--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 30, 2006, at 6:04 PM, bob_brigante wrote: > > > > > > > > > In your post > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/126763 > > > > > I found it interesting that Maharishi repeated several times > > that > > > > > people should only be meditating 3-4 hours. I wonder if this > > > > > message got through to Bevan et al who are requiring > > invincibility > > > > > course participants to do 8 hours: > > > > > > > > He probably contradicts himself quite often. > > > > > > Always has. So do the most enlightened teachers I've > > > encountered on the planet. The constant contradiction > > > is not a problem IMO; the tendency for people to want > > > not to *deal* with the contradiction and say that one > > > version is the "correct" version is where the problem > > > lies. :-) > > > > > > > The recent posts attributed to him seem to indicate some > > > > senility. > > > > > > I wouldn't say senility. I have seen no real sign of > > > the more common forms of senility. But I *am* getting > > > really tired of the kind of echolalia he indulges in > > > (repeating words that don't need to be repeated). That's > > > certainly becoming more pronounced lately. > > > > > > > So he's probably > > > > said both 3-4 and 8 if you go back in the transcripts. > > > > > > > > What's disturbing to me is his emphasis on subtle meditative > > > > moods and getting the students to wallow in them. > > > > > > Bingo. > > > > > > The gist of this latest talk seems to be, "These are the > > > experiences I want to hear. Don't bother to get up to > > > the microphone if you don't have one of these type of > > > experiences to relate. And, by the way, what you *really* > > > want to do more than anything else on this course is to > > > get yourself on the LIST of people who are *having* the > > > type of experiences I want to hear about." > > > > > > Well duh...what do you think people are going to be > > > falling all over themselves to report from now on? > > > > > > It *surprised* me to see MMY pandering to the inherent > > > tendency in spiritual devotees to *moodmake* the type > > > of experiences they have been *told* are expected of > > > them. It's such a contrast to Rama and some of the other > > > teachers I've worked with -- in the cases where they > > > asked what people's experiences were, they really wanted > > > to *know* what people's experiences were. There was NEVER > > > any suggestion of what a "good" experience was, or what > > > type of experience was expected or "better" than another. > > > I guess I got used to that type of *non*-programming in > > > such "talk about your experiences" sessions, and was a > > > little shocked to read this latest rap, in which it is > > > pretty clear that if you want to be considered "happening" > > > on this course, and on the LIST, you should stand up and > > > say that you are having the "expected" experiences, or > > > (given the before-mentioned tendency of devotees to give > > > the teacher whatever he asks for), pretend to be having > > > such experiences. > > > > > > > Why would you want to encourage such nonsense? Since there's > > > > no spiritual benefit, one has to assume it's to raise more > > > > money. > > > > > > I would not go so far. I think that a much simpler, and > > > kinder, explanation is that these are the types of exper- > > > iences that Maharishi assumes he *should* be hearing by > > > now, given all his time working with these people. There- > > > fore he *wants* to hear them, so he's telling people *what* > > > he wants to hear, so that they'll *say* what he wants to > > > hear. > > > > > > To be open to all possibilities, it is certainly possible > > > that some of the people who report such experiences after > > > hearing what kind of experiences they are *supposed* to be > > > having are doing so in good faith, and reporting their real > > > experiences. But the fact that they *have* been told what > > > to report taints the reports themselves. if you've been > > > around the spiritual block a few times and are aware of how > > > devotees tend to tell the teacher what the teacher wants to > > > hear, the fact that he told everyone in no uncertain terms > > > what he wanted to hear doesn't really suggest that such > > > reports are going to be free of moodmaking. > > > > There are specific experiences associated with the refinement of > > consciousness, cognitive milestones as consciousness is refined. > > Maharishi has heard of people bringing up these experiences and now > > wants to hear about more of them, so that he can gauge what is > > occurring on the course. > > > > This is not some mood-making exercise. If people want to moodmake, > > that is clearly enough seen. I haven't seen any evidence of > > moodmaking in the domes from the experiences that have been posted > > here and in otrher groups. They read genuine. What is going on in > > the domes is the unfoldment of the Vedas, *not* moodmaking. > > I hope that you are correct. It's just that the validity > of many of your other "seeings" tends to make that a > faint hope :-) > > > You appear to see Maharishi as a false teacher, a person driven by > > petty desires, more concerned about his appearance than almost > > anything else. Just as Steve ("vaj") sees him, as a greedy failure, > > out for money. Why this is I am not sure, for it all seems to be a > > dreamt up scenario which you and Steve ("vaj") constantly play out, > > supposedly trying to convince some imaginary brainwashed TMers of > > this concocted reality about Maharishi, when in fact all you are > > doing is sharing your own fantasy about Maharishi-- nothing more. > > There is no benefit to the constant strawman games and false > > arguments you pose about Maharishi, no 'aha!' experience to be > > gained from it, because there is no truth in it. Just another > > fantasy. > > Jim, I believe NONE of the things that you attribute > to me above. Not one of them. You will find none of > them in the post you replied to, at least none written > by me. Hell, even *Judy* didn't seem to find any of > them in her reply to the same post; her response was > measured, thoughtful and not at all "button-pushed." > > Compare and contrast to yours. Something you read > pushed one of your buttons. As a spiritual exercise, > you might just oughta PageUp and read the post again > and figure out what it was. > > Happy New Year anyway. I'm about to go party down at a > chateau near my village. It is at the top of the highest > mountain in the area, and tonight is so clear that we'll > be able to see for maybe a hundred kilometers. I wish > everyone on the list equal clarity of vision in the > next year. >
Happy New Year! PS so this is what you said about what Maharishi was saying, that I then responded to. No buttons pushed. :-) The gist of this latest talk seems to be, "These are the > > experiences I want to hear. Don't bother to get up to > > the microphone if you don't have one of these type of > > experiences to relate. And, by the way, what you *really* > > want to do more than anything else on this course is to > > get yourself on the LIST of people who are *having* the > > type of experiences I want to hear about." > > > > Well duh...what do you think people are going to be > > falling all over themselves to report from now on? > > > > It *surprised* me to see MMY pandering to the inherent > > tendency in spiritual devotees to *moodmake* the type > > of experiences they have been *told* are expected of > > them.
