precisely-- thank you, Robin-- your words mirror my endeavor, also...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote:
> >
> > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of Robin Carlsen
> > Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 2:39 PM
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Video Interview: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
> > "Celibate" Guru had a love affair - Judith Bourque
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Rick,
> >
> > Had it not been for what you said about Maharishi and secrecy, I doubt I
> > would have posted anything about this matter. But something alerted in me
> > when I read your comment.
> >
> > I think it was the toothpaste. :-)
> >
> > You will see that I have added a ninth reflection, for me, the most
> > important one of all.
> >
> > The only way anything can change here is if either Bevan or someone else can
> > communicate to us something about Maharishi which somehow is inclusive of
> > his behaviour with women--women, that is, who caused him to feel intense
> > physical desire.
> >
> > Perhaps with Bevan (or this other person) such a portrait of Maharishi can
> > emerge. But that would mean writing a book--it is I believe a book that
> > Bevan's soul desperately would want him to write, but Bevan, he is likely to
> > deny to his soul this satisfaction.
> >
> > Robin
> >
> > Bevan was as guilty of such behavior as MMY was. I doubt any such book will
> > be forthcoming.
>
> Dear Rick,
>
> That is not something I know anything about, and it surprises me. Bevan
> always seemed to me to be a highly principled person. I do think, however, I
> know of someone who was close to Maharishi who was the only naturally
> celibate initiator I have ever known--and I think, moreover, his communion
> with Maharishi was like no one else's. He made teaching TM and being a
> disciple of Maharishi seem a very pure and irreproachable profession. He
> always carried the authority of his perfect surrender to Maharishi, and he
> himself found a dharma which was almost critic-proof.
>
> I think even women always felt the flawlessness of his celibacy and therefore
> were comfortable around him for this very reason. But the real point I am
> trying to make here, Rick, is this person *knew Maharishi the man* as well as
> Maharishi the Master. And I felt that Maharishi made himself known in this
> way only to this person. Therefore this person, and this person only, really
> has the credentials to tell us all about Maharishi the man, the human being.
> For this person was objective about Maharishi, else he could not have
> delivered such a serene performance in every second (or so it seemed to me)
> that he served Maharishi. I don't think even after Maharishi's death was this
> relationship severed.
>
> But he carried something so enigmatic in his deportment and person, that I
> hardly feel I know him even as I know you, whom I have never even met. But
> this person, I wish he would write a book about Maharishi, because his
> relationship with Maharishi was totally real--both from the side of Maharishi
> and from his own side.
>
> He never pretended anything; he just remained attuned to Maharishi--in all
> his aspects. And he was totally believable in this. He was faultless in his
> devotion to an apparently faulty human being; but this person had this
> advantage: he saw how profound a person Maharishi was, and how the entire
> universe was willing to demonstrate how significant a being Maharishi was.
> And that is the story about Maharishi, Rick--at least it is for me. To be
> able to see Maharishi as he really was, including what Judith Bourque reveals
> in her book, requires also to see him as a truly cosmic being. This person I
> speak of he always could see that Maharishi was like no human being of our
> lifetime; he saw his spiritual integrity, no matter how it was compromised in
> his actions as a human being. And what this person apprehended, it was
> powerful and ineffable.
>
> I would trust his account of Maharishi, and no one else's. Until then we only
> get the polarized and psychologically determined portraits--only in this
> person exists a paradigm that potentially can address the contradiction of
> Maharishi.
>
> I will neither confirm or deny any candidates that you might feel tempted to
> put before me. I cannot do this. I respect this person's integrity too much,
> although it is a form of integrity which is outside the range of my own human
> possibilities. One thing I would say: Maharishi respected and loved this
> initiator more than anyone else. But only Maharishi and this person could
> know this.
>
> What I seek, Rick, is some reconciliation of these antinomies in Maharishi.
> Only in this way can we ever obtain a proper estimate of him inside the
> universe. I have my reservations about him--to say the least--but I know he
> came upon the earth for some reason which transcends everything he has taught
> and everything he has done. And I believe this person possesses the capacity
> to speak about Maharishi and write about Maharishi such as--while excluding
> from his own experience the impact of, for instance, Judith's testimony--to
> give us the reality of what he was sub specie aeternitatis.
>
> I wish that I had known you back, in say, 1973--and then we could compare our
> experiences then versus now. I mean of Maharishi. Because whatever way
> Maharishi has fallen, there is something so profoundly representative about
> the truth of who Maharishi was then--else he could not have had the effect he
> had upon you, upon me. We have to retrieve that memory as well as to
> assimilate the disturbing data which we could never have reconciled with how
> we experienced and knew Maharishi then.
>
> The question for me, Rick, comes down to this: Is it possible to experience
> Maharishi in all that he was and in this way somehow hold everything that was
> extraordinary about him along with everything which is presented to us to
> credibly in Judith Bourque's book?
>
> I think I came onto FFL partly for this very reason.
>
> Robin
>
