Good points, Curtis. Despite what people have said here, MMY did not have a narcissistic personality disorder. I agree that he did become progressively narcissistic as the decades rolled by. Really too bad. He was also so distant and isolated from all except a few. I used to think this distance was the result of his enlightenment. Now I realize it was just his personality. I also wonder if he had some sort of cognitive impairment the last 15-20 years or so. Things became progressively stranger and stranger as time went by. The rajas were really the final straw that destroyed any sort of credibility the TMO/MMY ever had.
--- On Tue, 4/5/11, curtisdeltablues <curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com> wrote: > From: curtisdeltablues <curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Do Narcissists Know They Are Narcissists? > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 11:36 AM > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > All this "you're an narcissist" "No you're a narcissist" > talk flying around does dilute the value of the term a bit. > > When I came across this description applied to gurus > (primarily to Rajaneesh, secondarily to Maharishi) in a > Secular Humanist magazine in the late 80's or early 90's it > helped me understand how some people could function so > differently. It also helps explain how people who come > from such a different internal place can have a profound > effect on the rest of us. That kind of internal > certainty is foreign to people with a more humble sense of > self regard. If you don't buy into Maharishi's view of > himself as the person of the greatest importance in human > history for bringing out the knowledge of TM and sidhis, > then the description of narcissism helps explain the guy for > me. And as we begin to understand brain chemistry > better we can perhaps develop a bit of compassion for > someone so compelled to have an inordinately high opinion of > himself. > > On the other hand, there might be a bit of random > haplessness to the whole Maharishi deal. I mean how > many other yogis who fell into such a fantastic reception > from the world could avoid thinking "damn, I AM da > man!" So from this perspective perhaps Maharishi was > not a narcissist in the clinical sense but more of an > ordinary guy who rose the occasion of his celebrity (his > success surprising even him)whose personality got distorted > by his rockstar fame and fortune like many modern > celebrities. Without a close family to keep him real, > and through the years ditching those who served that > function (buh by Jerry) he grew into a Seelisberg pampered > little prince. Not anything clinical really, but somewhere > between the unhinged and unchecked ego of a Jerry Lee Lewis > and the wildly imaginative and ambitions Richard Branson. > > Fascinating human story either way. I remember in > India when he told us "It was the greatest good fortune for > all mankind...that I decided to come out." He would > certainly get a gold star in the self-esteem building > workshop for that one. But for my taste he could have dialed > it back a notch or 20. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > [I wrote:] > > > > > Nobody else has weighed in and said > they don't think > > > > > Barry's a narcissist, so I guess > everyone else agrees > > > > > with me... > > > > > > [Curtis wrote:] > > > > No, if no one weighs in it means that they > agree with me > > > > and that makes ME the narcissist. > > > > > > I suspect that the narcissist in this scenario > > > is the person who believes that everyone agrees > > > with them, whether they say so or not. :-) > > > > Yet another Barrygaffe. He's missed the obvious fact > > that Curtis and I were both saying "Everyone agrees > > with me." So Barry has just called Curtis a > narcissist. > > > > (Or perhaps he did see that, and that's why he > carefully > > deleted the attributions.) > > > > Funnier still, he doesn't realize I was parodying > what > > *he* does--claiming everyone agrees with him whether > > they say so or not. Maybe Curtis was too. Hmmm... > > > > And all Barry can come up with in the way of > > demonization is the olde Black Knight sketch that's > > been invoked here many times, as if he thought it was > > a brand-new killer weapon. > > > > Particularly pathetic given how badly he lost on the > > "New Yawker" issue. > > > > But he's still unchallenged for the Master of > > Inadvertent Irony title. > > > > > > > Speaking of New Yawker Syndrome (which is > another > > > word for obnoxious narcissism), it occurred to > me > > > that we have a film example of its most distinct > > > pathology. That is, not *only* the need to turn > > > every human encounter into a fight, but also the > > > > need to declare oneself the "winner" of each of > > > those fights. The NYN (New Yawker Narcissist) > > > never loses: > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno > > > > > > At least they never *admit* that they've lost. > :-) > > > > > > "I'm invincible!" > > > "You're loony!" > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To subscribe, send a message to: > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links > > > fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com > > >
