--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula <chivukula.ravi@...> wrote: > > Dear Judy, > > Let me start this over since I got distracted, almost over-posted - > somehow stopped since I had no clue I had already made 50 posts and got > off track in my response.
No prob, thanks very much for taking it up again. > So here's the case against Maharishi. I will attempt to make it > intelligible. > > "Suffering for sins" was not meant to be taken literally or necessarily > applicable to Maharishi, but something along similar lines - sacrifice, son > of God, divine ordained etc. This sense that he had some special insight > into reality and he had dedicate himself to this cause, that this is the > highest dharma, that he was divinely ordained to lift the consciousness of > the world. OK. But I never heard anything about "sacrifice" or "son of God" or "divinely ordained" from or about him (but remember, I wasn't a teacher, so all I know about personally is what the rank and file were told; I was never in his presence). He always gave credit for everything he taught--his "special insight into reality"--to his master, Brahmanand Saraswati (Guru Dev to TMers), the Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math. Maharishi himself wasn't a Brahmin, so he couldn't be Guru Dev's successor as Shankaracharya; and apparently he was never authorized to teach by Guru Dev. Maharishi did consider Guru Dev to be a quasi-divine figure. "Lift the consciousness of the world," yes, that was the whole point, for sure, via the practice of TM and the TM- Sidhis and other ancillary programs that Maharishi introduced over time (as opposed to something Maharishi was going to accomplish on his own--he just provided the tools). > There exists a set of metaphysical processes (based on my own personal > experience) that create intensely subjective, mystical energy - intense > states of bliss, oneness i.e an awakening. This is not permanent, however > when followed by period of intense self-examination, contemplation result > in a set of physical, emotional, psychological changes that can transform > oneself to a new state of functioning that is more abiding. It doesn't mean > such a person can legislate reality and has any special insight into > reality because reality can only be truly determined at death. > > This whole process leave's one always vulnerable the very fact that it > leaves Gurus like Amma, Maharishi invulnerable is he first sign they have > gone wrong. I'm having trouble parsing this last sentence. Could you take a shot at rephrasing? > For my theory it's better to assume Maharishi has mystical experiences. FWIW, my assumption (and I certainly could be wrong) has been that Maharishi was in a stable, permanent state of higher consciousness, rather than that he had mystical experiences per se. In other words, he lived in a state of mystical experience, as it were (he wouldn't have called it "mystical"; he hated the term--it was all very natural, as far as he was concerned). And > here's where Robin's concept of mystical deception was so attractive to me. > > It explained my behavior. Robin branded me as deceived during Nov/Dec 2011 > and indeed I was. The mystical intoxication was so high, it created such a > oneness I felt the whole Universe supporting me, that all I had to do was > to reclaim this magical throne that was waiting for me. Because the world > turns into an intensely magical, mystical place. > > So then this mystical deception leads to Gurus like Maharishi, Amma to > claim infallibility, makes them claim they have the secret blessing of > reality to uplift human consciousness. I wouldn't know whether Maharishi ever experienced anything "intoxicating" as you did. It's certainly not part of any TM lore. And again, the words you're using--"secret blessing of reality"--aren't anything I ever heard from Maharishi. As to "infallibility," Maharishi taught that in the state of enlightenment, one was completely in tune with natural law and was incapable of ever making mistakes on that level. But it's important to realize that supposedly everyone was capable of achieving this state. Maharishi was "special" only in that he had already achieved it. The rest of us would presumably also achieve it sooner or later (Robin felt he had). Robin does believe that higher states of consciousness (at least of the Eastern sort) generally involve "mystical deception." It's not just the intoxicated type of experience. > And I have struggled for the last 3 years contemplating on the evolutionary > advantage my awakening provides and what benefits it provides if any? Is an > unenlightened person, otherwise authentic, honest be at a disadvantage? > Does Universe, reality have an interest, advantage in uplifting human > consciousness? Is there even anything wrong in human collective > consciousness as such? > > Since I haven't come to any satisfactory answers, the answers can be safely > assumed as a no, IMHO that is. I have no basis for arguing with you on this point. There sure are a lot of people--have been throughout history--who disagree with you, though. What you've said about Maharishi isn't necessarily untrue; it may in many cases be a matter of semantics: how you're expressing your ideas, the words you're using, don't match up with the way Maharishi described things. But the ideas and experiences may be similar. I *don't* think Maharishi as a personality, as a teacher, was quite how you've envisioned him in many respects. He was more dignified, more intellectual, more like, say, a college professor than a cheerleader or politician or TV preacher. He was charismatic, but it was a quietly intense kind of charisma, not showy. He was also pretty modest, at least in what I've seen on videotape. He didn't exalt himself, as a rule, didn't even refer to himself that often. He was also very, *very* intelligent and had a remarkable grasp of language and facility with explanations--at least in his heyday. In his later years, there was some degree of mental deterioration. I don't know whether it ever actually amounted to dementia, but there was definitely a loss of clarity. I can't say what it was like to be around him in person, but for Robin and a number of others here who spent time with him, his presence was apparently quite overpowering. I'm sure there's a lot more to be said in response to your points, pro or con. Maybe some of the folks who haven't turned rabidly against Maharishi would be willing to add something to all this. I wish Robin were here--he'd have plenty to say, goodness knows. Basically, Maharishi didn't wallow in what you're calling mysticism. The phrase "down to earth" comes to mind, as odd as that may seem with regard to the subject matter of enlightenment. > So all these Gurus who claim infallibility, some superiority of their > so-called pseudo Hindu beliefs are deceived, deluded. > > IMO - the essence of the path of inner truth originating from India (let me > not use Hindu since it has been so corrupted, tainted and abused), the > essence is that of the freedom, dignity of the individual, of the inner > search that is unique to each individual with or without any mystical > experiences or awakening or enlightenment. What about the Western equivalent? Apparently many Western saints have had mystical experiences (St. Teresa of Avila, for example).
