--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > And while I'm at it, I'll take issue with some of your > other points.
I thought some of this might strike a nerve. > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > <snip> > > So they invented their own version of Maharishi's teaching. > > It focused on all the 200% bits and action to infuse being, > > but conveniently left out all the serve the master part > > Let's see, we never heard the "serve the master" part, > but we left it out "conveniently"? How does that work, > exactly? You had access to his writings which describe it. You just lacked the insider videos where he drove the points home in detail. > > We didn't "invent" a thing, Curtis. Funny how you make > such a huge deal about the "two teachings," in which > ordinary meditators weren't exposed to all the stuff > you teachers were getting, yet somehow we're accused > of "inventing" the teaching we did get because we didn't > include what we didn't get. You got it filtered through the teachers in your centers and you chose from that. You and I were both exposed to the same info that lead me to become fulltime and you to choose not to. > > > or even putting yourself in a position where Maharishi > > could direct your evolution program personally. This > > is the interesting part. It became a virtue and badge > > of honor to NOT go all the way with Maharishi. They > > reveled in the brochure level TM, what was served to > > the public and eschewed any of the stuff he told his > > fulltimers. > > You can't eschew what you haven't heard about. That doesn't fly. Teachers were always dropping hints to see who might be ready to go to the next level. If you went to advanced lectures you were exposed to some of this. I was. Once a teacher trusted you we would lay out the deeper implications of our relationship with Maharishi. Plus it was pretty obvious from both teachers behavior and the structure of the movement. It was a hierarchy that you had to climb to get more knowledge. You knew that. > > <snip> > > I couldn't understand how someone could appreciate Maharishi > > as a master of human consciousness, but be suspicious of > > having the guy give you the full monte. It seemed incongruent > > to me then, and still does today. > > Also funny that you claim it seems incongruous, since > you just gave two excellent reasons for it above: > > > They sensed the movement's caste system bullshit and > > rightfully resented it. Plus a lot of these guys had > > their shit together in "the world" or families so they > > didn't see us as particularly inspiring. The first is a reason to become a teacher, to get above the negative influence of it. And although we were imperfect vessels of the teaching you still believed Maharishi was the real deal right? So no matter how weird teachers were he should have inspired you. But the reason of family commitments and job are real and true. I was making that point because I get that. But for those not locked in I don't understand the ability to live with such incongruity. I am just saying I can't relate to it, I'm sure people had their own reasons. But for me once I believed that Maharishi was who he claimed I did everything I could to get as much of him as I could and have a hard time with people who believed the same thing about him but didn't. > > <snip> > > It is a funny blend of credulity and suspicion, as if > > putting yourself under Maharishi's direction was suspect. > > Or that you thought the movement was full of crap and > didn't want to be subject to it. I'd have been happy > to put myself under MMY's direction if the movement > hadn't been in the way. I guess I knew teachers who inspired me and so I saw the movement as some people like them along with people I didn't like so much. But you could get into a program where Maharishi was giving you direction in your evolution at facilities like sidhaland, so for me the benefit far outweighed the hassles. And if you had hassles it was your karma to work out and just something to endure if you really wanted the goal in the mindset. > > > It meant you had been, as Jim recently claimed about me, > > "seduced" by Maharishi. What a fascinating turn of phrase > > for a guy who Jim believes gave him the keys to his own > > enlightenment and castigates us for expressing zero > > reverence towards. > > Let's review: > > "I think you could write about MMY as far less than > perfect, as many on here do, without the cheap shots." > > > It was proof that you were somehow deficient personally > > that you would allow Maharishi to have such control over > > you. > > I've known several TM teachers who got "the full monte" > from MMY without ever losing their autonomy. I remember > their reactions to the quote that follows. They just > shook their heads. They'd known people like you and > those you refer to, and they pitied them. > > Your own words, Curtis: > > "At the organization's highest levels are cowed yes-people, > Mailloux said, aping both the guru's accent and syntax. > '[Maharishi] throws temper tantrums like a little spoiled > child . . . and there's no one to stop him. It's a very, > very frightening feeling -- everyone regresses when he does > that and you feel as if he could extinguish your life.' But > after getting singled out for verbal abuse, 'They'd feel so > special because they'd been abused by the master,' he said. I wasn't at that level nor was I aping his accent and syntax and also pitied such people, although I envied their access. As far as the people who got singled out for verbal abuse that included most of the senior people at one time or other so I didn't pity them for that. It meant you got the master's attention. > > "'At my prime of absurdity, I was sitting in full lotus > [position] for two hours on a black deerskin -- not a brown > deerskin -- just like Maharishi, with rush grass underneath, > beads to protect me from evil influences, coral to develop > my intellect . . . everything had to be perfect for me to > get my deep buzz,' he said. 'The techniques are powerful > enough so you do get a buzz. I was being the goodest boy, > I wanted to be in an unreproachable state. I was a little > Maharishi.'" > > Think this might be the kind of thing Jim had in mind? No, it was a description of most of the guys on Purusha who I flew with. It was a culture creep. Did you ever buy coral beads or a cashmere shawl? The description of the effects of deerskin and kushi grass is in the Gita. If you took him seriously you had to consider if it might have a value. Remember we were living in full time facilities where every part of our day was designed by him. And in that setting I was doing an educational ventriloquist show in schools with I had created out of my own creativity and had not lost my personal identity a Jim claimed. I just believed a lot of stuff I think might be silly now. But Maharishi to his dying day never retracted his opinions about those silly beliefs. So the question for me is, if you believe Maharishi was an expert in human consciousness, where is your deerskin and kushi grass mat? Do you think he got that part wrong but he is right about the mantras? How do you pick and choose? >
