009, at 12:46 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Yeah, compared to S.N. Goenka, the Marshy is a sheer genius at meditation! There's a lot of difference between transcendental meditation and mood-making with concentration on various human body parts. Vaj wrote: Similar techniques are found in the Shankaracharya Advaita tradition. They can also be found in Patanjali, the Shaiva tantras and the Puranas! They are also taught in the mantra traditions of Hindu tantrism. So, we are agreed - TM is very similar to the Adwaita meditation of the Shankaracharya, Patanjali, and in the Indian Tantras and Purana. I always thought so - thanks for providing this information. So, the Shankaracharya, Patanjali, and the Indian Tantriks all practiced TM. No Willy, they practiced Vipassana-like practices, not TM.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was What is Enlightenment? - MMY
On May 29, 2009, at 12:46 PM, Jason wrote: I want to know who gave him the title *Maharishi* .?? Why does he put his bald head in all the org's emblems.?? I think he was a good meditation teacher, but a very poor Philosophy teacher.!! Paradoxicaly, I know many good philosophy teachers who are poor meditation teachers.!! All his titles are self-proclaimed. The movement spiel is that people heard a rumor at one of his early lectures in Southern India that a maharishi was coming from the Himalayas, i.e. probably suggested by some forward materials for the lecture. After that, he just assumed the name himself. According to one of the Shanks. he also added the yogi and was never actually trained as a yogi (thus the asana course made my a gym teacher). Joyce Collin-Smith, an early secretary, actually caught him adding His Holiness to his other aliases.
