--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- 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.
Of course you did. That's what you intended. > > --- 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. Look, you can't have it both ways. Either we rank-and- filers were denied the knowledge of what MMY taught his teachers, or we got it filtered through the teachers in the centers. Make up your mind, please. > > > 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 remember a residence course where someone asked about the "serving the master" bit. Teacher said it had nothing to do with us, flatly dismissed its relevance, discouraged us from thinking service to the master was anything we should be at all concerned with. > I was. Once a teacher trusted you we would lay out the > deeper implications of our relationship with Maharishi. I had good friends who were teachers who certainly trusted me. They didn't talk about the "deeper implications" of their relationship with MMY in the sense you're suggesting. They'd voice their gripes with him and their doubts about what they were doing. > 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. Hierarchy was obvious, not "serving the master." > > > > > <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. And you don't see that last sentence as something that might lead somebody to say you were "seduced by MMY"? Really? > > > 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, I never heard of sidhaland other than some mentions here and there on alt.m.t and FFL. Have no idea what it was. > 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. Fine. But don't criticize other people for not seeing it that way. > > > 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. You didn't pity them? They felt special for being abused, and you didn't pity them? That they got the master's attention made it all A-OK? > > "'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. Funny, it's in the first person. How did that happen? > 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. I considered a lot of things, tried a few of those I could afford. My rule was that if I didn't feel any effects, I wouldn't adopt them. > Remember we were living in full time facilities where > every part of our day was designed by him. Right. And you went along with that design 110 percent. Did he specify black deerskins for you all? > 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. I think perhaps you and Jim have different ideas of what it means to lose your personal identity. For pete's sake, you were trying to be "a little Maharishi." If that isn't losing your personal identity, I don't know what is. You lost your sense of yourself as an ordinary human bean and wanted to be "unreproachable." > 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? I always made a distinction between his teachings about the nature and mechanics of consciousness and the optional frills, especially the monkish stuff. I'm not a monk, never intended to be a monk. I was doing the householder program he had designed for folks with ordinary everyday responsibilities, and still am. Did you feel specific effects from the black (not brown) deerskin and the coral beads and the kushi grass mat and the cashmere shawl? Or did they just make you feel you were the "goodest boy" because it made you more like MMY? I'm not criticizing you for any of the stuff you did, Curtis. I'm suggesting that Jim was right on target for saying you got lost in it, and that you've criticized him unfairly for pointing that out.
