--- In [email protected], "Paul Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You might be interested in this photo of Sattyanand in company of two > of his fellow-disciples at:- > http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Shantanandji.htm#Narayanand
Thanks, Paul. I need to keep more abreast of your wonderful web site. I met Shantanand at the Kumbha Mela in 1974 -- he seemed quite 'self- contained' although I am not exactly sure how to expand on that. I gave him a mango and he cleverly flipped it back to me with a big smile. It was nice. I got some books from him (well, one of his disciples) and got to see/touch the claw-footed chair that Guru Dev sat in. That seemed special. The chair and other things I have forgotten were sitting in a very old van. I wonder who drove the van in Guru Dev's day. Knowing the condition of Indian roads in that region, it is difficult to imagine Guru Dev or anyone sitting in that chair and being driven from place to place. Hopefully he had some more comfortable means of getting from place to place. >From the reports I got from people I met who knew him, he was very open and accessible to just ordinary folks. > --- In [email protected], "Paul Mason" > <premanandpaul@> wrote: > > > > 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 [email protected], gerbal88 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "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 [email protected], 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/
