Judy, you never saw MMY describing how he got his name on a tape?  He
is very clear about how he got it.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Barry's pretty good at penning impressive-sounding
> rants, but virtually every one of them, when you
> examine it closely, collapses into empty rhetoric.
> A case study follows...
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Mason" <premanandpaul@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > To launch into a close description of the local geography whilst 
> > > posting a brief note on FFL would have been unnecessary,
> > > so 'across the way' sufficed to make my point. The area around 
> > > the back of the ashram was very heavily forested then and so you 
> > > were probably taken a longer easier way round. But to walk 
> > > directly one would pass no other cave and that is the issue, that 
> > > in relative terms, Tat Wale Baba was probably the closest 
> > > neighbour at that time.
> > 
> > Paul, I feel your frustration at these kinds of attacks,
> > but IMO it's pretty standard stuff from religious fanatics.
> > I've seen it before in twenty or more different spiritual 
> > groups.
> > 
> > The "heresy" you have committed is to question something
> > that *they* have never questioned, Maharishi's name and
> > its origin.
> Aside from the ridiculousness of the assertion that
> "we" have never questioned MMY's name and its origin,
> the "heresy" on this point concerns Vaj's scornful
> dismissal of the significance of Tat Walla Baba's
> apparent endorsement of MMY on the grounds that he was
> a "neighbor" of MMY's and thus (if I'm following Vaj's
> reasoning) would be expected to be friendly with him.
> Paul confirmed this, and then someone questioned
> whether Tat Walla Baba's ashram was close enough to
> MMY's to say he was a "neighbor." That's a valid issue,
> given that Vaj had dismissed Tat Walla Baba's approval
> of MMY on precisely that basis.  But that's shooting
> the *message*, not the messenger.  As it turns out,
> the shot seems to have missed the target, so we can
> set it aside. 
>  They just accepted what they were told, mind-
> > lessly, and now that the origin of the name and whether 
> > it has any real meaning has been called into question, 
> > their automatic response is to "shoot the messenger," and 
> > attempt to call his veracity or his dependibility into 
> > question.
> > 
> > It's an automatic response because it protects them from
> > what should be, in any *real* seeker, the more appropriate
> > automatic response. Anyone who was really committed to the
> > quest for some kind of truth or meaning in their spiritual
> > life would step back and say to themselves, "Hmmm...when
> > was it that I *did* begin accepting the tales told about
> > Maharishi's name without question, as if it were some kind
> > of Divine Truth? *Are* these stories true? If they are not,
> > what does that say about my gullibility and lack of 
> > discrimination? Since it's *only a name*, is there some
> > more appropriate stance I can take towards it than blind,
> > unquestioning belief in what I have been told?"
> You know, I can't recall ever being told any "tales"
> about MMY's name, other than what "Maharishi" means
> in Sanskrit (I don't believe anyone has ever challenged
> the translation "great seer").
> I was aware that Indian guru-types have all kinds of
> extravagant titles, of course, and "Maharishi Mahesh
> Yogi" seemed relatively unassuming compared, for example,
> to "His Divinity Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, Jagadguru
> Bhagavan Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math."
> The first time I encountered any discussion of "Maharishi
> Mahesh Yogi" was on alt.m.t when critics claimed he'd
> assumed the name on his own hook and that he wasn't
> entitled to call himself that, it hadn't been granted
> to him by any official body, etc., etc., etc.
> Well, if that were true, it certainly seemed like a
> valid criticism; I hadn't known that these fancy
> titles had to be officially conferred.
> But it turned out that the critics didn't have any kind
> of solid evidence that he had bestowed it on himself;
> and that, as Michael has just pointed out, it was only
> an honorary title anyway, not one that an official body
> *needed* to have approved.
> I did a little research myself.  The only account I
> could find of how he got the name was in the 
> University of California Ph.D. thesis of Jay Coplin,
> "Text and Context in the Communication of a Social
> Movement's Charisma, Ideology, and Consciousness: TM
> for India and the West," portions of which are on the
> Web at:
> http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/drcoplin/
> Obviously a great deal of research had gone into that
> thesis, and several pages are devoted to a discussion
> of MMY's title and its cultural/spiritual connotations,
> but even that didn't nail down exactly how MMY acquired
> the title.
> It noted that he was introduced as "Maharishi Bala
> Brahmachari Mahesh Yogi" by a prominent Indian judge at
> the Spiritual Development Conference at Cochin in 1955
> (documented in "Beacon Light of the Himalayas"), and it
> quoted the then-Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, from a
> 1983 interview held for the thesis, as saying the title
> was "an honor by the pitha [matha], and by the society."
> That's probably as close as we're going to get.  But it
> does make the controversy look like a huge tempest in a
> teapot, a petty and unwarranted snipe.
> > But that rarely happens. Whenever one of these questions
> > comes up, the "shoot the messenger" response is the one
> > they go for, because IMO they're TERRIFIED to start the
> > process of questioning the things they've taken on blind
> > faith for so many years, out of fear for where it might
> > lead them.
> Well, my response when I first encountered the question
> (years ago) was to see if I could find out what the real
> story was.  Based on what I found (and didn't find),
> "shoot the messenger" seems an appropriate response, given
> that the "message" didn't appear to have any basis.
> The issue has come up many times since, on both alt.m.t
> and FFL, but nobody has been able to add any significant
> evidence either way, certainly nothing that has given
> any more weight to the charge that there was something
> fishy about MMY's title.  It remains just a petty snipe.
> As to the related issue of whether it makes sense for
> those who don't believe MMY deserves the appellation
> "Maharishi" on spiritual (as opposed to official)
> grounds to refer to him as "Mahesh," it seems to me
> that if Andrew Skolnick, perhaps one of the most rabid
> of MMY's critics, thinks it's silly to do so, it's
> probably pretty durned silly.  Even sillier, though,
> is to pretend that calling him "Mahesh" does not
> indicate disrespect.
> <snip> 
> > There are so MANY of these Never Questioned Assumptions
> > in TM. "TM is unique." "TM is the best and fastest tech-
> > nique on the planet for realizing enlightenment."
> {For householders, that is.)
>  "Maha-
> > rishi is enlightened." "TM is 100% 'life-supporting,' 
> > and cannot possibly have any negative effects." The list
> > goes on and on. And almost every time one of these never-
> > to-be-questioned assumptions *is* questioned here, the
> > response is the same -- "shoot the messenger."
> Actually, of course, whenever these assumptions are
> questioned, the response has typically been a fairly
> detailed discussion, as an examination of the traffic
> on this forum and on alt.m.t shows.  Dismissal by
> simply "shooting the messenger" is quite rare.
> > I'd take it as a compliment if I were you. You have the
> > courage to continually challenge your assumptions and the
> > things you've been told over the years. They don't, and
> > that makes you a target.
> As far as Barry is concerned, the only thing that
> counts as "questioning" is questioning that leads to
> the conclusion he favors.  If it doesn't, in his mind
> no questioning has ever taken place.
> > IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER what one calls the man. Those 
> > who love and respect him could call him "Mahashithead," 
> > and it doesn't change how they really feel one iota. Those
> > who don't respect him could call him His Holiness Maha-
> > rishi Mahesh Yogi till they're blue in the face, and 
> > *that* doesn't change how they really feel one iota.
> True, but irrelevant.  The issue here was whether some
> critics call him "Mahesh" to overtly indicate their
> lack of respect for him.
> > This whole tempest in a pisspot is a shoot-the-messenger
> > fest, that's all.
> The thing is, Barry gets confused about the difference
> between "shooting the messenger" and "shooting the
> message."  If the message happens to be one of *his*
> treasured assumptions, questioning it, in his mind,
> amounts to questioning ("shooting") the messenger.
> It's quite amazing that he can apparently completely
> block from his mind the endless chewing-over of facts
> and reasoning and analysis that takes place here on so
> many of these issues and see only "shooting the
> messenger."  It's a real feat of denial.

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to