--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > I also heard him asked the question directly, and he answered (surprising > > > himself it appeared) that he would have to call himself a householder, > > > because he lived in the world and controlled a large organization (or > > > words to that effect).> > > > > So I guess him banging groupies was evidence of his consistency then? > > > > This is one highly specific context dependent statement among dozens of > > times I personally heard him refer to his monkiness. Notice that the list > > of things he mentions that make him a "householder" does not include > > banging chicks. > > > > "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. 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. As you point out there is no context where this is allowed in Hinduism. > > 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. > > 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. I guess there are some ashrams were people stay cloistered but it was my impression that this is the minority among the millions of wandering sadhus. Of course Shankara set us straight on how they should view women as bags of urine and feces, but it doesn't surprise me that some end up viewing woman as two funbags with a honey pot. It would be very hard for them to get to some level of equality and respect as is the ideal for the West. It was very common among the movement celibate wanna bees to have an unflattering view of women caused by their own projected attraction i suspect. > > 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! >
