--- 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.
The question isn't so much about MMY's specific duties, but whether MMY had a special relationship with Guru Dev. From the stories I've heard *that MMY himself told*, he did. And as far as specific duties are concerned, the phrase "glorified clerk running errands" could mean many things in terms of what MMY actually did. Less- derisive terms, again based on what I've heard that MMY described of what he did, plus from the actual historical record, include "administrative assistant" and "personal secretary." Such terms would be accurate, not "invented by hanger-ons." And those are responsible, important positions where a Big Deal like Guru Dev is concerned. > 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. Er, but Vaj doesn't have those criteria either. Vaj obviously *does* have an agenda to denigrate MMY in every way possible, so a good bit of skepticism is called for with regard to *his* claims. For example, as randyanand and others have pointed out, Vaj tries to pretend that the term Yoga refers only to Hatha Yoga, and therefore that the term Yogi can refer only to someone expert in Hatha Yoga. That's Vaj's basis for claiming MMY didn't "deserve" the title Yogi, and it's simply wrong, ignorant. "Yogi" means one who has *achieved Yoga*, Union. >From everything I've been able to determine, Yogi is a title acquired by reputation, not from an official body. And none of us is in a position to say whether it was appropriate. Moreover, the title "Maharishi," according to Ramana Maharshi's closest disciple, is one accorded by followers to a teacher who has introduced a new path. No official body accorded Ramana the title "Maharshi"; his followers did. Did MMY decide to give himself the title "Maharishi," or was it one his early followers in India accorded him? We don't know for sure, but we *do* know from the historical record that those followers thought he was a pretty big deal, so it's not implausible they started calling him "Maharishi" and he didn't contest it. Bottom line: It may be an "issue," since we have no way of knowing for sure, but it sure as hell ain't *established fact* that MMY didn't deserve his titles. 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. Bullshit. It's all about fairness and accuracy (not qualities you value highly, goodness knows). > 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. With the exception of Nabby, nobody's done that here. And not even Nabby is contesting her 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. Not here so far (Nabby excepted), it hasn't been. You've attempted to *invent* such reactions on the part of others, but they're just your fantasies crafted to justify putting down people you don't like (me in particular). > 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. We've discussed these issues *endlessly* here. Really quite ridiculous of you to try to pretend otherwise. <snip> > 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. Again, nobody's tried to demonize anybody. And Joe is the only one who has read the book so far, so you can't expect any "meaty" discussions of it yet. > One of my ongoing "points" on this forum has been to > point out this knee-jerk behavior on the part of TMers. Oh, get off your freaking high horse. You're guilty of *at least* as much knee-jerk behavior as the rest of us, including "pointing out" behavior on the part of others that, typically, exists only in your curdled imagination.
