Turq, nice post and your link too at the bottom for those of us who have had the experience I feel like as written you caught it. -Buck in the Dome
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula <chivukula.ravi@> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:04 AM, curtisdeltablues < > > > curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Suspension till case is adjudicated or settled in some > > > > manor!!! All are & stand innocent in law, till proven, > > > > in law or other wise! > > > > > > I hear this invoked a lot and can appreciate that until > > > we have the facts we don't know what went on as I said > > > in my post about this. > > > > > > But the legal standards of judging cases really has little > > > to do with how we judge things in our daily life. (I don't > > > even know if what the legal standard in India is, do you?) > > > Throw in the very dubious influence peddling in India by > > > the rich and powerful and it is probably unrealistic to expect > > > us not to weigh in as the statements are published about what > > > went on, to form opinions as best we can with what we know. > > > I mean are you expressing faith that an Indian justice system > > > (or ours for that matter) will deal impartially with a rich > > > guy like Girish who has probably cultivated many powerfully > > > alliances. Remember how well connected Sai Baba was. that > > > basically made him untouchable. > > > > > > Settled in law doesn't mean guilty or innocent to me. OJ got > > > off remember. But he did it. > > > > Yes - of course. What I would be interested is your experiences > > around this topic as a teacher in the TM cult. Surely it was > > just not the Gurus - I'm sure you teachers got a piece of the > > pie sometimes too yeah - smiley, wink, wink, smiley. > > I will address this, because Ravi so clearly illustrates > the "just not getting it" mentality I spoke of in my earlier > rap about Paris movies. Ravi is projecting what *he* might > do, or thinks he might do, in a situation in which he found > himself surrounded by young, nubile students not averse to > developing a crush on their teachers and either trying their > best to seduce them, or being willing to be actively seduced > by the less-than-honorable ones. > > Yes, it happens. And yes, all too frequently. But *not* to > all of us. Although I have taken a lot of heat on this forum > for my unapologetic tales of how much nookie I got during my > time as a TM teacher, all of that nookie was shared with fellow > TM teachers, not any of my direct students. Did the opportunity > present itself? You betcha. Did I go for it, or was I even > tempted? No way, Jose. > > This is something that those who have never been placed in the > position of being a teacher in a spiritual context will not > fully understand. If you take it seriously -- as I did when > teaching TM and later when teaching meditation for Rama - Fred > Lenz -- you "just don't go there." The temptations *TO* go > there are many, and powerful. On TM residence courses, one of > the games I had to warn potential teachers about when it was > still my job to prep them for teaching such courses was the > phenomenon of "Fuck the course leader." Lovely young women > (or men, if the course was taught by a woman) would get them- > selves all jizzed up from all that meditation and try their > best to get not only into the teacher's head, but into their > pants as well. > > But IMO if you really "get" the essence of being placed in > the position of being a spiritual teacher -- even on the minor > level of being a TM teacher -- you really don't even *think* > of "going there." The students are *your* responsibility; > their welfare is *your* responsibility. Who in their right > mind would fuck with that by fucking *them*? > > Which brings us to the subject of those who *aren't* in their > right minds. > > That includes, of course, Maharishi, Rama, and now Girish. > While on the level of compassion I can understand these guys' > weakness, and on a personal level I have actually *experienced* > the powerful temptation to channel some adoring spiritual > groupie's attention in the direction of sexual attention, I > believe personally that it's one of the biggest mistakes any > spiritual teacher could ever make. And yes, I consider all > three of the people named above utter scumbags for having > done it. > > They might have had *other* qualities that were more admirable, > and they might have done things that will help to balance the > "karmic scales" when they're cruising the Bardo destined either > for a higher rebirth or one in the hell worlds, but I'm think- > ing that fucking your students is pretty much the same as > fucking *over* your students, and that's a shitload of karma > that would be difficult to balance in anyone's eyes. > > There is simply too much of a power differential for "mutually > consensual sex between equals" to ever happen in a spiritual > context. Even if the teachers themselves don't present them- > selves as "more than human" or almost god-like (and many of > them do just that), the students tend to *project* such qual- > ities onto them. Who can legitimately say "No" when a person > you've been trained to view as a saint or enlightened asks > you to "Come up and see my etchings?" Almost no one. In my > opinion, sex between a teacher in a position of power within > a strong spiritual organization -- be it Catholic priest, > TM teacher, or teacher in any other organization in which > people are led to believe that "teacher knows best" -- is > ALWAYS a form of rape, or at the very least, coercion. > > So, to answer your question, Ravi, yes, the temptations were > there. And no, not all of us succumbed to them. The fact that > you could even assume we would speaks to my point in my earlier > Free Man In Paris rap. Those on this forum who have never had > the opportunity to teach meditation simply *cannot comprehend* > what it is like, and how seriously one can take it. IF you > take it seriously, your life becomes a matter of trying to > do the best you can *for someone else*. THAT is the very > *benefit* of teaching -- ideally it takes you out of your ego, > and makes you remember at all times that it's not *about* you; > it's about doing something right and something appropriate > for the student or students in front of you. > > Several people here have never had that experience. For them, > as far as I can tell, "mastering the knowledge" has been about > learning to parrot the dogma taught by Maharishi or other > teachers so that they can use it to "win" their silly ego- > arguments, and puff up their own shoddy self-esteem. And I > understand, to some extent. They've never been in a position > in which someone *else's* welfare is more important than their > own. But the very fact that they've never experienced this > necessity to push one's *own* ego and one's *own* desires > into the background and focus on what is best for a student > often leaves them unable to comprehend WHY we did what we > did as teachers, and often for so long. > > I experienced some good moments while teaching TM. I experienced > even more of them while teaching for Rama, in totally different > circumstances. There I taught in a big room of people, 10-30 > at a time, teaching them all how to meditate without any puja > or any other spiritual bells and whistles, and like Amelie > turning around in the movie theater to watch the audience I > got to see the change that took place in their faces between > before the meditation and after it. I even wrote a story about > it once, so I'll pass it along: > > http://www.ramalila.net/RoadTripMind/rtm41.html > > Does that answer your question? >
