--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Robert Gimbel" <babajii_99@> > wrote: > > > > (snip) > > > > > > The dynamite never bothered me at all, and many > > > others. Really. It bothered a few people, and I > > > guess they're the ones who had talked to the course > > > leaders about it and been given a "Go away, every- > > > thing is being taken care of" story. > > > > But, don't you see the metaphor of this story... > > This whole thing seems like it really did bother you! > > You've used this to illustrate a whole attitude toward the > > TM thingy... > > In that you seem to want to blow the whole thing up? > > So, obviously this is something to let go of, as it seems to > > still be unresolved, for you...? > > It was used as an example of a mindset that interests > me, that's all. There was no criticism of either > Maharishi or the TM movement involved, just a fascin- > ation with the phenomenon itself -- people in a > spiritual tradition making shit up, attributing it > to their teacher, and feeling no compunctions about > doing so. I've seen it happen hundreds of times. > > This is *not* unique to the TM movement. It happens > in pretty much *every* spiritual tradition. *That* > it happens in pretty much every spiritual tradition > is what interests me about it. It's an interesting > slice of human nature, one that makes religious > scholarship very difficult. How can you do an > accurate biography of a spiritual teacher if his > or her followers thought that they were free to make > up things and claim that the teacher had said them? > Look it up; it's a well-recognized issue in the > world of religious studies. Catholic scholars are > plagued with this all the time. That's why it's so > difficult to be made a saint; so *many* people just > make shit up about the people they consider saints > that the Vatican has to assure itself that the > miracle stories are true. > > I think you're trying to imagine an insult where none > was intended. Curtis pointed out an interesting aspect > of these conflicting stories -- that either Dr. Varma's > account is knowingly false or Maharishi's account is > knowingly false. I presented an example of similar > fictions that are told every day in the TM movement, > and attributed to Maharishi as if he spoke them. > > I personally believe that Dr. Varma's story is just > another example of this same phenomenon, that's all. > If you don't, no problemo. You get to have your > own opinions, as do I. But I should point out that > by believing Dr. Varma's story is true, you are > choosing to believe that Maharishi's story was > knowingly false.
I basically agree with everything that you're saying in terms of what happens in religious movements, and political power, within those movements, whether in this one or that. In this case though, I would have to think that whatever happened between Maharishi and Guru Dev, and the time Maharishi spent in solitude, is way beyond what you or I can imagine. I also think Maharishi's relationship with Guru Dev, is and was quite fluid, in that I think there is a continued relationship and a continued communication. So, what was said or communicated at the time, or what was later intuited, is beyond any simple discription. So, I'm not quite sure of all the details of Dr.Vama's story, but sometimes, like you say, stories and reality sometimes vary. Check your milage. Everyone is trying to put Maharishi in this box or that. I don't think he fits into any black or white box, which people seem to want to place him in.
