ah- Robert was faster with his correction.....:Fitzgerald could not hear any difference (for a couple of bucks/money I assume)but this is still worth to watch in nostalgia Memorex commercial Chuck Mangione Ella Fitzgeraldhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32X8sFAlDZM&NR=1Ella Fitzgerald sings for Memorex http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkt8Dwzl6Sg
BTW "classic of cognitive dissonance" ? Who you tell-hasn't that be the dilemma/enigma of all "intimate around Maharishi Mahesh " during the last , say 40 or more years, on a daily basis? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > [ Thanks for the correction, Robert. I misremembered, but > in retrospect I actually like me replacing "live" with > "real." If there is such a thing as gaining a "real" view > of a spiritual teacher, I think there's a relationship. ] > > When it comes to assessing the life of a spiritual teacher, > especially one who presented himself as enlightened or > allowed others to present him that way, I think there is > a certain merit in having seen that teacher "live." I > don't see how anyone could claim to be presenting a "real" > picture of that teacher if they hadn't. > > But even if a writer had known the teacher intimately, on > a one-to-one, personal basis for years, would that make > his or her biography or hagiography of that teacher "real?" > > I don't think so. I think that when it comes to "authori- > tative," I would assign that attribute more to those who > had seen and worked with the teacher "live" than I would > to those who had not. But I would never consider such an > account "real," in any meaningful sense. > > Instead, if a writer's account of a particular teacher > interested me, my immediate response would be to find > books written about the same teacher by other people. > That's just the way I roll. > > One of Rama - Frederick Lenz's theories which I still feel > has some wisdom to it is that he believed that there was > no possibility of one, single book being written about an > enlightened being able to present the whole picture. He > felt that the only thing that could present an accurate > picture of an enlightened teacher would be a *lot* of > books, written equally by the teacher's own students and > by others who had run into the teacher along the Way. > > He put this into practice in his own book "The Last Incar- > nation." He didn't write it; we did. By "we" I mean his > students at the time. I still think it's an interesting > work, somewhat unique in the spiritual canon. "The Last > Incarnation" wound up being a fascinating amalgam of many > different students' views of Rama and what it was like to > study with him. And the most fascinating part was that > many of the stories were mutually contradicting. > > They'd attempt to describe the same meeting or desert > trip, and the same event, and the differences were often > startling. Some would remember one siddhi being demon- > strated, others another. Some would attribute to Rama > certain quotes, while others relating the same talk > would come up with vastly different quotes. The book > was an utter classic of cognitive dissonance. > > This is why I look with some amusement at the attempts on > this forum to squeeze Maharishi into one small box, with > a label on it that reads "This is the real story of > Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. So There." > > There is a level of hubris implicit in believing that > your view of a certain teacher or a certain teaching > defines "real." I can no longer achieve that level of > hubris. My experiences with Rama and with other teachers > convinces me that NO ONE's view of them constitutes > a "real" view. They're just views. > > Mine -- of Maharishi or of Rama or about other facets > of spiritual life -- are similarly just views. I make > no claim that my depictions of Maharishi or other topics > on this forum are any more "real" than anyone else's. > Some of them have the advantage of being based on "live" > vs. "Memorex," but that doesn't make them more "real." > They're just views. >
