Ahh, yes. Then, for the badge-holder, such a decision becomes much more critical and difficult. Thank you for explaining this.
On Jul 23, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Buck wrote: > Mark, given these modern times and communications you would think so. In the > marketplace people are way more studied and way more exposed to gurus and > spirituality than probably ever before. However, on the ground in TM here in > FF you need a valid badge. Effectively participation is with a one-guru badge > in application. The TM-TB's left inside in control of participation are more > strictly 'one-guru' devotees. Disciples. They put that standard over on > everyone else, even on those who may just be practitioners and not devotees. > > Here in Fairfield last week for Guru Purnima you had to have a 'valid' dome > badge (be an eligible TM-siddhi practitioner) to go to the TM-movement's guru > celebration. In effect that left thousands of old-time badge-less meditators > out to themselves. The FF TM-no-badge-nik meditators. Inside there are only a > few hundreds active left here with badges yet close to three thousand adults > here who previously had come here to Iowa as TM-meditators. There essentially > is a fealty test going on by the conservative elements in the middle putting > up the threshold of a TM-Siddhis 'dome badge' to old meditators coming in to > even celebrate Maharishi as a guru. It's a very calculated policy on the part > of a TM taliban-like doctrine-bound element inside. > > You would think Guru Purnima could be a time to be forthcoming, hospitable. A > time to gather. As I survey around on the street, there is still in the old > meditating community a residual or latent hope that things could work out for > TM here but practically folks express only dim hope given the general lack of > social skills within TM in reality. > > Jai Guru Dev, > -Buck in FF > an old Iowa meditator > > > --- In [email protected], Mark Landau <m@...> wrote: > > > > You're welcome, Richard. I'm glad. > > Well, he definitely was my master from '71 till the late '70s or early > > '80s, but, after that, no. > > If we take the reality, I don't feel he would qualify as a true master. If > > we can hold some idealized version of him, I suppose we could keep him as a > > master. > > I think Guru Dev would much more readily qualify as true master. > > But perhaps it is time for us to move beyond masters. That was a viable way > > to grow spiritually in the past, but, perhaps, not so much now. > > I think our times call more for us to find our own way, or to find teachers > > who will accept us without demanding that they be masters, teachers who > > serve us well from where we currently are, but who acknowledge their own > > imperfections and that not all they teach will perfectly serve everyone. > > Hope this helps, > > m > > > > On Jul 22, 2011, at 9:45 PM, richardnelson108 wrote: > > > > > Hi Mark, > > > > > > Thanks so much for all your recent posts. They have really been a > > > wonderful read and very insightful. > > > > > > Since you had the opportunity to experience Maharishi in a way that most > > > of us never did, I am wondering how you feel about Maharishi being a > > > "master", and if you feel or felt that he was or is your personal master? > > > Its an area that I have gone back and forth on many times throughout my > > > life and still hold some confusion about. > > > There is no question that TM has worked for me and that being around him > > > was very powerful, but that doesn't necessarily mean he is in the league > > > of a true master, particularly with all of the things that just don't > > > make sense about him. > > > > > > Your insight would be most helpful 5'm sure if you don't mind. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Mark Landau <m@...> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 2011, at 12:43 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > > > Fruitful, fruitful! You continue to be a huge addition to the content > > > > > here Mark. Your exchange with Robin on your experiences with > > > > > Maharishi were fascinating. > > > > > > > > > > I was surprised to learn that Bevan wasn't a skin boy. I thought that > > > > > was one of his claims to fame when he was first with Maharishi in > > > > > India. > > > > > > > > > > The mega intense world at Maharishi's door is so worthy of a book, > > > > > many books for each person who wants to tell this story. One of the > > > > > most fascinating books I have read was by Mao's personal physician. > > > > > You get an insight into his character you get nowhere else. Same for > > > > > you guys in the hot seat carrying the hot seat. Any details you > > > > > sprinkle here will fall on many delighted ears. I enjoy your divine > > > > > experiences as much as any insights into the more human side of > > > > > Maharishi. > > > > > > > > > Thank you, Curtis > > > > > > > > When I knew Bevan in the 70s, he confided in me that he was always > > > > jealous of the skin boys because he had never gotten to do it himself. > > > > I don't know what happened after I left, in '76. My guess is that he > > > > never really played that roll, that M had bigger and better ideas for > > > > him and didn't want to jeopardize them. I would think, though, he got > > > > to physically carry the skin in brief, sporadic situations, but not in > > > > the traditional up close and personal way for long periods of time. > > > > Please correct me, anyone, if they know more. > > > > > > > > I started to write a book about it, but decided to let others do that. > > > > One of those things... > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
