--- In [email protected], Mark Landau <m@...> wrote: > > And this, too, M was always intensely vehement about maintaining the purity > of the teaching. I can have compassion for the remaining TBs in their > attempts to be vigilant about that.
Me,too. Bevan and John did not invent the dome badge rules or the whole set of TMO rules. The rajas and higher ups are simply following Maharishi's very clear and long standing policies. I am sure that they believe that adjusting these rules would be the beginning of a slippery slide into all sorts of impurity of the teaching challenges. They are devotees doing their very best to honor their Master. These are MMY"s wishes and rules, and things will not change as long as this generation of devotees - who actually spent time with MMY - are in charge. It is possible that if MMY were alive now, he would loosen things up, but no one in charge now will make that decision in Maharishi's place. It is the way it is and will stay the same and Bevan and John can not be blamed for this. Maharishi did 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... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
