I'm trying to lay low on this subject, and may even after having read the book, but Vaj came up with a sentence in his post that I just have to riff on.
--- In [email protected], vajradhatu108 <no_re...@...> wrote: > > So the question naturally arises, if you're not in deep > denial, how much else is untrue? This just nails the epistemological issue IMO. When the possibility that Maharishi systematically lied about his supposed celibacy comes up, the first reaction in many people invested in believing other- wise is probably to resist even "going there." If a way of ignoring the issue by demonizing the person or persons who brought it up is presented, that is often perceived as preferable *to* going there. Because intuitively most people perceive that "there" is a Pandora's Box. Open it, and you could let doubt in. If you have invested decades of your life and tens of thousands of dollars in believing Maharishi about his celibacy and that turns out to not have been true, what *else* might be not true? Could "TM is the best technique of meditation on the planet" be not true? Could "the TMSP can produce world peace" be not true? Could "techniques of con- centration or focus are bad and prevent transcendence" be not true? Could Maharishi's description of enlight- enment and how to get there be not true? Or...now that one has opened the box and let doubt out...only partially true? Where Maharishi chose to dip his wick is not really the issue. Few of us really care, except for the abuse issue (there is a power differential between teacher and student that can never be ignored, and that makes an abuse of that power an abuse of trust), and one other -- the lying about it issue. Systematically. While advising others to be what he was not (celibate), even if married. While promoting King Tony as also celibate while (if Da King himself can be believed) knowing full well that he had a wife and kids. It's classic cognitive dissonance. Reality might not be what we've thought it is. Oh shit. Cognitive dissonance is crazy-making. Many people, encountering an issue like this, prefer not to "go there" rather than be made crazy. That is what I expect over on BATGAP. If the subject comes up, it will probably be dropped very quickly. Based on past history, I expect a couple of people to diss and try to demonize Judith Bourque, but only a couple. Most will just pretend that the issue never came up. A box unopened can't let the Bad Things inside it out. Bad Things like doubt.
