--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The problem with talking with these people [the two guys > Rick has posted excerpts from recently] is that they define > "bashing" as saying anything that contradicts their view of > MMY...
Bingo. That is one of the aspects of this damaging mental virus mentality that I've tried the longest to bring to the surface on this forum, and on others. These guys feel *attacked* because Rick believes something different than they do. End of story. If that doesn't speak volumes about them, and about the poverty of their beliefs, I don't know what does. > ...as beyond all human aspects and the greatest sage ever to > walk the earth. This is the other aspect of this issue that I think people should be more aware of. In my opinion (and that is all it is), people who react this strongly to people who have thoughts about Maharishi that they consider "negative" are NOT reacting out of a sense of "protecting Maharishi" or "defending his honor." That's what they *claim*. But I don't think it's true. I think that what feels "attacked" are their selves (small s self), which have developed an unrealistic view of their own self importance, for the silliest of reasons -- because those selves gets to hang with someone they have been convinced to believe is more than human. Any suggestion that Maharishi is just human is con- sidered an "attack" because it follows that if Maharishi is just human, so are his followers. And THAT is the thing they don't like to contemplate, and that they perceive as an "attack." They're SPECIAL because they get to hang with Maharishi. Any suggestion that Maharishi isn't "special" and "perfect" and pure "Blazing Brahman" is a suggestion that THEY are less than "special" themselves. But they ARE less than special. They're ORDINARY. Just more spiritual seekers who have chosen to put (in many if not most cases) the first spiritual teacher they ever ran into in their lives up on a pedestal and con- sider him "perfect," the "best" such teacher who ever lived, the only one in modern times who has cognized the Vedas...and so on and so on, ad nauseum. Every time they do this with Maharishi, and boost the height of the pedestal they have placed him on, they boost the regard that they have for their own puny selves. And every time someone looks at Maharishi as ordinary, they feel the "pinch" of considering the possibility that they are ordinary themselves. I think this whole thing is an exercise in silliness. There is nothing more liberating than realizing one's own ordinariness. That has been the message of real spiritual teachers as long as there have been spiritual teachers. The ones who emphasize getting over your small self and realizing that it's NOT special probably have some- thing of value to offer, in my opinion. The ones who try to convince their followers how "special" they are is trying to get something from them. > It's not bashing to investigate into the truth about someone, > anyone. NO ONE is above critical inquiry into their actions. Again, anyone who suggests otherwise is IMO trying to get something from the followers who he has convinced that he IS above critical inquiry. > And it's not spiritual to sit passively, naively, stupidly, > and quietly ignoring all the questionable behaviors within > the tmo - And yet, this is being held up by these two guys *as if* it *were* a high and valuable spiritual trait. That is how brainwashed they have become by Maharishi's teachings in this regard. To them, doubt and critical thinking is a POISON. Those who have indulged in it have become poisoned, and are now trying to poison others. > true spiritual people are passionately devoted to investigating > into the truth of reality, adn true spiritual masters encourage > that and don't exempt themselves as above questioning. Most spiritual paths that I consider valuable insist that one *has* to include oneself (one's self) in all of the critical inquiry. THAT is the reason that I think these guys cannot bring themselves to think critically about Maharishi. If they did, they'd have to think critically about *themselves*, and about all of the decisions they've made over the decades. Can't have that. > There's another aspect of this which is really a more complex > topic, but it's the issue of what makes these people think MMY > is their master. MMY doesn't know most of them exist. And wouldn't give a shit about them if he did. > Maybe they've been in a crowded room with him once or twice > within the past 30 yrs, but they haven't gotten any personal > advice or initiation from him. They practice his techniques > but anyone who pays the costs gets the same standardized, > non individualized practice. Not quite true. If you have a million bucks, you can get some "special" techniques. Techniques that, based on all evidence, leave you just as unenlightened as the normal, over-the-counter techniques. Has MMY *ever* pointed to even *one* of his students and said, "This guy/gal is enlightened?" > Even people who pay a million dollars get brief communications > via teleconferences and the same old program, only longer maybe. But they're more "special," doncha know, because they paid more for it. :-) > MMY himself used to always say he wasnt and never wanted to > be a personal master. But that's not quite true, is it? He consistently promoted a dogma about how to regard and treat *him* that is *based* on him fulfilling the role of being a personal master. He has done this since Day One of his teaching. The part of being a personal master Maharishi never wanted any part of is the RESPONSIBILITY that goes along with being one. > I'm not necessarily against mass marketed standardized > techniques, but doing those, even as a purusha, doesn't > make MMY your master, that requires some sort of personal > connection and teaching. And even if if did, THAT does not require turning off your critical faculties and believing everything he says as if it were Truth Itself.
