I heard these same comments about no rebirth on Maharishi tapes, and people
would argue with him because they wanted 'to come back'. Not too many years
after I learned TM an older, longer term teacher told a story about being with
Maharishi in a kitchen and the Indian woman who was cooking said something
about being reborn, and Maharishi said, 'no we do not want this, we do not want
to be reborn'. End of story.
Rebirth is a weird concept and seems to me grossly misunderstood. In religion
it is a control vector, used to keep people in line, like the concept of sin in
the Judeo-Christian-Moslem religions. If you stomp on that bug, there will be
hell to pay later. It will come back to you. But the mechanics of how what you
do will come back to you are especially vague, how that actually would be
accomplished, you know, with real world examples and/or counter examples. It is
one of those slippery, non-provable metaphysical ideas. It keeps you a slave in
a certain conceptual context. But it is more interesting to regard the idea in
a larger schema.
All it means is in the conceptual framework of the big self ('Self'), is that
if the individual body-mind sees an object, and the mind interprets that object
as a separate entity and not as Self, and it sees that object as a self, say, a
cat crossing your path, a small 's' cat, then Self is reborn because in that
perception, Self 'died' in not experiencing itself as a continuity of all
things. Rebirth therefore takes place in present time, not in the future. No
one lives and dies in the future, that is a projection of the mind, an
anticipation the mind creates. The whole enlightenment trip is to undo that
faulty perception. Because the individuality is a fiction created by the mind,
it cannot survive anyway because it is not real. So even if you die in total
ignorance, you are still dead forever. You are really un-dead because
individuality was never really alive in terms of the whole context of things.
And as the un-dead, since you are already dead, you cannot therefore die. What
a fascinating way to be immortal.
---In [email protected], <turquoiseb@...> wrote :
OK, it was kinda inevitable that *somebody* would come along claiming to be
able to pass along Maharishi's messages from beyond the grave. I'm surprised
that it hasn't happened before now.
The thing I'm confused about is how anyone who claims to believe that *by his
own standards and according to his own teachings* Maharishi was enlightened
would be *interested* in hearing a message from him after death. Or how such a
person could even consider such a message a *possibility* if Maharishi was
really enlightened.
In being open to such a promised message possibly being for real, you would
have to believe that Maharishi was NEVER enlightened. If he was, *according to
his own teachings*, after an enlightened person dies, there can be no
individuality left to send such a message. "The drop has returned to the
ocean." That means there ain't no drop (or personality construct, or self)
known as Maharishi out there any more. Just ocean. Last I checked, oceans don't
send messages to guys in showers, including the shower guy's dead wife in on
the conference call. And if they do, they don't sign them, "Maharishi."
I heard Maharishi give the talks surrounding this point many times, and they
were often controversy-provoking, with people standing up to the microphone and
saying, "No, Maharishi, that *can't* be how it is, that if you die in CC there
is no more 'you' left and you never have a chance to attain GC or UC."
And *every time* someone did this, Maharishi would "correct" them and say, "No,
there is NO chance of individual personality continuing to exist after an
enlightened person dies. They are already Absolute, and when the relative body
falls away, all that is left is Absolute -- no personality, no self, nada. Game
over, man." OK, he didn't say "Game over, man," but he did pretty much say all
the rest, as many teachers here on this forum know.
And the thing is Jerry Jarvis knows this better than anyone. He perfected the
art of parroting Maharishi's talks on this subject, and I heard him give the
same speech many times -- "There is no individuality after an enlightened
person dies, and no possibility of one existing." So if Jerry has actually come
to believe that "messages" from Dead Maharishi could possibly exist, what does
that imply?
Well, as far as I can tell, it implies one of two things -- an either/or
situation. To believe that this George Hammond guy *has* actually received
messages from a Dead Maharishi, Jerry would have to believe that either 1)
Maharishi's teaching on this subject (which he had parroted many times) was
WRONG, or 2) that the teaching might be correct, but that means that Maharishi
was never enlightened.
If any of you out there are actually in touch with Jerry, ask him to resolve
this WTF quandary for me.
I mean, I could understand someone who has never spent any time around
Maharishi or never even met him (like Jim, Judy, or Lawson) not knowing what
Maharishi's teachings were about the impossibility of individuality after death
in CC. But Jerry? I've heard him parrot those teachings, and in that "I *know*
the Truth so you *really* should believe me" tone of voice he used to use in
lectures.
So if he is willing to entertain even the *possibility* that these "messages"
really come from a now-dead Maharishi who still has individuality, what does
that imply about what he (Jerry) now believes? Was the teaching wrong, or was
it right, and Maharishi just never enlightened?
