--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: > > > On May 30, 2009, at 12:01 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > >> > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <reavismarek@> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Like you, I've only read the few chapters of Coplin's > >>> dissertation that appear in a google search. I'd like > >>> to read the rest, too. > >>> > >>> And these titles, like referring to Guru Dev as "His > >>> Divinity", all seem to be purely honorific. I hadn't > >>> heard about the use of maharishi as a "pathfinder" > >>> title, but I agree that it's appropriate should that > >>> be so. > >> > >> The flip side may be that, as I suggested, it would > >> indicate he wasn't claiming either an "official" > >> spiritual rank or to be the successor in a *lineage* > >> per se. I'd bet such subtleties would be fairly obvious > >> to Indians familiar with the spiritual-title game. > >> > > > > I seem to recall that in MMY's explanation for why MIU had > > an "M" in it, that he referred to a "rishi" as someone who > > was enlightened, and a "maharishi" as someone who could > > teach others to be enlightened, and that therefore, the > > name was to refer to the goal of the school (and maybe as > > an hommage to all [other?] maharishis throughout the ages). > > > I think you're missing the point. Is it a self-serving title, coming > from the ego, or one given by the guru or some institution? > Unfortunately, without any official announcement in the historical > record we're forced to assume the former. And certainly for someone > without any spiritual accomplishment prior, it seems even more > suspect, esp. say when compared to a spiritual giant like Ramana > Maharishi who had a long history of spiritual accomplishment prior. > Since we know the other aliases, "Yogi" and "His Holiness" were self- > assumed, it's further support for a self-aggrandizing person taking > lofty titles. A more honest one might read "Mahesh Varma, meditation > teacher, philosopher, businessman and former secretary of Swami > Brahamananda Saraswati". > > It also raises the question of all the other titles like "The world's > foremost scientist in the field of consciousness". Are appellations > like these from Mahesh or from his disciples? I would assume his > disciples, but ones does start to wonder. At a certain point, a person > would start sounding like any number of whacky dictators the world has > seen. > This sounds like the conversation Pontious Pilot had with Jesus... So, who gave you this title: 'King of the Jews'... 'Could you prove to me that you are the 'King'... Obviously not! So, we have to crucify you now, sorry!
Maharishi is known as Maharishi, around the globe... However you think he got the name, that is what he is known by... The name means what he was, a great sage. There is nothing dubious about the name. He is Maharishi and Maharishi is him. Why do you put so much faith in institutions... Just because an institution puts a title on someone, what does it mean? Hitler had the title of Der Fuhrer. Bush had the title of President... See the point... What do titles really mean, anyway... Aren't they all just name of things...inventions... Who cares about titles anyway... I certainly don't. It's what's behind the title that counts... R.g.
