One of the things that never ceases to amuse me is how some long-term TMers react to having had their buttons pushed. Their first impulse is to call the button- pushers "liars." If that doesn't work -- and it hasn't, at least with fairly objective bystanders -- their next impulse is to try to do the same thing to the button- pushers that has been done to them. Thus, when someone points out a simple truth about the spiritual teacher they're still guru-whipped by -- and about them, for *being* so guru-whipped -- their second impulse is to try to rag on the button-pusher's supposed guru and see if they can provoke a similar reaction in them.
The problem with this strategy is that it only works on those who are still as guru-whipped as the people resorting to it. It can't work on those who have gotten to a place where they can "own their own part" of succumbing to a guru's charms. So, for the record, and because they so desperately want me to, I'll tell you what I see as the *only* dif- ference between Maharishi and Rama - Frederick Lenz. I see both as charlatans. Period. The *only* distinction I draw between them is the "degree of charlatanry" they exhibited in their lives. For me, Rama was 75% charlatan, 25% something else. What that "else" is I have no idea of, and no explanation for. In contrast, for me, Maharishi was 95% charlatan, and only 5% something else. Maharishi -- for me, and for many I've known who knew both gentlemen intimately -- just was never in the same ballpark of "possible greatness" as Rama. Lenz was smarter, better spoken, and *far* more knowledgeable about the sources of traditional Woo Woo he ripped off than MMY ever was. He could give *far* better and more interesting talks, and demonstrate powers and abilities that Maharishi could only talk about. But he was still (IMO) 75% a char- latan, using cheap tricks and stage presence/charisma to suck people into projecting more onto him than was actually there. I completely "own" the things I projected onto him for a time, wrapped by his flash factor. The wonder, for me, is how so many TMers managed to fall for the 5% of "else" that Maharishi was able to exhibit, not how many managed to fall for the 25% Rama was able to exhibit. There is simply no question that I might have been wrapped by Rama's charm and charlatanry. There is little question that I might have imagined even the 25% that *wasn't* char- latanry. I have *no problem* saying this, and "owning" it. And this is what distinguishes me from the Maharishi TBs. Not a single one of them would ever, in a million years, be able to admit this as a possibility. They're STILL wrapped by Maharishi's charlatanry, to the point that it is simply not even *possible* for them to admit that they might have been taken in by a clever con man. If even one of them could say this -- even once -- I might have more respect for them. But they can't. So neither can I.
