--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: <snip> > > > "Householders" means you marry someone and raise a family. > > > It doesn't mean you get to be a rock star on the tour bus > > > with 20 somethings when you are in your fifties, ditching > > > one when you get tired of hitting that and moving on by > > > leaving the last girl behind when you travel. > > > > Well, actually none of the four ashramas means this, > > so it's kind of a non sequitur. > > I don't think you mean ashramas in this context. There > are two contexts for the term brahmachari. One is the > stage of life, the student who is surrendered to a guru > and lives in his ashram under his instruction. In > mMaharishi's context it means celibate lifestyle at any > age. Maharishi was not maintaining a student lifestyle > his whole life. Same with the term householder. It is > a stage of life in the ashramas sequence, but as > Maharishi used it, it was a lifestyle choice meaning > married at any age.
Which doesn't mean what you described either, so the "two contexts" distinction is irrelevant as well. > It was not a non sequitur in the context of our discussion > about whether there was any justification for his sexual > activity based on what he said he was. Oh, you think that's what Lawson was doing? > As you point out there is no context where this is > allowed in Hinduism. Right. That part has nothing to do with what he said he was. > > And none of the four ashramas, for that matter, fit > > MMY's life circumstances even if you don't consider the > > women. > > He was faking the last one while maintaining the bennies > of householder business life. Which he was also "faking," given that he wasn't married with a family. As I went on to suggest: > > One could make the case that when a person embedded in > > the ashrama tradition tries to mix two of the ashramas, > > they're very likely to shortchange both of them. Maybe > > that's why so many swami-types who are out in the world > > running movements end up sleeping with their followers. > > They have to interact constantly with women, unlike a > > renunciate, which means they're more likely to get horny; > > but they don't have a wife to sleep with if they do get > > horny, unlike a grihastha. Not an easy row to hoe. > > My experience of Sunyasins in India is that they mingle > in society to beg for their food. They come to homes > and it is the woman who hands out the food, I saw them > do it. Well, there are two kinds, those who mingle and beg and those who live with other sanyasins in a monastery. But the women who give food to the first kind are, you know, already married with their own households, and I imagine the interaction would be pretty brief. Quite a difference from interacting at length and over time with young single devotees about spiritual and business matters who are, in effect, members of the sanyasin's household. <snip> > > CAVEAT FOR THE BRAINLESS: No, I'm not trying to excuse > > or mitigate MMY's philandering. It was wrong no matter > > how difficult refraining might have been. > > If you do come up with an excuse to mitigate philandering > please let me know. I've been looking for one to use for > years! You're on your own with that one. I'm having trouble finding a way to mitigate your tendency to start things and then not finish them, as with our most recent exchange. Considering how badly you fared, it's not surprising. But as I said, it leaves our relationship, such as it is, waaaaaaaay back at square one as far as my opinion of you is concerned. Your choice, of course.
