--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" <geezerfr...@...> wrote: > > Just spotted this post over at TM Free...fascinating in light of > the information coming forth now: > > Re: celibacy being promoted as an ideal starting at Mallorca, I > recall M. talking about it even at Humboldt. He said, "Would it > be possible for people to refrain from having sex for just this > one month while you're on this course?" (He knew the West was > then in the midst of a giant sexual orgy.) I also remember M. > saying, "I'm almost afraid to say this, but what this movement > needs is a few good celibates." I think - but I couldn't swear - > that he said that at Humboldt. (If not then, he said it on my TTC, > La Antilla.)
There was also the now-famous definition of the "two ways of life" I posted yesterday, in which he said, "The only two valid spiritual paths are the celibate monk and the married householder. Anything else is a waste of life." I'm pretty sure that one's on tape. As I noted yesterday, Judith's book and the Sexy Sadie files pretty much put Maharishi, *by his own standards*, in the waste of life group. I've always found it interesting to hold spiritual teachers to their own words. That's one of the main reasons I bailed from the Rama - Fred Lenz trip. I started comparing his actions in the later days of his teaching against his own words in the earlier days of his teaching, and he completely failed to "measure up" to his *own* standards. In many cases, he was doing things on a regular basis that earlier he'd said that a "real teacher" or an "enlightened teacher" would never do. I went for the earlier version of the teachings being more correct, and bailed. With Maharishi, one can do similar comparisons. For example, in Squaw Valley he responded to ques- tions about developing the siddhis by pooh-poohing them, invoking the then-in-vogue buzz phrase "Capture the fort" (by focusing on transcending instead of trying to develop siddhis), and said in no uncertain terms that the siddhis were dangerous. Later? Well, you all know the answer to that one. Maybe there is "wiggle room" in some of these pro- nouncements. For example, maybe being unmarried but having sex is not "really" a waste of life if one keeps it hidden. That seems to be the way he led *his* life, after all.
