--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > on 8/4/06 9:52 AM, authfriend at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > I'm not at all sure where you get the idea that his > > reputation was based on large part on a claim to be a > > life celibate. In what way was it based on this > > claim? I never was led to believe it was anything > > but incidental. > > > Being a monk is/was a big part of his image.
I don't buy it. At least that wasn't how it was presented to the rank and file, and none of the TM teachers I've been acquainted with seemed to think celibacy per se was a big part of his image and reputation. The term "monk" didn't evoke celibacy, it evoked a person whose vocation was spirituality, who had devoted his life to it, as opposed to having a family. If we assumed he was celibate, that was just an incidental feature of monkhood, not the Main Event. I never heard anyone suggest that *because* he was supposedly celibate, therefore he had more authority or legitimacy. > If it had not been, he could > have been open about his sex life. Can you think of any reasons why he might have wanted to keep his sex life private other than that he didn't want to damage his reputation as a spiritual teacher? 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/
