--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <babajii_99@...> wrote: <Snip> > I hope this makes some sense, and can help Curtis, because I feel that you > are a good soul, and putting yourself through stuff that is unnecessary. > > Whatever you feel about this word 'Maharishi' and all the feelings it brings > up for you, if you can see the attachment to this word, within yourself, you > will be a lot clearer about the whole thing.
I'm not too sure what you might be referring to. My piece was about what happens to people with too much adulation. I enjoyed writing it. As far as my feelings about the word "Maharishi", I don't have any. What I was writing about was a real guy, he was my boss for my first important job. I am quite fond of the guy but he could be a real douche too and my writing usually reflects both sides of him with a definite bias toward the douchy side because that is my perspective on him now as a more mature adult. Turq's point as I understand was that people didn't need to attack me personally because I spoke about Maharishi from my own perspective. But that is FFL and I know that before I hit send. Their view of the guy is none of my business unless they would like to share it. (If they do decide to share it I would highly recommend the technique of referring at least to a treesome, or if they want to follow my lead, a foursome, because that can really spice otherwise lackluster writing up. Try it and see!) Now as far as saying I am a "good soul", and I hope I am not being too needy here, could you amp up the compliment a tad? I mean only guys like Hitler get called a "bad soul" because the soul by its very nature is good right? I mean the whole concept is that this is the part of us that is eternal and godlike so aren't you really saying that the only part of me that is any good is the part of me I have no control over? And this particularly stings because I was really fishing for a compliment on how I have been doing my hair lately. You see I have taken the lead from that hunky guy on the mentalist (I don't know his name because I am walking a pretty fine gay line here as it is) and have grown my hair out. This lets me use old school hair products like Groom and Clean and the American Crew Pomade they use on Madmen. Anywhoo the sides of my hair are kind of feathery like his and I'm really feeling kind of good about the whole thing, but all I get are these lukewarm compliments on my soul! So I a may be enlightened about Maharishi with the attachment thing a little but I am kind of attached to my new hair style. But in my defense the style itself is an imitation of a carefree push your hair back with your hands style so popular in noir movies (or anything with Christian Slater in it if you are not an TCM channel addict like I am). So if you do sincerely want to "help" me is it really too much to ask for a mention of what a great hair day I'm having? (Not trying to load the deck or anything but it might interest you to know that half way through my day a curl escapes in the front of my hair and creeps down my forehead in a way reminiscent of that period of Elvis's life between his young hot stage and before he looked like he ate himself. This curl is in no way affected or deliberate and happens magically by itself in a most satisfying "I am not so vain that I did this on purpose" manor.) And no it doesn't look like that Michal Jackson front curl either and I'm just a little surprised you would bring that up. I only stopped wearing my black grief glove last week and it is a little too soon for Michal Jackson references. His front curl had many curls in it like Dianna Ross and is not the most masculine thing in the world if you catch my drift...Oh, you didn't (coughspoofter). Did that help? No I wasn't coughing I was giving you a ...oh neverland, I mean never mind! > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > The fascinating thing from my point of view, Curtis, is that > > Nabby (and possibly a few others here) go ballistic and react > > as if you had attacked *them* because you were less than guru- > > whipped and treated Maharishi just like any other person. > > > > Their level of identification with and attachment to *him* is so > > great that they really can't tell the difference any more between > > someone criticizing him and someone criticizing them. Let alone > > the difference between criticism and "attack." > >(snip) > > So, herein lies the answer; you couldn't have stated it more clearly... > Before one is enlightened, there is this thing called 'Indentification'... > It's the small self, the ego, identifying with something, to which it has > become attached. > Like you are saying, it has little to do with the focus of the attachment, > but more to do with attachment itself... > > This is one thing that The Maharishi left out of the teaching; that is how to > get out of this thing called attachment... > > In a way it is worse than an addiction, because in the case of addiction, at > least most people know that they are addicted... > > Attachment is much more subtle, in that one doesn't even see how attached one > is... > > One actually believes they are being attacked, when no one is being > attacked... > > It's just the attachment that is being called into question. > > I hope this makes some sense, and can help Curtis, because I feel that you > are a good soul, and putting yourself through stuff that is unnecessary. > > Whatever you feel about this word 'Maharishi' and all the feelings it brings > up for you, if you can see the attachment to this word, within yourself, you > will be a lot clearer about the whole thing. >
