As much as I would love to see Mark getting the max $ for M's sandals, I would certainly have to agree with Ted. Mark seems pretty one-dimensional. With my limited experiences I can just can't comprehend the things Mark says about M unless he was acting out against M when his ego was hurt or he is just so plain stupid that he doesn't understand basic spiritual principles. Reveling in paradoxes *doesn't * mean moral judgement of others. Reveling in paradoxes is a highly internal experience, the paradoxes of love and hate and all the other conflicting emotions seen as a pure witness. Compare Mark's moral judgement of Judith as "wonderful, honest person" and then M as conflicting, bewildering array of emotions. With my limited Unity experiences I just can't see how I will ever be sexually frustrated, I was before not anymore. Sure I would love to have a partner, to have sex but I have been single since last year and I am not old, like the old farts here on FFL, there are sexual thoughts similar to other thoughts but there's no pain, suffering, frustration. Similarly I can't see a man like M not acting decently with people for money. Mark can't seem to realize that the conflicting, bewildering emotions were all his. The positive energy was *his*, the negative energy was *his* as well. A Satguru is a pure mirror and just reflects, reflects so completely, thoroughly enough for us to peek into ourselves, to see the paradoxes in *ourselves*, to see the contradictions in *ourselves*, to heal them, acknowledge them, in ourselves and be a pure witness to them. So Mark, hope you get the highest bidder for M's sandals, as they surely deserve, however don't expect me to buy this multi-dimensional crap.
--- In [email protected], tedadams108 <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > My intent was not to discuss a paradox, rather a contradiction. Perhaps much of the interview was removed in post production which skewed the impression that was given. And I guess people continue to find a way to meditate despite believing the paradox. I appreciate Mark's honesty even though I disagree with his need to be in a film. What is the motivation to point out the bad. Was the ego hurt that bad as to make it difficult to quietly enjoy what appeared to be very good experiences with Maharishi? Apparently for Mark the bad in the paradox outweighed the good, otherwise it would be harder to give up sandals. I have a book that Maharishi wrote in for me that would be very difficult to sell. Perhaps if I was more absorbed in the paradox it would be easier, but because my ego is not intertwined in it, to give > it up for some money would be very difficult. Having said that, a person has to do what they have to do. If Mark needs money that bad, and selling sandals is a way to pay off some debts, so be it. Pointing out a paradox, of good and bad, does not negate the effect of speaking out the bad. At least in his response Mark is more forthcoming. Now the eventual buyer of the sandals can know more about how the seller feels about Maharishi and decide whether to let that influence his/her decision. I see a catch 22 here, the eventual buyer likely will not accept the paradox. As such, the likely market for the sandals, at least for a significant amount of money, are the very people who are going to be turned off by the revelation by Mark of the paradox. They unlikely will want to financially support someone with such a view and will "boycott" the purchase. > > --- 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. > > > > > > > > >
