I was in the lecture hall when Maharishi was asked about the promise of 5 - 8 years to get to CC.
He said, "No, no, no, not for you. Only two years for initiators." I kept track of my meditation time while at TTC, and I ended up with five years' worth of 20 mins twice a day as my total, so I was panicked a bit at the end of TTC that I hadn't had many signs of my goal being reached. What kind of dud was I, eh? But, the TMO was on the job and spun the whole thing for me with "once you get into teaching, all your accomplishments from TTC's deep meditations be stabilized and realized." Like that. 2,000 initiation pujas later, 10 years later, not a dime saved later, four ATRs later, 2-month in residence Siddhi course later, four kids in MSAE later, five years of morning and evening dome later, 20 years in Fairfield later, it could only be concluded that I had the most knotted-up, stressed-out brain that ever was to still be so needing so much more. You see me here. I'm open enough, right? You have a "take" on me that's valid in your own opinion, right? Does ya see any glow in my halo? There's your real lies: the ones the TMO taught us all to say to ourselves. I am reminded of that old PC vs Mac joke: "How many applications does it take to finish a project on a Mac? Ans: just one more." Maharishi's sex life? Phihhh! How about how he taught us all to fuck ourselves? Talk about a Kama Sutra list of ways to "bend de body" such that the wallet falls out unnoticed. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 <no_re...@...> wrote: > > i stand corrected wrt your views on this one, though you as curtis > make the blithe statement that the Mahairshi lied about so many > things. same challenge to you-- come up with five of them that can > be proved. > > about the rumors, who cares about rumors? not me, but others here > use them as a lynchpin for aspects of their identity. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > i am curious why some of those here, like Vaj, and Curtis and > > > geezerfreak and Barry feel it is so important to cling > > > deperately to the possibility that the Maharishi was a liar > > > in terms of his sex life? > > > > I am curious why you are trying to include me > > in the group of people you named and portray me > > as "clinging desperately" to the idea that MMY > > had a sex life. I defy you to find even one > > post on this forum in which I said that I knew > > the truth about this issue for sure. I defy you > > to find one in which I even said that I cared > > about it very much. > > > > Me, I don't know. I find the statements in the > > Sexy Sadie files 1) completely credible, and > > 2) completely in line with my perceptions of > > the man during my occasional "face time" with > > him. He had ZERO ability to self-examine and > > analyze his own actions in terms of approp- > > riateness, and he spent a lifetime hiding > > things from his students and the world at > > large. So I am *very* open to the *possibility* > > that he had a secret sex life. But I don't know. > > > > Or much care. The man was a proven liar in so > > many other ways that the question of whether he > > was one with regard to being a lifelong celibate > > doesn't really interest me much. > > > > But I do find it interesting, since YOU were one > > of the first on this forum to leap into the fray > > and "pounce" on someone's suggestion that the > > stories about him having sex were a hoax (a sug- > > gestion that itself turned out to be a good- > > natured hoax), I'm wondering why you're attempt- > > ing now to paint US as the ones who are "attached" > > to the issue. > > > > My only contribution to the thread was to point > > out YOUR "piling on" to the hoax post and > > attempting to use it to demonize those who > > believe the Maharishi sex stories NOT to be > > a hoax. And, interestingly, rather than address > > that, you've renewed your attempts to portray > > anyone who finds these stories credible as > > having something wrong with them. > > > > Me, I don't care whether he was a celibate or > > whether he fucked the entire cheerleading squads > > of both teams on the field during halftime at > > the Super Bowl. Compared to some of the *other* > > things he did that were patently illegal or > > not in the interest of his students, that would > > be "small potatoes" to me. > > > > But it seems that you care *very much* about > > whether these rumors are true. Every time they > > come up, you go out of your was to demonize > > those who feel they have some credibility. > > > > Why do you think that is? > > >
