Everyone is a paradox Alex. Maharishi says himself in BG I think it was that all of us are a combo of good and bad. I did think he was perfect once, but that was 30 years ago, and pretty much irrelevant.
This guy Mark is a hypocrite and kinda sleazy, imo. --- In [email protected], "Alex Stanley" <j_alexander_stanley@...> wrote: > > I'm surprised, Jim, because I would have thought that you, of all people, > would have no problem with holding a paradoxical view of MMY. Is the problem > for you that it's inextricably tied to a used sandal salesman's sales tactic? > > --- In [email protected], "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> wrote: > > > > All of this speculation is fun, though I doubt very much that > > "multi-dimensional" Mark is going to see a life changing amount of money > > from this. My offer for ten bucks and free shipping stands. > > > > --- 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
