I agree with Curtis here. Maharishi's "We don't talk about our state of
consciousness" routine was an *intentional* "Nudge-nudge wink-wink
know-what-I-mean" tactic that IMO *everyone* was in on. You believed it more
firmly because you'd been convinced that you *were* in on it.
He got to imply that he WAS, in fact, enlightened, without ever saying it
overtly. People who bought the act got to believe he was enlightened while also
picking up on the cue that *they* could run this same number someday when
*they* became enlightened.
Everyone was also expected to pick up on the fact that he (Maharishi) seem to
make decisions the same way he described "the enlightened" making them. That
is, as a total narcissist, just deciding something and then assuming that it
was the "correct" decision simply because he had decided it. Again, as Curtis
suggests, everyone was supposed to assume that his near-absolute inability to
plan ahead or take other people's advice when making decisions was a good
thing, something an "enlightened" person would do.
And as Curtis suggests, saying it overtly would have been a step backwards, an
admission that his "Aw shucks...*of course* I'm enlightened, but I'm not
allowed to say so cuz I'm so humble" routine hadn't worked.
From: "[email protected] [FairfieldLife]"
<[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Some Fairfield, Iowa Age of Enlightenment News:
--In [email protected], <[email protected]> wrote :
MMY was a Hindu monk and never claimed to be enlightened, I personally don't
think he was. However TM works, that should be a relevant factor in the overall
merits of the TM program IMHO.
C: Whenever I see this statement I find it curious. The guy set up an
organization based entirely on the assumption of his enlightenment. He never
had to say "I am enlightened" he created the context in which we all related to
him in this way. There was no context that I was ever in around him where this
assumption was not the guiding principle under which we related to every word
that came out of his mouth. It was the assumption that lay behind his
commentaries on scriptures or lines from the Vedas, and everything else he
wrote or spoke about. He looked at every subject from this assumptive
perspective explicitly. He had the most through indoctrination program to
instill this belief in us all that I can conceive of.
What else could he have done to convey this assumption? I can't think of
anything undone to this end. A verbal affirmation would be a step back from the
institution he build on the foundation of this assumption.
I'm thinking that he did claim to be enlightened, could you tell?
