--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@...> wrote: > > Just as that high school hockey or football player > still reminisces on those golden days of yore, I > could easily see how someone so strongly resonating > with their past would tend to see the world still > through those old daze. It merely conveys to me > that there was no intervening time since then, in > your life, that shone brighter. Your time in the > movement (and shortly thereafter) was your "15 > minutes of fame". So like that football trophy on > a dusty shelf, you're still seeing seeing the > world through through those same old cold trophies.
Bingo. I couldn't agree more. RC reminds me of a poem by William Carlos Williams: so much depends upon a red wheel barrow glazed with rain water beside the white chickens. RC strikes me as *dependent* on Maharishi. Still. Almost everything he says that he is or pretends to be is in relation to Maharishi. His whole spiel *requires* in the listener a knowledge of Maharishi and what he taught to make any sense of it. I'm not saying this to rag on RC per se, but to continue the train of thought I posted yesterday, about me NOT having that "dependent" connection with Maharishi any more. He was merely a passing influence in my life, one whom I depend on for *nothing* in my current life or for my current sense of self worth. If I met someone new, someone who had never met me before and had no idea of my past, and they asked me to give them a quick bio, I doubt that Maharishi's name would even come up. I'd say something like, "I studied meditation for many years, and still meditate today. I even taught other people to meditate for many years, teaching a number of different styles or types of meditation, but I no longer do." That's all I'd have to say. Then I'd probably move on to being a lifelong fan of movies and music, both of which have probably been bigger influences in my life than Maharishi.
