--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <geezerfreak@> wrote: > > I'm also curious about the true source of the > > technique of using these particular bija mantras > > in this way. I would like to think that it was > > there long before MMY. But I've heard evidence > > that this was something Maharishi cooked up in > > 1954. > > Way he told it, or wanted it told, both are true: > he rediscovered it. Have you ever read Larry Domash's > introductory essay to the Collected Papers? There's > a whole section on MMY's account of how he developed > the technique. It's made quite clear (albeit between > the lines) that it wasn't something Guru Dev taught. > > Don't know if you'll find it plausible, but I'm > pretty sure you'll find it interesting. Here's a link > to the first half, which was posted on alt.m.t way > back in 1993: > > http://tinyurl.com/34zns4 > > If you want to get right to that section, click on > "Read More" at the bottom of the post to get to the > complete post, then do a text search for "Such a > reversal" and read from there. > > <snip> > > Ever wonder why the TMO let out almost NO information > > about Guru Dev and what he actually thought? Didn't > > that strike any of you as a bit strange? > > Never occurred to me until Paul Mason posed the question > awhile back, but the answer seemed to me pretty obvious: > because Guru Dev was a *religious* leader, and MMY was > trying to package TM as secular. Guru Dev was also strong > on the behavioral stuff, do's and don'ts, which MMY > wanted to deemphasize. (Not talking about TMO "rules" > but yamas and niyamas and devotion to God and so on.) > > > The TMO became a rotted farce of the original intention > > long ago. My personal curiosity in the TMO history at > > this point revolves around when MMY reached the tipping > > point between the original goal and the money/power/ > > influence goal that ruined the modern day movement. > > Don't know about the timing of the "tipping point" or if > there ever actually was one. I've never been around him, > but from reading *about* him, my sense is that once he > got the idea of "spiritually regenerating" the world > back in the early days in India, it took hold of him and > never let go. He couldn't say at any point, OK, that's > as much as we can do; he had to try to go all the way. > > Temperamentally, he was brilliant at building a movement > up to a certain point, but then he began to flounder and > just didn't make the right moves, especially when he > began to come up against opposition. I think he genuinely > expected that it would all fall into place, as it did in > the early years, and he had no sense of what to do when > that expansion stopped. (Not that he didn't have all > kinds of ideas, but they obviously weren't effective.) > BTW, I may agree with parts of this last paragraph. Personally I think he began to flounder when the paranoia that seems to strike all religious megalomaniacs sooner or later (see Scientology for a textbook case) set in.
But it could have been a whole lot sooner, as in 1955. This is the time I'm fascinated by. I'd love to know what was going on in his head at this time.
