--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" <jedi_spock@...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "Jason" <jedi_spock@> wrote: > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > Am I oblivious to the truth? Atleast tell me what the > > > > > > > > > 'truth' is for whatever it's worth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Sorry, couldn't resist.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "Jason" <jedi_spock@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not? Is this your subjective or objective judgement? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ROBIN: Did you read my two posts to you today, Jason? If you had, > > > > > > that should give you pause before you choose to write something > > > > > > that comes this easily--and doesn't indicate you even know how to > > > > > > go towards what is the truth. The truth here being: Is authfriend > > > > > > right? or did she misjudge you? > > > > > > > > > > > > That is the question she was posing to you. In order to have > > > > > > something meaningful to say you have to enter into her indictment > > > > > > of you, and discover, for yourself, whether it is true or not. In > > > > > > typical Jason fashion you did anything but this. You refused to > > > > > > take seriously the possibility that it might be true. That is, > > > > > > objectively true. > > > > > > > > > > > > To have the satisfaction of knowing it is NOT true, you must within > > > > > > yourself find some experience, some evidence on the record, which > > > > > > would refute this judgment of authfriend. And if you do have some > > > > > > experience of truth about yourself, and evidence in your posts, > > > > > > which exonerates you from this charge, then you can express this > > > > > > experience, present this evidence, Jason, and the reader will be > > > > > > able to make some determination as to which judgment is the truer > > > > > > one, authfriend's or yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > But certainly so far, given what you say here, authfriend has > > > > > > rendered an objective judgment. Because if you could handle the > > > > > > truth you would seek out the sources within yourself which would > > > > > > enable you to know whether authfriend was right or she was wrong. > > > > > > Do you follow this, Jason? It is necessary that you understand me, > > > > > > first of all to weigh whether what I have said here is pertinent to > > > > > > your question to authfriend; second, to be able to face authfriend > > > > > > directly and either acknowledge the painful truth of what she has > > > > > > said--or to effectually rebut her. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "Jason" <jedi_spock@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > You said that you disavow any love for him. But all that you > > > > > said in the past months seems to have lot of emotions. This > > > > > is where you and others differ in the outlook. > > > > > > > > > > The others when they look back down the 'memory lane' or > > > > > 'history lane' never expresssed such sugary sentiments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > > > > > ROBIN: You have nailed it, Jason. Authfriend has made a miscalculation: > > > > it is not that you can't *handle* the truth; you blithely remain > > > > ignorant that it is even around. I would like to see you *not* handling > > > > the truth. That would be something rather refreshing. > > > > > > > > Barry wrote about the abnormality of this kind of love [love of > > > > Maharishi]. I answered him in detail. And that post renders what you > > > > say here irrelevant. The toothache response, remember? > > > > > > > > Your confidence in your own point of view, Jason, can be partly > > > > explained--or so I conclude from your posts of today--by how deep you > > > > are willing to go into some phenomenon, in order to understand it, see > > > > it, experience. That is, as it really is. > > > > > > > > Life is going to have to surprise you but good to alert you to what is > > > > going on when you post, Jason. I will be incredulous if a single thing > > > > I have said to you today is there in your understanding. > > > > > > > > I will give you a simple thing to think about: The sense of the > > > > personally tragic in the hidden interior life of Bevan Morris. > > > > > > > > > > --- "Jason" <jedi_spock@> wrote: > > > > > > Well, never met Bevan but I do know that he is basicaly a > > > vedic bureaucrat. > > > > > > > --- "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > ROBIN: Is that what he amounts to in the end, Jason? You exemplify in this > > judgment what I have been trying to get across to you in four posts. Does > > Bevan, from inside, the experience he has of being the unique and > > unrepeatable person Bevan Morris, sense he is "basically a vedic > > bureaucrat"? > > > > He attained a First Class at Cambridge [that means a lot more than you > > know]. He lived in Maharishi's ashram in Rishikesh. He knew Maharishi > > probably as well as anyone. He is a very smart and thoughtful person--he > > was once a child, he had a loving mother. He knows from inside what > > Maharishi is all about. He has made an irrevocable decision to bear it out > > to the end, as a true apostle of Maharishi and all his Teachings. > > > > He has judged Maharishi from close-up, and decided he is the most > > remarkable and powerful human being of his lifetime. *He believes in the > > truth that Maharishi was It*, and that he has made a prudent and blessed > > decision to throw his lot in with Maharishi--come what may. > > > > But he has been made aware--painfully, excruciatingly--of the many > > contradictions of Maharishi, his Teachings, the fate of the Movement, the > > sense he has of his own spiritual progress--the extent to which he realizes > > he embodies the truth of everything Maharishi was and believed in. Bevan > > cannot get out; his commitment is a religious one, and he feels a deathless > > loyalty and devotion to Maharishi. > > > > Inside his own private space of being Bevan, he probably harbours all kind > > of thoughts which would try to make sense of the terrible failure of his > > Master to deliver on any of his promises. But he has accepted the mystery > > of this martyrdom, and does his best to live according to the pattern laid > > down for him by his Master. > > > > Bevan has a secret subjective life which no one knows about. I suspect only > > Maharishi ever knew what it was like to be Bevan--But for sure Bevan knows > > Maharishi a thousand times better than either you or I do. He will keep > > what he knows till his death. Meanwhile he surely has thoughts about > > romance, about loving a woman, about why he is not enlightened, about where > > Mother is at Home has gone, about those who have deserted Maharishi, about > > the rumours and allegations of Maharishi's un-Guru Dev behaviour: but he > > has stiffened himself and, like a soldier perhaps even in a losing battle, > > is determined to bring honour to his General to the very bitter end. > > Hoping, believing, praying, that somehow this battle will miraculously > > turn, and everything he once dreamed would come true--and which his Master > > promised him would come true--does come true. > > > > Your characterization of him, Jason, as "basically a vedic bureaucrat" is > > the very reason authfriend has declared: "You can't handle the truth". > > Handling the truth means, no matter how much you may object to the despotic > > and totalitarian behaviour of Bevan, that there is a soul in there, a soul > > who, if I am correct, will live for eternity. And that soul is complex, > > multi-faceted, and not ultimately to be judged solely on the basis of the > > persona he has adopted under his sincere obedience to his Master. He > > believes he is doing the will of the one person who he believes held the > > final truth about Creation. > > > > Take in all of what I have said before you have some perfunctory and > > isolated-from-the -totality-of-reality response, Jason. > > > > Bevan Morris is someone who knows what it is like to suffer and live a > > tragic life. He has that distinct advantage over you. [Of course he must by > > virtue of what he believes in deny the sense of the tragic; but everyone > > who loves him knows he lives out a life of sorrow and hurt--I mean in > > addition to the bliss and glory only he has known among all of us Teachers > > of Transcendental Meditaiton. He holds the whole story inside of him, > > Jason.] > > > > I hope this helps, Jason. > > > > Could it be due to plain dumb fear? I remember Curtis > telling something like that. > > There are millions of dogmatists like Bevan on this planet. > > I don't think Bevan seeks the truth. I meant 'bureaucrat' > in that context. > > Don't you think Deepak Chopra would agree with me?
Either hamlet is the Mona Lisa of literature (as Eliot thought), or else it is the compensation for a toothache. You have been unable to let what I have said to you have any influence upon you--Not in the sense that I expected you would concur with me in what I said about Bevan. But, Jason, you simply cannot comprehend what life is when it would take you deeper than you are willing to go. I tried to take you somewhere--just to perhaps look at the scenery from another perspective. And what do you do? You returned to your point of view, a point of view which, in the case of my love for Maharishi, or my respect for Bevan (even as we argued publicly in front of his crying mother back in 1982), will not countenance any more reality than allows you to remain consistent in your opinions about everything. Curtis is not always right, by the way. I will see if I can track down a post where he slightly misses the mark. I mean he certainly, as Xeno has properly pointed out, is right more often than any of us are-and that's why Marek likes him so much. But, at least in this one instance (and perhaps, now that I really think about there is only this one instance) since we are discussing the matter about which Curtis has given his opinion, I think to make something of my rejection of his thesis that explains Bevan's behaviour. But as regards Bevan, No, I think his reasons for his mode of behaviour as a representative of the TMO is dictated by the profoundest of experiences of witnessing the holiness and brilliance and authority of his Master--in all kinds of contexts. Bevan seems to be under a kind of constraint because of his ideology, but when all is said and done, I believe his reasons for following Maharishi the way he has originates in a deep intuition, an intuition which has not been superseded by any event subsequent to the formation of a conviction originating in that intuition. If Bevan posted on FFL he would command tremendous respect--Not necessarily for what he might say; but from the depth out of which he has made his commitment to a kind of ultra-orthodoxy--an ultra-orthodoxy that, for most of us, seems irrational-at least now it does. But if he did say something here, we would feel what is underneath his predictable point of view--and guess what, Jason? He would reveal to those of us sensitive to subtext that he was living out a truth fully equal to your own. It is the difference, Jason, between Manhattan and Salt Lake City. > > > > Have you ever found that suffering yielded up a truth to you, Jason, > > > > about yourself, about life, which could be delivered in no other way > > > > than through your having suffered? > > > > > > > > > > I think if one suffers for the sake of the truth, yes. "ye > > > shall seek the truth and the truth shall set you free". > > > > > > > > > > Another simple thing to think about. > > > > > > > > Each person is a universe unto themselves. Life is a mysterious > > > > experience. I am sure death is too. You are inside something awesome > > > > and unbelievable, Jason: the universe. > > > > > > > > I will pray that somehow you end up actually handling the truth. But > > > > first of all you have to know that it is somewhere nearby. > > > > > > > > Effortlessness is not the required technique here, Jason. > > > > > > > > I was thinking today who Maharishi might be as just a person had he > > > > somehow found a way to become de-enlghtened--as I have claim I have. I > > > > would like to meet that person. There is nothing like being in Unity > > > > Consciousness for ten years and then eventually not being in Unity > > > > Consciousness. I would not miss out on this experience. It made me. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think there is a consenus on this if Maharishi was > > > ever enlightened. > > > > > > > You can't put your life inside a teacup, Jason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
