--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > There was never any chance that he would confirm > or deny it. He had the opportunity to do so, quite > publicly, when the Mia Farrow stuff hit the fan. > He laid low. It is my bet he would do so again. > > > > It will probably also be > > > a lot about about community integrity and the nature of moral > > > character. It is a great human story. > > > > That would be nice. So far all I've seen is a lot of he-said, > > she-said, with nothing much else to back up the charges. > > There is nothing that can *ever* be produced to back > up the "charges," other than He said, She said. Unless > one of the women took Polaroids, that is. And, as has > been said before, if one of them did, I don't want to > see them. I have enough disturbing images of Maharishi > in my head already to want one more of his wrinkled, > flabby butt pounding away. :-) > > > > So Sal, whoever you are, you are advocating like Maharishi > > > now, to just "mind your own business"? Your, "to each his > > > or her own". > > > > No, not at all, since these are friends of Rick that he says > > he cares about. But if that's the case, why not try to > > arrange some kind of therapy or support system for them, > > rather than just feeding into the anxiety? That's all I'm > > saying, since this topic has an apparently endless life span. > > > > By "to each his or her own" I meant that that's *my* take on > > it, but obviously others are free to differ. > > The topic per se (Maharishi boinking his female > students) doesn't interest me much, because Maharishi > doesn't interest me much. I threw out all of my books > by him or about him decades ago, and what I have heard > about him since was on Internet forums like this one. > > That said, the topic *as topic* interests me a great > deal, because as I've said I've talked to numerous > women who had similar experiences with Frederick Lenz > (Rama), with Chogyam Trungpa, and with other spiritual > teachers. It's almost always a stone, cold MESS, sad > for all concerned. > > My continuing interest in the subject is *not* for the > women involved. For the most part, after decades now > they seem to be doing all right with it. The interesting > phenomenon for me is watching people's *reactions* to > the topic. It's one of the BIG hot-button issues in > spirituality, and tends to bring out both the worst > and the best in spiritual seekers. On the 'worst' side > of the equation I cast those TBs who just cannot allow > the possibility of this being true about their spiritual > teacher into their heads; they react to the stories as > if they were poison and the tellers of the stories > poisoners. And they often do really, really, really > nasty things to the women themselves. The most heart- > breaking part of talking to women who have been in > this situation is not hearing what their teacher did > to them, but what their *fellow students* did to them > when they talked about it. > > Also in the 'worst' category I place those TNBs who > have glommed onto this topic and use it like a club > to bash at the teacher they used to like and now don't. > There's too much obsession there, and too much attach- > ment, and too little compassion for me to take these > people seriously. *Especially* when it comes from folks > like the majority of bloggers on TM-Free. They're not > FOR anything; they're only AGAINST. I just don't truck > with people like that. > > Those I place in the 'best' category of spiritual seeker > are those who have a kind of "line through water" reaction > to the same topic that's getting so many others uptight. > They tend to bring two things to the table that those > on either pole do not -- balance and compassion. I applaud > those here who have said that they just don't know the > truth about this situation, and probably never will, but > it doesn't change either how they regard Maharishi or > the value they've gained from practicing TM. That's > balance. And I applaud those who have looked at the > possible failings of someone who -- bottom line -- is > Just Another Guy, and seen in his failings a reflec- > tion of their own. Who among us has *not* done some- > thing stupid in the name of sex? I know I sure have. > I probably did it again last night. So who am I to > rag on Maharishi, or Rama, or Trungpa? I am convinced > that all of them let their one-eyed trouser snake run > things from time to time, and with women whom they > never should have let the snake anywhere near, but > so have I. As Robin Williams said so well, "God gave > men a brain and a penis, but only enough blood to > run one at a time." > As I posted earlier, I'd be the last guy to claim perfection in that department. But the thing is (da ting is..) MMY did claim to be a celibate monk, a bramachari. I know very little of Rama, but did he claim to be celibate? If not, then fair enough. There's the teacher/student thing...dangerous water, but I still see claiming to be a celibate monk, and encouraging others to be celibate (which MMY did with certain people) and then using that power in this way, to be a different level of uncool. I am obsessive by nature but I am hardly obsessed with this topic. It's interesting, a bit fascinating, heartbreaking...when you know a victim, but I have plenty of other things in life I obsess over, as you know so well.
Compassion for MMY in this matter? I suppose so, in a mano y mano, Robin Williams (great quote!) kind of way. But I have more compassion for those who were hurt by his actions and are still wrestling with the after effects.
