Thanks Gerbal, I'm not sure how long Sattyanand spent with Guru Dev, 
it would be nice to get a better idea of where he fits in. I do get 
the idea he did talk about the past, I have heard stuff he is 
supposed to have said which hasn't surfaced on any of the forums.
He gave me an advanced technique in Rishikesh, unfortunately I never 
thought to interview him.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gerbal88 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Mason" 
> <premanandpaul@> wrote:
> >
> > Turquoise, you name Sattyanand as being the source of the quote 
> about 
> > MMY being told to go and meditate, and not to teach.
> > Did you hear this from Sattyanand himself or from someone else?
> > Can you remember anything else that was said?
> 
> Paul, I know your post isn't directed at me, but I got to spend 
some 
> private time with Sattyanand in Canada and again at Rishikesh. He 
> went into great detail, once, about the various phases through 
which 
> the "night" technique had gone. While it was interesting, I also, 
> later, learned from Richard Scott's book (? Transcendental 
> Misconceptions?, I'm no longer sure of Richard's title) that the 
> night technique he got from Sattyanand was different in some 
respect 
> from the one I got from Sattyanand. Richard and I were friends and 
> got our night techniques on the same course, but at 
> different "sittings". There were also many complaints about 
> Sattyanand not knowing "The Teaching" as well as he should have: 
> which, I guess translates as "we big egoed Initiators know The 
> Teching better than Sattyanand". -- Sattyanand had a very casual 
way 
> of going about things as if, possibly, he had been told how to 
teach 
> or told what to teach but had never gone through the structured 
> process other TM teachers had gone through. He kind of gave the 
> impression of winging it.
> 
> I would not be at all surprised to discover that Turquoise B had 
very 
> accurately quoted Sattyanand. -- I'm still searching for T's 
response 
> to your question, so I hope I haven't been repetitive or something 
> here.
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> 
wrote:
> > >
> > > As usual when I post an honest, heartfelt, and
> > > *non*-putdown opinion of Maharishi, one of the
> > > terribly attached TBs reacts to it as if it was
> > > a putdown (not true), and as if she were feeling
> > > terribly threatened by the opinion itself (true).
> > > 
> > > Allow me to clarify, for those who are less anal
> > > retentive about the things they believe.
> > > 
> > > In the past on this forum, we have discussed 
> > > whether it would really *matter* to people with
> > > regard to the benefits they have received from
> > > TM if Maharishi had, in fact, had sex with a 
> > > bunch of his female students. The general 
> > > consensus was No, it wouldn't matter.
> > > 
> > > Why then are so many people so attached to the
> > > idea that he is enlightened? 
> > > 
> > > Would it really *matter* if he wasn't? Would
> > > the benefits they have received from practicing
> > > TM be any less? By their actions -- overreacting
> > > almost any time this subject comes up and getting
> > > all defensive about their belief (and that is all
> > > it is) that he is enlightened -- one really has 
> > > to assume that it *would* really matter to them. 
> > > My question is, Why?
> > > 
> > > My completely honest, no bullshit, pondered-over-
> > > for-almost-40-years opinion is that Maharishi is
> > > *not* enlightened, and never has been. In all the
> > > time I spent in the TM movement, I never once 
> > > heard him claim that he was, and based on reports
> > > here, I don't think he ever has. And yet people
> > > persist in believing that he is. Again, why, and
> > > more important -- *what difference would it make?*"
> > > 
> > > My perception of Maharishi is of a well-meaning
> > > ordinary guy who had the fortunate experience of
> > > spending some time around someone who *was*
> > > enlightened, was inspired by that experience, 
> > > and who decided *on his own*, and against the
> > > advice of that teacher, to try to spread the 
> > > inspiration that he felt around, so that other
> > > people could feel as inspired as he did.
> > > 
> > > This is *NOT* a putdown; it's a compliment. I 
> > > *commend* Maharishi for his devotion to this 
> > > desire to inspire. By contrast, I've worked with 
> > > several other teachers who periodically threw 
> > > tantrums and decided to *stop* teaching; Maharishi 
> > > never has. That, in my book, makes Maharishi far 
> > > more devoted to his desire to inspire others 
> > > than the other teachers were.
> > > 
> > > I *do* believe that he went against the direct
> > > advice of his own teacher in making this decision
> > > to teach, and at his own peril. Spiritual teaching
> > > is a perilous task; there are pitfalls and dangers
> > > in it, especially for those who still have a strong
> > > ego that would be easy prey for these pitfalls and
> > > dangers. *That* is what I believe that Guru Dev 
> > > had in mind when he told Maharishi not to teach,
> > > and to follow his *own* example and spend his time
> > > in meditation, far away from the teaching process.
> > > (This information came from Sattyanand, many years
> > > ago.) We are talking, after all, about a guy (Guru
> > > Dev) who tried as hard as humanly possible to *avoid* 
> > > being forced into the position of being a teacher 
> > > himself. He *understood* the pitfalls and dangers.
> > > When they tried to make him the Shankaracharya, he
> > > literally disappeared for 21 days, hoping that they
> > > would change their minds and choose someone else.
> > > I think he had Maharishi's best interests in mind
> > > when he made the suggestion that he *not* teach;
> > > he must have known that Maharishi was not *ready*
> > > to teach, and *would* fall victim to the pitfalls
> > > and dangers that awaited him if he chose that path.
> > > And I believe that Maharishi did, in fact, fall
> > > prey to them. 
> > > 
> > > But that doesn't mean that I don't feel gratitude
> > > to him for what he taught me. TM, as cobbled-together
> > > and untested as it was, helped to start me on a 
> > > spiritual path, and I am grateful to Maharishi for 
> > > having made it available. But at the same time, unlike
> > > most of the other TM teachers I have met, I have never 
> > > really considered him enlightened, and still don't.
> > > 
> > > Many people would *like* Maharishi to be enlightened.
> > > They have various reasons for why they believe that.
> > > I have my own reasons for believing that he is not.
> > > My reasons may be correct or they may not, but it 
> > > doesn't really matter, because it wouldn't *matter*
> > > to me whether he was enlightened or not. The benefit
> > > for me was in learning a useful beginner's technique
> > > of meditation, one that left me open to more inter-
> > > esting experiences with other techniques and other
> > > traditions. Maharishi didn't need to be enlightened 
> > > to accomplish that. 
> > > 
> > > Haven't you ever considered the possibility that 
> > > Maharishi coined his "learning to read" analogy (you 
> > > remember the one -- the kid goes to school and learns 
> > > "A, B, C" and then goes home and teaches his younger 
> > > brothers and sisters "A, B, C") to describe *himself*?
> > > 
> > > I guess my questions for the group as a whole are:
> > > 
> > > 1. *Is* it important to you to believe that Maharishi
> > >    was/is enlightened?
> > > 
> > > 2. If so, *why*?
> > > 
> > > 3. What *difference* do you think that would have
> > >    made in his ability to teach you what you have
> > >    learned from him?
> > >
> >
>







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/
 


Reply via email to