[ Thanks for the correction, Robert. I misremembered, but in retrospect I actually like me replacing "live" with "real." If there is such a thing as gaining a "real" view of a spiritual teacher, I think there's a relationship. ]
When it comes to assessing the life of a spiritual teacher, especially one who presented himself as enlightened or allowed others to present him that way, I think there is a certain merit in having seen that teacher "live." I don't see how anyone could claim to be presenting a "real" picture of that teacher if they hadn't. But even if a writer had known the teacher intimately, on a one-to-one, personal basis for years, would that make his or her biography or hagiography of that teacher "real?" I don't think so. I think that when it comes to "authori- tative," I would assign that attribute more to those who had seen and worked with the teacher "live" than I would to those who had not. But I would never consider such an account "real," in any meaningful sense. Instead, if a writer's account of a particular teacher interested me, my immediate response would be to find books written about the same teacher by other people. That's just the way I roll. One of Rama - Frederick Lenz's theories which I still feel has some wisdom to it is that he believed that there was no possibility of one, single book being written about an enlightened being able to present the whole picture. He felt that the only thing that could present an accurate picture of an enlightened teacher would be a *lot* of books, written equally by the teacher's own students and by others who had run into the teacher along the Way. He put this into practice in his own book "The Last Incar- nation." He didn't write it; we did. By "we" I mean his students at the time. I still think it's an interesting work, somewhat unique in the spiritual canon. "The Last Incarnation" wound up being a fascinating amalgam of many different students' views of Rama and what it was like to study with him. And the most fascinating part was that many of the stories were mutually contradicting. They'd attempt to describe the same meeting or desert trip, and the same event, and the differences were often startling. Some would remember one siddhi being demon- strated, others another. Some would attribute to Rama certain quotes, while others relating the same talk would come up with vastly different quotes. The book was an utter classic of cognitive dissonance. This is why I look with some amusement at the attempts on this forum to squeeze Maharishi into one small box, with a label on it that reads "This is the real story of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. So There." There is a level of hubris implicit in believing that your view of a certain teacher or a certain teaching defines "real." I can no longer achieve that level of hubris. My experiences with Rama and with other teachers convinces me that NO ONE's view of them constitutes a "real" view. They're just views. Mine -- of Maharishi or of Rama or about other facets of spiritual life -- are similarly just views. I make no claim that my depictions of Maharishi or other topics on this forum are any more "real" than anyone else's. Some of them have the advantage of being based on "live" vs. "Memorex," but that doesn't make them more "real." They're just views.
