--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > > That was an insightful and compassionate take on Jerry. > > > > How much there is there? -- as Gertrude Stein might ask. > > Line of the week! You could ask "How much is hat and how much is cattle?" > > I think of Jerry as a really religious guy like many others I have known. If > you take away the woo woo factor of an assumed "state of consciousness" you > have another true believer. He was sensitive to language and had a nice > formula for turning expectations on their head to sound suddenly soooo down > to earth when he knew what was implied and what we were thinking. We thought > he was in on the secrets of the universe. And that impression was just fine > with him. > > The comparison with Chopra is interesting since Chopra was willing to call > Maharishi's bluff and walk and Jerry was clearly not in that position. > Although he probably could have walked with a group of people who had grown > tired of the gold leaf everything, he really loved Maharishi and seemed > genuinely hurt about his situation of being mistrusted when he was at MIU > with us. And given the rash of shit I got from Neil for inviting him to > speak in DC when I ran the center there I know there was some very intense > bad blood between the higher ups. Going from his previous position of > ultimate trust to persona non grata must have sucked big time. He is a > semi-tragic figure as much as anyone who was treated by thousands as knowing > the "truth" of life can be thought to be tragic.
This sparks another thought and theme. We tend to view "success" in this context as being close to Maharishi, being lauded by him, having his full trust in us, and all. I am not sure this was Maharishi's perspective and paradigm. Freedom from the binding influence of what we and others think of ourselves, excessive pride, even "comfort" as in "daddy is at home and all is good" was a more dominant theme for him as far as i can see from his workings. Throwing someone out, never seeing or talking to them ever again, could have, over the long-run, a far more valuable effect than being a life-long inner circle synchophant. Pushing the baby bird out the nest to let them fly on their own sort of thing. I saw people whom he treated in a very special way, then in time, pulled the rug out from under them. Totally ignoring them. Crushing them (for a bit). Some may see that as simply rudeness and an uneven inner life. Or a harsh management style. That may be. However, a strong possible take for me is he gave not a bit about how people felt about him -or how they were accomodated to being around him. That, in a legitimate view, can be seen as nothing. Frosting. Sickening sweet in reality. Helping them to "man it up" spiritually, mentally, emotionally -- that, it could be argued, had lasting value. I am betting more on the latter view (man it up) than the former (synchophant). But I am often off base. > > I had a long time to try to suss out what there was there in an advanced SCI > course I dogged him into teaching at MIU my last month. It is more of an > offline story but it put me right between his fears of Maharishi and the MIU > leadership. Mostly he loved to talk about really abstract stuff in the > Upanishads and specific tapes of Maharishi talking about Brahman > Consciousness. I have copious, almost obsessive notes from that month. It > gives the impression that he was endlessly fascinated by how Vedanta was > expressed. Like Maharishi if he found some clever turn of phrase he could > riff for a long time. > Without the projection of his state of mind it sounds a bit like those talk > about the philosophy of the Hindus with a pipe in their mouth! > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I got a through experience of Jerry off mike. He is not a guy who > > > enjoyes debate, even with believers let alone someone who wants to > > > challenge him. He has been in a position of privileged deference for > > > waaay too long. He is very guarded. > > > > That snippet suddenly opened up and perhaps better connected some > > observations, interactions, events and situations of that era. > > > > While my thoughts are limited, and my ability to express their core is > > challenging, here some thoughts. > > > > Jerry was a model mouthpiece for and follower of Maharishi. And he did a > > marvelous job of speaking out Maharishis message -- translating it from a > > different culture and tradition to an American context. But I don't recall > > (not that it wasn't necessarily there) great intellectual leaps to new > > insights or a fusion of diverse concepts. He was following the charge, not > > leading it. And we followed in the dust of it all. > > > > Jerry's answers to questions were often great. But all within the envelope > > of what he had heard from Maharishi. Not breaking new frontiers, but rather > > clarifying, and contextualizing what had already been laid down. > > > > Comparing styles, not in a value judgement way, people like Chopra, were > > much more synthesizing the knowledge with things outside the traditional TM > > envelope. And was happy to let it all go -- in order to continue such (and > > would have been an increasing strain to have not continued that natural > > flow of his mind). > > > > And upon the estrangement from the movement Jerry didn't appear to have > > unstoppable "genius", "the right stuff", outside of Maharishi's shadow. > > People like Chopra and SSRS appear to have gone on and followed their > > passion and inner vision to good effect. Standing on the shoulder of > > giants. > > > > Which hits on the possible contradictions of a Master / devotee relation. > > While always there, at a certain stage, many leave the nest, move on from > > grad school, and apply what they have learned and gained in a NEW context, > > addressing new issues. Others carry on forever, always the devotee, inside > > and out. Both avenues are probably needed. But the former are perhaps > > "free-er", flying under the power of their own engine. > > > > How much there is there? -- as Gertrude Stein might ask. > > > > (And key words here could be dragged out of context -- with much fun I am > > sure.) > > >
