--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wvansant111" <wvansant111@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wvansant111" > <wvansant111@> > > > wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > The part that's hard for me to shake is that I do feel there is > > > > something to TM in general. But intellectually, it doesn't make > > > > sense. If MMY didn't really learn from Guru Dev and "made it up" > > > > how can it be effective for so many people...esp people who > > > > aren't expecting it to do anything. > > > > > > Why doesn't that make sense intellectually? > > > > It makes sense if I'm presuming Maharishi to be an enlightened > > (or spiritually advanced) person. But if what Paul Mason > > researched is true and Maharishi never recieved teaching from > > Guru Dev, the whole thing feels suspicious. > > Just a follow-up question: Why couldn't MMY have > been either enlightened or spiritually advanced > unless he'd "received teaching" (whatever that > means, specifically) from Guru Dev? > > According to MMY, FWIW, he became enlightened (he > didn't refer to it that way, but it's clearly what > he was implying) by a sort of spiritual osmosis, > by very closely studying Guru Dev and attempting to > achieve a sort of mind-meld (or consciousness-meld) > with him. This was while he was serving as Guru > Dev's personal assistant at the ashram. He gave a > talk on this at one point, and there's a transcript > of it floating around; maybe someone here has it > and could post it for you. > > As I understand it, this is one of the accepted > traditional sadhanas, to surrender completely to the > will of one's (presumably enlightened) teacher. > > If Mason's saying what I suspect he's saying (please > correct me if I'm wrong), that MMY wasn't one of > Guru Dev's formal students (perhaps because he wasn't > a Brahmin?), I'd suggest that there may be more than > one way to "receive teaching" from a master like Guru > Dev. > > It also seems likely to me that MMY absorbed what he > heard Guru Dev say--the intellectual teaching--even > if he wasn't doing a Guru Dev-assigned "program" of > spiritual exercises (meditation and whatnot). Maybe > just being Guru Dev's assistant was his "program." > He seems to have made the most of it, at any rate. > > Just speculating here...you raise interesting points. >
I'm trying to dig up that article - I read a bunch of different ones last night. Now I'm thinking Paul Mason might have been referencing someone else who went to India and sat down and interviewed the current Shankacharya who said that Maharishi never recieived teachings from Guru Dev and that his teachings don't reflect anything that Guru Dev spoke about. I know that one source is not enought to write MMY off which is why I'm on here...asking questions. Like I said, I've always had issues with TMO but always believed that MMY was a student of Guru Dev and that we are practicing a technique that was given to him by Guru Dev. I can accept and still practice TM if the reality is different but I would like to know where it is from since MMY wasn't up front about where this technique is actually derived...well...it makes a good case for the critics.
