--- In [email protected], "markmeredith2002" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The options Judy lays out is that everyone must either accept > MMY's claim that he is a "great rishi" and an authentic yogi > and address him such or they're being disrepectful of him. > To simply not view him as a great rishi, which according the > spiritual texts I've read is quite an exclusive title, without > any disrespect is not an option. This is a version of "if > you're not with us, you're against us". It's the common > attitude of authoritarian communities.
That's a little harsh, Mark. After all, these are certified "anti-TMers" Judy is talking about who refer to MMY that way. We know this is true because she said it. It would only be "authoritarian" if these were real human beings, with feelings, who deserve respect. But since that is clearly not the case, those who know the Truth are entitled to treat them with disrespect when they treat MMY with disrespect by referring to him by his given name, as if he were a normal human being. The noive of such infidels... > To call MMY a bad name is disrespectful, to call him by his > actual name is not. Just wait until they come up with an offical title for Certified TM Apologist. I've heard that it will be some- thing like Upholder Of Natural Law. Then if you don't use that title here on FFL for those upon which it has been conferred, you too will be deemed disrespectful and will have earned your own title as an Official Anti-TMer. :-) > I'm not sure this is a big deal or not. The white house > makes sure the media refer to bush's estate in texas as > a "ranch" even though there's absolutely nothing ranchy > going on there. This is to reinforce his image as an > average joe in the minds of the electorate. That is *exactly* the reason that the apologists...uh, sorry...Upholders Of Natural Law get so uptight about this. The "ranch" is FICTION. Calling Mahesh a rishi, much less a Maharishi, is FICTION. Those who have bought into this fiction for decades get really, really uptight when someone points out that they've believed a FICTION for all those years, especially when they themselves know it's true. So to keep from dealing with their own gulli- bility, they lash out. That's what I honestly think is going on. > These reinforcements can be subconsciously powerful. I know > some people who refuse to call MMY Maharishi because they feel > it reinforces years of conditioning to see him that way, a > way which doesn't fit their current understanding of him. But...but...but...but...doncha see that BY DEFINITION if their "current understanding" of him is that he doesn't deserve the fictional title of Maharishi, such a person is automatically an Official Anti-TMer? Such a position is WRONG, and indicates that the person who holds it is Off The Program. There's nothing "authoritarian" about this...it's merely an expression of Natural Law. :-) > I respect people wanting to use someone's name rather than > a title for this reason. Otherwise I don't think it matters > that much. It only matters to the apologists. Sorry, to the self- appointed Upholders Of Natural Law. I wonder if cars driven by Upholders Of Natural Law have Cupholders Of Natural Law? :-) > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 26, 2006, at 12:55 AM, jim_flanegin wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Perhaps you should just refer to Maharishi as His Holiness as you > > > > do the Dalai Lama, since you are using equivalent terms anyway. Or > > > > continue to refer to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as Lord Shiva or Lord > > > > Indra. Your choice... > > > > > > In the case of the Dalai Lama, this name is conferred based on > > > accomplishment and conferred by living Buddhas. It has a specific > > > meaning. > > > > FWIW, it's fairly common for Indian teachers to refer > > to their own masters as "His Holiness." > > > > > In the case of Mahesh, "Maharishi" is an assumed name, as > > > is "yogi". These were never conferred by the Shankaracharya > > > tradition he originally came from, nor are they indicative of > > > accomplishment. > > > > What tradition conferred the title "Maharshi" on > > Ramana Maharshi? > > > > Who conferred the title "His Holiness" on SSRS? > > > > > Since SBS and current Shankaracharyas refer to him as "Mahesh", it > > > is probably respectful to the tradition to follow this tradition > > > (rather than the spin). > > > > Certainly it would be respectful to the orthodox > > hierarchy that claims to represent Shankara's tradition > > to go along with its disrespect of Maharishi, just as it > > would be respectful of the Catholic tradition to consider > > Martin Luther an excommunicate and apostate. > > > > Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that calling > > MMY "Mahesh" is anything but overtly and deliberately > > disrespectful to MMY. > > > > As I've noted before, according to the editor of "The > > Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi," the title "Maharshi" > > (or "Maharishi") is conferred on a teacher who has > > inaugurated a new spiritual path. That seems to > > indicate it is not a title that is conferred by the > > hierarchy of any particular tradition; it's given to > > someone who essentially starts a new tradition. > > > > In MMY's case--according to him, at least--he has > > *revived* a tradition, believing the current version > > of that tradition has been corrupted--very similar to > > Martin Luther's stance vis-a-vis the Catholic version > > of the Christian tradition. Naturally the hierarchy > > of Catholicism isn't about to accept Luther's revival > > as the legitimate version of the Christian tradition; > > neither should we expect the representatives of the > > "official" Shankaracharya tradition to accept MMY's > > revival as legitimate. > > > > In other words, that the Shankaracharyas disrespect > > MMY doesn't tell us anything except that they resent > > his efforts at reform. > > > > The real issue with regard to his use of the "Maharishi" > > title is whether his attempt to reform the tradition is > > authentic with regard to the original version--what > > Shankara actually taught. > > > 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/
