--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > In the current issue of Vanity Fair, ranging from > > famous teachers of yoga to famous practitioners of > > yoga, all shot with that famous VF photo quality. > > > > There are also some outtakes from the photo shoot > > (not the same photos that are in the issue itself) > > at: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/06/yoga_slideshow200706 > > Thanks for posting this. It looks like Maharishi's efforts > continue to pay off in a big way.
Ahem. "Maharishi's efforts?" Do I hear a bit of self-importance projected onto the world here? :-) Why not Yogananda's efforts, or Ramana Maharshi's, or even (perish the thought) the efforts of the people that Vanity Fair considered important enough in the world of yoga to take photos of? Oh, but I forgot...it's not really *their* efforts that made hatha yoga popular. That's an erroneous view held only by the ignorant. They were only able to make an impact on society and make hatha yoga popular because Maharishi hired a gym teacher to write a small pamphlet of simplistic yoga postures. > There are many, many spiritual movements and revitalized > religions that have emerged recently as a result of the > new infusion of spiritual energy that MMY and Guru Dev > brought about during the last 50 or so years. And again, the people who actually did the work *to* revitalize these spiritual movements deserve none of the credit; their success is due only to the work of a guy they've never met and, in the case of most of the younger generation of yoga practitioners, prob- ably have never even heard of. And, given the fact that the TM movement now preaches only to the already- converted and effectively no longer teaches even TM, they never *will* hear of Maharishi. In the larger spiritual "scene" of today's world, he's a nonentity. > As he said so long ago with reference to the inevitable > questions about other religions practiced when one does > TM, that the other religions would find their essence > if the practitioners did TM. And so we are seeing these > results. Wonderful!:- And you're going to post the reasons you believe all these people practice -- or have ever practiced -- TM exactly when? :-) I'm sorry, but I've seen this tendency for devotees of one spiritual teacher to *co-opt* the achievements of other spiritual teachers and other spiritual movements (let alone creative people) so often, and in so many spiritual organizations, that it's beginning to wear on me. The Beatles became a success only because of Maharishi. Ditto Donovan and the Beach Boys and David Lynch. If it weren't for Maharishi and his "contribution" to their work, they'd have never have become famous. Yeah, right. I've watched the Hare Krishnas try to co-opt George Harrison's creativity and credit it to A.C. Bhakti- vedanta Swami Prabhupada. I've seen Scientologists claim that the "real" reason that Tom Cruise and John Travolta and other stars are successful is because of L. Ron Hubbard. I've seen people claim that John McLaughlin's guitar ability is only due to Sri Chinmoy, and so on and so on. Yeah, right. Does anyone besides myself notice a trend here? The consistent statement, no matter which spiritual trad- ition it comes from, is along the lines of, "This famous yoga teacher/musician/actor/politician/film- maker/whatever is only able to do what he does because of *MY* teacher. Therefore *I* am important because *I* follow that teacher." Yeah, right. News flash -- if you want to feel *inspired* by the achievements of creative people and leaders in the world of spirituality, that's cool. But when you try to co-opt their achievements and credit them to a teacher they've never worked with and probably don't know from Adam, just because it makes you feel more important, that's kinda crossing a line in my opinion. One gets the "credit" for accomplishments by actually accomplishing something, not by claiming that your teacher did.
