Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
I received a copy of Judith's book yesterday and finished reading it today. The book includes a large number of photos from the late 60's and early 70s as well as a number of personal notes written to Judith from MMY. I have a small stash of notes from MMY.... the handwriting of the notes in the book certainly appears to be his.Those who were expecting an angry "tell all" from Ms. Bourque are going to be very surprised. In fact, she maintains a very balanced view of MMY. Ms. Bourque remains a strong supporter of many things that MMY accomplished in his life. At the same time she points out the danger in hanging "god-like" or beyond human expectations on MMY or any spiritual teacher. She also makes a strong case for the need of a general house-cleaning in the TMO as she becomes more familiar with the present day rise of "raja-ism".
Along with many of us who were around MMY in the early 70s, Ms. Bourque witnessed the seeds of "raja-ism" with MMY's steady removal of the brightest and most creative minds of the TMO during that time, to be replaced with those who simply follow without ever raising questions.
There is a very touching chapter towards the end of the book titled: A Message To My Sisters where Judith reaches out to all other women who found themselves in a similar situation with MMY. (It's quite clear that she is personally aware of several other women who had the same experience with MMY.) Judith Bourques own affair with MMY started in Rishikesh in 1970 and continued on until it tapered off in Seelisberg when it was clear that MMY's interest was drifting away towards several other women.
It was in Seelisberg that Judith became involved with the man (a former leader of the TMO in Sweden) she later married. As disappointing as it is to read of MMY's use of his own power position to satisfy his sexual needs, it's actually more disturbing to read of his selfish manipulation of these women's' personal lives. When MMY learns of Judith's interest in this man (who coincidentally was also the person who obtained the Seelisberg property for the TMO) he writes notes (included in the book) telling Judith that this is the cause of the physical problems she was suffering from at the time. It's clear that MMY provided various degrees of financial support for Judith during the time of their affair. He also arranged for Indian merchants to bring the finest silk saris and gold jewelry for Judith to wear.
In spite of all this, Judith Bourque's admiration for what MMY accomplished in bringing TM to the world is clear throughout the book. At the German premier of the David Sieviking's "David Wants To Fly" movie, in which Ms. Bourque appears, she gently chides Sieviking for not presenting more of the positive side of what MMY accomplished.
I would urge anyone with an interest in learning more about this aspect of MMY's life to read this very well written and often moving, book.
I believe it would be very difficult indeed for someone to read the book and still question Ms. Bourques' honesty.
40 comments:
Many thanks for this excellent piece of writing!
But, I have a question: you said At the German premier of the David Sieviking's "David Wants To Fly" movie, in which Ms. Bourque appears, she gently chides Sieviking for not presenting more of the positive side of what MMY accomplished.
What would have been, what would be, a positive side of what Mahesh accomplished? Can anyone tell me what he accomplished? I have a couple of favourites, but I'd be interested to know what others think.
He got a lot of kids to stop taking drugs for one thing.
I wonder if it would be useful to anyone if we started a post-TM, post-Mahesh thread on what, as former TMers, we feel Mahesh really did accomplish????
Yes. He got a lot of people to quite literally clean up their act.
Sudarsha, Yes, I like your idea about a thread on "What did Mahesh accomplish.." or even, "What positive did I gain from Mahesh," I concur just to be more even-handed about our look into the mirror.
Of course, just because a hardened cynic (me!) can even admit that some progress was made or some good was gleaned from those years, it does not mean I endorse TM or the TMO. However, for its personal healing benefits, I think exploring those topics would be useful.
The time The Beatles spent in Rishikesh meditating with MMY they wrote The White Album as well as songs that were developed in later albums. It allowed them the ability to get away from the London scene and get to the core of songwriting written out of the silence. Even after the falling out with MMY, I doubt any of them would or had denied that the time was productive.
Karina, sexysadie -Isn't it interesting that when the Beatles were in India, things were very laid back. By the time Mahesh got to Estes Park (then Mallorca, etc., things were NOT at all laid back, but strictly micromanaged and meditation was all you were allowed to do, other than listen to him droll on and on about creative intelligence in the lecture hall.
There really was creativity in Rishikesh and he ground it into the dust, so to speak. If we judge the success of meditation by results in activity, it is almost as if Mahesh made sure there were no results. As if TM and Creative Intelligence were only about him, exclusively.
I will put up a new post about what benefits, positivitives, gains and so forth we have experienced as a result of TM. But I think I will wait a bit to not detract from Joseppi's current post on Judith's book.
I think one of the things that MMY accomplished was to make meditation and eastern philosophy more respectable in the western world. I know that there were other teachers who came earlier, as well as others who came later, but when most people think of meditation they largely still think of TM and Maharishi, for good or ill. As far as his personal life is concerned, while he was undoubtedly a hypocrite in some ways, I don't feel that this should unduly influence our judgment of him. First, no one, not even a saint is perfect, and Maharishi certainly wasn't a saint. Secondly, most people still think that Bill Clinton was a fairly good president, in spite of his affairs, whereas most people think that George W Bush was a pretty poor president, even though he was probably faithful to his wife and a better person all around.
No argument there, morris. Mahesh managed to turn TM and himself into something like a fad. Just how he did it is unclear and, perhaps, he actually had nothing at all to do with his popularity because he was relatively unheard of until the Beatles. THEN he became a fad.
I often wonder just how much he accomplished that he actually had no intention of accomplishing. Much of what we consider good evolved in spite of Mahesh! That's ok, too.
I'll get that thread up after the weekend so we can concentrate more on Joseppi's post. For those who read, have read it, I would personally be very interested in specific reactions. Was anyone there when Judith was in India?
In reading the book, about half way through, I was again overwhelmed by "that feeling" - the pain of being crammed into a too-small box, making me fit into it. I don't believe that Judith ever left Maharishi in most respects because I again felt the unpleasant side of the TM Movement - the clones -the automat mantra vending machines.
Also, there is a reference to the plane crash in North Carolina, but the names are different from the names mentioned in the old conversation that took place on Fairfield Life. Was Maharishi's later mistress Jennifer or Belinda? Was the friend who helped her escape April or June? I saw no particular reason for Judith to disguise the names, since 3 people are deceased and Jennifer/Belinda wanted to present her revelation to course participants. Would the real names stand up please?
However, Judith's expose' of Maharishi's duplicitous stance as a Brahmacharya is much appreciated. Thank you, Judith.
Sudarsh --- Yes, I too think it is best to wait for a lull. Gina is back from the ICSA conference, and I'm sure she might have more to post from that, plus, of course, Judith's book.
Hi, morris,
I see things a little differently on the celibacy issue.
I'm a lifelong Democrat, think in many ways Bill Clinton was a good president—but absolutely abhor his affair and his actions to conceal them. They showed a lack of respect to women, an abuse of power because of the differential between him and Lewinsky, poor, even dangerous, judgement, his willingness to break the law, and more.
But his sexual life didn't have a great impact on the duties of his presidency—no matter what they say about his personal character.
And he never promoted celibacy as the only way to reach full enlightenment in this life—as did the Maharishi. (Although he later changed his mind and began selling marital and masturbation aids.)
George Bush's marital virtue had nothing to do with performance as a president. So although I admire his fidelity, I still think his was a demonstrably devastating presidency.
The Maharishi billed himself as a spiritual leader. He charged money for teaching us how to become enlightened, know God, bring World Peace.
The Maharishi's character is therefore front and center.
Just as it has been for Rev. Jimmy Swaggert and his sexual escapades—which brought him down.
Just as it has been for Rev. Ted Haggard—who taught a particularly nasty homophobia—and had to confess to gay sex and long-standing use of drugs.
Just as it is now for Pope Benedict who has admitted to being hip deep in the decisions to coverup child sex abuse by Catholic clergy.
There's hypocrisy—and then there's hypocrisy so malevolent that it ruins people's lives.
That's the legacy of the Maharishi's many hypocracies.
J.
Hi, Ann - I remember hearing about that plane crash. There was a lot of talk about Mahesh's reaction. Someone said he was momentarily upset. It was a long time ago, so I really do not recall many details, although I think I was in Seelisberg when it happened. - My own experiences with and around Mahesh was that, quite simply, he had a way of getting under your skin. Many years later I worked with paroled offenders and met someone who said he had been diagnosed as a psychopath. He, too, had this ability to be inside me in a way that I cannot further articulate. I suppose that both he and Mahesh had no sense of the boundaries of others and simply walked in, as if, for example, you lived in a house with no walls or doors. - That's a pretty lame explanation, but it's just one of those things that I remember.
Now, something completely different. A friend of mine who was one of Mahesh's people in the early 60's reminded me of an episode in Nancy Cooke de Herrera's Beyond Gurus. This is from the section on pages 297-299:
[Nancy] “Have you ever spoken to Maharishi about this, Charlie?” [the reference is to rumours in the Rishikesh ashram about someone having a tryst with Mahesh.]
“Yes, as a matter of fact, while I was still at the ashram, I repeated the story I’d heard about him. [Mahesh]
‘But, Charlie, I am a lifetime celibate; I don’t know anything about sensual desires.’
[Charlie] No,no – we must not even talk about such things.”
Charlie then added, “It’s so hard to understand the malice some people feel when confronted by pureness.”
I suppose it all speaks for itself. Nancy published Beyond Gurus in 1993. It's still easily available. This is the SIBN for anyone interested in tracking down a copy 0-931892-49-X
In the 70's, there were a lot of little books demonizing TM. Even Pat Boone wrote one. This was the first time I discovered that Mahesh gave different mantras to different TTCs! If you Google "transcendental deception" you'll get a lot of TM criticism usually from fundamentalist x-ian organizations.
However, one of the best balanced looks at early TM days (or daze, depending on how you want to see it), is Joyce Collin-Smith's Call No Man Master. It isn't exclusively about TM. But Joyce was one of his early followers in England and, as far as I know, the first to put into print that she was very well aware what was going on in Mahesh's room behind the locked door.
I also recommend Michael D'Antonio's Heaven on Earth which looks at religious groups across America. Chapter 6 is a very well done appraisal of the goings on in a place called Fairfield, Iowa.
Yes, I liked it, but didn't mean to click that button. A friend of mine from Poland Spring and Estes Park, a very close friend, one day discovered his mantra in a book about Tantric Yoga. For reasons I never understood, even though he tried to explain it to me, he suddenly felt that TM was somehow demonic. He had even worked extensively with Dr. Benson, was very intelligent and suddenly and literally converted to the Jehovah's Witnesses and wrote a damning book called Transcendental Misconceptions (http://www.amazon.com/Transcendental-misconceptions-R-D-Scott/dp/0892930314). It is available and is really expensive and while I don't think Richard's book is actually of great value in understanding TM/Maheshism more clearly, I did find it and xerox it at the library many years ago (well, Richard was a close friend and, then, the book was not available anywhere). Perhaps it represents much of the x-ian fundamentalist position that only they (each individual sect/cult) can be right and everyone else can only be wrong.
In so many ways, this is Mahesh's position. Whilst we might feel that Mahesh opened our eyes to things we didn't know even existed, like the "wisdom of the east" (which is also the title of a really great anthology I read and re-read before learning there was such a thing as TM), Mahesh went to great lengths to limit our knowledge of such things to just his opinion, his version, his vision, his opinion, his micromanagement, his control-freak demands on our allegiance to him and him alone.
The SCI course was very much his very controlled efforts at brainwashing us to only ever think his way about the things he only wanted us to think about. Definitely he did not want us to see things clearly (which is what the wisdom of the east is all about), but rather to only see what he showed us.
It is very sad that he so successfully undermined what TM could have accomplished. In many ways, Richard's book is all about his own conversion to seeing everything from only one limited point of view. It isn't a very informative book, but it is useful if you want to look at how the mind can perceive reality and, in effect, limit reality to only what we want to see.
I suppose this is another topic that ought to be in some category by itself.
John, your link to "marital and masturbation aids" linked to a non-accessible site. ("Site Not Found.")
Wonder if we could clarify the question. When asking what MMY accomplished, it could mean many things: Did he achieve what he set out to do? What were the unintended consequences of his activities, and Was his goal (or actual achievement) worthwhile?
I think he was one of many forces active during the hippie/new-age revolution that resulted in a net negative for America and the world. His dualist worldview joined forces with post-modernism to result in an erosion of the Western worldview, and has accelerated the decline we are now seeing.
Judith's book helps to shine the light on a fundamental truth that there are no god-men - only humans. Can we name any leader in an "ashram" context who has not taken sexual advantage of his followers?
Obviously, ones own worldview dictates how one sees this. The TM experience was a deadend, valuable only in confirming its emptiness.
Sorry, Laurie, there was an extraneous character in there. Here's the link marital and masturbation aids.
Thanks for catching this!
J.
arina, sexysadie -Isn't it interesting that when the Beatles were in India, things were very laid back. By the time Mahesh got to Estes Park (then Mallorca, etc.), things were NOT at all laid back, but strictly micromanaged and meditation was all you were allowed to do, other than listen to himself droll on and on about creative intelligence in the lecture hall.
Wow, isn't that the truth. Poland Springs and Humboldt had such an open, free feeling; everyone was so excited and happy to be there, meeting other people, enjoying everything about the course, including the setting and the climate.
Then in Mallorca it had all changed. Everything had gone creepy and organisational, most of the men wore suits and had (reluctantly) cut their hair, celibacy was being promoted as ideal, etc etc etc.
If ayone could tell us what happened, I'm sure we'd all be interested. Was that all planned from the beginning?
I read Collin's book online...does anyone still have the link? Very worthwhile.
John - I don't want to take this in a political direction. But since you are interested in how people can be misled by their own assumptions (regarding cults, etc.) Instructive that you, as a "lifelong Democrat" think "most people" rate Clinton as good, and Bush as an obvious failure. In fact, a google on presidential ratings shows Clinton lower than Bush on most polls. I happen to think that one has to wait at least 20 years before judging a president's value, so the polls mean nothing. But it does show that your assessment of what "most people think" is warped by your own assumptions? http://spot.colorado.edu/~mcguire/greatpres.htm
Deborah, that's a great question! I was at one of the Humboldts, too. I recall that M. let the initiators sit in the front seats, and the men all had suits and short hair, and the women wore professional dress. But the rest of us weren't initiators, so we dressed as we pleased. So obviously the dress code was already in effect for initiators.
At Humboldt, M. expressed great displeasure with the long hair blue jeans bearded look of the men. He said to one long-haired questioner, "I would rather disband my movement than have people who look like you representing it!" A second bearded questioner said, "Maharishi, I have searched my heart, and I can't cut my hair." M. replied, "Then you should use your head!"
Re: celibacy being promoted as an ideal starting at Mallorca, I recall M. talking about it even at Humboldt. He said, "Would it be possible for people to refrain from having sex for just this one month while you're on this course?" (He knew the West was then in the midst of a giant sexual orgy.) I also remember M. saying, "I'm almost afraid to say this, but what this movement needs is a few good celibates." I think - but I couldn't swear - that he said that at Humboldt. (If not then, he said it on my TTC, La Antilla.)
Deborah, there were 2 Humboldt courses. (1972?) Do you think you were on my course?
"The Maharishi billed himself as a spiritual leader. He charged money for teaching us how to become enlightened, know God, bring World Peace. "
So spiritual leaders don't bang? Did MMY ever say he was celibate? Anyway, I'm not defending him. I read somewhere that Indian monks do well in the east where its very prudish. But, when they come here where there is more of a T&A exploitation culture (sex sells), the robe can't hide the interest. Wow, what ever happened to all that upward flowing energy? LOL!
Hi, William,
I think you may be mistaken. I wrote about my own opinions—only for comparison to the Maharishi's hypocrisies—and never mentioned "most people"—although morris did in this thread.
I try to be careful not to talk about "most people." That kind of generality is frequently simply wrong.
It's pretty hard to mention a public figure's scandals without someone taking exception in America today.
It wasn't my intention to drag politics into this thread.
Hope I didn't offend!
J.
Hi, jb,
He not only claimed to be a celibate monk (if you read this thread I believe you'll find a link to one such statement), he never corrected any of his followers who claimed this frequently in person and print, and the only really important point to me is that he urged and demanded his followers to be celibate.
That's the root of the Maharishi's hypocrisy for me.
J.
re: Mahesh's non-celibacy:
I "know" it's true but I still can't quite believe it.
Mahesh brainwashed so many so successfully. Now, if we only had an actually meaningful word for what he did (as brainwash is so overused it has begun to lack both meaning and credence).
The CBC is running a multi-part series on WWII. in the 30's, Hitler used secrecy very effectively, not allowing his photo be taken or printed. So everyone was all hyped up, who is this guy we keep hearing about. Well, the relationship between Mahesh and the little Austrian Corporal are there, of course, although I wonder if Mahesh picked up some of his self-promotion techniques from Hitler or some other source. Without any question his use, very clever, very effective use of secrecy was perhaps the one and only thing that got us hooked.
I remember reading Science of Being and being hugely disappointed that he didn't tell me how to do it. For me, this actually increased my curiosity to find out.
Mahesh was manipulative in a way that almost defies imagination and certainly defies my limited ability to disassemble and analize how in the heck he got away with it.
Hi there,
Judith changed April's name to June and Jennifer to Belinda in the book. Not sure why but she points out in the beginning that some names were changed.
Rick Archer over at FFL wrote something that resonated with me recently. He thinks there is a good possibility that the culture of secrecy and paranoia really took off at about the same time as MMYs sexual activity became more active. I think he's on to something.
Well, if he did make that claim and perpetuated it, that is very bad morally.
Me thinks that the theory of putting Samadhi before the yamas and the niyamas was not really correct. In short, you could have someone in CC (a structured shared functional disassociation) who is morally bankrupt. That is why you have such weird cases of guru misbehavior. This is not just a Eastern path thing, as the Christian churches are finding out with the sexual predation crisis.
In your second paragraph, while I agree in part, I think that perhaps you give Mahesh far too much credit. If anything, I think Mahesh's influence was minor. He rode on the coat-tails of the Beatles and, while their well-deserved popularity catapulted him to public attention, attention he had not had before, I question whether he actually influenced anyone or anything outside the relatively tiny circle of people who made the questionable leap of faith that attached them to him like some kind of glue. -- Your first paragraph is an absolute winner and I will, if that's ok with you, use it to start a new thread on the topic of Mahesh's influence.
John
Sorry I misread the thread, thought it was your comment about what "most people" think/thought of Clinton vis Bush. It generally is more revealing about the speaker than about the actual sentiments of a population.
Many wonder: How could MMY do this, given his claim of celibacy, his teachings of purity and human perfection, etc.
The ability to compartmentalize is a blessing, and I think it is something that men have in greater measure. Like all gifts, it can be misused. What powerful man with virtually no close friends who can rebuke him, surrounded by people who flatter him, and with the opportunity, would not fail? Very few "Davids" have any "Nathans" to call them up short on their "Bathshebas."
That MMY could wall off his "enlightenment gig" from his "man stuff" is not surprising to me - I think men do it all the time, particularly when they have affairs. "I'm still married, I'm still a little-league Dad, I'm still a good man... What is the harm if no one knows, and we both are consenting adults?"
And if your theology is that God is just a passive "field of Being," and everything is just karma. Hey, a few laws of nature were violated there... but I'll just do a few extra pranayamas and get back into the flow.
I would like to say that I am upright out of some spontaneous outpouring of my goodness, but the truth is that much of my morality is based on my belief that God is pleased and/or not pleased by what I do, He has made (most of) that clear, and I want to please Him. I find it rewarding, and it gets easier and easier as I get older - but I have no trust in man, as they say.
That MMY was just a man is a hard one to handle. I want to believe that there are Babe Ruths and Bob Dylans and George Washingtons in the spiritual sphere as well as athletic, music, and statecraft. There are - but they better have some friends around who can whack 'em side of the haid.
I'm re-reading Joyce's book now. Utterly fascinating chapters on MMY.
(It's easy to get at Amazon btw.)
jb, Mahesh very definitely billed himself as celibate. And he said there was no legitimate use of sex outside marriage. He claimed to be a lifelong brahmachari, that is a celibate monk.
Ned Wynn
Sudarsha, thanks for the mention of my memoirs. I do devote a chapter to Hesh and his ministrations. I mostly use humor to talk about my time with him both in India and in Europe and the U.S.
As to some folks mention that Hesh got people off drugs, well, yes, but for a boozer like yours truly, not so much. I stopped all drinking and drug use for eleven months in Europe on the courses, but, as I tell in my book, I started sneaking bottles of Guinness up to my room in the hotel where I was teaching an advanced teacher training course. If a meditator was a true alcoholic like myself, or an addict, even using TM wasn't enough to stop him/me from drinking and drugging. I had to go to AA where the spiritual program is - imho - superior to TM's (but only if you're an alcoholic. I make no claims as to the genpop out there in the greater world!). The chief difference is: no gurus! Oh, people try to be gurus, but the program itself requires no enlightened (so-called) beings as one's interlocutor with God/gods/Pure Consciousness call it what you will. I've been sober now for over 25 years, and that is not because I was a TMer. Ned
Joe, she changed their names - as did I in my book - because she didn't think it was her province to name Jennifer or April. Jennifer and I remember things a little differently about some visits she made to me and my then-wife Jane, but principally, she came to saty a night with us in order to tell us about her affair with Hesh. Believe it or not, and this makes me a little ashamed, I talked Jennifer out of doing a Life Magazine article about it. This was in 1973 or 74. I told her that she wouldn't be belived, Hesh would brush it off, she would be ridiculed, and the whole thing would disappear. Today I regret doing that. She came to me for good advice and I failed to give it to her. I wonder today how something like that would have played in the '70s. Ned (ekw)
Hi, Ned
I appreciate the clarity of your comment. I think that now, in hindsight, it is much easier to see how we assumed so much on the basis of so little. I do know a couple of people whose lives seemed (emphasis, I guess, on “seemed”) to completely change and turn 180° from what we might have called the world of “mud” in our knowing Maheshistic way, to something in our eyes far more preferable in our heightened self-esteem, fueled, as it was, by TM and Mahesh’s cunning!
Now, I wonder if those “positive” changes lasted. I haven’t seen any of the people from the old days since the 70’s and I haven’t worn a tie since I quit teaching TM (I think the one occasion was a friend’s wedding, through which I sat is the greatest discomfort). But, I didn’t do drugs or alcohol before or after TM and, although I am vegetarian, I was long before TM.
I have always had that itch of “seeking”, so have, since Mahesh, met many gurus and teachers. A couple I have found to be sincere and have enjoyed knowing them. I guess, my greatest debt of gratitude to Mahesh would reside in him having been such a major turn-off, although it took me a very long time and three years sort of trapped in his traveling TM circus in Europe to discover that.
So, thanks, Mahesh, for the cynicism and heightened skepticism.
Ned, you and I met at Estes Park. So, I later found your book to feel like something personal and a lot of fun to read. I thought you handled your characters really well. It would be useful to so many of us, if your could flesh out even more of your memories from those halcyon days when we thought we were so special, but I also know how difficult it is dragging those memories up from their buried depths.
Still, thanks for the memories.
S
Deborah, I can say that your take is accurate. For me it started in Estes Park after Hesh gave me the task of setting up a videotape lecture series there and just before he decided to send me and some others to Mallorca. He told me exactly how he wanted me to look and behave; dressing and looking like sober and responsible members of society was paramount. And it went further than just us who worked for him: He didn't want people on the course - students - to be 'in the towns' as he said, enjoying themselves at the shops and restaurants. He made Casey Coleman, Rob McCutchan, and me actually go out and shepherd course members out of the ice cream parlors and back to their hotels! I kid you not. We absolutely hated that, and he never asked me to do it again, but his attitude had definitely become more controlling.
Ned, I remember you! I remember your gorgeous curly hair. And I also caught your film on Sky one night, and immediately recognised your name.
Do you remember the tome at Mallorca when someone confronted MMY about his views on hippies, equating them with "niggers", and how the guy said, 'without hippies, you would have no followers'?
I somehow didn't see this post. Maybe one of the cognoscenti could comment.
I was at Poland Springs in July and Humboldt in August.
Post a Comment