--- In [email protected], "Joe" <geezerfr...@...> wrote: > > Very good observations Curtis. Jerry really did perform a vital function for > the TMO during the late 60s and early 70s. He was the normal counterbalance > to any little voice in your head that said "you're not in Kansas anymore > Bucko". Jerry's presence was comforting...almost fatherly. Not only that but > he had a sense of humor about it all.
To have had a shared interest into his "relative" interests put you in the inner, inner circle. That was part of his populous appeal:"he watches Saturday Night Live!" I would give every discussion I had about Brahman fucking consciousness with the guy to have heard him wax poetic about ANY music he felt deeply now. You knew him in a way I could not back then. > > In my own case, knowing that Jerry was a jazz fan (huge fan of Billie > Holiday) and that he frequented the jazz clubs of LA (like Shelly's Mann > Hole) gave me assurance that what I was committing my life to was perfectly > normal. I wish I had gotten that memo! Billie Heroin Holiday! He must have related to you as more of an equal. I was an untrustworthy square! > > When I interviewed with Jerry to begin working at the national center his > main question to me was "what kind of a car do you drive?" At the time, the > parking lot of national was full of the dilapidated wrecks that most > initiators drove. It was becoming an embarrassment to the outside world. > Fortunately, I had a relatively new VW Rabbit so I got the gig. Just like his master. money talks bullshit walks! > > When Jerry was unceremoniously booted from the movement it was the final push > in my rapidly growing move away from the TMO. MMY's own behavior was what > started that move by the way, especially his tantrums and paranoia over the > idea of CIA infiltration of the TMO. That was a weird time and if I want to be really sympathetic to Maharishi I can relate to the fact that he was in the kiss-ass grinder for waaaay too long to come out normal. He may have started as a decent guy, but that fame shit will turn a saint into an asshole. > > That maharishi could dump someone who had been so incredibly important to the > TMO, someone who had followed his every command and who helped bring untold > thousands into the fold.....that told me that I should now view Maharishi's > behavior as I would any other man. Enough with all the rationalizations and > excuses for what I was observing first hand. If he was having a tantrum, he > was having a tantrum.....not expressing the wrath of Lord Shiva. Well said. It was a shitty trick they pulled on Jerry and we all knew it. I faced the demons about it. I stood in front of them and said "not right." It was my few finest moments in the movement and even now, I'm glad I made that stand. Neil Patterson almost had my ass, but fuck him. He was wrong. > > It's nice to Jerry looking healthy, with his great smile intact. Wonder if he > still hangs out in the jazz clubs of LA?? The guy is redeemable. He could share a beer and come out as a decent human IMO. He loved Maharishi and I don't blame him for that. So did I. Great nostalgia rap. I'm still susceptible to Jerry's charm, even in retrospect. He was the "adult" that made my obsession seem OKay Dokay! I have as much personal fondness for him as I do his master. > > --- In [email protected], tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- 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.) > > >
