--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "Irmeli Mattsson" < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think it's worth pondering the marketing efforts of the TM > > > movement over the last few years as having been carefully > > > calculated to *shrink* the movement rather than grow it. > > > The whole idea may be to create a group of people who > > > can *only* function within such an artificial world, and who > > > thus have a vested interest in perpetuating it. > > > > **** > > The phenomenon could also be looked at from the angle of narcissism: > > > > A narcissist doesn't actually love himself. He loves the impression > > other people reflect back to him of himself. > > > > A narcissist has an unhealthy need of adulation and admiration and > > lacks in capacity for empathy. Continuous manipulation and striving > > for a position, where you are can control of others, is needed in > > order to get this adulation. > > > > A narcissist needs to feel himself irreplaceable and best and he > > doesn't avoid lying to show others, how talented he is. Often his > > superiority is so high, that ordinary people cannot understand it. > > > > He considers himself to be beyond and above common rules and > > agreements. > > > > In relationships he is a taker and user, who draws to himself, what he > > needs. He doesn't care about the feelings of others, doesn't > > appreciate their insights and cannot handle criticism. > > > > He wants to keep his private life secret and lies about it. The use of > > money is not rational. > > > > He makes the decisions for others. He is not willing to discuss > > opinions and is not capable of being in a real dialogue. > > > > The lack of compassion is replaced by admiration of power and striving > > after it. > > > > If the omnipotent and self-satisfied self-image would fail in a > > set-back, he can collapse to serious depression. These people don't > > bend, they break down. > > Therefore if his infallibility is threatened, he tries to create an > > even more omnipotent image of himself. It is understandable that a > > person in this situation goes to extremes, if the other option is > > total collapse and possibly suicide. > > > > Although I think that it could also be possible in a cult setting to > > work through one's narcissism and get beyond the ego or false- self. > > You must see a structure in yourself, before you can work through it. > > The extreme forms in a cult can make those structures visible. > > While all of this is true, and possibly applicable to the TM > movement, I have a feeling that it's a lot simpler than that. > Maharishi may have displayed some narcissistic tendencies > over the years, but more than anything I see him as having > re-created the only environment he's ever been comfortable > in -- an ashram. > > The ashram, Hindu-style, is the most artificial of environ- > ments. There is one leader, whose word is never to be > questioned. There is no dissent; in an "ideal" ashram, it > wouldn't even come up, because everyone would assume > at all times that the guru is correct about everything. Since > the artificial ashram environments of the TM movement are > far from "ideal," this lack of dissent has to be maintained > via threats of censure or excommunication. > > The ashram is also not a part of the real world; it is con- > sidered *superior* to the real world. It is considered a > privilege to live in the ashram, and not to have to live in > the gnarly, low-vibe real world. It's a world of men, for > whom the model is that it is clearly better to be celibate > than to be a householder. If women are present, better > for them to be either celibate themselves, or invisible > wives. Children are right out; there is no place for them > in an ashram. > > No one really has to *work* very much in an ashram. > Hours spent in meditation are *always* considered more > important than the need to earn a living. Money just > arrives mysteriously, as a result of donors. It is some- > one *else's* responsibility to provide for those who live > in the ashram. > > Think about Maharishi's descriptions of the "ideal" "Vedic > Society." How many of them are really extensions of the > ashram environment, with a few householder communities > thrown in for those who are not evolved enough to see the > wisdom of celibacy? Maharishi has essentially been in an > ashram all of his adult life. He was in one for years with > Guru Dev, and his world was shattered when he died. > > Almost the *only* period he has *not* lived in an ashram > was the few weeks when he left India and went to America. > And within a few days of arriving there, he was back in an > ashram again, surrounded by adoring followers who treat- > ed him as he had treated Guru Dev, who took care of all > the gnarly details of life like feeding him and putting a roof > over his head, etc. The ashram kept moving, from private > home to private home, then from hotel to hotel, and finally > from purchased building to purchased building. But it's > always been an ashram. > > I honestly think that Maharishi's ideas about the real world > are so off-base sometimes because he can't even *conceive* > of the real world. He hasn't lived in it since he was a kid. > > I think this is a little kinder way to view Maharishi than the > "narcisscist" view. The latter is more appropriate for some > spiritual teachers, the Rama guy I studied with definitely > included. But I think that on one level it's more accurate to > see Maharishi as a guy who has spent his entire *life* > avoiding contact with the real world, and who has created > a dream for his students that assumes the same fear of > and unfamiliarity with the real world that he has. He's trying > to protect his students from the big, bad boogeyman, by > trying to create a world in which boogeymen are not allowed > past the ashram gates. > > The problem is that the artificial environment breeds boogeymen.
Maharishi creates environments of untenable opposites, designed to break the boundaries of those who put their attention on him. He accurately stated long ago that he has no followers. I was always curious why someone in the warrior caste would be a teacher. Maharishi does it as the energy of Shiva, the destroyer of ignorance. Those around him are involved in a higher and higher stakes relationship with Maharishi, where the three choices appear to be craziness, abandonment, or supreme enlightenment. When each of us sees Maharishi and his movement, we are forced to take a stand, make a judgement, because the opposites he presents (grand projects that are never fully realized, an unrecognized World Government, a prohibitively expensive technique for everyone...) are so radical that they force us to confront such an enlightened being acting in such a way that he really cannot be followed. It is as if the movement has been structured in such a way that each of us gets from it exactly what we need before entering our own solitary orbits to complete the journey to our Selves, by our Selves. The entire purpose is to break as many boundaries as possible in as many individuals as possible. Very cool, very clear, very crazy! To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
