Bob Ferguson told this story at the Wellesley TM Center back in the mid-70s, except the disciple was not Guru Dev and the disciple did not come to a satsang to convey what he meant. Considering Bob's memory of this story was likely pretty fresh thirty years ago, I'll go with Bob's version.
--- anonyff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Personally I think that MDG is a moodmaker who feels > compelled to tell > us all how great he is (repeatedly and ad nauseum) > > --- In [email protected], "Irmeli > Mattsson" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I liked this post a lot. It is an honest account > of Goodman's personal > > path and of his own insights and discriminations. > I find Goodman's > > relationship to MMY have similar qualities than > the TM-teacher I meet > > every now and then at lunch. That teacher has done > the > > re-certification course. All the apparent > absurdities in the movement > > don't bother him. He is somehow happily beyond > them. There is > > something very beautiful and innocent in his > relationship to MMY. The > > absurdities of the movement seem to have had a > softening and moulding > > effect on his earlier quite rigid beliefs and > attachments. I respect > > his devotion very much and I consider him to be > doing fine. > > > > To be a `true believer' in this way is a fine and > beautiful thing. To > > be a TB in a way as to using one's only right > belief as a > > justification to morally low actions, and abuse > and control of others > > is an distorted form, but quite common. This form > of the TB phenomenon > > has mostly been discussed here and this discussion > is very important. > > > > My main criticism is of Goodman's post is that > he tries to make > > wrong this kind of discussion. Or at least he > claims reasoning in > > those lines to be at the same level as the > fundamentalist's reasoning, > > only from the opposite direction. I disagree. > Sometimes > > fundamentalism can become wrapped in rigid > rationality or > > rationalisations and use of science as religion. > In those cases his > > criticism is appropriate, otherwise not. > > > > I also disagree with the idea that no one is > objective until they are > > re-established in the Self. I claim that we cannot > even then be fully > > objective, to be representing the absolute truth. > The absolute is > > beyond the manifest phenomenal world. When the I > becomes established > > in the transcendental, it becomes very stable and > dis-identified with > > ideas of oneself, gross or subtle emotions etc. > This I has no form, > > not even truth as we understand it. > > > > This kind of I does not so easily identify with > subjective states and > > therefore it is capable of looking at also > internal phenomenon from a > > stable and calm position. It is very difficult to > hurt this kind of I. > > Still it also always looks at things from a > perspective, maybe from > > several perspectives, but never from all the > possible and valid > > perspectives. > > > > I agree fully of the importance of surrendering > the gross level > > calculating intellect as an ultimate guiding > light. We cannot evolve > > to higher ways of being, or stages of development > by relying on our > > intellect. Our intellect can create only > variations of structures > > familiar to us. If we want to evolve we have to > surrender and let > > ourselves to be guided. But simultaneously our > discriminative capacity > > and sound judgement are great assets in avoiding > pitfalls while > > surrendering. Otherwise surrendering may > insidiously change to > > regression. And we start using intellect to find > justifications to our > > morally low actions. However the reality is > usually more complicated > > than this division because often surrender and > regression are both > > present and we are not capable of discriminating > them from each other. > > > > I also personally feel to be strongly guided. Not > by any single being > > in physical form, present or past, rather by all > of them. I have also > > surrendered to and am also guided by the > transcendental that is > > beyond my understanding and intellect. > > > > Irmeli > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Michael Dean > Goodman > > <Tantra@> wrote: > > > > > > THE STRUGGLE OF INDIVIDUALITY TO PERPETUATE ITS > ILLUSION > > > > > > I feel compassionately sad whenever I meet those > who still cling > > > to the idea that their individuality (individual > intellect) can > > > guide them to the goal of realization, of > remembering, of waking > > > up again to Reality. They're sure that they > don't need a guide > > > on the path, don't need to surrender control, > don't need to ask > > > for help, and don't need to embrace their > intellect's incompetence > > > and impotence to handle the job. > > > > > > They are sure that their relative, finite > intellect, bound in the > > > world of space and time, can grok and master > infinity, the field > > > without boundaries, far beyond the ken of the > relative intellect. > > > That is delusion, that is arrogance of the > deepest kind, that is > > > the very essence of ignorance. Their individual > ego/intellect has > > > convinced them to trust it (not only to trust > it, but to actually > > > believe that they ARE it), and to never > entertain the idea that the > > > ego/intellect's assertion of its importance and > ability to guide > > > them "back home" IS ITSELF THE VERY CRUX OF THE > PROBLEM, the very > > > core of the ignorance. > > > > > > HIRING THE THIEF TO CATCH THE THIEF > > > > > > It is like hiring the master cat burglar (albeit > in his clever dis- > > > guise as the 'great detective') to solve the > string of (his) burglar- > > > ies. The great detective (master burglar) will > will NEVER EVER turn > > > himself in, never participate in his own > exposure, but instead will > > > always have some encouraging progress report, > and some inspiring vi- > > > sion of possibilities, to "string us along" as > long as possible, as > > > he secretly continues his life of crime. > > > > > > It is a very similar thing, to entrust our > spiritual awakening to the > > > ego/intellect consortium. They ARE the problem, > and putting them in > > > charge of solving the problem is lunacy. > [Technically, the problem > > > is our identification with them, our belief that > we ARE them, that > > > they are "in charge", that they are "all that > there is".] The real > > > solution is not to "hire" them to guide us to > realization, but to let > > > go of them and remember our true status as the > infinite field that is > > > beyond them. Instead of following them, we have > to step out of their > > > realm entirely, beyond where they can go, into > the unbounded field of > > > the Self. Then they revert back to their real > status as our servants, > > > as managers of the relative field of life - and > let go of the delusion > > > that they are "hot stuff", "in charge", "the > boss". > > > > > > DISCRIMINATION - THE PATH TO CC > > > > > > The path from ignorance to awakening IS a path > of discrimination, > > > but not discrimination by the relative > intellect. It is the waking > > > up of the cosmic intellect from its immersion in > illusion, from its > > > identification with boundaries, with > individuality, from its belief > > > that it ever was (solely) the relative > intellect. It is the path > > > of the infinite Self "waking up", curving back > on its Self, and stop- > > > ping its old habit of getting stuck in the > finite boundaries. It is > > > the path of separating what is Real from what is > not. And the rela- > > > tive ego/intellect is in the field of "what is > not real", and there- > > > fore hardly fit to lead us to the Real. It is > the path of the cosmic > > > intellect regaining its settled, even state of > being established in > > > its own, infinite Self (sama-dhi = evenness of > intellect). > > > > > > BASED ON MY OWN EXPERIENCE - > > > INDIVIDUAL INTELLECT TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT > > > > > > I can say this so boldly, about the struggle of > the individual ego/ > > > intellect to perpetuate its illusion and never > admit it needs help, > > > because I was very, very much there once; I know > how that feels. I > > > have a very strong, powerful relative intellect. > I have a deep ten- > > > dency in my relative personality to believe in > self-sufficiency, to > > > hold that I can/must take care of myself, be > vigilant, figure it out, > > > protect myself, etc. > > > > > > So I tried figuring it out on my own (for many > lifetimes, and for many > > > years in this lifetime), sorting through the > myriad philosophies, spi- > > > ritual traditions, techniques, teachers... I > tried "interviewing" > > > various teachers, testing them, evaluating them. > Until I met one that > > > chose me. I thought I chose him; I thought I > poked and prodded with > > > my intellect and discovered someone where I > couldn't find any "holes", > > > any inconsistencies, any weaknesses. But > looking back, in hindsight, > > > that belief was still part of my delusion of > independence and power > > > of my ego/intellect. In reality, it was just > grace that he was offer- > > > ed to me, it was just that I was ripe and being > harvested by something > > > so much beyond me, beyond the delusion of who I > thought I was, that I > > > couldn't conceive of It, much less evaluate and > judge It. > > > > > > So It presented me brilliantly with just the > right qualities in a > > > teacher that allowed my ego/intellect to feel > safe, to relax, to let > > > the armor down just enough that the inexorable > process could begin > > > [or move into its final phase after all that > preparation time]. > > > > > > INDIVIDUAL INTELLECT RELAXES, AND FINALLY > SURRENDERS > > > > > > And even then it didn't happen all at once, my > belief in the power > > > of my relative ego/intellect didn't crumble, I > didn't jump off the > > > edge of some cliff. I just started sliding down > a very inviting > > > but apparently gentle slope. I kept getting > seduced by It, so that > > > the hold of my belief in the power of my > relative ego/intellect faded > > > over the course of a couple of years in stages. > Layer by layer, I > > > struggled, but I let go. I shifted from > identifying with my indivi- > > > dual ego/intellect to identifying with the Self, > with cosmic ego/in- > > > tellect. I trusted something bigger to guide > me. And that "something > > > bigger" was shown to me through the vehicle > called "my teacher", "my > > > Master", Maharishi. > > > > > > 3 LABELS THROWN ABOUT ON THIS LIST > > > > > > LABEL #1 - TRUE BELIEVERS > > > > > > People on this list sometimes call me a "true > believer". I was once. > > > In the beginning, in the 70s, I spoke and taught > based on faith, on > > > belief. But that was a long time ago. Now, > most of my speech and > > > behavior spontaneously arises from direct > personal experience/under- > > > standing, and from the source in cosmic mind - > from awareness cur- > > > ving back on its Self. This makes life SO much > simpler, so much > > > easier. ;) > > > > > > When we live in a universe apparently ruled by > the relative ego/in- > > > tellect, then everything feels like it has to be > "figured out", > > > "checked out", evaluated, vigilantly watched and > decided. Discrimi- > > > nation rules - our very existence feels like it > depends on it. One- > > > upsmanship is the way - to make ourself "more > OK" by making others > > > "less OK", to "prove" ourselves "right" by > making others "wrong", to > > > bolster our sense of existence and safety and > solidity by taking that > > > away from others. Certainly, handing over that > personal discriminat- > > > ing power to someone feels like danger, like > foolishness. We must > > > avoid being "taken advantage of", being fooled, > letting our guard > > > down. So its a great put-down to call each > other "true believer" or > > > "true non-believer", to imply that someone is > blindly and indiscri- > > > minately following a path. And it puffs us up > to position ourself > > > as the "objective", "clear-minded", "logical" > one. > > > > > > But it's just a big illusion - no one is > objective until they are re- > > > established in the Self. That is the only > uninvolved, neutral, free- > > > from-desire, free-from-fear vantage point. > Everyone else is just un- > > > knowingly supporting their deep beliefs (which > are often based on un- > > > conscious traumas and the resulting > constrictions), by cherry-picking > > > among the available "evidence". What's called > "objective", > "truthful", > > > "right" by many turns out to be merely that > which supports their exis- > > > tence, comfort, safety...that which supports > their relative, and often > > > skewed, world-view. > > > > > > To the relative intellect, concepts like > intuition, feelings, > devotion, > > > surrender, submission, homage, bhakti, etc. feel > so foreign - more > than > > > foreign, they feel dangerous. They threaten the > intellect's carefully > > > held-together illusion of stability and safety. > > > > > > In my experience "true-belief" is a stage - to > carry you on the path > > > until direct experience and understanding catch > up and take over. When > > > the Self comes back to its Self, and the > universe "ruled" by the rela- > > > tive ego/intellect is seen objectively, then > there is no more need to > > > be a "believer" of any stripe, to take someone > else's word for it. > > > Then you can take your own word for it, the word > of the Self; you > speak > > > from The Truth, rather than from your > individually-colored truth or > > > beliefs. > > > > > > And only at that point, established in the Self, > do those words like > > > "devotion", "surrender", "bhakti" actually start > to have any real > > > meaning. Only at that point is there something > real to actually sur- > > > render. Our surrender of the relative intellect > to step into the > > > field of the Self was the surrender of an > illusion, of a "shadow". > > > But to surrender who we really are to God - to > transform Self-reali- > > > zation into God-realization - that is surrender > worthy of the name. > > > Only at that point does the real opening of the > heart take over, > > > does the path of discrimination (separating) > turn into the path of > > > love (merging). > > > > > > Most people who've not realized the Self know, > somewhere deep inside, > > > that no matter how strongly they present their > views, and how much > > > one-upsmanship they foist on others to try and > make their own position > > > look solid and right by making others wrong, > their whole thing is > built > > > on quicksand - there is nothing solid, stable, > true anywhere in their > > > world. They know that everything is relative, > slippery/slidey - and > > > that the only way to find any slight stability > is to use the intellect > > > to build a structure of beliefs that looks > solid. > > > > > > So those who haven't had that real, objective > experience of living > > > from the Self, and who haven't directly > experienced that there is > > > non-relative, non-slippery, non-changing > absolute Truth - often as- > > > sume that anyone who speaks clearly and firmly > must have been "brain- > > > washed", taken in, hypnotized...OR they must be > an ego-maniac. The > > > idea that someone could be speaking from direct, > personal, innocent > > > experience of unchanging Truth is difficult for > them to grok. And > > > the concept that someone would be willing to > take that absolute Truth > > > and "give it up" for something greater, for some > urge of the heart, > > > is even more baffling. > > > > > > LABEL #2 - INSIDER > > > > > > People on this list sometimes call me an insider > in the TM Movement. > > > I was once. I founded and ran one of the > biggest TM Centers in the > > > country (Chicago), helped create the corporate > TM Program (AFSCI), > > > taught credit TM/SCI classes at colleges, was > trained as a Special > > > Techniques teacher, led international ATRs and > TTCs and AEGTCs, > > > edited Maharishi knowledge tapes, ran the > International Film and Tape > > > Library in Switzerland, spent years on deep > meditation courses under > > > Maharishi's personal guidance, searched out and > bid on multi-million > > > dollar real estate projects for Maharishi > (Capitals Project), headed > > > up one of the three divisions at the National > Headquarters at Living- > > > ston Manor while doing Minister Training, helped > organize the big > > > Amherst course that ultimately brought all the > people to Fairfield, > > > lived in Fairfield for almost 20 years (I still > own a house there), > > > served on the board of the MIU "chamber of > commerce" that helped bus- > > > inesses move to Fairfield, renovated MIU's dorms > when their condition > > > threatened MIU's accreditation (and didn't lose > my shirt in the pro- > > > cess!), created a multi-million dollar business > that was one of the > > > top 10 sidha employers in Fairfield in its day, > taught on MIU's Con- > > > tinuing Ed faculty, helped inspire and research > the huge Taste of > > > Utopia course that brought over 7000 to > Fairfield, did my years of > > > tapas in the Golden Domes... > > > > > > And for 20 years now I've done NONE of that - no > direct ties or re- > > > sponsibilities to the TM Movement. I left the > "student phase of life" > > > and became a householder, as Maharishi urged. > I'd "run that gauntlet" > > > of life within the Movement - sometimes > gracefully, sometimes pain- > > > fully. My time inside the TM Movement did its > job, bore its fruit, > > > and wasn't needed anymore. > > > > > > So I've long been my own man - doing many things > that get some peo- > > > ple into very hot water with the Movement - I > run satsangs and I talk > > > about experiences, I publicly discuss knowledge > on the internet, I > > > teach tantra, I do counseling, I run spiritual > workshops, I've stud- > > > ied and taught many healing techniques, I've > brought teachers to Fair- > > > field that have affected hundreds of meditators > lives, I interact with > > > many spiritual teachers, I read "forbidden" > books, I expound contro- > > > versial views, I teach about sexuality and am at > home with my own and > > > with its place on the spiritual path, I explore > and lecture about and > > > do counseling with people living alternative > relationship styles - > > > controversial styles such as polyamory, > bdsm/fetish, swinging, tantra, > > > lgbt, etc.)... > > > > > > So, based on my current interests/activities, > you could say I am very > > > much an outsider in relation to official TM > Movement positions, but > > > still very much an insider to my Master. He is > inside me; I am inside > > > him. Where could I go that he isn't? And he > introduced me to my God, > > > and brought Him/Her to sit down inside me and > begin expanding. I bow > > > down to Maharishi for all that. > > > > > > If you have a teacher, who is a conduit for the > Self, the infinite, to > > > shine through - and if you still think that has > much of anything to do > > > with that teacher's relative body, relative > personality, relative be- > > > havior - then you are still at a very immature > level of relationship > > > to your teacher, and a very immature level of > utilizing that conduit > > > to the infinite. Maharishi is my "worm-hole" to > the Self, to God, to > > > That. > > > > > > TRUE DEVOTION - REAL BHAKTI - WHO HAS IT? > > > > > > 1. THE PERSONAL-CONTACT RULE FOR TRUE BHAKTI > > > > > > Someone commented that I couldn't claim devotion > to Maharishi if I > > > haven't seen him (his relative body) in person > for a long time. (So > > > I'm curious, where does the boundary line come > that distinguishes real > > > devotion? Does seeing Maharishi far off across > a big lecture hall > > > count? Does it count if he's in the next room, > speaking over a sound > > > system? What about seeing him live on TV - but > from the next room, > > > the next town, the next continent? What about > streaming live internet > > > video? Or videotapes/CDs - how recent do they > have to be? Do audio- > > > tapes count - you're not literally "seeing" him? > What about telephone > > > calls, letters, etc.? How close in time/space > do I have to get to him > > > to qualify as a "true devotee"? How often do I > have to get that > close? > > > Does it count if he's thinking of me, or if I'm > thinking of him? How > > > often?) Obviously, from my laughing sarcasm, > in my experience this > > > person's comment reflects a very limited, > relative, basic-level view > > > of devotion. > > > > > > It's not Maharishi's relative body that I relate > to much anymore; it > > > is his expanded reality, his cosmic presence, > his omnipresence, the > > > awareness that he is. He lives in me, as my > Self. I live in him. > > > It's his thinking, in his role as a > reflector/conduit of That, that > > > I attune myself to and become ever more deeply. > Our relationship is > > > on that level. > > > > > > 2. THE WELCOME-IN-THE-MOVEMENT RULE FOR TRUE > BHAKTI > > > > > > Someone commented that, with all my activities, > I'd never be welcome > > > anymore in the Movement, or to represent it, and > wondered how I could > > > be devoted to Maharishi and yet not able to > participate in his Move- > > > ment. > > > > > > First, that actually isn't what I find. Just > two years ago, living > > > in Fairfield, I was invited to do knowledge > presentations for a cam- > > > pus advanced lecture program for students. And > because I have no > > > major power issues - with the Movement, or with > masculine authority > > > in general - I get a program badge when I apply, > without hassle. Also, > > > I'm on the Movement's various e-mail lists > (national and local), and > > > I go to TM Movement events in my local area > occasionally; I am > respect- > > > fully welcomed as an experienced teacher/leader > and even asked to take > > > on responsibilities now and then (which I rarely > have the time or in- > > > clination for). > > > > > > Second, even if I couldn't do these things, they > are irrelevant to my > > > devotion to my Master. There was a time, when I > was more identified > > > with the field of boundaries, that my > involvement or not in activities > > > on that level was important, made me feel > connected... When I didn't > > > have Maharishi established inside me, as the > Self, than contact with > > > his "trappings", his Movement, offered some > solace, some comfort. > > > > > > But my relationship to Maharishi now transcends > these specific rela- > > > tive activities. The TM activities that I can > or can't participate > > > in neither add to nor diminish my love for > Maharishi, or my connec- > > > tion to the Self (for which he acts as my > conduit, or touchstone). > > > > > > To me, the TM Movement, with all its activities, > is a kind of train- > > > ing facility, a place to test yourself, temper > yourself, strengthen > > > yourself; it's also a place to take refuge when > you need to escape > > > the world, and for some a place to hide; it's > definitely a place to > > > burn up karma. The TM Movement is a kind of a > spiritual "game" - a > > > gauntlet to run - and you'd better be awake and > know what you're get- > > > ting into if you choose to enter that arena. > It's Maharishi's Move- > > > ment - and a big mirror of the world's karma - > but it's certainly not > > > the only path to Maharishi. > > > > > > 3. THE FOLLOW-EVERY-INSTRUCTION-TO-THE-LETTER > RULE FOR TRUE BHAKTI > > > > > > Someone commented that I couldn't claim devotion > to Maharishi if I'm > > > not following every "instruction" that he gives. > Again, this is a > > > very narrow, immature view of the relationship > to a Master. If only > > > it were that simple. ;) > > > > > > Q: Does Maharishi ever give apparently > contradictory instructions? > > > A: Often. > > > > > > Q: How do you resolve those? > > > A: By tuning into the Self, to Maharishi's > thinking as That; so these > > > contradictions become an invitation to > further attune yourself to > > > the Self - much more important on that level > than on the level of > > > performance, of action. > > > > > > Q: Does Maharishi ever give individuals > instructions which contradict > > > his general public instructions? > > > A: Often. > > > So, based on outer appearances/behaviors, > you can't really tell > > > if someone is following Maharishi's > instructions or not. That's > > > a very personal, private thing that you'd > likely not have access > > > to. > > > > > > Q: Does Maharishi ever give individuals direct > instructions to ignore > > > some of his public instructions, no matter > how that "looks" to > > > others? > > > A: I've experienced this personally. > > > > > > Q: Does Maharishi ever give one group of people > one instruction, and > > > another group an apparently contradictory > one? > > > A: Often - causing them to either have a huge > conflict, or to act as > > > "checks and balances" on each other. > > > > > > Q: Does Maharishi ever give an instruction, and > later completely re- > > > verse it? > > > A: Of course - we've discussed that here many > times. > > > > > > Q: Does Maharishi ever give so many instructions > (for various daily > > > practices, routine, study, etc.), and then > other instructions > > > (for activities to accomplish, family > duties, etc.), that there > > > would not be enough hours in the day to do > them all? > > > A: Of course. > > > > > > Q: Does Maharishi ever give instructions that > have different mean- > > > ings at different levels of consciousness, > at different places > > > on the path - or that may appear to mean one > thing, but on deep- > > > er investigation mean something different? > > > A: All the time. > > > > > > Q: Does Maharishi ever give instructions to test > you - test your > > > attachment to something, or your devotion, > or whatever? > > > A: Sure - not for his sake, but to point out to > you where you're > > > stuck, or attached. And once you've had > that insight, he some- > > > times retracts the instruction, and doesn't > make you go through > > > with the difficult thing. > > > > > > This whole question of "following the Master's > instructions" is much > > > richer, much deeper than your question implies - > than the simple idea > > > of mindlessly following orders. It is a field > ripe with possibilities > > > for attuning your mind to cosmic mind, for > alert, wide-awake devotion. > > > It's as complicated, or simple, as life itself. > > > > > > So, since you don't know what instructions I've > been given - public- > > > ly or privately - what my "program" is, what my > responsibilities or > > > assignments in life are, etc., you really have > absolutely no way to > > > tell how well I'm following Maharishi's > instructions, do you? Nor > > > would you have any need to; that would be a very > private thing between > > > Master and devotee. > > > > > > The only thing of any value for you to do in > this arena, is to focus > > > your attention on YOUR instructions, YOUR > understanding of them, and > > > YOUR success in following them. > > > > > > Here's a story that illustrates the ease with > which we can misinter- > > > pret another's path: > > > > > > YOUNG GURU DEV AND THE CAVE > > > > > > Maharishi tells the story of a young Guru Dev, > who may have been > > > around 11 or 12 years old at the time, and was a > newcomer to the > > > ashram of his Master: > > > > > > The Master had given young Guru Dev instruction > in meditation. And > > > he quietly told him to leave the hustle and > bustle of the ashram and > > > go practice in silence, in the caves in the > hills nearby. So for > > > some time, young Guru Dev was not seen much > around the ashram. > > > > > > The Master's ashram had many people in it, > including some senior > > > disciples who had been with the Master for > decades, and were very > > > learned in the Vedas. They had some subtle ego > about their posi- > > > tion, and some resentment of the obvious deep > relationship young > > > Guru Dev, a mere boy, had developed so quickly > with their Master. > > > So, when he disappeared from the ashram, they > were secretly pleased, > > > assuming that he'd done something to displease > the Master, or was > > > found to be too young and immature to handle the > ashram life. > > > > > > One day, after many months had passed, a holiday > approached and > > > the Master expressed to his senior staff a > desire to take a re- > > > treat of silence in a cave up in the hills. He > sent his top dis- > > > ciple to the hills to seek out and prepare a > proper cave for him > > > to reside in. He reminded the disciple that > young Guru Dev was > > > living in one of those caves, and because of his > familiarity with > > > the area, he should be consulted about the cave > selection. > > > > > > So the chief disciple arrived at the caves in > the hills, and sought > > > out young Guru Dev, finding him meditating in > his cave. > > > > > > The chief disciple said: "I am on a very > important mission for the > > > Master. He has sent me here to find him an > empty cave in which to > > > reside. Please help me to find one suitable for > him - unoccupied, > > > clean, large, dry, etc. - since you are familiar > with this area." > > > > > > After a brief hesitation, young Guru Dev said: > "Please tell the > > > Master: 'There is no empty cave here'". > > > > > > The chief disciple, thinking that the young boy > was not taking the > > > mission seriously, said: "Of course there are > empty caves here; I > > > passed some on my way to find you. Please help > me to find a suit- > > > able one! The Master has commanded it." > > > > > > Quietly, but firmly, young Guru Dev said: "Are > you not here on a > > > mission for the Master? Are you not his > messenger?" > > > > > > The chief disciple answered: "Yes, but..." > > > > > > "No 'buts'" said young Guru Dev. "You may be > the chief disciple, > > > but today your role is that of a messenger. You > were instructed > > > to bring me a question, and now your job is to > take my answer back > > > to the Master. Respectfully, I ask that you > please do just that, > > > do your duty. The question from the Master, to > be asked of me, was > > > 'Is there a suitable empty cave there?' The > answer I'd like you to > > > deliver, word-for-word, is: 'There is no empty > cave here'." > > > > > > The chief disciple, astounded at the audacity of > this young boy to > > > speak to him this way, left. He surveyed some > caves on his own and > > > then went back to the ashram to report on his > mission, and especial- > > > ly this arrogant boy's behavior, to the Master. > > > > > > But first, he discussed this rudeness with the > other senior disci- > > > ples. They agreed that it would be most > instructive (and embarras- > > > sing), to young Guru Dev, and to other young > disciples, to have this > > > issue raised in the ashram-wide satsang that > happened with the Master > > > each afternoon. They knew that young Guru Dev > came down from his cave > > > each Friday for supplies, and attended the > satsang, and they waited > > > patiently overnight, since the next day was > Friday. > > > > > > Overnight, the ashram was abuzz with rumors of > the young boy who had > > > disrespected the chief disciple, and the Master. > Everyone made a > > > point to attend the afternoon satsang to see > what the Master would > > > do to this insolent boy. > > > > > > At the appropriate time in the satsang, the > elder disciples moved > > > to broach the subject. But rather than appear > blatantly accusatory, > > > they instead chose to bring up the subject in > the form of a hypo- > > > thetical knowledge question. They asked: > "Master, is it not a great > > > sin for a disciple to disrespect or disobey the > Master?" "And is > > > that sin not extended to the senior disciples of > the Master, acting > > > on his business?" "Master, is not the > punishment for such a serious > > > offense, banishment from the ashram?" > > > > > > To all of these, the Master responded "yes". > > > > > > Having set the stage in this way, the senior > disciple then related > > > the behavior of young Guru Dev the previous day, > and the members > > > of the ashram were shocked. > > > > > > The Master strongly said: "Young man, step > forward and explain your > > > behavior to the whole ashram." > > > > > > Young Guru Dev stepped into the center of the > gathering, directly > > > in front of the Master, clasped his hands in > devotion, and pros- > > > trated to the Master. When the Master directed > him to rise, he > > > calmly spoke these words: > > > > > > "Master, when your chief disciple found me, and > asked me that ques- > > > tion from you, I knew that it had a deeper > meaning than the appar- > > > ent surface one. Surely, with all these great, > long-time disciples, > > > with all their wisdom and experience, and with > all those here who've > > > spent much time in those caves, and some who > live there now, and > > > with your own great spiritual vision, I knew > that you did not actual- > > > ly need my advice on picking a physical cave. > So the meaning of your > > > question was immediately obvious. You were > asking me something much > > > deeper, about the condition of my spiritual > practice that you had > > > assigned me and sent me to the hills to do. > > > > > > "And when I looked inside, and surveyed the > situation, I realized that > > > somehow you had been very successful in your > work with me, because > > > when I looked into the only cave about which I > had any valuable infor- > > > mation, my heart cave, I found that it was > completely full - full with > > > you. No matter where I looked, there was not a > bit of vacant space > > > there; there was no place that you were not > already. So I > respectfully > > > told the chief disciple: please report to the > Master, and tell him > > > 'There is no vacant cave here'. It was the > simple, obvious, truthful > > > answer to your real question." > > > > > > With that, the whole ashram was astounded, for > they saw that where > > > they had perceived an insolent young boy, there > was a devotee who > > > had innocently accomplished what they dreamed > of, who had become > > > the true reflection of the Master. Everyone, > from the chief disci > > > ple to the barest beginner in the ashram, felt > the wave of love that > > > connected the Master and young Guru Dev, and > were reminded how im- > > > portant it is to put their attention on the > depth of things, rather > > > than let their attention get caught in the > boundaries. > > > > > > LABEL #3 - IGNORING MAHARISHI'S FAULTS > > > > > > People on this list sometimes accuse me of > ignoring all the talk > > > about Maharishi's "relative behaviors, flaws, > faults, inconsistencies, > > > mistakes, harmful actions"... It's amazing how > people who don't know > > > me can project so much onto me. I read this > list, and many others > > > about TM and Maharishi, pretty religiously, and > with clarity and > alert- > > > ness. I could repeat your stories and > complaints and arguments better > > > than some of you can. I stay alert to > discriminate what is fact, what > > > is opinion, what is rumor. I pay attention to > the motives and > feelings > > > of those who raise these issues. I watch for > the degree of obsession/ > > > attachment of the reporters. I use all this as > opportunities to exa- > > > mine my own feelings, to open my heart even > more, and to attune to > > > cosmic intelligence. > > > > > > But even more relevant, I lived around and > reported to Maharishi for > > > years, more than most (not all) of you, saw many > things, and could add > > > stories to yours - not rumors or 3rd-hand > accounts, but stories that > > > powerfully impacted on me and my feelings and > caused tremendous > upheav- > > > al and soul-searching. I know what it's like to > face that fork in the > > > road in relationship to Maharishi/the Movement: > (1) be deeply hurt, > > > yield to anger, blame something "out there", > close up, become a > victim; > > > vs. (2) feel the pain, dive into it, embrace the > karma, explore the > > > lesson, thank Master/Nature for that purifying > fire, expand. > > > > > > The thing is, I've come to realize that none of > these discussions > > > about Maharishi's individual personality and > behaviors, taken on the > > > relative level, are important to me. Maharishi > was presented to me > > > to be my conduit to the Self, to God, to That. > "Tat padam dharshitam > > > yena - by which the sign of That has been > revealed." He serves that > > > role beautifully. I am blessed to have that > conduit, and selfishly > > > make use of it. > > > > > > I can direct my attention toward that conduit in > such a way that I > > > invite it to open and pour its blessings on me > more and more and > > > create more connection/unity (that kind of > attention is called > > > devotion/bhakti); or I can direct my attention > toward that conduit > > > in such a way that I invite it to close and shut > down and create > > > more separateness/fear (that kind of attention > is called doubt/ > > > criticism). We each have that choice of how to > approach a conduit > > > to infinity. > > > > > > CONCLUSION ABOUT LABELING > > > > > > So when people try to paint me with their broad > brush of "true be- > > > liever" and "insider" and "intellectually weak > devotee and ignorer > > > of the facts" - it just makes me laugh and > laugh. The things we > > > try to project onto others is often a mirror of > what we don't want > > > to admit to in ourself, or fear in ourself, or > censor in ourself. > > > Lovingly I say to you, the next time you call > someone a "true > > > believer", see if you aren't just as much a > "true non-believer" - > > > just as stuck, blinded by your own emotional > traumas, etc. The > > > next time you call someone an "insider", see if > you aren't resent- > > > ing being an "outsider" - unloved, unbelonging, > abandoned. The > > > next time you call someone an "unthinking, > deluded bhakti", see > > > if you aren't an over-thinking believer in > individuality, afraid to > > > let down your guard, to open up your heart. > These labels only re- > > > veal your own doubts and cynicisms. > > > > > > In my next post I'll address self-doubt and > cynicism, and the role > > > of profound trust and surrender, not as the > negation of intellectual > > > inquiry, but as the true foundations for alert > and meaningful ques- > > > tioning. > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > PARA - THE CENTER FOR REALIZATION > > > Michael Dean Goodman Ph.D., D.D., Director > > > Boca Raton (Palm Beach County) Florida > > > 561-350-3930 (24 hours) * tantra@ > > > > > > Counseling * Private Educational Sessions * > Spiritual Guidance * > Satsang > > > Classes * Workshops & Retreats * Group > Presentations * Articles & > Essays > > > Clients and programs throughout the United > States, Europe, and India > > > Working in person or by phone > > > Free initial consultation to discuss your needs > and goals > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > --------------------~--> > Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and > poor with hope and healing > http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/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 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/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/
