Thank you Robin for your account! It is touching, and you have a great capacity as a narrator. It also brings flash-backs to me of my own TM time, of courses I have been and all the beautiful moments in the movement. I won't make any comments now,- maybe I will do it later. It is your life, as you see it.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > TM transformed me. Maharishi created an experience in me that told me he was > the embodiment of the highest truth. The romance I refer to is the romance > that Saint Francis of Assisi (not comparing me to him, of course) had for > Christ. Maharishi appeared to make me enlightened. Enlightenment was > everything I could have imagined it to be from Maharishi's description in The > Science of Being and Art of Living, in all his videos, is his lectures to us > live. I acted for ten years inside an entirely different context than I had > up until the very moment before I 'slipped into Unity'. At some point in the > ten years I was introduced through two friendswhile I was in New York giving > a seminarto the Eucharist (I was sick at the time). Taking into my body the > Host produced a remarkable experience, and this seemed even more subtle than > TM. I subsequently surrendered myself to the Roman Catholic Church. > > The doctrines of Catholicism were in conflict with my enlightenment. I read > Thomas Aquinas: either he was right or Maharishi was right. Aquinas seemed to > have a more profound grasp of reality than did Maharishi, and I began to > realize: Robin, it's either Aquinas (the Catholic truth) or it's your > enlightenment, TM, and Maharishi. Under the inspiration of a priest I finally > made my decision: my enlightenment, even though an objectively different > state of consciousness with real life consequences for one's free will and > actions, must be ultimately false to reality. Once I judged this to be true, > I immediately became aware of the evidencewith the help of my best friendof > problems within me which had, as it were, 'set me up' for getting > enlightened. I have concentrated on confronting myself these past 24 > yearsand my enlightenment has gone away. > > Now my experience of Maharishi was very profound. In my heart I felt > something I had never felt before or since: Maharishi seemed to hold within > himself the love and intelligence behind all o creation. He radiated the > bliss and truth of reality. When I compare this experienceand this Master > Disciple relationship extended into my enlightenmentto the experience of > loving another human being, the sense of romance in the classic sense seemed > much greater to me. > > Now the factors which led to my enlightenment are complex, but besides my own > weakness and naiveties and blind spots, there is the matter of angelic > intelligencesas I perceived themwhich are at the mechanical basis, or so I > believe based upon experimental knowledge, of how one becomes enlightened. > These intelligences were very active once I began TM, especially when I > attended long rounding courses in Europe. Eventually through my devotion to > my Master and my practising his techniques, I went into Unity Consciousness > (all this, as Judy says, is contained in a number of books that I wrote after > becoming enlightened). What those books don't saythey were all completed > before 1982is that Catholicism (1986) destroyed my enlightenment; or should > I say my recognition of the truths of Catholicism made my enlightenment > something that simply could not have happened under the beneficent influence > of the sacraments, the Virgin Mary, and conceiving of God as the Holy Trinity. > > Now I eventually realized that Catholicism itself was not what it used to be. > And I came to see the Catholic Church as lacking the supernatural efficacy of > its claims. It once (before the Second World War) did represent reality; but > it no longer did. And I had to abandon that spiritual context as well. > > Now comes on my personal relationship to Maharishi. As long as Maharishi > behaved as the perfect human being, there was nothing I could do but go with > my experience, which was one of profound devotion and love and surrender. > Once he began to make missteps, once he began to reveal some imperfections, > my concept of him began to crumble. Now you must understand that my > appreciation for Maharishi as my Master extended even into my Catholicism; > but at a certain point after reading Aquinas and rejecting my enlightenment, > I had to reject him too, as well as TM. Once I entered into this process > Maharishi began to show his feet of clay, until mid-way through 1987 I > realized that Maharishi himself, like I was, was deceived. > > Now Zarzari, when I contemplate the time between around 1969 through 1986and > most intensely while being around Maharishi at my TTC, ATR, and my Six Month > CourseI remember the sensation in my body, the feeling in my heart, the > adoration in my soul, and the expansion of my mind, and I realize that I > enjoyed the highest romance anyone could ever have. Just because I have > rejected Maharishi, does not mean that I must jettison those memories of what > it was like to be around him, and what he projected of the majesty of his > consciousness.To be around Maharishi say between 1972 and 1976 was to be in > the presence of a spectacularly beautiful being, and that being made menot > in a sensual or erotic sensefeel as if there could be no greater love. I > believe Maharishi's feelings for his own Master were the same, and if he > understood the term Romance in its fullest sense, he would concur that the > greatest romance of his life was his relationship to Guru Dev. > > Where the deceitfulness comes in is these cosmic intelligences which > Maharishi openly discusses and describes as being instrumental in the > spiritual progress of someone doing Transcendental Meditation. For Aquinas > and the Catholic Church to be right [before Vatican II] must mean that these > intelligences, however much bliss and power and mastery they effect in one, > ultimately are not working for the well-being of the individual. They are > deceitful; ergo, Maharishi is deceitfulalthough eventually I came to see him > even in his own individual life as a divided and conflicted personor so it > seemed when he began to lose some of his beauty and integrityhis > consciousness remained infinite I believe right to the end of his life. > > Thus you have the Romance and the Deceit. Since you are not interested in > pursuing this matter (see the end of your post) with me, I will leave it at > this. I loved Maharishi Mahesh Yogi more than I have ever loved any human > beingI am sure there are hundreds, if not thousands of us former TM > initiators who felt similarly. I also believe that Maharishi, to be what he > wasat the height of his influence and powerwas even a more perfect victim > of these same cosmic intelligences than I was. Eventually, it would seem, > these intelligences began to cause Maharishi to lose the colossal grace that > had supported him since he came out of India. And then the disillusionment > set in. > > This plus the fact that TM did not, in the long-term, produce the effect that > had the nature of an intrinsic promise in that first experience of > transcending. Bevan Morris, Tony Nader, and John Hagelin should be, by my > reckoning based upon what happened to me between 1969 and 1976 (under the > brilliant influence of Maharishi), the most beautiful human beings on the > earth. They are not. This tends to suggest that their own sense of the > spiritual romance with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is fraught with something that > arguably takes the form of deceit. > > That said, I believe that no human beings since Christ have had the quality > of experience we initiators had in the physical presence of Maharishi in the > early and mid-seventies. If any one of us were suddenly transported back in > time and forced to inhabit our own personal consciousness at that time, we > would not even question the notion that this was the best experience anyone > has had since Christ. Probably better. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > <snip> > > > > > As I see it, Robin had to force himself to give up something > > > > > that had meant the world to him because he found it to be > > > > > *ultimately*--in the full meaning of the term--deceptive. > > > > > > > > Which is a deceptive perception IMO- > > > > > > I'm not arguing for its validity. It seems very strange > > > to me as well, but I don't doubt his sincerity in > > > expressing it. > > > > Deception is deception. I don't have to doubt that he believes in it. Is > > that what you mean, that he 'sincerly' believes? Yet sincerity would also > > imply to have a willingness to investigate things really. > > > > > > > Whether or not one is inclined to agree with him, it must > > > > > have been extraordinarily painful, and it's reflected in > > > > > his posts about what was for him a profound loss. > > > > > > > > Yes, this is understood. It is so for many people who were > > > > heavily involved, myself included, but it is the normal > > > > process, many are going through. > > > > > > None of them, however, have had the same huge challenges > > > to deal with. You really can't call what Robin has had to > > > go through a "normal process." > > > > I hope with the word 'normal' process no pun is intended. > > > > <snip> > > > > > > Sure, that kind of relationship can be compared, and it is > > > > really like a divorce, (I think, as I have never been > > > > divorced). But there is a difference: If I cut a > > > > relationship with my wife, I am not making assumptions > > > > about anybody elses relationship to my wife having to be > > > > equal, otherwise I couldn't take him serious. If I do that > > > > I am a pimp, who is trying to sell my wife. It is these > > > > kind of statements I am arguing about. If somebody says as > > > > if he is betraying Guru Dev, because of whatever he says, > > > > not knowing about Guru Dev from any type of first hand > > > > account etc. > > > > > > I'm not getting what you're after here. Could you give it > > > another shot? > > > > If you are in love, it is a private thing. You don't use it as a model how > > others have to see things. > > > > I mean statements like these: > > > > "Now, if you did, Vaj, it would cause me to have a criterion to prove to > > you that you lie about TM, Maharishi, and being an initiator. Because, you > > see, in divulging what your real and genuine take on Ravi Chivukula was, > > you would be acting in a manner and inside a context contrary to how you > > act when you write about TM, Maharishi, and being an initiator." > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/298522 > > > > This was one of the first posts I read of Robin, I am not studying like you > > do, Judy, and it made me stumble at how a person could make such an absurd > > statement. It is full of emotional hyperbole. What would a statement Vaj > > makes about Ravi have to do with TM/MMY etc? > > > > Or from the same post, again to Vaj: > > "Your insinuation that you have, remains just an invisible simulacrum of > > reality: you have no conviction about Ravi that you would submit as the > > truthsay, on point of death." > > > > Judy, if you don't get what I mean, then I can't help you, I am simply > > missing the words. I mean, he asks Vaj to make his statement of 'truth', > > 'at the point of death.' > > > > Don't get the drama? Then I can't help. What puzzles me, nay what I really > > don't like is, the matter of factly voice he wants to impose his own > > emotions on to someone else as a moral rule. I have no excuse for this, it > > is deeply manipulative. That's totally different from a person who lost his > > love, and is still mourning. > > > > > > > > I mean these typical TB statements, which as you rightly > > > > point out, almost don't occure on this forum anymore, and > > > > then unexpected out of the mouth of a person who makes the > > > > most outrageous claims with regard to all knowledge eastern. > > > > > > Again, the bit about Eastern knowledge doesn't work for > > > me, but I'm not sure why that should somehow *negate* his > > > sincerity regarding the TB stuff, given that he's made it > > > very clear that what he's describing is his perspective > > > before he renounced it all. It's still vivid in his mind; > > > you would hardly expect it to be otherwise. > > > > So you don't think that his demonizing this path, his own path, and > > simultaneausly eulogizing it, is completely normal, not somehow > > schizophrenic? Btw. time usually heals wounds, when did this happen, when > > did he leave TM, or his 'unity-reality', I mean it wasn't yesterday, right? > > Maybe 10 years gone? How could you truly love somebody and at the same time > > demonize that person? Sorry, I pass here. > > > > > > > And who are you, pray tell, to call someone's expression > > > > > of their adoration "overly romantic"? > > > > > > > > Do you know? How doyou know? > > > > > > Do I know what? "Who are you" is just a figure of speech, > > > if that's what you're asking. It's shorthand for, "Why do > > > you think you're in a position to decide what is 'overly' > > > romantic for anyone besides yourself?" > > > > Give me a break, that's my healthy judgment. > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > I don't remember exactly what you said, but it doesn't > > > have anything to do with believing you or not believing > > > you. I used "falling in love" to mean the kind of intense > > > personal devotion some, including Robin, had for MMY. > > > > I had love for Maharishi, I had devotion and worked for him, I did what he, > > or the movement told me at the time. And I think I can rightly say, you > > don't need to teach me about intense bhakti. But what he is doing is > > romantizising, that's different. Romantizising means to impose your own > > fancy ideas on a lover, ideas that aren't true, ideas you will not care to > > validate. Love is not just a feeling, you have to act upon it, if you have > > a Guru, you have to see what the guru is actually saying, and not project > > something onto him. Robin creates a world of his own. > > > > > > > > > No, what I am refering to overly romantic are statements, > > > > where, matter of factly, he says that since Christ there > > > > was nobody like Maharishi. I call this overly romantic, > > > > because he can have only second hand knowledge even of the > > > > existence of Christ, and he just doesn't know anyone else, > > > > any of all the great masters who even lived in the last > > > > century or throughout history. > > > > > > He'll have to justify the validity of that comparison for > > > himself; seems hyperbolic to me as well. But I assume he > > > has some basis for it, and it would be interesting to hear > > > him explain it. I wouldn't want to dismiss it out of hand > > > as "overly" anything until I had a better idea of how he > > > sees it, what he means by it. > > > > Well, I do dismiss it right out of hand, as whatever he may say, he cannot > > know all the other canditates, so it is a very ignorant statement, neither > > can he know christ except his own idea of him. > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > That's > > > > > fine, not everyone did. But by the same token, you aren't > > > > > in a position to question the sincerity and depth of > > > > > others' feelings about him when you haven't experienced > > > > > what they did. > > > > > > > > > How do you know I did not experience? > > > > > > I'm going by whatever it was you *said* earlier. And you > > > said above that it wasn't "falling in love." My point is > > > that others *did* "fall in love" with MMY, and I don't > > > know why you think you can question that experience-- > > > specifically with MMY--when you haven't had it. > > > > People have different ways of expressing love or devotion. Falling in love > > to a guru, is something akin to falling in love with a girl or man, it > > doesn't mean ultimate devotion. You can just love and have devotion without > > falling in love. The difference is encapsuled in the word romantic. > > > > > > > > You just don't know. But then I am not going from house to > > > > house with that. And yes, I did also fall in love with > > > > teachers, or saints, even I was about to fall in love with > > > > Ammachi one time, but I knew she was not my master. But > > > > that does not entitly me to make exaggerated and generalizing > > > > statements. > > > > > > It entitles you to express your opinion and personal > > > feelings, whatever they may be, exaggerated and > > > generalizing or not. It doesn't entitle me, even if I'd > > > had my own experiences along those lines, to say you > > > aren't entitled to them. All I'm entitled to say is that > > > they seem exaggerated and generalizing *to me*. > > > > No, if I love my wife (or girl friend), it is alright, and it is just me, > > me, me. If I make this now the condition of approach for anyone to my wife, > > I am not entitled to it, as I put my own personal feelings as the measure > > stick for everyone. I am not entitled to do that, period. > > > > > > But I do undertsand it is not easy for anybody. So, in no > > > > way, do I attack Robins feelings, but I do attack the > > > > mind-state of TB he formed around it. > > > > > > Robin's mind-state isn't easy to grok, and it's *really* > > > difficult to grok in bits and pieces. Even if you have the > > > stamina to read every word he's written here, there's so > > > *much* of it that it's tough to keep it all in mind. If you > > > don't have a photographic memory, to some extent you're > > > dealing with bits and pieces willy-nilly simply because you > > > can't remember everything on the whole epic canvas he's > > > been laying out (and even that isn't complete). > > > > Judy, I think if you really want to understand him, you have to be him. I > > personally prefer if you stay who you are. > > > > > That said, if one has been paying more than superficial > > > attention to what Robin has posted, it seems to me > > > incontrovertible that nobody here has even come close in > > > their own lives to what he's been through. Almost > > > Shakespearean, on a small scale, at least. Not to make a > > > hero of him--more of an antihero, perhaps--it's just that > > > his story is unique. > > > > It's drama, drama, drama. Emotional, cosmic dimensions, right? > > > > > > He seems to welcome challenges as long as they're not > > > in-your-face disrespectful. I don't know if he saw your > > > earlier post addressing him directly, but I suspect he'd > > > be responsive if you could get his attention. Such an > > > exchange would be so much more interesting than the > > > current personal snipe-fests! > > > > > What's a snipe-fest? Anyway, I don't share the same interest / fascination > > as you do. I mean there is no way for me to even remotely considering RC. > > My spiritual samskaras are just not in this direction. > > >
