Lies My Guru Told Me

Lies My Guru Told Me (For my own good, of course)
By Michael D. Coleman, Ph. D.

One of the wonderful things about email on the Internet is the
"democratization" of knowledge. We can compare notes with others
around the world easily and quickly. No authoritarian structure can
block it. Dictatorial structures hate free dialogue.

Recently I have been "listening in" to an on-going dialogue among
three friends who have been sharing stories of their time with
Maharishi. This made me realize that even 25 years after leaving the
TM Movement, I have not come clean with myself and with others about
the lies Maharishi encouraged me to believe and required me to tell
others.

This is an open letter to anyone within the TM movement who is
beginning to feel that they must be "crazy" because of the dissonance
between what they are aspiring to and what the TM movement actually
seems to be doing. It is also for everyone who has left the TM
movement to validate your sanity.

Let's begin with a short catalogue of lies with a brief commentary on
each. I will give a deeper treatment of several. There are too many
lies, with new lies coming out each year, to comment on them all.

1. TM is a simple, scientific technique. It is simple, but it
certainly is not "scientific". It is a Hindu method of meditation in
the Tantric tradition. The point of this lie is to hide its Hindu
origins and nature so that other religious traditions won't be
threatened by it. It is called "scientific" because in our present
time, the label "scientific" is a powerful sales gimmick.

2. The Mantras are meaningless sounds. Meditators are kept in the dark
about the actual meanings, and even some TM teachers are. The Mantras
are names of Hindu deities and the longer mantras are a silent prayer
saying that "I bow down to such and such deity." This is very
significant to all Christians, Jews, and Muslims because their
religious creeds do not allow them to "bow down" to the images of any
other gods. Here's what Maharishi said in 1955, quoted from Beacon
Light of the Himalayas, a book the TM movement has suppressed for the
past 40 years: "For our practice, we select only the suitable mantras
of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the grace of personal Gods
and make us happier in every walk of life."

3. The Initiation Ritual is a "scientific procedure." This one should
be laughable on the very face of it. It is a Hindu religious ceremony
where the TM teacher chants the names in the history of the Hindu
religious tradition and gives thanks, and then bows down to the Guru.
See numbers 1 and 2 above for the reasons we lie about it as "scientific."

4. TM is a faster, simpler, easier, more effective method to achieve
enlightenment than methods of other religions. TM seems to be easier
in the beginning than some other forms of meditation. However,
Maharishi has been teaching TM for almost fifty years and so far no
one has become enlightened that we know of. Based on the now
observable long-term results, there is no evidence that TM is better
or quicker than any other form of meditation be it Buddhist, Sufi,
Christian or secular.

5. Maharishi is a perfect Master. This is the biggest lie and one that
I will deal with in detail below. Additional claims are that he is a
life long celibate, that he never makes mistakes, that only he can
enlighten the world, etc.

6. Advanced practices of the TM Siddhi Program are teaching meditators
how to levitate. I will deal with this one in detail below, but simply
put, these techniques have been taught for over 25 years and no one
has ever flown and no one ever will. What is actually occurring is
that practitioners are encouraged to practice self-deception together
in order to keep the delusion going. The TM Siddhis are nothing more,
and nothing less, than a modern version of "The Emperor's New
Clothes." This can be demonstrated scientifically if anyone is
interested in conducting a true scientific test.

7. Because we learned meditation from Maharishi, and our lives
improved from it, we owe something to Maharishi. We owe absolutely
nothing to any teacher. This belief has been used to make many of us
co-conspirators in the lies. I was a professor of philosophy for 18
years and my students don't owe me a damn thing. I was paid for my
work with both money and status. Maharishi has been adequately paid
for his work with both money and status. You don't owe him anything.
If you are serious about your own personal quest for enlightenment,
you owe it to yourself to live and speak the truth, as you understand it.

8. The disciple should "surrender" to the Guru. This one is tricky
because it is true, but it is a truth that can be used to deceive. In
any significant spiritual or secular endeavor, the student needs to
surrender to the knowledge and instruction of a master to make good
progress. In the beginning, the student's ignorance and willfulness
can hinder the learning process. On the other side the master must act
according to the highest ethical standards. If the master is at all
unscrupulous, the student is very vulnerable to abuse from the
master's sexual, money or power desires. I will discuss this in
greater detail below.

"A man repays his teacher badly if he remains forever a student."
Nietzsche. I think there is a corollary to this as well: "No selfless
teacher would require that his student remain forever a student."

9. Only some TM Program can save the world. This is an extremely
shifty lie. It changes its form almost every year. At one time we
needed 1% of the world meditating, then only the square root of 1%.
One year we needed Vedic pundits; another year we needed thousands of
yogic "flyers." As I am writing this Maharishi wants people to invest
millions in bogus bonds to build palaces to house yogic "flyers." The
essence of this lie is quite simple at its basis. Only Maharishi can
save the world. No other religion, no other secular group, can have
any influence.

The brilliance of this lie is that in one stroke it appeals to both
the highest aspirations and the basest weaknesses of people within the
movement. It appeals to one's authentic spiritual desire to be a
benevolent presence in the world, while it panders to one's egotism
that only you can save the world. In addition, quite by design, it
requires one to surrender to Maharishi's power and to send him
ever-increasing money.

Truth Can Be Messy and Painful

I have a dear friend who was raped by her father between the ages of
11 and 16. Should she be thankful that her father raised her, clothed
her, looked out for her, taught her, loved her, and protected her from
the outside world (if not completely from him)? Should she be angry
that he raped her and forced her into a conspiracy of silence and
shame? As I have watched her healing over the years, it seems that all
of the above are ultimately necessary. However, her healing could not
even begin until she was assisted in breaking the conspiracy of
silence and shame.

In a similar way, should I be thankful that Maharishi taught me to
meditate and gave me my early spiritual instruction? Should I be angry
that he involved me as a co-conspirator in many of his lies? Should I
be ashamed that I was duped as much as I was? Probably all of the
above are necessary. To bring my healing to a conclusion, I must break
completely the conspiracy of silence and shame that I carry.

Sex and Control

I am ultimately going to claim that Maharishi's motivation is not
simply to enlighten the world. I am going to point out that he is
highly motivated by fame, money and power, even more so as time goes
on. His insecurities about maintaining his power and money will show
up as an increase in paranoia and greed within the TM movement.

In the context of this claim, let's analyze the restrictions on sexual
behavior, both for the disciples and for the master. Celibacy, while
no doubt a serious spiritual practice, can also be used as a method of
control.

Kramer and Alstad cover this topic well in their book, The Guru
Papers, 1993. The following are quotes or paraphrases from this highly
recommended book.

"To control a person sexually is to have control over a basic aspect
of human life. Sexuality is a deep power in human beings that
underlies attraction. Attraction is the capacity to command attention,
which is one key to personal power. Thus to exercise sexual control is
to have real power over individuals and society as a whole�"

"Gurus do many things to ensure that their disciples' prime emotional
allegiance is toward them. In the realm of sexuality, one of the
prevalent ways control is exerted is through promulgating celibacy�"

"Celibacy, or at least the image of it, is the easiest route for a
guru to obtain this power of being the central emotional focus for
large numbers of people."

"Celibacy undermines coupling when presented as a higher state than
sexual intimacy. This, in effect, gets people in couples to surrender
to the guru rather than to each other."

What If The Guru Isn't Pure?

"When a religion is transplanted from a conservative culture to a more
experimental one, its leaders are no longer constrained by tradition.
The West's looser mores make sexuality practically irresistible for
foreign gurus from rigidly patriarchal cultures in which the sexes
were separated and closely monitored. The availability of sexy,
adoring female disciples is a temptation few (if any) can resist.
Without deep cultural constraints against it, sex scandals go with the
occupation of guru because of its emotional isolation and eventual
boredom. Disciples are just there to serve and amuse the guru who,
after all, gives them so much. The guru's temptation is exacerbated by
the deep conditioning in many women to be attracted to men in power."
Kramer and Alstad, The Guru Papers

Is it even possible to tell the truth about Maharishi's earlier sexual
indiscretions? Is it necessary? Maharishi had sex with at least two
women disciples in the 1970s that my friends know. There may have been
others.

1. Most people within the movement literally cannot believe this, for
reasons I will outline below.

2. The women who had the sexual connections do not want to go public.
Like victims of incest they are embarrassed, ashamed, and feel used.
These are not feelings you like exposed to a larger public. Like rape
victims, they will be accused of either lying or of seducing Maharishi.

3. For many of us, we think "so what?" because of our own sexual
indiscretions. Yet, in the service of "no more lies," I need to
mention this in this writing. If this is an issue to you, check it
out. Above all, if you think that Maharishi is "perfect," then check
it out.

The Enlightened Man Can Make No Mistakes

"Who are you going to believe--me, or your own eyes?" Groucho Marx

This is a most interesting claim, and so clearly false in every
historical instance that we can check on, and certainly in the
immediate "checkable" history of Maharishi. In the early 1960's he
claimed we would have enlightenment within 5 years if we simply
meditated 20 minutes twice a day and didn't change anything else. Then
in the late 60s we needed to do "rounding", then become teachers of
meditation, then become celibate, then follow a special diet, then put
special oils on our bodies, take special supplements, get special
massages, learn "siddhis", practice siddhis regularly in groups (more
on this later), pay thousands of dollars for some pundits to perform
"yagyas," then live in special architecture, then get 40,000 people
together doing the siddhis, then pay $1,000,000 to have a 30 day
course with Maharishi and get a little personal attention.

To make just one simple point: Was he wrong when he told us that we
only had to meditate 20 minutes twice a day for an enlightenment that
we would achieve in 5 years? Was this just a "sweet truth" to get us
on the spiritual path? Is there a point at which a "sweet truth"
becomes a self-serving lie? Just where is that point?

The Yogic-Flying Hoax

Hitler once said that a leader should tell enormous lies so that
people will believe him. Since everyone tells small lies, when the
leader tells an enormous one, the average man knows that he could not
tell such a lie, and therefore what the leader says must be true.

At a financial conference in 1991 I once had an opportunity to watch a
master hypnotist work a room of about 100 people who were all
well-educated, high achievers. The hypnotist was brought in as the
evening entertainment.

He stared at us with piercing eyes, undulated his dark bushy eyebrows,
and proclaimed that we would soon be under his power. He led us
through some relaxation exercises and then told us to touch the tip of
our index fingers to the tip of our thumbs, explaining that we would
not be able to pull them apart. I immediately pulled mine apart to
prove to myself that I could, but apparently a number of people in the
audience could not do so. He then chose about 10 of the latter, and
brought them to the stage. He put them through another series of
tests, telling them they were asleep, and then they were awake. He
required them to do a number of small tasks, and, based on their
responses, he dismissed five of them back to the audience. Now he had
five subjects that he felt confident he could control and he began his
serious work.

First, he told them there was a phone in their shoe and it was
ringing. Each took off his or her shoe and answered it. He told them
the sort of conversation each was having and they acted out their side
of the conversation. When he told them the conversation was
pornographic, each became offended by their "caller." Then he had
everyone but one person go to sleep and he worked that personal
individually for a while making that him do ever more ridiculous and
humorous things. One young man was told that he was a stripper, and he
began to dance and took off his coat and shirt in a seductive manner.
Before he took off enough to break the bounds of propriety, the
hypnotist stopped him and began to work with someone else. In the end
he woke them all up and we applauded the entire act.

I was stunned and amazed by the power of the hypnotist, and I wondered
what the inner experience of being "hypnotized" was like. I spoke to
the young man who was the "stripper." Did he know that he was still a
man? Yes. Did he know there was an audience? Yes. Why was he following
those directions? He explained that he still knew his current
identity, but he felt "compelled" to follow the directions of the
hypnotist.

I don't understand the phenomenon of hypnosis, but I think I recognize
several parts that are necessary for a successful hypnotic act. First,
it seems necessary that he tell us with absolute conviction that we
will all be under his power, though only a small number actually will
believe him. Second, he knows there are degrees of hypnosis, and he is
only ultimately interested in the ones he can "control." So a master
hypnotist, like a master false teacher, will continually test his
subjects, requiring them to do ever more ridiculous things, so he can
quickly reject the ones that he cannot control enough.

Only much later, did I connect the hypnotist's act with what I went
through in the winter-spring of 1976-1977 when I attended a set of
courses that taught us how to have super-normal powers called
"siddhis." I came to this particular course to be on a spiritual
retreat, and because I could get that time off from my job. I had no
idea that I was going to watch a master hypnotist at work.

Prior to our learning the siddhi techniques, a couple of "senior
siddhas" joined our group. They were not allowed to practice the
siddhis in our presence during group meditations until we also learned
them. We could, however, hear them thumping in their rooms in private
while practicing their "levitations." The excitement was palpable that
we were going to witness something miraculous. However, when we got
the "technique", which is merely thinking a sutra, like a private
prayer, in the quietness of deep meditation, I was deeply
disappointed. I had often done private prayers in the quietness of
deep meditation without achieving any immediate or spectacular
effects. Remember Groucho.

At our first group session to practice the siddhis, I sat in the back
and kept my eyes open to watch what happened. The scientist in me was
open to see a demonstration of levitation if it were to occur. The
floor was entirely covered with foam pads, which in turn were covered
with sheets so that we would not hurt ourselves when we "came down."
What I saw was the "senior siddhas" starting to jump about while in
the full lotus posture. Soon almost everyone else in the group copied
their behavior. Nothing more. Only three of us refused to jump that
first session. Still, I distrusted my own experience. I thought that
something must be going on that I don't see. Remember Hitler.

My brother and I questioned some of the jumpers about their
experience. They all felt that they were lifting off but admitted to
some "effort." I listened as Maharishi told us how to speak of it,
repeating over and over that we "lift off," "move forward," and "come
down." Soon that is how everyone spoke of it. Finally, some small
voice asked, "But Maharishi, it feels like I am putting effort into
it." "Yes, yes, there may be some effort in the beginning, but we lift
off, move forward and come down. Some effort doesn't matter. We lift
off, move forward, and come down."

I proposed a simple scientific study to prove some degree of
levitation (which was all anyone was claiming, remember there is "some
effort" in the beginning.) I proposed setting up a scale with a
running tape on it recording weight, and have the proposed siddha make
the scale get lighter by even a few pounds without the tape showing it
got heavier first, in other words, to prove some "lifting" without an
equal and opposite amount of "jumping." No one was interested in such
a study. Not then. Not now.

With the permission of the movement, H.K. and I ran a controlled study
for 30 days to see if any of the "siddhas" could manifest the siddhi
of "seeing something hidden from view." No one could demonstrate
results above random chance. Suddenly no one was interested in further
study and both H.K. and I dropped it. The movement was decidedly not
interested in publishing our results.

The "scientific" study that was promulgated to the public after this
course was a chart of one person's brain waves, showing synchronicity,
as proof that the siddhis work. In logic we call this a non sequitur.
Professional illusionists call this diversion, i.e. to keep the
audience from seeing the trick, divert their attention elsewhere.

I wish I could report that I remained immune to the conditioning while
I was there. After a while the social ostracism got to me, and I
started doing the technique and jumping too. I gave myself the excuse
that it was much more fun than just sitting there. Only one man
remained throughout the months in total integrity and refused to jump;
he spent his entire time waiting to lift off which, of course, never
occurred. I kept telling myself there must be something more, it can't
be as big a lie as it seems to be. However, once I got home and was
instructed to tell other people that we were learning to fly,
something finally broke in me. I simply could not say this, and I
certainly didn't want anyone I knew to see me jumping in imitation of
levitation. This decision, of course, removed me from the "stage." I
could no longer be part of the TM Movement if I wouldn't participate
in this lie.

Twenty-five years have passed. Everyone is still making "some effort,"
and no one in the TM movement is willing to do a true experiment. In
fact, the diversions, the lies, only get bigger and more unproveable.
Now it is claimed that if 1,000 meditators get in a room together and
practice self-deception about learning to fly, that they will create a
"coherence" and protect us from whatever is the current ill in the world.

There is a certain beauty to the "levitation" lie. Unlike Maharishi's
sexual misconduct, which can be easily hidden, and the enormous lies
that are unproveable one way or another, this is an obvious lie that
can be checked out by anyone at anytime. Find a "siddha" and watch him
"levitate." If you think you are a "siddha," get on the scale and
prove it.

Giving Up "The Dream" Is Hard To Do

When I was forced to leave the movement, I found that it was a very
painful breakup for a number of reasons that I will explain below.
Fear of this hidden pain no doubt influences our willingness to accept
the lies. Since leaving the movement is a huge change in one's life I
would like to discuss it in several ways.

Imagine that you know a rich heiress who is beautiful, young and a bit
lonely. She has a great desire to help the world but is not sure just
how. She meets a rich international banker who has devoted his life to
charities that are working on overcoming world hunger. He is handsome
and charming and articulate and he woos and marries her. He takes her
to grand balls, he showers money on her, he influences her to give
large sums of money to the charities he supports, and charities in
turn put her on their boards where she has power, influence and honor.
She describes herself to you as "deliriously happy." She says that it
is the first time she really felt that she had a "soul mate," the
first time anyone has ever loved her "unconditionally."

After a while, among her friends, some quiet gossip begins about her
husband. People are surprised at his apparent ignorance of certain key
events in international banking. He is often away on "banking
business" for extended periods of time "overseas," but one of your
friends is certain she spotted him in a nearby city with another
woman. Your friend, the heiress, is still "deliriously happy." Do you
tell her your suspicions? Do you doubt your suspicions, and accuse
yourself of "being jealous?"

Time goes on and it is confirmed that he has more than one mistress.
It becomes suspicious that he is not a banker at all. It is possible
he is taking part of the donations that his wife is giving to charity,
and using that money to shower her with gifts as well as support his
lifestyle and his mistresses. Do you tell her now? Does she want to
hear this?

Finally, you and her friends become aware that he is asking for ever
bigger contributions to his charities. "Millions are dying of hunger
every day," he pleads, "and only your contributions can save them.
Every day that you wait, thousands more die." You become very
concerned that she will give away all of her inheritance. You tell her
that her husband is a con man and an adulterer. She is shocked and
confused and doesn't believe you.

She immediately goes to her husband and confronts him with the
evidence that you gave her. He is not the least bit defensive, and
apologizes that he had to keep some things from her for her own
safety. "You see," he explains, "much of my work has to be done in
secret. Certain governments use starvation as a political weapon, so
when we raise money for these people it needs to be kept quiet. Those
women are my underground staff. I had to keep this a secret from you
for your own good. If these governments knew what I was doing, or even
knew that you knew, our lives could both be in danger. In fact,
several of my key people were just caught and will be executed in the
next few days. Only if I can come up with $1,000,000 in two days can I
save them. Unfortunately, I don't have liquidity in my Swiss bank
account for five days due to their exchange rate restrictions. I was
thinking about asking you for a loan for a few days, but I really
didn't want to get you involved in this."

Does She Give Him The "Loan"?

If I discontinue this story here, what ending will you write for it?
What will it take for her to see his lies? At what point does she
subtly become a co-conspirator in keeping the truth from herself?
There is something very big, very important to her, which she will
have to give up for her finally to see the truth. The key question I
want to ask you is: Why does she not want to see his lies? Because she
would have to give up "THE DREAM."

By The Dream I mean the illusion that the con man created within which
she has now found happiness and meaning, and around which her life is
organized. Inside The Dream she is unconditionally loved. She has a
soul mate that understands her and shares her deepest longings to help
the world. Her contributions matter to the world, and her help keeps
people from dying. She has prestige and honor, both from a husband who
is well connected and handsome, and from the boards that she now
serves on.

Now imagine that you have found a guru who is enlightening the world.
He teaches you to meditate and you are "deliriously happy." You have
never met anyone who seems so happy, contented and wise. In the
beginning he answers all your deepest heartfelt questions. He is
obviously a most unusual man, capable of working 16-hour days,
building an enormous organization, being an indefatigable teacher, all
to help enlighten the world. He asks nothing for himself.

He teaches you "inside knowledge" and trains you to tell only the
"sweet truth:" he teaches you to not tell everything because the
students are not "evolved enough" to know yet. You are proud that he
trusts you with this "inside knowledge." He gives you positions of
power and prestige. He brings out new knowledge every year, and new
projects to save the world. He emphasizes that only he can save the
world, but only with your help. You are excited about building a
heaven on earth.

When does the first crack appear? Is it when you hear that he has not
been sexually pure and has had sex with some of his female disciples?
No. That could not be possible because he is an enlightened man and he
can make no mistakes. This could only be a malicious lie.

Do you notice that he puts his name and picture on everything? If this
was an ordinary man, you could suspect that he was concerned about
"name and fame." But no, an enlightened man is beyond ordinary ego needs.

Does it bother you that he requires more and more money for courses,
for massage and oil treatments, for building projects? These are all
for the enlightenment of the world, you tell yourself. Maharishi is
beyond all desires for money. An enlightened man is indifferent to
where he lives. It does not matter whether he lives in luxury or
squalor. If Maharishi lives in luxury it is because he needs to
protect himself from "negative vibrations" so that he can do the good
he needs to do for the world.

Are you concerned that you have been given a technique that supposedly
gives you supernormal powers but you can't manifest any? Are you
ashamed that this indicates your own lack of spiritual progress? Do
you tell yourself that you "feel" some lightness and some inner
peacefulness so you must be making some progress? Do you justify
continuing in spite of no results because you are now told you need to
do this to protect the world from some calamity?

Do you even notice when threats begin to circulate in the form of bad
things happening to teachers of TM who don't do Maharishi's bidding?
(Example: On August 13, 2002, the Maharishi Channel had a question and
answer session with John Hagelin and Bevin Morris. A questioner
recounts how a wealthy Yugoslavian Yogic Flyer was told by Maharishi
to "fly" with others in a group but refused to do so. Then one day he
woke up penniless. John Hagelin responds that the movement is
developing a website to gather this sort of "supporting material.") Do
you even suspect that this is a form of manipulative control?

Do you ever wonder if a Vedic Kingdom is the best form of government?
Have you ever read any history about how kingdoms function? Does it
make any sense that "God created a perfect constitution in the Vedas?"
Have you ever read this "perfect constitution?" Do you wonder about
how a Vedic Kingdom would co-exist with a Democracy? Are you aware
that Maharishi runs the TM Movement like a Vedic Kingdom, viz. as a
dictatorship with one man having absolute unquestioned control over
everything? Is this your idea of a perfect world?

Do you ever notice paranoia in the movement? Have you heard that some
members of the community are having their letters monitored? Do you
ever wonder if this paranoia actually comes from Maharishi? Would you
be afraid if others saw you reading this letter? Can you even discuss
and debate these points inside the TM Movement?

What Is The Dream That You Are Unwilling to Give Up?

Will you pay $1,000,000 to do a one-month course with Maharishi rather
than giving up The Dream that he has created for you? How much will
you pay for a Yagya rather than giving up The Dream? Have you ever
read Martin Luther's condemnation of "Indulgences?" (During the Middle
Ages the Catholic Church was selling expensive religious ceremonies,
called "Indulgences," to permit the wealthy to buy their way into
heaven. Even the Catholic Church now admits that this was a corrupt
use of clerical power aimed only at making money.)

Does it concern you that teachers who have worked for the TM Movement
for 25 years or more don't make enough to afford proper dental work,
let alone have any health insurance or retirement plans? Do you think
Maharishi cares about this?

"The deeper one surrenders to an authoritarian structure, the harder
it is to detach from it because one's identity becomes wrapped around
that context - one's emotions, beliefs, images, worldview,
relationships, etc. In fact, the group, with the authority figure at
the center, becomes the foundation of all meaning, intimacy, and even
possibility for the future.

"Leaving a group after having surrendered to it often puts one back
into confusions and lacks paralyzing self-doubt may occur many things
previously believed now seem the opposite of what they were. What
seemed right and good then appears wrong and malevolent now. The
guru's seeming unconditional love was really about wanting
unconditional power; his selflessness was egomania in disguise; his
purity was corrupt.

"The burning questions in one's mind are: "How could I have been so
taken in?" The difficulty of leaving is compounded by the reality that
doing so rarely feels good initially. Instead there's bewilderment,
anger mixed with depression, and self-blame.

"Those in the inner circle or high on the organization's rungs have an
even more difficult time unhooking. Most have achieved more power and
feelings of special ness than they ever had before or could on their
own. Each becomes a minor authority to those below.

"The stakes in believing or not believing in the authority are very
high. The followers' fears of going back to a life that could be even
worse than before give the guru more power over them. This is similar
to an addict's fear of returning to the drab, dull life the addiction
was trying to alleviate." Kramer and Alstad, The Guru Papers

Conclusion

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord
Acton

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others."
Winston Churchill

"Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it."

The truth is that Maharishi needs you, but not in the way that you
think. He needs you as an income source. Not only does he get money
from you, but he can count on you to get money from your friends as
well. He needs you as a worker bee for his projects. To hide your low
and relatively powerless status, he will give you fancy titles (but
not the income or the power that goes with such a title. He retains
all the power and all of the income for himself.) Finally, he needs
your acclaim to feed and maintain his own egomaniacal vision: that
only Maharishi can build the perfect Vedic Kingdom on earth.

Because of his selfish desires, there are two key elements on your
path to enlightenment that you will never receive from him.

He will never teach you the technique of being free from a
manipulator's power, because then you could be free from him. There is
a part of you that is a weakness, a flaw, or a wound, that permits a
manipulator to use you. Until you work on that part of yourself, you
will never be enlightened, and your work for the good of the world
will always be precarious, and subject to abuse.

He will never teach you how to come into your own creative power. When
you come into your own power, you will find that there are many
teachers and gurus, and thousands of people and groups that are doing
good works on this earth. You will in fact become one of them.

I was once complaining to my brother about all the ills that have come
down through history from religious organizations like the Catholic
Church. Religious organizations have fostered religious wars,
"crusades," sexual repression and perversion, sectarian battles,
intolerance, etc. "How can these organizations be the instruments of
God?" I asked. He invited me to consider the mother hen. See how the
mother hen will do anything; she will even give up her life, to keep
anyone from attacking and breaking her eggs. But the whole point of
her protection is for the chicks to break out of the eggs from within.
Like that, in the big picture, religious organizations are Mother
Hens. They protect us while we need the protection. When you no longer
need that protection, you will be willing to go through the pain and
struggle of breaking out from within.

May God Bless You and Keep You.

Namaste
Michael D. Coleman, Ph. D.
Huntington Beach, CA
September 2002