--- In [email protected], "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 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.

Someday, John, you should learn the difference
between pitying Maharishi and hating him.



Reply via email to