--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hagen J. Holtz" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Even if you may consider me as somehow arrogant, but I allow 
myself to tell 
> you that I would like to open your eyes a little bit now. First of 
all I 
> have already been an independent mind before, while and after 
having started 
> with TM. My master is my master but he is not my mental guardian 
or nurse. I 
> am a free man and not a mental slave. This as first preliminary 
vedic ideal 
> to be mentioned and herewith postulated.
> 
> Instead of asking, where Maharishi has been stating this or that 
the 
> question would be much more intelligently raised by asking, how 
Maharishi 
> would probably react in case you challenged his intellect by some 
tricky 
> problematics.
> 
> You may remember the commentary on the Bhagavadgita, where 
Maharishi 
> described the necessity to challenge one's master in order to make 
him set 
> free more knowledge. (By the way this challenge according to my 
opinion is 
> not being taking place sufficiently by his disciples).
> 
> Now after this introductory citation I come back to the main 
general point 
> by whose solution your fundamental questioning of authority makes 
most of 
> the consecutive doubtfully interposed questions at least formally 
obsolete.
> 
> I myself took the opportunity to challenge Maharishi several times 
in my 
> life in direct contact, in order to get the validation of that 
answer, which 
> I have already been giving to myself through mere setting free of 
inherent 
> CI (= Creative Intelligence). This is the self-evident purpose and 
result of 
> this spiritual practice (self-unfolding in double sense of the 
word).
> 
> In one case I brought my challenge to the peak point, because I 
dared to 
> doubt about an old-established model even, which Maharishi had 
launched as 
> one of his most fundamental ones. The reaction of the master gave 
me the 
> proof that it was worth to herald him at such high esteem, because 
his 
> answer was clear, modest and onepointed; I told him that the 
bubble-diagram 
> must be wrong, because transcending according to the law of 
irreversability 
> of processes in nature dictates the mind to walk in one direction 
only, and 
> that is from Atman (point value of inifinity = smaller than the 
smallest) to 
> Brahman (expanded value of infinity = bigger than the biggest). In 
fact 
> smaller than the smallest is essentially the same as bigger than 
the 
> biggest. This is the only reason, why the mind is enabled to 
transcend, that 
> is to say just by rescuing itself in the most expanded value in 
order to be 
> able to come back to the "starting point" of all manífestation. So 
I said to 
> Maharishi, "Transcending is a process of constant engrossment of 
the mantra 
> until it reaches its most expanded value and such the mind alone 
can find 
> back to its source." Without hesitation Maharishi agreed. It was 
in late 
> summer 1979 at the Golden Hall at Seelisberg-Switzerland. He 
literrally said 
> to me in presence of the audience: "You are absolutely right in 
what you 
> say. We just held this model as a working model for practical 
reasons only."
> 
> So thinking by yourself is not only allowed but vital necessary, 
as already 
> the great philosopher Immanuel Kant found out. His maxims of human 
thinking 
> (= emancipation) were:
> 
> 1.  Think !
> 2.  Think by yourself !
> 3.  Think consecutively !
> 4.  Think up to the end !
> 
> Very often I have to doubt, whether meditators - in their tendency 
to 
> regressive development - have ever come beyond stage "2". Whereas 
the 
> majority of the population at average moves at least somwhere in 
between 
> stage 2 and 3. A genuine spiritual seeker is expetced to range 
somewhere 
> between thinking level 3 and 4.
> 
> Maharishi has never taught to surrender in a non-critical manner. 
This are 
> old-fashioned concepts out of the moth's chest of topsy-turby 
theories on 
> Yoga, where constantly cause and effect got fatalistically turned 
upside 
> down (best example: "concentration is the input of meditation" 
even though 
> it is the output of the interaction of the three gunas in the mind 
(= 
> samyama, which leads to the state of "ekagrata parinama" or 
constant flow of 
> the mind in one thought (= what is meant by the real meaning of 
the word 
> "concentration"). And this again is identical with the state of at 
least 
> savikalpa-samadhi). Samadhi is by the way also a constant process 
and not a 
> static state, the same way as diving is always going along with 
some effort 
> to be able to stay underneath the surface and not a static notion, 
staying 
> at one spot without further invested dynamics.
> 

Thank you for your comments, Hagen. What you have shared often seems 
to be missing in the various discussions here regarding Maharishi; 
that we should always 'seek' intelligently and vigorously, asking 
and challenging along the way. I agree with your assessment that 
this doesn't occur enough with Maharishi, and yet it is *absolutely 
vital* if the goal is to be reached, regardless of the teacher or 
method. 

It comes up now and again that it is we who discover our own 
liberation, our own enlightenment. Your comments blend that intent 
well with the acceptance of a master's knowledge or guidance.  





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to