Yes, I'll pick up one of Muktananda's titles - been meaning to do so for a while. Re tantric reference: I always think of TM as being tantric, at least in spirit. So many religious traditions take a dim view of desire (it's always the ascetics and monks which get star billing) but tantra always claims that desire can be a royal road to enlightenment. That can include the whole sex 'n' drugs thing: wonder how many people get stuck at that level? Maharishi's basic idea that the mind naturally gravitates towards the source of bliss - his "feeding the monkey" image - would have struck a chord with tantrics no?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > I would suggest looking up Muktananda online. You can find both sites > pro and con. Back in the late 70s a number of TMers including teachers > read his "conversations" books because he answered questions that MMY > wouldn't. > > There are a number of gurus accused of sexual impropriety including > MMY. The problem of deciding to be a "holy man" and then later deciding > that was a mistake. Better to be a tantric which is mainly a > householder path. > > I don't keep track of shaktipat groups. If you go through the FFL > archives you'll find folks discussing other groups. > > People in the arts tend to have heightened spiritual experiences. The > arts culture it. There was even news last week of a study that showed > group singing was as good as practicing yoga. > >
