--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > > On Behalf Of do.rflex > > > > > Rick mentioned "a number of instances" besides that one. > > Perhaps he will clarify. > > > > Maharishi often referred to himself as a master. Not always > > in the first person, but often as "a master does this" or > > "a the master does that," obviously implying that he was > > one and does things that way. There are passages in his > > Gita commentary like that. Another more specific example > > was something he said to a friend of mine (no Nabby, I > > wasn't there. My friend told me later). He said, "A time > > comes when a master decides to get personally involved > > in the disciple's evolution." He was dangling a carrot > > in front of my friend. > > I agree with Rick that Maharishi used the term > often, and often attempted to convey the impression > that he was such a master. That said, however, I > honestly think that the story on this is that Maha- > rishi isn't all that bright or a scholar, and his > entire feeling for what a "master" entails is based > on just that -- a feeling.
Two points. First, it's one thing to say that MMY isn't a scholar, but to say he isn't "all that bright" is patently absurd. Second, "master" has a number of different meanings, depending on the context. One sense refers to relationship, as in master/disciple; the other simply refers to the teacher's mastery of what he teaches. The criteria for whether a given teacher can legitimately call him/herself a "master" are different depending on which sense is being used. Barry has managed to conflate the two in this rant. > > He found himself -- a bhakti by nature, *not* a > scholar -- in an ashram headed up by someone (GD) > who, if all reports are to be believed, "invited" > being considered a "master" because he handled > himself with mastery. The respect that people had > for him (GD) was because of the way he lived his > life, not because he demanded it. This implied > master-disciple relationship was further enhanced > because it was *normal* in Hindu society; almost > everyone who was attracted to the ashram grew up > on stories of "spiritual masters" and the tales > of how students were "supposed to" act around them. > > So *that* was Maharishi's "education" in what a > spiritual "master" was -- seeing one in action, and > the way that all of Guru Dev's students treated him. > > Segue to Maharishi going out and trying to teach > on his own. He naturally expected everyone to treat > *him* the same way. > > They didn't, because he had done nothing to deserve > it. He didn't display any of the mastery of conscious- > ness that GD had; he didn't display much of Guru Dev's > famous equanimity and self-effacement and humility, > and in fact, he often displayed the opposite. *And*, > Maharishi was dealing with Westerners who had *not* > been brought up to *assume* a master-disiple rela- > tionship with a spiritual teacher with whom they > had chosen to work. > > So IMO Maharishi set about *training* his students > in how to treat him. He did this via example. > > Those who kowtowed to him and treated him the way > he expected to be treated (that is, with the awe and > reverence and the unquestioning obedience Maharishi > had felt for GD) got praised and elevated to high > positions within his organizations. Those who did > *not* treat him that way got ignored or scorned or > yelled at or, if they couldn't be manipulated into > treating him the way he wanted to be treated, got > sent away in disgrace. The latter was often the most > effective "teach by example" technique; all of the > students had been told since Day One how "unique" > TM was, and how it was the "highest path," and > most of them actually believed it. Shemp and Nabbie > still do, obviously. So they're not *about* to blow > their shot at the "highest path" by doing something > that could get them kicked out. > > The bottom line, as I see it, is that Maharishi has > always demanded that his students *treat* him as > a "spiritual master," one who gets intimately > involved in the lives of his students, without ever > doing much of anything to *deserve* being thought of > or treated that way. He really doesn't, as far as I > can tell, have any of the *knowledge* of WHAT TO > DO to be the kind of master who gets intimately > involved in the karmas of his individual students; > when he tries, he often fucks it up. > > There is a great deal of training and spiritual > literature surrounding what it takes to be that kind > of teacher, and to have that kind of relationship > with one's students, and the *responsibilities* > implied by accepting that kind of relationship *as* > a "master." Suffice it to say that the responsi- > bilities are much greater for the master than for > the disciple. As far as I can tell, Maharishi has > read none of this, knows none of this, and has > always just been faking it, based solely on *his* > imagined relationship with Guru Dev. > > He wants to be revered as if he had a Ph.D. in being > a spiritual "master," but he's never even earned > a B.A. HE NEVER DID THE HOMEWORK. > > Vaj and Bharitu and I and others have met teachers > who HAVE done the homework. I don't think any of us > are in the market for a "master," but if we were, > we've seen a few people who would qualify for that > position. In my honest, considered opinion, Maharishi > does not qualify, and never has. Yet he demands that > his students treat him *as if* he qualified. > > It's all about pretense. Maharishi pretends to be > the kind of teacher one can legitimately relate to > as a "master." A lot of the students, who have been > to some extent brainwashed by all the bhakti stories > into wanting a "master," pretend to have that kind > of relationship with Maharishi. And then, to cap it > all off, when these same pretender-students who > basically have moodmade themselves into believing > that they have a true master-disciple relationship > with the pretender-master go out and interact with > their families and people in the real world, they > *deny* that they are in a master-disciple (really > master-slave) relationship with Maharishi. They > pretend that he's just a teacher that they revere > because of all the scientific mumbo-jumbo and > because he "invented" TM. > > It's all pretense, from the top to the bottom. > > And that's my honest, considered opinion on the > subject. *Only* opinion, and others are free to > have contradictory opinions, but this was mine. >
