--- In [email protected], "richardnelson108" <richardnelson108@...> wrote: <snip>
> He reminds of something that Deepak said to me. > He was talking about the TM-Ex people who used to carry protest signs outside > of courses going on in Washington, DC in the 80's. > He said "a fanatic will always be a fanatic. When they were in TM, they were > fanatics for it. Then when they left, they are fanatics against it."> Thanks for the response Richard. You seem like a lot of us who has chosen a mix of POV's on the complexity that was Maharishi and his movement. Realistic. Since I knew some of those sign holders in TM-EX I'm really not sure the pejorative term "fanatic" is fair. They were also sincerely motivated by what they perceived as deception in the movement compounded by the fact that some of them felt that TM had really harmed them psychologically. They were thoughtful people and they cared. I really enjoyed my time in TM, and other than a bit more dissociation than I felt I needed, didn't feel that I was mentally scarred by my practice. I didn't feel any desire to picket with signs. I just thought the conclusions Maharishi had drawn about the states of mind it produced were wrong. I also felt that the movement was manipulative and used some cult tactics under the guise of "for your own good". But the TM-Exer's were the kind of people who went into the helping professions like nursing and counseling. They were more sigh-holding types than I am. Once I got my perspective out in the press I was ready to move on to studying my guitar. But they stuck with it and felt that this was important work. Some of them are still professionally involved in working with family's who felt their kids had fallen into a destructive cult. Usually they were still dependent on their parents financially so it was at the drug addict level of non-sustainability. The main players in TM-Ex weren't even TM teachers, so I was much more "fanatical" in the movement than they were. Being really enthusiastic and usually a pretty vocal advocate for whatever I am into I always view the term "fanatic" with a bit of suspicion. It sounds like how people who are not as passionate about their beliefs describe someone who is. So when I was into TM I was really vocal about it and when I got out I was too. If you are a communicator type person is is just part of your nature. And judging by Chopras own fixation on matters spiritual and his huckstering of those beliefs as a product, I hardly think he is in a position to call someone else a fanatic! What he meant IMO is that he disagreed with their perspective and wanted to "poopy pants" them up a bit to make them look bad. > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "richardnelson108" > > <richardnelson108@> wrote: > > > > <Snip> > > > > > You, on the other hand, have this buring desire to make him the devil, > > > even though you say you have "transcended" your TM practice. > > > Don't you have anything better to do with your time? > > > > > > > > > I believe Vaj's contributions here are more sincere than that. If you > > accept the premise that there really IS a tradition of knowledge of yoga, > > and if you believe that Maharishi has corrupted it, then it all makes sense > > why Vaj would care. It comes from taking the knowledge very seriously. > > > > When we were all earnest TM teachers in the centers, if we had heard some > > guy was skipping the puja and selling TM mantras we would be incensed to > > our bones. We would be motivated to expose the person as a fraud and we > > would consider it our duty for the sake of the innocent public who was > > getting ripped off according to our POV. > > > > I don't share a confidence in whatever traditions of yoga Vaj is into, but > > I at least give him credit for being really into it and experiencing > > something that was compelling enough for him to come to the conclusions he > > has about the problems with Maharishi as a teacher and the limitations of > > TM as a practice. > > > > I started thinking of posting something with the whole rap about the Ayur > > vedic doctor who Vaj said was unhappy with Maharishi and Richard said was > > still very much into him. Having had a front row seat for the contentious > > relationship between Maharishi and Triguna I find both POVs to be credible > > and non contradictory. Maharishi was a hard-ball guy but he had resources > > that these guys wanted. So depending on what day you spoke to Triguna you > > might get the perspective that he was furious that his services were being > > charged for in DC in contradiction to the Charaka Samhita. (Or maybe he > > was pissed because he didn't get a cut but only sold the medicines.) Or > > you might get a whole flowery speech about what a great guy Maharishi was > > and how wonderful it was that he was bringing Ayur Veda to the world. Same > > thing with Dr. Lad who was salty about Maharishi using his materials > > without recognition after he refused to participate with Maharishi's > > proprietary program. > > > > And then throw in a whole heap of Indian's tendency to piss and moan like > > drama queens about everything. > > > > So I don't get the impression that Richard is some one-dimentional TB, he > > seems sincere and has added a lot to this discussion from his experience. > > And I feel the same way about Vaj. Because you both care about these > > topics, it makes the discussions more interesting for me. > > > > Thanks Curtis for your comments. > As I ahve said, I am not a TB. I have left the movement 30 years ago because > of policies that I disagreed with, which were put in place by MMY. If I was > a TB, as Vaj likes to say I am, I would have stayed. > And I agree that if Vaj was coming from the place of trying to tell the > "true" story of MMY and saving us all from the perils of being in a cult, I > would appreciate that. But it seems to me that if anyone is the TB for anti > TM, it is him. He does not want to discuss or debate. He just wants to put > down MMY and anything that has to do with him. Not my position at all. For > example, I have read Judith's book and assuming she is telling the truth, > then MMY had a sleeze bucket side. I will be the first to admit it. Also, we > all know how controlling he could be about many things. So I am simply > trying to present the positive sides of the stories when Vaj brings up the > negative. > He reminds of something that Deepak said to me. > He was talking about the TM-Ex people who used to carry protest signs outside > of courses going on in Washington, DC in the 80's. > He said "a fanatic will always be a fanatic. When they were in TM, they were > fanatics for it. Then when they left, they are fanatics against it." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 27, 2011, at 10:24 AM, seventhray1 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for providing these sources > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the reasons I don't post it every time this topic comes up, is > > > > > > > > > > because I assume most people who've done any objective examination of > > > > > > > > > > Mahesh and his character are already familiar with it from years ago. > > > > > > > > > > Those who aren't familiar with it won't accept it anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am familiar with the stories. But I am also familiar with two shanks > > > > -- personal audience with one, small group audience with another. An am > > > > somewhat familiar with the histories of some others. I am not sure that > > > > I would bet the farm on what these gentlemen said on any matter. I > > > > hardly think that coming from the mouth of a shank is irrefutable. And > > > > of course, what was said, in what context, and what was not reported > > > > that was also said. Lots of interesting stories. > > > > > > > I agree with Tart. > > > I met wth Swaroopanand privately and he had nothing but good things to > > > say about MMY and what he was doing in the world. Of course, he could > > > have just been saying it to be nice to me, but it makes you question what > > > the truth is. > > > > > > Vaj, quoting Swaroopanand as the the true source about MMY is like > > > asking the Republican Presidential Candidate to comment about the > > > Democratic one during the campaign (and vice versa). Everything is > > > circumstantial. Depending on who when, where and how the questions are > > > asked, you may get a different answer. > > > > > > But its like you said Vaj, people will only accept what they want to. > > > You clearly have your position on all this and nothing is going to change > > > it. And so do I. > > > The difference between us is that you claim I am a "drooling" TB. You > > > know nothing about me and you assume a lot. > > > I know MMY had his faults. But to me that is irrelevant. > > > What I always loved and respected about him was that he set up TM to be a > > > technique that was independent of him. So if he was a womanizer, a theif > > > or whatever, what does that have to do with me? > > > Nothing. I can enjoy TM, get the benefits as promised and really not > > > give two shits about MMY or his personal life. > > > You, on the other hand, have this buring desire to make him the devil, > > > even though you say you have "transcended" your TM practice. > > > Don't you have anything better to do with your time? > > > > > >
