They tend to come up to you and say "I'm an Indian holy man" and hold out their begging can or up. Figured that being a westerner we would fall for it but the tour had warned about giving them anything. Besides I might have taken them up on "being an holy man" and paid them if they first did something to prove it. :-D

OTOH, Indian academics and pundits were happy to host us and not charge anything for it. They were just pleased to have westerners who were interested.

On 11/14/2014 12:07 PM, [FairfieldLife] wrote:

I read an interesting article written for an Indian wandering monk about how well they really take care of wandering holy men in India. People basically expect these guys to have no right to demand any decent food so they often get scraps people would throw away. If they complain they get hit with:"you are not a real renunciate if you have any desires not to eat shit food!" They also constantly get bugged to heal people which is a total drag since they can't. It sounds like being an American bum with even more judgements leveled at them about how they should behave!

---In, <noozguru@...> wrote :

There are a lot of "Bucks" in India. And real yogis tend to disregard them as fanatics.

My trip to India, studying with Indian teachers for ayurveda, jyotish and tantra gave me a good perspective on Maharishi. He didn't stray too much from traditional thought. If he would have he would have been chastised by the yogi community. Many of them praise him for popularizing meditation in the west but wouldn't have anything to do with the movement when invited to do so.

One needs to remember in Indian tradition there is a right hand path for renunciates and the left hand path for householders. Problem is a lot westerners aspire to the right hand path because they want to be "holy men". But that is ridiculous because you have to almost be born into it. The left hand path is more practical in the west because you can go about earning income to raise a family. I think in India the only advantage to the right hand path is you get taken care of by the monasteries or if on the street people will give feed you out of tradition.

My tantra guru taught that samskaras don't entirely go away in enlightenment. Maharishi actually taught this too as "the remains of ignorance." But it determines your personality and probably keeps us away from being totally intolerable bliss ninnies.

On 11/14/2014 11:13 AM, curtisdeltablues@... <mailto:curtisdeltablues@...> [FairfieldLife] wrote:

    C: Since Buck decided to take a swipe at me well I have been off
    the board, I will take a moment to make my own case: that Buck
    comically misunderstands the meaning of Maharishi's message as
    usual and idiotically thinks it might serve as a weapon against
    people who think differently than he does. The hysterical
    perversion of the intention of Maharishi's words being used as a
    justification of his doing EXACTLY what Maharishi is warning
    against is too good to miss. Plus it gives me a chance to comment
    on Maharishi's style of self promotions as a special guy that
    seems to have worked so well on Buck. My comments will be
    interspersed with Maharishi's below

    Don't Speak Ill, Remain Pure, 1964

    Everyone has to discharge one's duty towards himself and towards
    spreading of this meditation in whatever capacity one can. And
    never undermine any other's attempt or desires in whatever humble
    way it may be.

    C: The context is his teachers who were bitching about each
    other. Maharishi wants them to get back to work pitching his
    product and STFU about their personality problems with each other.

    One thing of very great importance: that now when you have been
    meditating for some time, purity has grown in life quite a lot.
    As the mind gains more and more of the Being, mind becomes more
    and more pure.

    C: Again setting the context, this applies to those who are of a
    level of purity where this kind of magical effect takes place. He
    is not making a broad statement about all people and is not
    addressing this to non meditators. By applying it to Barry and
    Michael and me, Buck is saying that our consciousness is as pure
    as his so this should be a problem for us too. In Maharish's
    system, like that of the Laws of Manu, there are different
    instructions for behavior for each level of consciousness. He is
    not instructing Buck to run around like a clucking hen berating
    people like me who are acting according to my own level of
    consciousness according to his system. He is directing this to
    insiders who want or care about his opinions. It is not a scold
    to be used to beat others over the head, it is an insiders tip
    for insiders.

    But one thing which you have to be very cautious about is that
    you don't think evil of anyone, don't speak ill of anyone.
    Otherwise speaking ill and thinking ill of someone, dwelling on
    the weaknesses of someone, all their bad qualities come to your
    heart; [this way] you get your heart and mind spoiled.

    C: Here is where it gets even funnier. For Buck worry to be
    valid, the things we are saying about Maharishi must be true. He
    is not denying that people have real "weaknesses", he is saying
    that those real weakness come into your heart for paying
    attention to them. So only in the case where Maharishi is an
    actual con man shyster, or whatever other criticism had been
    leveled does this influence come into play. And none of it has
    anything to do with my own critiques of Maharishi's belief
    system. He is not condemning all philosophical disagreement or he
    would be condemning Shankara's main activity traveling around
    India and debating with and arguing his points with opposing view
    points. Buck is misusing the intention of this instruction
    because he has intellectual boundary problems with people who
    don't share his provincial view of the world.

    So when through meditation, purity is growing in life, we don't
    invite this mud from outside to make us impure anymore. We have
    to be cautious against our thoughts that we don't think ill of
    anyone, and we don't do ill to anyone naturally.

    C: Again, the point is for people who in the system have gained
    this imaginary purity, it is not a universal instruction for

    Speaking ill of others is a very bad.... We say it makes the
    cloth dirty, makes the whole personality very dirty and impure.
    That we have to guard against in our dealings and feelings with
    people. Very important; very, very important.  It is as important
    as daily practice of meditation.

    C: So WTF is Buck doing chasing us around, drawing our "mud" to
    himself? If what we are doing it is impure, then by dwelling on
    and attacking us Buck is violating the very purpose of the
    instruction, while at the same time thinking it is a way to put
    us down? Now THAT's funny.

    In the olden days in India, there was a practice that if some man
    did some great sin, then the way to repent it was that he would
    cover his body with a cloth like that and will go to any village.
    Standing out of the village, he would shout out: my name is such
    and such, and I come from that village, and I happened to be
    doing like that and like that and like that. He would just
    announce it and go ahead, and keep on announcing from village to

    And the effect was: all the people who heard him, if in their
    evening meetings with their fellow men, they talk about that,
    then the contention is that they partake of his sin and after
    some time he becomes pure. Just by talking about the sinner, the
    people who talk about him share his sin.

    This is very dangerous. Someone has done something wrong and if
    we dwell on that and talk it over with someone, we have been
    affected by that sin and we spread that sin; we partake of his
    sin and take it upon us.

    C: I agree with Maharishi that olden day India was full of
    idiotic practices.

    Anyone who has done any mistake there or there or there, we just
    don't speak of it.  Otherwise we will only be shrouding ourselves
    with the sins of others. Very important, especially now when
    through this Transcendental Meditation we are making ourselves
    more and more full with Being, means more and more full with
    purity, then we have to guard against this thing which is very

    No one thinks that if I am talking ill of someone, then no one
    thinks that I am taking over his sin. It is a common practice in
    the world to simply talk something wrong done by others. It is
    just very harmful for us.

    C: So Mr. Pure guy. Heed your master and STFU about people who
    you believe are sinners. It is very dangerous for you to focus
    your purity and wa wa woo woo power on people who don't share our
    views. It isn't even his intended point. Take a moment to
    actually read what your teacher said, apply it to yourself after
    you understand what the F was actually talking about.

    More below;:

    Question (inaudible, about newspaper writers?)

    They do a great service as far as amending of the wrong is
    concerned, but as far as partaking of his sin is concerned, they
    do partake. They help the sinner by spreading the news about him
    and everybody talks about him, and then all of them partake of
    the sins. As far as partaking of the sin is concerned, that is
    helpful for the sinner.

    C: What a complete indictment of how you behave here Buck.

    In Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna said to Arjuna at one point [Gita
    9:1, see below] that I am giving you this most secret wisdom
    because, one condition out of many that He said was, that you
    never speak ill of others (/anasuya/). That is you don't speak
    ill of others, for this quality in you I think you deserve this
    wisdom, so I give this wisdom to you. Just this quality of not
    speaking ill of others.

    Out of my own experience, I tell you, in the ashram of my Guru
    Dev, there were 100s of people, all good disciples. And everyone
    after all is a human being. No aspirant is ever perfect. They
    come to the feet of the master for that perfection. So everyone
    has his own failing there and there and there. I had my own
    failings, I never knew what were they, but must be because no
    human is ever perfect.

    C: With the myopic self knowledge of George Bush who as asked the
    question about his failings, Maharishi doesn't know himself well
    enough to know what they were. That explains a lot.

    One thing I was famous about is that I will not speak ill of
    anyone. I would always cherish a hope of his becoming better
    sooner or later. I would always cherish a hope.

    C: Mr Self Promotion to the end. He was "famous" for being so
    wonderful while at the same time oblivious to his own faults. I
    would love to hear the discussion over chapattis about the
    clueless Mahesh by the other disciples!

    If someone says: that man has done like that and such a bad man.
    [I would say:] “Now that he is in the ashram he will
    improve.” Always I cherish a hope against all the wrongs done by
    all the people.

    C: Get it Buck? Stop being such a negative d-bag around here.

    And the effect that you find today is all this world Movement to
    bring peace to every man all around the world; it is a very great
    thing in the long history of the world. This great force of
    purity and strength for spiritual regeneration of entire mankind,
    no  surprise [that it] is based on the faculty of mind that will
    not cherish into the wrongs of others.

    C: And he sticks the landing! I am going to predict that Buck
    will share Maharishi's lack of ability for self reflection and
    will continue to trot this out as if it means that critics of
    Maharishi and his belief system should stop expressing their POV
    here. And when he does, I will laugh my ass off at his utter lack
    of understanding of the system he claims to be such a champion for.

    What you are doing is hijacking Maharishi's belief system into
    your own personal agenda for promoting your image as a super
    special spiritual person, while demonstrating your lack of
    reading comprehension. Why did it take a critic of the system to
    point out its intended meaning to you?

    Now you have three choices. Show me where my understanding is
    specifically wrong and why his words should apply to me, go ad
    hominem as if that solves the problem, or cut and run and apply
    yourself to writing some new preachy bullshit that attempts to
    sell us on how special you are for the intellectually mangled
    beliefs you hold.

    Bhagavad Gita 9:1

    The Blessed Lord said:

    Now I shall fully declare to you, who do not cavil, this the
    greatest secret, the knowledge combined with the experience,
    having known which you will be freed from evil.

    Quote from Upanishads, which was used in Vedic Atom Pledge (1980)

    Let us be together,
    Let us eat together,
    Let us be vital together,
    Let us be radiating truth, radiating the light of life,
    Never shall we denounce anyone, never entertain negativity.

    <>, <dhamiltony2k5@...>
    <mailto:dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote :

    Well, really there is a much larger communal discussion going on
    here about dealing with negativity. As such I am not going to
    entertain your particular negativity around this any further. For
    to go any further might well necessitate having to denounce you
    in addition to dredging your negativity further and I feel that
    should not be spiritually useful for either of us right now,
    according to the teaching. Instead I shall sit in yoga with your
    energetic resolution of your anger issues.

    I wish you well,


    turquoiseb wrote

    How old are you, "Buck?" I'll bet I'm older than you are. a transcendentalist I well know the reality of my inner
    experience with this and for that I am quite a satisfied customer
    of the transcending meditation experience.

    I have no problem with this, and am in fact happy for you that
    your "inner experience" has been good for you. What I object to
    is your assumption that YOUR "inner experience" means
    diddleysquat to anyone else or is good for them. Or even that it

    I know and can certainly trust in the clarity of that reality by
    the science of my experience, thank you for asking.

    "That reality" isn't one. It's only your "inner experience."


    Get it?

    I am not going to get down in to your mud to wrestle with you
    point by point about George Bush, life is too short for that.
    However there is in deed a discerning and practical spiritual
    aspect of caution to what Maharishi is getting at with his
    negativity talk around spiritual practice. I find it wise to take
    that to heart. Jai Guru Dev, -Buck

    Sorry, but I can't "take to heart" the possibility that anyone
    who still tries to end rants by invoking the thoughtstopper "Jai
    Guru Dev" could possibly be "wise."

    turquoiseb wrote :

              • ... 'Richard J. Williams' [FairfieldLife]
              • ... [FairfieldLife]
              • ... [FairfieldLife]
              • ... [FairfieldLife]
              • ... [FairfieldLife]
              • ... [FairfieldLife]
              • ... [FairfieldLife]
              • ... 'Richard J. Williams' [FairfieldLife]
              • ... Michael Jackson [FairfieldLife]
              • ... [FairfieldLife]
              • ... Bhairitu [FairfieldLife]
              • ... [FairfieldLife]
              • ... [FairfieldLife]
              • ... [FairfieldLife]
        • Re... Michael Jackson [FairfieldLife]
          • ... 'Richard J. Williams' [FairfieldLife]
  • Re: [FairfieldL... Michael Jackson [FairfieldLife]
    • [Fairfield... 'Richard J. Williams' [FairfieldLife]

Reply via email to