> Curtis, remember our recent discussion on the > curious phenomenon of people wanting more than > anything to stop the process of incarnation, and > never "come back to this world." > > Well, duh...this is where it comes from. > > In a way, Maharishi's whole rap about "200% of > life" is and always has been a lie. He has *never* > been interested in living well in the relative > world; his interest has always been getting the > hell *out* of the relative world. He thinks that > the relative world is "horrible." > > Just look at his personal lifestyle. We are talk- > ing about a man who probably has not been face to > face with someone who isn't a True Believer in > decades, and who hasn't left his *room* in a > similar amount of time. So is it likely that his > students can get into the idea of the relative > world as beautiful and perfect on its own terms? > Nope...they're going to develop beliefs about how > "horrible" it is, about how interacting in the > "pleasures of the material world" will "trap" them > there and lower their state of attention. > > As you pointed out, it's NOT just TM and Maharishi. > This is a recurring theme among many Eastern and > Western philosophies and spiritual traditions. > The founders were by nature recluses, unable to > function well in the world without being taken > out by their *own* attachments and desires. So they > retreated from the world, into the world of medi- > tation or, in some cases, actual recluse lifestyles. > While these teachers may put on a "false front" for > the cameras of meditation being a way of enjoying > 200% of life, for them it was never true; meditation > was the vehicle for getting *out* of life, for never > having to deal with it and become as comfortable > with the relative as they are with the Absolute. > Is it any wonder that their students begin to > believe the same things? > > In contrast, there are traditions within Buddhism > and other spiritual groups in which the emphasis is > NOT on one's personal enlightenment but on helping > other people as much as possible. The students *get > out into the world* as an integral part of their > sadhana, interacting with the "common folk" on a > daily basis, learning to love them and treat them > as equals, not as the rabble lost in sensory plea- > sures and Maya. When you look into the dogma of > such groups, you *rarely* find any myths or stories > about "ending incarnation." The reason is simple. > These traditions *embrace* life instead of running > away from it, and so their spiritual goals *also* > embrace life, as opposed to representing getting > out of life altogether. > > Different strokes for different folks. Some folks > get off on the idea that until they can end their > relative existence altogether they are "stuck" in > this "horrible place" as meat puppets or whatever. > Some are as comfortable with the manifest side of > life as they are with its unmanifest side, and get > off on experiencing and enjoying more of both.
For some reason or the other I just want to present a story from the Shrimad Bhagavatam, which may or may not address any of the issues being discussed. It was about a man who hated Krishna with all of his mind and being. At gathering of many people, this man got up and started denouncing Krishna at top of his lungs. Everyone in the gathering was outraged and so was Krishna. So, Krishna threw his sharp chakra or discus toward the man which took the man's head off in a bloody instant. As soon as the man died, however, the man's soul or atma merged into Krishna's body. The narrator of the story stated that the reason for this was that, even though the man hated Krishna with all of his being, he thought about Krishna night and day. So, he in effect was rewarded for his efforts, even though his thoughts were full of negative thoughts.
