As if I would share my feelings for Maharishi with the likes of you.
--- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Did anyone else notice that in this single post Mark said more positive
> things about Maharishi than tedadams and danfriedman have said
> in all of the posts they've made to Fairfield Life combined?
>
>
> --- In [email protected], Mark Landau <m@...> wrote:
> >
> > Wow, are we one dimensional? I believe it's the sign of a developed
> being that he or she can easily hold all the paradoxes. Not only can I
> have it both ways, but I must have it both ways and, beyond that, have
> it all ways that were, are or ever will be, if I am to do any justice to
> truth and reality. That's a lot of ways. I also believe that,
> ultimately, we must go beyond all the paradoxes and polarities,
> including the polarity of good and bad (and that, of course, doesn't
> mean that we rush out to do all the "bad" things we possibly can ASAP).
> >
> > The truth of the matter, if anyone cares, is that, like Judith Bourke,
> who I find to be a wonderful, honest person, I was in love with him (no,
> prurient ones, not that way, though there are things I could say about
> that, too) and the notion and seeming experience that TM could transform
> the world for the better. Why else would I work seven days a week for
> the movement for nearly five years and pay significantly to do so? Are
> we not all some blend of the three gunas? Aren't there glorious and
> dark things about all of us?
> >
> > M was no different. One of the most glorious things about him was his
> energy. I lived and basked in it pretty much straight for the seven
> months I was skin boy and for a lot of the five years I was with him. I
> went through withdrawal for two years when I lost it.
> >
> > That's my voice in the background of DWTF when David cut to the
> archival footage of M entering the hall with Jerry carrying the skin
> saying something like, "It was like divine air came down from heaven and
> I got addicted to it." Is that so very negative?
> >
> > In one other sentence I said something like, "Remember how I said he
> could get into you and help you sleep? He could also get into you and
> completely pulverize you." Is that both "negative" and "positive"? Of
> course, one-dimensional believers would say having M pulverize you would
> be the greatest blessing. It could only be all positive. But what if
> he did it because he was pissed, out of sorts or sexually frustrated?
> Yes, IME, he definitely got sexually frustrated. In my total reworking
> of his own words, the only man in all of recored history that anyone
> knew about who lived beyond the libido was Sukadeva.
> >
> > I also said in the movie, "It took me a while to put the paradox
> together. How could he be wonderful and awful at the same time? Well,
> that's just how it was. He was wonderful and awful at the same time."
> David filmed me for over two hours and he used the several minutes that
> suited his purpose in segueing from the more positive part of the film
> to the more negative.
> >
> > So I feel no conflict or contradiction in saying "In my experience,
> they still carry a lot of his energy, as if the atoms and molecules have
> been entrained in it. And, of course, in India, they would be holy
> objects to be revered. I have kept them very well protected and have
> handled them very little over the decades." and
> >
> > M abused women, devastated people right and left and was more
> concerned with money than with treating people decently.
> >
> > They're all simply true. And so were all the other totally glorious
> aspects of that intense, complex man.
> >
> > Was anyone else in the movie theater that night in Fiuggi, or wherever
> it was, when M's darshan got so strong that it made all the little,
> hanging crystals dance extravagantly and tinkle together as if there
> were a small tornado blowing through the hall? And probably only I saw
> this, but when M first got to Murren, the three mountain devas came to
> greet him. IME, which of course many of you would completely howl at,
> they had been waiting for someone for centuries and thought, because of
> his light, that it might be M. M went completely silent and looked up
> at them for several moments while they communed. He wasn't who they
> were waiting for, they left and the lecture went on. And you should
> have seen the angel stations that congregated in the intersections of
> the pathways between the puja tables in the halls where M made teachers.
> That's why he didn't like people walking around then. I had to bust
> right through one of them to get to him to tell him something urgent
> while he was giving out the mantras. The five or six angels in that one
> station took off in all directions like they had been stung. (There,
> three little stories...)
> >
> > For me, the truth holds a higher priority than rules about the truth
> or any rules that are more about control than the highest good. Perhaps
> I am wrong about that. Do my circumstances prove that, one way or
> another? I think not. In the actual words of the man himself, "Karma
> is unfathomable." I do love some of his sound bites. Another one that
> would be appropriate here is "There are no absolutes in the relative."
> >
> > You're only confused because you're thinking one-dimensionally. When
> you move beyond that, try watching my interview in the film again. You
> may, or may not, see it slightly differently.
> >
> > Thank you for eliciting this,
> >
> > m
> >
> > On Jul 20, 2011, at 7:28 AM, tedadams108 wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I'm a little confused. Is this the same Mark Landau who spoke such
> unkind words about Maharishi in the film "David Wants To Fly."? When
> attempting to sell Maharishi's sandals there are no unkind words spoken,
> only glorifying words, probably as an attempt to increase the
> marketability of the sandals.
> > > I have compassion for Mark that he is having financial
> > > challenges in this economy, like so many others. Apparently his
> > > involvement with Maharishi did not result in financial well being
> > > as it did for so many others (John Gray, Barbara DeAngeles, Deepak
> Chopra, etc., and the many wealthy meditators living in Fairfield and
> around the world. Maybe it's more difficult to get Nature Support when
> one cavils about the Master. I'm sure someone would
> > > appreciate having the sandals and would be willing to pay something
> > > for them. My guess is that the only value to Mark would be for
> firewood.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
