--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "randyanand" <ra108@> wrote: > > > > Its true. And somehow he thinks he knows everything about > > Maharishi's time with Guru Dev and is an expert in that area > > also. He appears to really believe that all Maharishi was > > during that time was a glorified clerk running errands. > > NOT to get into the "Bash the Maharishi critic > rather than deal with the issue" fest or anything, > but I believe this, too, *based on Maharishi's > own accounts*. In my experience he never claimed > anything else. > > "Anything else" was invented IMO by hanger-ons who > were trying to invent justifications for putting MMY > up on a pedestal. > > While it's true that Vaj has a thing for being right, > it IS good to remember that only one of the three > names in Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is deserved; the rest > were invented, to better market to the West, where > they have neither the criteria for telling whether > a "spiritual title" is deserved or not, nor the > desire to find out. This is all about "Protect the > importance of the guy I hung out with for so long > so that I can cling to *my* importance in having > gotten to hang with him" IMO. > > I'd have more respect for the TM crowd *or* those > who want to preserve their good feelings about MMY > if they just did what Joe suggested -- read the > friggin' book and then discuss it rationally, with- > out trying to diss the writer or those who believe > her vs. the TMO version. My only point so far in > all of this is that the *immediate* reaction of > some is to try to diss the writer; the *immediate* > reaction of others is to try to diss those who > believe her. > > No one's been dealing with the real issues, which > are 1) that MMY seems to have crossed an important > ethical line in having sex with his own much younger > (and admittedly naive and not too bright) students, > and 2) that MMY seems to have felt the need to lie > about it and cover it up. THOSE are worth discussing > in my opinion. > > I'm in a weird position in all of this because the > Rama - Fred Lenz guy was MUCH worse in terms of > diddling his disciples than MMY was. The only thing > to be said in Lenz's defense on this is that he was > open about it. But, having known quite a few of these > women and heard their stories, being placed in the > position of a disciple having to put out to the person > they consider enlightened *and* who had the power to > remove them from the study they had come to believe > was the "highest path" to enlightenment for them- > selves is a real bitch. It puts you through some > shit. Some of the women Fred Lenz did this to have > IMO gotten past it and come to a balanced view of > both his actions and theirs; others are still fucked > up by it 20 years later. > > IMO diddling one's Western students is a Classically > Dumb Idea. It shows 1) how little the teacher under- > stands how hung up on sex and sexuality Westerners > are, and 2) how little they *care* about their own > students. > > There is "meat" for meaningful discussions in this > book, and in Maharishi's behavior. IMO it would be > better to deal with the "meat" than waste a bunch of > time trying to demonize the person(s) who served > the dish up. > > One of my ongoing "points" on this forum has been to > point out this knee-jerk behavior on the part of TMers. > I can recognize it because (sadly) I participated in > it, too, when I was part of the TMO. I remember in > TTC being trained *TO* diss the critic and come up > with something to undercut their credibility and cast > aspersions on the critics' "real motives," and I rem- > ember being expected to do that on a regular basis > as a State Coordinator or as the temporary Regional > Coordinator while Stan was on courses. >
Somehow I missed the part about being trained to "diss" the critic and undercut their credibility on my teacher training. Not saying you didn't get this, but I never heard it. Was this from some official movement course leader as part of the curriculum, or was it just people talking??? > I think it sucks. I think it's an aspect of Maharishi's > personality that got "passed along" to generations of > students as wisdom and the way one "should" react to > criticism, whereas in reality it's just insecurity and > the need to stay in control and the even greater need > to cling to one's own self importance. > > The bottom line of whether TM actually *worked* will > be revealed by how its long-term followers deal with > revelations about the guy who taught it to them. If > they can deal with such revelations rationally and > calmly and without getting their buttons pushed, then > TM can be said to have "worked." If they can't, and > come off sounding like Spiritual Tea Party Idiots, > then it clearly didn't. > > My only advice in all of this -- not really giving > much of a shit myself -- is to pay some attention to > your OWN behavior in discussing this book and this > matter. THAT is where "the rubber meets the road" > in terms of Maharishi and his legacy. He's dead; > you are not. If you deal with his legacy by acting > like a vindictive, knee-jerk idiot, then you're > essentially making a case for his legacy *being* > vindictive, knee-jerk idiocy, not wisdom. > > Just my opinion... >
