--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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...) I was made an initiator in Fiuggi in May of 1972. The energy in the puja table area in front of MMY was absolutely incredible, astounding, golden, powerful. I was nervous as I began the puja, but soon got so lost in the infinite that I could barely zero back in to focus on what MMY was telling me. Probably the most powerful experience of energy in my life. I don't see angels and such, but am glad you shared this. > > 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. Excellent way to put it. I agree. The more time that passes since I have dealt with Maharishi's many sides, the more I can accept that he was all light and also had some behaviors we consider dark. I can't judge it, I don't know what to make of it, it just is how Maharishi really was. I am so grateful to him for all that I got - and still get even when contemplating his unkindness and deceit and my sense of betrayal. What an amazing man, an amazing time, a gift. 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
