Good comments, David. Very real.

--- In [email protected], "David Fiske" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> <snip to>
> Face dog I don't think he attracted a lot of conmen. I think 
> he attracted a lot of young people who felt inspired to feel 
> that working for him might well make a huge difference in 
> the world. 

Gotta agree with this one. On the whole, the people
I met in the TM movement were enthusiastic, dedicated
seekers, not just for themselves, but for the world
as well. Their enthusiasm often exceeded their abilities,
but I don't think that any of them started out as conmen. 
Over time some of them became conmen, and the lack of 
discrimination in the environment helped them to do so, 
but on the whole the TMO attracted pretty nice people.

<snip again to>
> It causes great grief that all those hard efforts from so many 
> people have ended up with a movement about as far removed from 
> any positive influence as one could imagine. If I were Maharishi 
> I would feel despair. He must self reflect like us all. I wish, 
> like a good friend, I could chew the cud with him as, late in 
> life, he weighs up things..

I kinda doubt there would be much cud to chew. My take
on Maharishi is that he *doesn't* self reflect like all
of us. I'm sitting here racking my brain trying to 
remember any example of seeing him do so publicly, or
having heard stories from others who spent a great deal
more time around him than I did, and I can't remember
a one. Maybe someone else here can, but it appeared to
me that self-reflection, especially if it required him
to assess his own actions critically, was just among
the tools in his toolbox.

I've seen him actively participate in revising his own
history (that is, going back and editing passages out
of movement books that had proven embarrassing in the
time since they were first published, ordering the 
"recall" of audio or videotapes that, again, had been
deemed dogmatically incorrect) too often to believe 
that he will ever spend much time in self-reflection. 
Maharishi *shapes* his image; he doesn't examine it 
critically. Just my opinion.



Reply via email to