Several decades ago, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi gave the following comment (paraphrased here) on one of my courses: "If a person has a dream that a tiger is chasing him, it doesn't help him at all that under his pillow he has a gun. A waking-state gun is no protection against a dream-state tiger. Likewise, if a real tiger is attacking, it doesn't help that in one's dream, one has a gun." Mahesh was trying to illustrate his teaching that what applies in one state of consciousness cannot automatically be transferred to another state of consciousness.
Of course we students already knew a lot about waking and dreaming. In this lecture, he was attempting to explain three additional states of consciousness to us. He had told us that if we practiced TM regularly, enlightenment awaited us. In succession, we would attain "Cosmic Consciousness," then "God Consciousness" and then "Unity Consciousness." (Historical note: He later changed the name from "God Consciousness" to "Glorified Cosmic Consciousness.") These, he said, were increasingly advanced states of "enlightenment." He was using the tiger metaphor to explain that we shouldn't even bother planning for what we would do once we were enlightened, since once we were in that state, our experience of reality would change so much.
He never said it outright, but we all believed that he was in Unity Consciousness. (Historical note: When he announced a few years later that there was a state above Unity Consciousness, called "Brahman Consciousness," we all believed that he was at least in that state.) I'm thinking over his tiger illustration now, and I wonder if he was not only telling us not to make plans for ourselves in "higher" states, but also that he was in such an exalted state himself that we were in no position to pass judgment on his actions. That's one of the messages I took away from his lecture. That anything he did, we should probably believe and obey, because he had a different, higher way of looking at the world.
Did you believe that we should not judge Mahesh according to the rules that the rest of us live by? Was there ever a time when he did something that you felt critical of, and then reminded yourself, "We can't judge Mahesh by our standards"?
Showing posts with label Maharishi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Maharishi. Show all posts
Saturday, January 09, 2016
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Fascinating Transcript of "Maharishi Sez" from Poland Spring 1970
Someone kindly sent me a partial transcript of a talk the Maharishi gave 40 years ago—on a rounding course in Poland Spring, ME in 1970.
He discusses how his title, maharishi, came to be used—and why he accepted it.
Personally, I think it contains misleading translations and humble self-aggrandizement. What do you think?
POLAND SPRING, 1970
Question: ...where and in what manner did you receive your title 'Maharishi'?
MAHARISHI: I never received any title like that.
Question: Then how is it that we all call you 'Maharishi', where does this custom originate from?
MAHARISHI: What happened was, in South India this word is more prevalent for good saints. And when I travelled South India, just the news papers wrote. And then it came from one news paper to the other, like that.
It is a spontaneous thing. This is not a title conferred as a degree in a college or somewhere. It is, I think, just like a (the word) 'sage' or a 'seer' or a 'saint', they are not the degrees, it is the symptom of a man - a symptom, a feature. And then people start calling him (like that). There is no confirmation of the title or anything. That is it.
Rishi and Maharishi - rishi is a Sanskrit word and that means the seer of the mantras. The seer of truth. Mantras are the Vedic hymns. A seer is the rishi - rishis are the seers of the mantras, mantras of the Vedas. And mantras of the Vedas are the truth of life.
So rishi is equivalent to a seer. A seer sees the truth. Maharishi means great seer - maha is great. Someone sees the truth and records it. And people hold him high, who applies those truths to the daily life of the people - brings the benefit of the truth by the seer in the daily life of the people. Applies that truth to the daily life. And people call him 'Maharishi'.
And this is what people found in the message of our movement, that the truth of life is applied to the life of the people. And spontaneously the word comes 'Maharishi'.
I think without a thought, once people hear the message and then - generally people don't remember the name. North Indian name is not so easily remembered by the South Indians, like that. But the symptom remains in the memory of a man, 'Oh, he is a Maharishi, he said this and this', just like that.
It is the feature of the person found in his message. This is how this became popular. I didn't object to it. (laughter) Otherwise I had to explain why they should not call me Maharishi and they should call me something else. I saw the validity of the word in the message. And if it is easier for the people to associate the person with this quality, the message justifies it.
So, I had no reason to refuse and say 'Don't call me like that'. People will say, what should we call you then? Some other word would have to be replaced by this word. And I thought let them call what they like. Especially when it was confirmed with the quality of the message. There was no reason to frown on that.
And once I didn't object to it - (to be) silent is half consent . If you don't refuse it means, yes you accept it...
Your thoughts? Can't wait to read the comments.
J.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Transcendental Meditation Has "Friendly" Competition in "Levitation"
A friend sent a heads up on YouTubes of "Swami" Nithyananda's followers levitating! Same "swami" got caught earlier this year having sex with followers—on video! Naturally, he recommends strict celibacy to his followers.
The similarities to the Maharishi are.... well, similar.
Guess he just can't get enough controversy. "Any publicity is good publicity as long as they spell your name right."
First the levitation videos, then a few words:
Levitation in the Presence of Nithyananda
Art of Levitation Unleashed by Nithyananda. Notice how closely they've copied Transcendental Meditation's style—right down to using slo-mo to suggest they really are "flying."
Transcendental Meditation Marketer$ tantalize you with seconds-long glimpses of levitation. Notice the cool use of slo-mo to suggest "flying."
A less slick, more to-the-point TM video. You gotta read the comments: "These people are definately oout [sic] of their minds! Flying?! Hahaha."
Shoko Asahara, Aum Shinrikyo group, who also released Sarin gas in Japanese subways. I betcha he saw some Transcendental Meditation marketing media, too!
Street magician David Blaine is more impressive than the lot of them!
Not much more to say, I guess. Images are worth a million words. Videos a zillion!
Innocent questions for Transcendental Meditation Marketer$:
- If levitation is proof of spiritual attainment, how is it that other scandal-ridden or criminal "gurus" can teach their followers to fly and get identical results?
- How can we tell the difference between "good" levitation and "bad" levitation?
- Think these other guys have "EEG Coherence," too?
- Lucy, you got some splainin' to do.... ?!
Keep the faith!
J.
P.S. If you find videos on Transcendental Meditation or similar groups you'd like to share, please email me at: jmknapp53@gmail.com.Crossposted on TM-Free Blog and Facebook
Friday, August 20, 2010
Discussing "M" - two Initiator-Governors discuss their views of Maharishi Mahesh
The authors of this email exchange shared their communication in the interest of furthering discussion of Maharishi Mahesh. Their discourse evolved in response to Bart Wilson's recent post "A Transcendental Meditation Governor Addresses TMFB Readers" .
Two long time Initiator/Governors articulately and respectfully express contrasting opinions of the man who influenced many of our lives. Please notice, unlike some post-TM discourses, they express opposing opinions with mutual respect. From their writing, it appears that both these Initiator - Governors spent time with Maharishi. The messages reveal rarely seen raw honesty, soul searching, and personal conclusions.
With their permission, this exchange is posted for those who seek others' insights into "M."
Moderators of this blog do not endorse the opinions expressed below. We merely provide a forum.
Respectful discussion is a valuable step in recovery.
moderator note : This is long and possibly of greatest relevance to those who were close to Maharishi.
*******************
Dear Bart Walton,
It is very important that every person who has repudiated Maharishi, or been disillusioned by their experience of TM, or who is hostile to the TM Organization that they take in the very positive—and I believe, from one point of view, entirely appropriate and objective—attitude towards and understanding of Maharishi that you have expressed in this letter.
For there is great truth in what you say. Whatever way in which Maharishi fell short of our expectations of what an enlightened Master should be, what he was in his performance as a "spiritual teacher" or "spiritual master" was truly incredible. Incredible in his sheer charisma, sense of authority, fluidity of intelligence, and dominating integrity. I personally believe that the original experience that so many of us had—that Maharishi was godlike and beautiful and preternaturally wise—was valid; that is, There was something magnificent and sublime about Maharishi's personal presence, and that unless you caught this, You never knew who and what Maharishi was.
And therefore any subsequent turning on Maharishi and disavowal of his spiritual authenticity must continue to co-exist with this former recognition of what he was—because in this sense one's experience was not a lie. Maharishi was the most impressive and commanding individual human being of our lifetime. Those who loved him most, who revered him most, who sacrificed themselves most on his behalf, only these persons are entitled then to include within their perspective on Maharishi what purportedly are the negative—perhaps even extremely negative—aspects of his individual personality and his actions
You understand, then, Bart, what I am saying here. Your point of view—minus the rationale that attempts to justify the bizarre, contradictory, immoral behaviour of a "true spiritual master"—must be incorporated into any final and ultimate assessment of who Maharishi was—and his legitimacy as a spiritual master.
So, take myself: I was completely devoted to Maharishi—as devoted as any person could ever be. And Maharishi was not only extraordinarily powerful and wise and attractive to me—as a spiritual being,—his meditation techniques were—at least in my case—wonderfully efficacious. As efficacious as I could ever dream or want them to be.
And yet, despite all this, I came to judge Maharishi in the harshest and most extreme way anyone could be judged. How to account for this reversal of judgment?
Through a context of comprehension that required me to see all this supernatural positivity in the light of explanation other than one which proclaimed him perfect and pure and true.
And therefore, Bart, I came to know Maharishi in a manner which was even more intrinsically profound negatively than my prior experience of him had been intrinsically profound positively.—without any denial of the validity of that previous experience.
How does one, therefore, arrive at a judgment of Maharishi which is definitively negative while at the same time totally acknowledging the substance and truthfulness of your own experience of Maharishi, the judgment that is implicit in all that you write about him in this letter?
I can only refer to my own perception of Maharishi, for that perception—the one that came about twenty years after I was first initiated—both explained my total surrender to Maharishi, his exceptional claim upon my soul (for what he was and what he had given to me) and what would now have to be my eventual unequivocal total rejection of his personal and spiritual integrity.
How, then, did this come about: on the one hand the extreme validation by my own being of Maharishi's worthiness to be deemed a perfect spiritual master, simultaneous with the discovery and revelation that he was a consummate deceiver? (And I include in this my own spectacular experiences practicing TM and all the extra-TM techniques which were added. I had to, in view of what happened to me under this new apprehension of Maharishi, see that each and every positive experience I had acquired under TM had cost me something dear, for no matter what powers and gifts were conferred upon me through TM, these powers and gifts came at a terrible cost to my own physical and metaphysical well-being.)
I come to the main point of my letter, Bart. Maharishi was more beautiful and deep and wondrous than any mere human being who has ever lived. And the promise of his Movement, it went way beyond Christ or Buddha. At the height of the TM Movement and Maharishi's status in the universe—perhaps 1969 through 1976—it seemed that Heaven on Earth was not just an idea, it was an empirically inevitable reality. Just based on the tremendous influence Maharishi had by virtue of what he was [his "state of consciousness"] and what he was doing. And our best experiences under TM and the Sidhis irresistibly led us to conclude that this was all going to culiminate in just what Maharishi said it would: the transformation of creation itself. Oh, it was something to be an initiator in those times, and to feel the pulse of the cosmos seemingly right in tune with Maharishi.—Not to say the promise of one's own personal enlightenment.
However, what I came to know, Bart, was that all this was a conspiracy of the subtlest of intelligences which—God knows why—shut out from our awareness—and seemingly from the awareness of the entire universe—any real and meaningful opposition to Maharishi. Maharishi became what he was through the deliberate and unified intention of all these intelligences. They made him unaccountable to anyone or for anything. Thus, as you say, no one who came within a hundred feet of Maharishi could ever summon up the will and strength to criticize him to his face—You are unquestionably correct in this. This is the most formidable instance of "support of Nature". For those of us—we were thousands—the cosmos itself was personified in Maharishi, and to doubt or challenge Maharishi was in effect to go up against reality itself.
So these intelligences conspired to create this immaculate performance by Maharishi as a "true spiritual master". They made him what he was, although for us, we could just as well declare: Maharishi stands on his own, even independently of his spiritual aspirations and status as the most remarkable and attractive and intricate human being alive. There can be no doubt, as you say, that he was fulfilling the highest destiny in doing what he was doing. And in what he was—or appeared to be—he was pulling it off with maximum grace, intelligence, and versatility. But you see—according to my own personal experience—his immunity to criticism (criticism which could gather in its momentum and come right at him) depended upon the collective support of all these intelligences—the intelligences which apparently ran and sustained the universe itself.
Everything Maharishi and TM came under the power and influence of these intelligences. And they were metaphysically sovereign.
But something happened, Bart, after that halcyon period of inconceivable joy and grace;—those same intelligences were, in the final analysis, unable to sustain their perfect and unfailing support of Maharishi—and he went into at first an imperceptible but gradually more and more palpable decline. Until by the time of his death, he was, among a multitude of persons who once worshiped and adored him, spurned and disgraced.
As for myself, I believe another set of intelligences ultimately antagonistic to the intelligences that made Maharishi king of the universe, began to quietly and confidently assert themselves, and it was my utterly undeserved fortune to recognize this transition—and therefore to begin to see Maharishi in a completely different—literally—light. That light illuminated the truth about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: that he was himself the subject of a grand deception, the plaything of evil, a complete charlatan, and an utterly corrupt human being. He died in his weakness and humiliation, secretly aware of the coming scandals and his total dethronement as a "true spiritual master".
Just as I first felt the very highest spiritual Romance with Maharishi, I came to see him as the enemy of my soul, and—unknowingly I must believe—the enemy of the soul of ever meditator and initiator. Thus the innocence of my initial experience of both Maharishi and Transcendental Meditation gave way to the innocence of a subsequent experience of Maharishi and Transcendental Meditation which perforce made it necessary to denounce him without qualification. Even as I firmly believe that your own point of view about Maharishi must always be kept in mind as true and real and unchangeable. The only difference between you and me, Bart, is that I have seen Maharishi within a metaphysical context which transcends both Maharishi and TM. From that perspective I must judge Maharishi—even as no one will ever compel my loyalty, love, and self-sacrifice as he once did—as entirely inimical to the physical, mental, emotional, and yes, spiritual well-being of every human person.
Tragically, it would seem there is nothing on the earth to substitute for Maharishi—or, for that matter, TM. This fact is a unfathomable mystery only known to God.
Contrary to what has become the devastating implication of my letter—which, though, I believe will have no impact on you whatsoever—I appreciate the sentiment, the intention, and the truth of your letter. It appears to me that your project here was conceived in honour and sincerity. I would, had I not underwent this reverse Road to Damascus experience, argue even more vociferously and indefatigably in the very same cause.
Most sincerely yours,
An initiator who chooses to remain anonymous
Dear Friend,
Thank you for your beautifully written, heart felt and deeply insightful letter and for taking the time to write it to me. I take it as an honor that you have given me this gift of your time and attention in this way. And I recognize the healing effect this exchange has possibly had on your psyche that perhaps this has allowed you to express things you had not expressed before, or in ways you did not even fully understand until now. I agree with much of what you have said. The ideas you present about operating intelligences is very plausible. It makes sense. I take a more "I don't know" attitude. And I'm happy not knowing. Like Walt Whitman writes, "A child asks me 'What is the grass?' bringing it to me in great handfuls. How am I to answer the child? I do not know what it is any more than he." So, like this, I do not know what Maharishi was or how it was that he seemingly rose so high and then, fell so low.
I feel very happy in my life and happy with what I learned from Maharishi, mostly unintentional. My good fortune is that I expected absolutely nothing from the TMO and they didn't disappoint me. I expected little from TM and I got more that I ever dreamed possible. So what can I say? I've been compensated like a king after having given relatively little.
Good luck to you and all the best in this incredible journey.
Bart Walton
Dear Bart Walton,
I never expected such a generous and bravely open response from you. I had rather thought you would feel forced into a certain defensiveness on behalf of the point of view expressed in your letter at TM-Free Blog. But you prove yourself to be a human being able to receive into yourself the convictions of others—without necessarily being influenced by those convictions, but ready and willing to give them the very fairest of hearings. I consider this a rare virtue indeed. And one that goes directly to what I value most. Thank you again for this letter you have written to me, Bart.
Your letter to me is a perfect gem, and I shall consider myself as having been justified in the act of writing my letter to you if only because of the very letter that I have got back from you. Tenderness and intelligence: a nice combination.
Yours very sincerely,
Initiator Z
Dear Friend,
Yes, I think we need to speak our truth and be heard. That always is healing to us. I think when people heal their pain about Maharishi, they will be able to fully receive the gift Maharishi brought us. This is what I think and if it resonates with you, you may find it helpful. If not, just forget about it. But early in our approach to Maharishi, our focus was on him, our ideal image of the God-Man. Then, when that image collapsed because we found out that he is not a God-Man, we felt very hurt and let down. But then, when we heal that hurt, there is an opportunity for our own Being to shine through. Then there is an opportunity to realize that it's not about a God-Man outside of ourselves. It's about Being within. This is the original message that Maharishi brought to the world and for this, I am deeply grateful. After he died, this realization came to me fully and no matter what demonic things people may say about him, I cannot help but bow in his direction. I feel I have received the pearl of teaching secretely from his heart to mine...but available to everyone who he touched through TM. Anyway, this is what I really wanted to share but I know that people on that web site would never hear this. So, I wrote what maybe a few of them might hear. No, Maharishi was not what we thought. But he brought a great gift to humankind. It's a paradox. How can a person who did wrong actions, also bring such a gift? I don't know or understand. But I can't deny the truth that shines inside of my heart and lights my experience every moment of the day and night.
Bart Walton
Dear Bart Walton,
Although this, what you say in this last e-mail, is reasoned and equable and even inspired, I am grateful, Bart, that you did not take this tack immediately upon reading my original letter—else I would have been denied the humanly vulnerable and spontaneous expression of the whole person Bart Walton—that which made that first letter of yours so gracious and poignant. You obviously have a certain and definitive—and very personal—experience of Maharishi, and this is what I had gleaned from reading your open letter at TM-Free Blog. What startled and moved me was the entirely unanticipated—and unconditioned—way you responded to my letter to you. It seemed that you received the person who wrote that letter from the very place where I had written it—somehow a tiny miracle for me.
Of course, once things have flowed back and forth between us, it would only be natural and unavoidable for you to provide a summing-up perspective on this whole matter—which you have just done now with a kind of serene lucidity—I cannot doubt the honesty nor the subjective trustworthiness of what has gone in to forming such a perspective. And I thank you for writing to me—once again—and thus demonstrating—in these contrasting ways (at least as I interpret them) of exposition—how wide ranging and sympathetic is your own personal consciousness.
I thank you once again, Bart, for letting me first experience the kind of person you are [your original letter to me], and then letting me know exactly your thinking about Maharishi, and how you manage to live within the paradox of what he was/is without psychological or spiritual dissonance [this last letter to me].
It has done me much good, engaging with someone who is not either compulsively (and even fearfully) uncritical, nor who is determined to resolve the matter of who Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was/is by an arbitrary exclusion of memory, such as to make Maharishi seem as if always an out-and-out mountebank.
Yours very sincerely,
Initiator Z
Dear Bart Walton,
Just one more basic thing about Maharishi: He always gave me the unambiguous and unqualified sense that I was to consider him as IT—that is to say, it would be unnatural NOT to project onto him the definition of perfection. This perception of him stood up under the most severe scrutiny for almost twenty years—and it was a perception, not an assumption or inference: Maharishi embodied all that he was proclaiming. If one had transcended doing TM, one transcended all categories of previous judgment of human beings when in the presence of Maharishi.
When it became clear that there were facts contradictory to this apprehension of Maharishi, then it became impossible to do anything other than what I did: which was to apostasize, for I had always held as inextricable the beauty and efficacy of TM and the personal integrity of Maharishi. When one of these two pillars began to collapse, I was forced to re-evaluate even the brilliance of TM—and I subsequently found it wanting in the very same way. That is to say, the experience of TM was sublime, but the objective effect of TM—excluding consideration of experience per se—was ultimately negative. And so with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
Whatever differences there are between us re: Maharishi, there can be no question that nothing comes across in your letters that would allow me to conclude that you are blinkered in your apprehension of reality—as almost every other devoted initiator (devoted: to both TM and MMY) appears to be—to me, that is.
Sincerely,
Initiator Z
Dear Friend,
Thank you for that. I understand your feelings and have shared them from time to time during the last 30 years, although not as strongly as you feel them, perhaps because I was not as close to Maharishi as you seem to have been. What happened to me is the dawning of an understanding that the "perfection" which at first we see and bow down to outside, in the world, as a master, is only a reflection of the "perfection" that is within. If it were not within us, we'd never be able to recognize it when we see it outside. Once I found the perfection inside myself, I completely forgave Maharishi and all feelings about him were resolved and transformed into deep gratitude. He was a man and like all men, struggled with powerful pressures around him. And as a spiritual master he didn't stay in a cave but came out into the world, into the vortex of powerful greed and lust. He held his balance as best he could and gave us what he could. And also, I believe there is a lot that goes beyond appearances, in the subtle field of karma and sanskaras, that may have been at play in these things.
I am working on a web site about this which I will send to you when it's finished. It's about death and dying.
BW
Dear Bart Walton,
If you don't mind my saying so, I deem this—in terms of what you set out to do through that initial letter at TM-Free Blog—the very best of all your letters. It is concise, it is cogent, and it is convincing.
Now if I were a secular psychologist—and I am not—examining your argument on behalf of Maharishi still qualifying to be a "true spiritual master", this is what I would say:
For what you tell me here to be true—that is, true objectively, and not just subjectively—this "understanding that the 'perfection' which at first we see and bow down to outside, in the world, as a master, is only a reflection of the 'perfection' that is within" should have occurred to you BEFORE any doubts came up about Maharishi's individual perfection—that is, his unquestionable superiority to every other human being on the planet—I certainly would have sacrificed my life for this conviction—absolutely not with respect to the idea that I was perfect, or that my perception of M's perfection was only made possible because somewhere I was perfect.
Have you ever watched Robin Williams improvise, or listened to Mozart, or read Shakespeare, or walked inside Chartres Cathedral, or seen Mia Michael's choreography (So You Think You Can Dance), or looked upon a beautiful woman? well, for me, Bart, Maharishi, as a spiritual master, was as brilliant in this capacity—as these other persons and structures display their beauty and genius and intelligence. No, to say that I was unconsciously projecting my own inner perfection onto Maharishi—this could only be true as a CONCEPT, never an innocent empirically-derived reality. If Maharishi had lived up to his initial reputation—and represented the very intelligence behind all of creation (at least in so far as he enabled that divine intelligence to come through him, without individual interference) throughout the course of his spiritual existence—you would never have recourse to this theory, this justification, this rationale—although at this point I believe you when you say it has become for you, truth at the level of reality (You even alluded in an earlier letter to the experience wherein Maharishi secretly conveyed this very truth to you).
If Maharishi "was a man and like all men, struggled with powerful pressures around him" and "came out into the world, into the vortex of powerful greed and lust" and"held his balance as best he could", why did he think all of us were incapable of receiving this very truth directly from him? and a fortiori, why did he consciously cultivate an image and status which was designed, in the presence of those who most admired and loved and sacrificed for him, to make false any other understanding of himself than the one which both you and I formed of him in his physical presence—that he was indeed perfect? He was in Unity Consciousness after all.
"Once I found the perfection inside myself, I completely forgave Maharishi and all feelings about him were resolved and transformed into deep gratitude". If this interior event represented the esoteric teaching of Maharishi why did he single you out from virtually all others, and leave the rest of us incapable of arriving at such a consummate reconciliation?—nay, leave the vast majority of those who revered him, either profoundly disillusioned or else clinging desperately to the very notion of him which he more than tacitly encouraged but which he ultimately abjured in his secret and wordless colloquy with yourself?
What impact would it have upon you, Bart, if you found irrefutable evidence that Maharishi's own master—Guru Dev—was himself flawed and fallen? And does—or did—Guru Dev approve, when watching Maharishi from wherever he is now, of the actions of Maharishi—those actions which have brought his (M's) once hallowed reputation into disrepute and contempt? If Guru Dev had "not stayed in a cave and come out into the world" would he too, perforce, have succumbed to the temptations and blandishments of the world? [I should stipulate the obvious: I have no evidence that Guru Dev was anything other than as he was and is portrayed by his disciples.]
No, for me, Bart, Maharishi was a virtuoso performer—all the way to the infinite. And I literally believe he enlisted all the powers of intelligence of the universe (of one particular and notorious category) such that these intelligences were truly able to transform every one of us who first began to meditate. The Checking Notes they are one better than Mozart. But Maharishi himself, his personality, his physical appearance, was the most beautiful thing to look upon and watch in motion. But that very beauty and integrity required the exemplification of perfection—in every single sense that counts. And Maharishi himself knew that he was giving the illusion of such perfection—and he never uttered a word that would hint at the extraordinary paradox that came to be conceived in your mind, and which now forms the basis of your own belief about him—sincere, passionate, serene as your articulation of such a belief appears to be. It might as well be true because you're not fighting to make it so. And that does warrant respect.
Another matter of concern to me, which had a big influence over how I began finally to see Maharishi, is the whole paradigm of reality that is instantiated in the Hindu religion—and all things essentially Eastern. The idea of the Self, of Enlightenment, of Gurus, of Oneness, of reincarnation, of maya, of karma, of gods, of an impersonal God, of perfection [what does "perfection" mean if it is traduced so violently in the actions of a "true spiritual master"?]: these ideas seem metaphysically false to me, and run counter to the powerful forces which shaped and gave birth to Western Civilization (Greek and Roman philosophy, Roman Catholicism). They also have come to be inconsistent with my post-TM, post-Maharishi life—even as admittedly, for twenty years, the cosmos itself seemed to me to be just as Maharishi said it was. However, after my apostasy, it now seems to me, Bart, that how I perceive and experience reality bears no resemblance to the depiction of reality inculcated in me by Maharishi. TM and Maharishi thus distorted reality for me—for the way things/reality appears to me now is in synchrony with the traditions of Western Civilization. Therefore, I must posit that the entire philosophy of Maharishi—and the East in general—is a kind of massive hallucination. But you will have become irritated with me by the time you are reading this sentence. The point I am making throughout this letter is a simple one: I believe Maharishi was fatally deceived, and I believe he was—and this even became conscious—a deceitful human being.
That said, I must confess that if I were going to doubt myself once again, I would take seriously the possibility that you are right, and that your final explanation and exoneration of Maharishi is a piece of real experimental knowledge. Mind you, I don't think it is, but you are a very credible spokesman for such a point of view—and I believe not only in your sincerity, but in your personal integrity. And I must suppose therefore that your beliefs about Maharishi are not such as to cause you to be in denial, else I would have sensed some fanatical adherence to your way of seeing Maharishi—and I certainly don't sense this at all.
Please forgive me if I have arrogantly assumed the right to dispute with you, when really there is no cause to. This was not my intention. My aim here, and in the other letters, is to continue to work out for myself the metatherapeutic process whereby I can become at peace with my enslavement to and ravishment with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. He was the Romance of my life.
Yours very sincerely,
Initiator Z
Two long time Initiator/Governors articulately and respectfully express contrasting opinions of the man who influenced many of our lives. Please notice, unlike some post-TM discourses, they express opposing opinions with mutual respect. From their writing, it appears that both these Initiator - Governors spent time with Maharishi. The messages reveal rarely seen raw honesty, soul searching, and personal conclusions.
With their permission, this exchange is posted for those who seek others' insights into "M."
Moderators of this blog do not endorse the opinions expressed below. We merely provide a forum.
Respectful discussion is a valuable step in recovery.
moderator note : This is long and possibly of greatest relevance to those who were close to Maharishi.
*******************
Dear Bart Walton,
It is very important that every person who has repudiated Maharishi, or been disillusioned by their experience of TM, or who is hostile to the TM Organization that they take in the very positive—and I believe, from one point of view, entirely appropriate and objective—attitude towards and understanding of Maharishi that you have expressed in this letter.
For there is great truth in what you say. Whatever way in which Maharishi fell short of our expectations of what an enlightened Master should be, what he was in his performance as a "spiritual teacher" or "spiritual master" was truly incredible. Incredible in his sheer charisma, sense of authority, fluidity of intelligence, and dominating integrity. I personally believe that the original experience that so many of us had—that Maharishi was godlike and beautiful and preternaturally wise—was valid; that is, There was something magnificent and sublime about Maharishi's personal presence, and that unless you caught this, You never knew who and what Maharishi was.
And therefore any subsequent turning on Maharishi and disavowal of his spiritual authenticity must continue to co-exist with this former recognition of what he was—because in this sense one's experience was not a lie. Maharishi was the most impressive and commanding individual human being of our lifetime. Those who loved him most, who revered him most, who sacrificed themselves most on his behalf, only these persons are entitled then to include within their perspective on Maharishi what purportedly are the negative—perhaps even extremely negative—aspects of his individual personality and his actions
You understand, then, Bart, what I am saying here. Your point of view—minus the rationale that attempts to justify the bizarre, contradictory, immoral behaviour of a "true spiritual master"—must be incorporated into any final and ultimate assessment of who Maharishi was—and his legitimacy as a spiritual master.
So, take myself: I was completely devoted to Maharishi—as devoted as any person could ever be. And Maharishi was not only extraordinarily powerful and wise and attractive to me—as a spiritual being,—his meditation techniques were—at least in my case—wonderfully efficacious. As efficacious as I could ever dream or want them to be.
And yet, despite all this, I came to judge Maharishi in the harshest and most extreme way anyone could be judged. How to account for this reversal of judgment?
Through a context of comprehension that required me to see all this supernatural positivity in the light of explanation other than one which proclaimed him perfect and pure and true.
And therefore, Bart, I came to know Maharishi in a manner which was even more intrinsically profound negatively than my prior experience of him had been intrinsically profound positively.—without any denial of the validity of that previous experience.
How does one, therefore, arrive at a judgment of Maharishi which is definitively negative while at the same time totally acknowledging the substance and truthfulness of your own experience of Maharishi, the judgment that is implicit in all that you write about him in this letter?
I can only refer to my own perception of Maharishi, for that perception—the one that came about twenty years after I was first initiated—both explained my total surrender to Maharishi, his exceptional claim upon my soul (for what he was and what he had given to me) and what would now have to be my eventual unequivocal total rejection of his personal and spiritual integrity.
How, then, did this come about: on the one hand the extreme validation by my own being of Maharishi's worthiness to be deemed a perfect spiritual master, simultaneous with the discovery and revelation that he was a consummate deceiver? (And I include in this my own spectacular experiences practicing TM and all the extra-TM techniques which were added. I had to, in view of what happened to me under this new apprehension of Maharishi, see that each and every positive experience I had acquired under TM had cost me something dear, for no matter what powers and gifts were conferred upon me through TM, these powers and gifts came at a terrible cost to my own physical and metaphysical well-being.)
I come to the main point of my letter, Bart. Maharishi was more beautiful and deep and wondrous than any mere human being who has ever lived. And the promise of his Movement, it went way beyond Christ or Buddha. At the height of the TM Movement and Maharishi's status in the universe—perhaps 1969 through 1976—it seemed that Heaven on Earth was not just an idea, it was an empirically inevitable reality. Just based on the tremendous influence Maharishi had by virtue of what he was [his "state of consciousness"] and what he was doing. And our best experiences under TM and the Sidhis irresistibly led us to conclude that this was all going to culiminate in just what Maharishi said it would: the transformation of creation itself. Oh, it was something to be an initiator in those times, and to feel the pulse of the cosmos seemingly right in tune with Maharishi.—Not to say the promise of one's own personal enlightenment.
However, what I came to know, Bart, was that all this was a conspiracy of the subtlest of intelligences which—God knows why—shut out from our awareness—and seemingly from the awareness of the entire universe—any real and meaningful opposition to Maharishi. Maharishi became what he was through the deliberate and unified intention of all these intelligences. They made him unaccountable to anyone or for anything. Thus, as you say, no one who came within a hundred feet of Maharishi could ever summon up the will and strength to criticize him to his face—You are unquestionably correct in this. This is the most formidable instance of "support of Nature". For those of us—we were thousands—the cosmos itself was personified in Maharishi, and to doubt or challenge Maharishi was in effect to go up against reality itself.
So these intelligences conspired to create this immaculate performance by Maharishi as a "true spiritual master". They made him what he was, although for us, we could just as well declare: Maharishi stands on his own, even independently of his spiritual aspirations and status as the most remarkable and attractive and intricate human being alive. There can be no doubt, as you say, that he was fulfilling the highest destiny in doing what he was doing. And in what he was—or appeared to be—he was pulling it off with maximum grace, intelligence, and versatility. But you see—according to my own personal experience—his immunity to criticism (criticism which could gather in its momentum and come right at him) depended upon the collective support of all these intelligences—the intelligences which apparently ran and sustained the universe itself.
Everything Maharishi and TM came under the power and influence of these intelligences. And they were metaphysically sovereign.
But something happened, Bart, after that halcyon period of inconceivable joy and grace;—those same intelligences were, in the final analysis, unable to sustain their perfect and unfailing support of Maharishi—and he went into at first an imperceptible but gradually more and more palpable decline. Until by the time of his death, he was, among a multitude of persons who once worshiped and adored him, spurned and disgraced.
As for myself, I believe another set of intelligences ultimately antagonistic to the intelligences that made Maharishi king of the universe, began to quietly and confidently assert themselves, and it was my utterly undeserved fortune to recognize this transition—and therefore to begin to see Maharishi in a completely different—literally—light. That light illuminated the truth about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: that he was himself the subject of a grand deception, the plaything of evil, a complete charlatan, and an utterly corrupt human being. He died in his weakness and humiliation, secretly aware of the coming scandals and his total dethronement as a "true spiritual master".
Just as I first felt the very highest spiritual Romance with Maharishi, I came to see him as the enemy of my soul, and—unknowingly I must believe—the enemy of the soul of ever meditator and initiator. Thus the innocence of my initial experience of both Maharishi and Transcendental Meditation gave way to the innocence of a subsequent experience of Maharishi and Transcendental Meditation which perforce made it necessary to denounce him without qualification. Even as I firmly believe that your own point of view about Maharishi must always be kept in mind as true and real and unchangeable. The only difference between you and me, Bart, is that I have seen Maharishi within a metaphysical context which transcends both Maharishi and TM. From that perspective I must judge Maharishi—even as no one will ever compel my loyalty, love, and self-sacrifice as he once did—as entirely inimical to the physical, mental, emotional, and yes, spiritual well-being of every human person.
Tragically, it would seem there is nothing on the earth to substitute for Maharishi—or, for that matter, TM. This fact is a unfathomable mystery only known to God.
Contrary to what has become the devastating implication of my letter—which, though, I believe will have no impact on you whatsoever—I appreciate the sentiment, the intention, and the truth of your letter. It appears to me that your project here was conceived in honour and sincerity. I would, had I not underwent this reverse Road to Damascus experience, argue even more vociferously and indefatigably in the very same cause.
Most sincerely yours,
An initiator who chooses to remain anonymous
Dear Friend,
Thank you for your beautifully written, heart felt and deeply insightful letter and for taking the time to write it to me. I take it as an honor that you have given me this gift of your time and attention in this way. And I recognize the healing effect this exchange has possibly had on your psyche that perhaps this has allowed you to express things you had not expressed before, or in ways you did not even fully understand until now. I agree with much of what you have said. The ideas you present about operating intelligences is very plausible. It makes sense. I take a more "I don't know" attitude. And I'm happy not knowing. Like Walt Whitman writes, "A child asks me 'What is the grass?' bringing it to me in great handfuls. How am I to answer the child? I do not know what it is any more than he." So, like this, I do not know what Maharishi was or how it was that he seemingly rose so high and then, fell so low.
I feel very happy in my life and happy with what I learned from Maharishi, mostly unintentional. My good fortune is that I expected absolutely nothing from the TMO and they didn't disappoint me. I expected little from TM and I got more that I ever dreamed possible. So what can I say? I've been compensated like a king after having given relatively little.
Good luck to you and all the best in this incredible journey.
Bart Walton
Dear Bart Walton,
I never expected such a generous and bravely open response from you. I had rather thought you would feel forced into a certain defensiveness on behalf of the point of view expressed in your letter at TM-Free Blog. But you prove yourself to be a human being able to receive into yourself the convictions of others—without necessarily being influenced by those convictions, but ready and willing to give them the very fairest of hearings. I consider this a rare virtue indeed. And one that goes directly to what I value most. Thank you again for this letter you have written to me, Bart.
Your letter to me is a perfect gem, and I shall consider myself as having been justified in the act of writing my letter to you if only because of the very letter that I have got back from you. Tenderness and intelligence: a nice combination.
Yours very sincerely,
Initiator Z
Dear Friend,
Yes, I think we need to speak our truth and be heard. That always is healing to us. I think when people heal their pain about Maharishi, they will be able to fully receive the gift Maharishi brought us. This is what I think and if it resonates with you, you may find it helpful. If not, just forget about it. But early in our approach to Maharishi, our focus was on him, our ideal image of the God-Man. Then, when that image collapsed because we found out that he is not a God-Man, we felt very hurt and let down. But then, when we heal that hurt, there is an opportunity for our own Being to shine through. Then there is an opportunity to realize that it's not about a God-Man outside of ourselves. It's about Being within. This is the original message that Maharishi brought to the world and for this, I am deeply grateful. After he died, this realization came to me fully and no matter what demonic things people may say about him, I cannot help but bow in his direction. I feel I have received the pearl of teaching secretely from his heart to mine...but available to everyone who he touched through TM. Anyway, this is what I really wanted to share but I know that people on that web site would never hear this. So, I wrote what maybe a few of them might hear. No, Maharishi was not what we thought. But he brought a great gift to humankind. It's a paradox. How can a person who did wrong actions, also bring such a gift? I don't know or understand. But I can't deny the truth that shines inside of my heart and lights my experience every moment of the day and night.
Bart Walton
Dear Bart Walton,
Although this, what you say in this last e-mail, is reasoned and equable and even inspired, I am grateful, Bart, that you did not take this tack immediately upon reading my original letter—else I would have been denied the humanly vulnerable and spontaneous expression of the whole person Bart Walton—that which made that first letter of yours so gracious and poignant. You obviously have a certain and definitive—and very personal—experience of Maharishi, and this is what I had gleaned from reading your open letter at TM-Free Blog. What startled and moved me was the entirely unanticipated—and unconditioned—way you responded to my letter to you. It seemed that you received the person who wrote that letter from the very place where I had written it—somehow a tiny miracle for me.
Of course, once things have flowed back and forth between us, it would only be natural and unavoidable for you to provide a summing-up perspective on this whole matter—which you have just done now with a kind of serene lucidity—I cannot doubt the honesty nor the subjective trustworthiness of what has gone in to forming such a perspective. And I thank you for writing to me—once again—and thus demonstrating—in these contrasting ways (at least as I interpret them) of exposition—how wide ranging and sympathetic is your own personal consciousness.
I thank you once again, Bart, for letting me first experience the kind of person you are [your original letter to me], and then letting me know exactly your thinking about Maharishi, and how you manage to live within the paradox of what he was/is without psychological or spiritual dissonance [this last letter to me].
It has done me much good, engaging with someone who is not either compulsively (and even fearfully) uncritical, nor who is determined to resolve the matter of who Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was/is by an arbitrary exclusion of memory, such as to make Maharishi seem as if always an out-and-out mountebank.
Yours very sincerely,
Initiator Z
Dear Bart Walton,
Just one more basic thing about Maharishi: He always gave me the unambiguous and unqualified sense that I was to consider him as IT—that is to say, it would be unnatural NOT to project onto him the definition of perfection. This perception of him stood up under the most severe scrutiny for almost twenty years—and it was a perception, not an assumption or inference: Maharishi embodied all that he was proclaiming. If one had transcended doing TM, one transcended all categories of previous judgment of human beings when in the presence of Maharishi.
When it became clear that there were facts contradictory to this apprehension of Maharishi, then it became impossible to do anything other than what I did: which was to apostasize, for I had always held as inextricable the beauty and efficacy of TM and the personal integrity of Maharishi. When one of these two pillars began to collapse, I was forced to re-evaluate even the brilliance of TM—and I subsequently found it wanting in the very same way. That is to say, the experience of TM was sublime, but the objective effect of TM—excluding consideration of experience per se—was ultimately negative. And so with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
Whatever differences there are between us re: Maharishi, there can be no question that nothing comes across in your letters that would allow me to conclude that you are blinkered in your apprehension of reality—as almost every other devoted initiator (devoted: to both TM and MMY) appears to be—to me, that is.
Sincerely,
Initiator Z
Dear Friend,
Thank you for that. I understand your feelings and have shared them from time to time during the last 30 years, although not as strongly as you feel them, perhaps because I was not as close to Maharishi as you seem to have been. What happened to me is the dawning of an understanding that the "perfection" which at first we see and bow down to outside, in the world, as a master, is only a reflection of the "perfection" that is within. If it were not within us, we'd never be able to recognize it when we see it outside. Once I found the perfection inside myself, I completely forgave Maharishi and all feelings about him were resolved and transformed into deep gratitude. He was a man and like all men, struggled with powerful pressures around him. And as a spiritual master he didn't stay in a cave but came out into the world, into the vortex of powerful greed and lust. He held his balance as best he could and gave us what he could. And also, I believe there is a lot that goes beyond appearances, in the subtle field of karma and sanskaras, that may have been at play in these things.
I am working on a web site about this which I will send to you when it's finished. It's about death and dying.
BW
Dear Bart Walton,
If you don't mind my saying so, I deem this—in terms of what you set out to do through that initial letter at TM-Free Blog—the very best of all your letters. It is concise, it is cogent, and it is convincing.
Now if I were a secular psychologist—and I am not—examining your argument on behalf of Maharishi still qualifying to be a "true spiritual master", this is what I would say:
For what you tell me here to be true—that is, true objectively, and not just subjectively—this "understanding that the 'perfection' which at first we see and bow down to outside, in the world, as a master, is only a reflection of the 'perfection' that is within" should have occurred to you BEFORE any doubts came up about Maharishi's individual perfection—that is, his unquestionable superiority to every other human being on the planet—I certainly would have sacrificed my life for this conviction—absolutely not with respect to the idea that I was perfect, or that my perception of M's perfection was only made possible because somewhere I was perfect.
Have you ever watched Robin Williams improvise, or listened to Mozart, or read Shakespeare, or walked inside Chartres Cathedral, or seen Mia Michael's choreography (So You Think You Can Dance), or looked upon a beautiful woman? well, for me, Bart, Maharishi, as a spiritual master, was as brilliant in this capacity—as these other persons and structures display their beauty and genius and intelligence. No, to say that I was unconsciously projecting my own inner perfection onto Maharishi—this could only be true as a CONCEPT, never an innocent empirically-derived reality. If Maharishi had lived up to his initial reputation—and represented the very intelligence behind all of creation (at least in so far as he enabled that divine intelligence to come through him, without individual interference) throughout the course of his spiritual existence—you would never have recourse to this theory, this justification, this rationale—although at this point I believe you when you say it has become for you, truth at the level of reality (You even alluded in an earlier letter to the experience wherein Maharishi secretly conveyed this very truth to you).
If Maharishi "was a man and like all men, struggled with powerful pressures around him" and "came out into the world, into the vortex of powerful greed and lust" and"held his balance as best he could", why did he think all of us were incapable of receiving this very truth directly from him? and a fortiori, why did he consciously cultivate an image and status which was designed, in the presence of those who most admired and loved and sacrificed for him, to make false any other understanding of himself than the one which both you and I formed of him in his physical presence—that he was indeed perfect? He was in Unity Consciousness after all.
"Once I found the perfection inside myself, I completely forgave Maharishi and all feelings about him were resolved and transformed into deep gratitude". If this interior event represented the esoteric teaching of Maharishi why did he single you out from virtually all others, and leave the rest of us incapable of arriving at such a consummate reconciliation?—nay, leave the vast majority of those who revered him, either profoundly disillusioned or else clinging desperately to the very notion of him which he more than tacitly encouraged but which he ultimately abjured in his secret and wordless colloquy with yourself?
What impact would it have upon you, Bart, if you found irrefutable evidence that Maharishi's own master—Guru Dev—was himself flawed and fallen? And does—or did—Guru Dev approve, when watching Maharishi from wherever he is now, of the actions of Maharishi—those actions which have brought his (M's) once hallowed reputation into disrepute and contempt? If Guru Dev had "not stayed in a cave and come out into the world" would he too, perforce, have succumbed to the temptations and blandishments of the world? [I should stipulate the obvious: I have no evidence that Guru Dev was anything other than as he was and is portrayed by his disciples.]
No, for me, Bart, Maharishi was a virtuoso performer—all the way to the infinite. And I literally believe he enlisted all the powers of intelligence of the universe (of one particular and notorious category) such that these intelligences were truly able to transform every one of us who first began to meditate. The Checking Notes they are one better than Mozart. But Maharishi himself, his personality, his physical appearance, was the most beautiful thing to look upon and watch in motion. But that very beauty and integrity required the exemplification of perfection—in every single sense that counts. And Maharishi himself knew that he was giving the illusion of such perfection—and he never uttered a word that would hint at the extraordinary paradox that came to be conceived in your mind, and which now forms the basis of your own belief about him—sincere, passionate, serene as your articulation of such a belief appears to be. It might as well be true because you're not fighting to make it so. And that does warrant respect.
Another matter of concern to me, which had a big influence over how I began finally to see Maharishi, is the whole paradigm of reality that is instantiated in the Hindu religion—and all things essentially Eastern. The idea of the Self, of Enlightenment, of Gurus, of Oneness, of reincarnation, of maya, of karma, of gods, of an impersonal God, of perfection [what does "perfection" mean if it is traduced so violently in the actions of a "true spiritual master"?]: these ideas seem metaphysically false to me, and run counter to the powerful forces which shaped and gave birth to Western Civilization (Greek and Roman philosophy, Roman Catholicism). They also have come to be inconsistent with my post-TM, post-Maharishi life—even as admittedly, for twenty years, the cosmos itself seemed to me to be just as Maharishi said it was. However, after my apostasy, it now seems to me, Bart, that how I perceive and experience reality bears no resemblance to the depiction of reality inculcated in me by Maharishi. TM and Maharishi thus distorted reality for me—for the way things/reality appears to me now is in synchrony with the traditions of Western Civilization. Therefore, I must posit that the entire philosophy of Maharishi—and the East in general—is a kind of massive hallucination. But you will have become irritated with me by the time you are reading this sentence. The point I am making throughout this letter is a simple one: I believe Maharishi was fatally deceived, and I believe he was—and this even became conscious—a deceitful human being.
That said, I must confess that if I were going to doubt myself once again, I would take seriously the possibility that you are right, and that your final explanation and exoneration of Maharishi is a piece of real experimental knowledge. Mind you, I don't think it is, but you are a very credible spokesman for such a point of view—and I believe not only in your sincerity, but in your personal integrity. And I must suppose therefore that your beliefs about Maharishi are not such as to cause you to be in denial, else I would have sensed some fanatical adherence to your way of seeing Maharishi—and I certainly don't sense this at all.
Please forgive me if I have arrogantly assumed the right to dispute with you, when really there is no cause to. This was not my intention. My aim here, and in the other letters, is to continue to work out for myself the metatherapeutic process whereby I can become at peace with my enslavement to and ravishment with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. He was the Romance of my life.
Yours very sincerely,
Initiator Z
Monday, August 16, 2010
A Transcendental Meditation Governor Addresses TMFB Readers
Bart Walton, a TM Teacher since 1974, wishes to begin a sincere discussion about his perspectives on the Maharishi, the nature of a spiritual master—and the inability to judge the actions of a man who does irrational things.
His viewpoints are quite different from many readers of TMFB. But my impression of Bart is that he seeks a direct, respectful dialog with readers who differ in their opinions.
J.
P.S. If you have an article that you'd like to publish on the main blog—or a topic for an open thread—please do not hesitate to contact me at jmknapp53@gmail.com or (800) 950-5329.
His viewpoints are quite different from many readers of TMFB. But my impression of Bart is that he seeks a direct, respectful dialog with readers who differ in their opinions.
Dear Friends and Former Meditators,I look forward to reading the discussion below in the comments.
I'd like to offer an open letter as an alternative view, and in particular, a response to Earl Kaplan's letter of April 2004. I became a TM teacher and Governor in 1974 and was very active in the TMO for about 20 years.
Before I begin, I want to acknowledge to all of you that it takes great courage to make a significant life change, and in particular, to make a break from ones former spiritual practice and teaching. While I may not agree with some things that have been posted here, I deeply respect those who have shared their experiences.
My intention here is not to debate or persuade anyone, and certainly not to explain or defend Maharishi's behavior. Simply, I'd like to share some of my own views and insights after 40+ years of seeking out, and spending time with, a number of spiritual teachers and masters around the world. My views are not shared by most of the readers, but nevertheless may provide a perspective worth considering and certainly a balance to the rational mind's approach to assessing spiritual masters.
First of all, there is a huge difference between a spiritual teacher, or leader, and a true spiritual master. There have been relatively few spiritual masters during the last several hundred years, and I believe Maharishi was one. A spiritual master is, as if, “possessed” by Divine power that is not of this dimension. He, or she, has surrendered the body/mind over to that power and no longer fully occupies a physical address on this plane. Or put in technical sanskrit terms, the Annamaya Kosha has been absorbed into the higher and impersonal levels of consciousness. They have a toe in the world of human beings, just enough to do their work. But they live and abide in another dimension. I have no proof or arguments to support this statement. Either this is something that is self evident after spending time with a spiritual master, or it will seem absurd and mentally unbalanced.
On the other hand, a spiritual teacher is first and foremost a person in the world with training and credentials which confer a certain worldly status and authority to teach or to hold power. For example a Pope or a Shankaracharya. By contrast, a spiritual master is a person in name only and usually has no worldly credentials whatsoever.
A spiritual teacher can be understood and judged according to human law. But if we try to comprehend or judge a spiritual master by these same laws, it simply won't work. And, in the same vein, we can't compare a spiritual teacher and a spiritual master. They're like apples and oranges. Of course, people will try to judge spiritual masters by worldly standards. But that won't stop them from doing their work, nor will it have any affect on their long-term reputation.
A spiritual master may do things that are completely irrational to our minds and unacceptable by our social and legal standards. Nityananda of Ganeshpuri sometimes sat in open sewers and smeared his body with feces. It's reported that, on at least one occasion, he even ate feces, to the complete disgust of onlookers. Shirdi Sai Baba (the original Sai Baba of the late 19th century) would demand money from his devotees and if they didn’t give the right amount, he’d fly into a rage, abusing them mercilessly and even beating them on some occasions. Neem Karoli Baba was famous for his insane behavior from time to time, abusing people, hiding under his blanket, kissing and fondling his female devotees. A friend of mine who was a close disciple of Nisargadatta Maharaj told me personally that he made sexual advances on her. And there are many other examples which I could give.
Another friend of mine, who was close to Maharishi, told me that one day while he was involved in some financial transactions, Maharishi said, “After I'm gone, they will say I’m greedy. But I have to do these things”.
The point of all this is that there's no rational explanation for the behavior of a spiritual master. In educated circles, and particularly in the west, this notion is not easily accepted and certainly not popular. But among the less educated (what are sometimes call "primitive" peoples) this is understood. Does it give a wide berth for charlatans and con-artists to take advantage of seekers? Yes, it does. But I believe it’s the truth, as unfair and unattractive as it is.
From this perspective, the essential question is only this. Was Maharishi a spiritual master? Or was he a charlatan? Or maybe these questions are too simple to explain a very complex and multi-dimensional being, which he was. We could present evidence and arguments for years to come, but it wouldn’t make any difference. It’s a question that each person can only answer in his or her own heart. And I don’t believe that a litany of deeds and misdeeds will prove very helpful, or even meaningful, in this regard.
For myself, I am deeply grateful to Maharishi for TM, which, as taught, is a unique and powerful spiritual practice. Over time, Maharishi apparently experimented with different beeja mantras. But it's the instruction of how to use the mantra that distinguishes TM and makes it so effective. (BTW for those interested, the prohibition against chanting "OM" is not something Maharishi made up, but came from Guru Dev and has been likewise given by other great masters, going back to Krishna Himself. The admonition is that women should not use "OM" at all. Householder men may use "OM", but only when co-joined with other mantras. Sannyasins may chant "OM" alone, under certain circumstances. There is more to it, but that's the bottom line.)
In closing, I would like to add one more observation. I've read many criticisms of Maharishi and a number of very negative remarks, both on this blog and another website. But I never heard any person make such a remark to Maharishi’s face. (Maybe it's been done, but I never heard it.) In fact, I never knew any person who had any doubts about Maharishi while in his presence. Why is this? Because the power of Maharishi’s darshan was such that whenever people got within 100 feet, questions tended to be answered and doubts erased. If doubts ever did arise, it was only later, when the thinking mind and the insanity of the world pressed in. This was my experience and the experience of many people who visited or spent time with him.
I know that many sincere and educated minds say that the world is sane, and Maharishi and his influence were not. And I'm sure to most of the readers, I must seem deluded and brainwashed. But just as all of you have done, I have written this in order to share my honest experience as it is, deluded or not.
If anyone feels moved to write, you may reach me at the email address below. Please note, I'd rather not engage in debate via email and would therefore ask that you post your objections or arguments on the TM Free blog. And also, I may not get around to responding (I get a lot of email.) But I promise that every sincere note will be read. In any event, I wish all of you the very best on this wonderful journey.
Warmly,
Bart Walton
Portland, OR
bartwalton@hotmail.com
J.
P.S. If you have an article that you'd like to publish on the main blog—or a topic for an open thread—please do not hesitate to contact me at jmknapp53@gmail.com or (800) 950-5329.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Judith Bourques' Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay arrives
1st Review written at Fairfield Life:
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Celebrating Transcendental Meditation "End of Silence" & Our 3rd Anniversary!
The story is that the Maharishi used to take a week of silence starting with his birthday on January 12. Following his silence -- about which we will write more this week -- the TM faithful used to have a huge celebration of the "End of Silence." Each year from the 70s until his death in 2008, the Maharishi would announce the theme for his Movement in the coming year: "The Year of the World Plan," "The Year of Invincibility for Every Nation," those sort of modest goals (listed here for your reading pleasure.)
We launched TMFB 3 years ago on January 12, 2007 with "Happy Birthday, MMY, You Old Sod!" Since our launch, we've been visited 182,000 times, by 72,000 "Absolute Unique Visitors"; published 787 articles, built a thriving community through an uncountable scads of comments, and generally had a grand old time as we sought to inform and warn our readers -- as well as entertain with the spice of satire.
We thought about kicking off an Anniversary Celebration last week, but, given our mission, somehow it just felt right to Celebrate the End of Silence. (Ooooh! Spooooky!)
So want to invite you to a week of raucous noise making, with articles like "10 Worst TM Predictions" and "Hate-Mail-Palooza."
We will even have a contest or two, like "Karma Anti-Yogi of the Year" and "The Most Bizarre TM-Sponsored Site" -- with prizes for believers and critics alike.
Most of all we want to have fun -- but stop this short of outright cheesy.
If you long to be hip after all those years rounding your brains out, check back here daily for our latest installment.
Be there or be square!
J.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
The Spawn of Transcendental Meditation: Toxic Positivity
I stumbled on a review of book about the dark-side of positivity on modern American culture. An excerpt:
Bright-sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America
By Barbara Ehrenreich
Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt: New York
Hardcover, 256 pages, $12.42
October 2009
In the middle of the first decade of the twenty-first century, positive thoughts were flowing out into the universe in unprecedented volumes, escaping the solar system, rippling through vast bodies of interstellar gas, dodging black holes, messing with the tides of distant planets. If anyone--deity or alien being--possessed the means of transforming these emanations into comprehensible form, they would have been overwhelmed by images of slimmer bodies, larger homes, quick promotions, and sudden acquisitions of great wealth.
But the universe refused to play its assigned role as a "big mail order department." In complete defiance of the "law of attraction," long propounded by the gurus of positive thinking, things were getting worse for most Americans, not better.
Happy talk is killing us. Faux cheerfulness is blinding us. Optimism is making us delusional. And America is knee-deep in the happy happy joy joy, always looking on the bright side of life schtick, has been from the 19th century on, and Barbara Ehrenreich is, to put it mildly, so over it.
While "positive thinking" has been a part of the American scene at least since Napoleon Hill's Think and Grow Rich, it seems to have reached epidemic proportions in the modern New Age, fundamentalist Christian, self-help, and related movements.
Perhaps, to some extent, influenced by the American strain of "positivity," the Maharishi almost certainly would have agreed with Hill's most famous mantra: "What the mind of man can conceive and believe, it can achieve." (Paul Mason writes about the negative impact on the TM Movement of Maharishi's admonition to "tell the sweet truth" in his biography of Maharishi.)
The dark-side of American positivity, as Ehrenreich is reported to discuss in her book, is a "blame-the-victim" mentality: Everything that happens to one is caused by one's thoughts and beliefs, including cancer, poverty, depression, genocide, ....
In the Transcendental Meditation Movement, this belief also led to a phobia about "negativity." In my experience, true believers reacted with horror to any doubts, complaints, reports of TM not working, bad news -- and most especially "negative" persons. The net result was people who were in any kind of discomfort (and talked about it, foolishly), were not only not offered help -- they were shunned!
I wrote on the old Trancenet, that when I was in the grip of this belief, if I saw a man lying in the street, not only would I not try to help, I would cross the street to avoid picking up his "stress" or "negative karma."
Many, if not most, groups that critics label cults have similar doctrines, such as Scientology's "pulling it in" (explained in the first comment rejecting a puff piece about Scientology). Sometimes referred to as Lifton's "doctrine over person," it's easy to see how this concept benefits a toxic group: it's a thought-stopper that blocks any doubts, it tends to isolate any critics or doubters and keeps them from infecting the faithful, it increases dependency on the leader and the group, it redirects any doubters' justified anger away from the leader and towards punishing themselves, it tends to force dissenters out of the group and marginalizes them.
It seems to me that this positivity-as-anti-negativity is/was rampant in the TM Movement. And it is perpetuated in TM's spin-offs: Ravi Shankar's Art of Living, Deepak Chopra, "Dr." Johnny Gray, Beverly Barbara DeAngelis, a host of others, large and small.
As a therapist, I have no problem with positivity. (I am greatly influenced by the "strengths-based perspective.") A realistic, positive appraisal of one's strengths, accomplishments, values, and dreams seems to be a minimum requirement for self-esteem and, thus, mental health. And, it seems to be a pre-requisite to even contemplating change or action leading to new success. I've never known anyone to succeed who is convinced they will fail.
On the other hand, I have no problem with "negativity." How can we grow and change without some understanding of the challenges we face?
The problem with either positivity or negativity is when they are out of balance. When they become obsessions -- or phobias.
Guilt and shame, which so many of us privately experienced in TM and similar groups, are not good motivators. They are frequently toxic, destructive, corrosive.
And blind positivity readily leads to unrealistic expectations -- even delusion, as some of us discovered.
Or so it seems to me. I look forward to your thoughts in the comments below.
J.
Cross-posted on Facebook
Friday, September 25, 2009
What is liberation? What is enlightenment?
On 09.25.09 - 4:17 pm | [http://www.haloscan.com/comments/jmknapp53/8989880756791456962/?src=hsr#104385], kapop wrote:
… what is liberation to you? What is enlightenment to you? Is there a difference? How will you know when you have become "liberated" or "enlightened?" What will signify to you that you've "made it?"
Do you have views of these that are not confined to what the TMO promotes? Are there "necessary" steps for them? If there are, whose steps do you follow and why?
Do you think MMY was enlightened or liberated? If yes, what makes you think so? Who do you see as an "authority" on enlightenment/ liberation? MMY? Anyone else?
Are siddhis an element or characteristic of one who is enlightened/liberated? Can one be enlightened/liberated and not manifest siddhis.
What is liberation TO YOU? What do YOU think it’s all about? Can you tells us what your grounds for thinking this are all about? Can you tell us about any “liberation” experiences you might have had or actually have right now? Can you tell us how this fits with your daily life and the lives of others (not precisely the same thing)? How does your experience of liberation or enlightenment fit with what the TMO taught, what Mahesh taught, what Guru Dev taught (if you have read Paul’s books)?
Curious minds want to know, so let’s hear it. – Thanks, kapop for sharing your great idea.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Was Transcendental Meditation's founder, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, enlightened?
This essay is another of my trips down memory lane. The topic today is "Was Maharishi enlightened?" This has been a crucial issue for me, because one of the linchpins that have held my entire TM belief system in place for years was the conviction that Maharishi was enlightened. The way I've thought about it is this: If he really was enlightened, then by definition his life would be in accord with the will of God. Therefore, if he was enlightened, it didn't matter that he lied, or that people (including myself) got hurt, or all those other things that made the TM organization so troubling. Because, if he really was enlightened, his thinking, understanding, decisions would all be in accord with God's Greater Plan. Even if I felt that his decisions were terrible, it was just due to my lack of broader insight. Even if there were lies and casualties along the way, God must have felt it was necessary for the greater good of the Great Plan.
Have other people struggled with these issues?
Here are some of the questions I've puzzled over in my attempt to unknot this mystery that affected my life for so many years:
Have other people struggled with these issues?
Here are some of the questions I've puzzled over in my attempt to unknot this mystery that affected my life for so many years:
Did he say he was enlightened?
Did he hint that he was enlightened?
Did he want us to believe he was enlightened?
Did he believe he was enlightened?
What the heck is "enlightenment" anyway?
Does such a thing as "enlightenment" exist?
Was Maharishi's teachings on "enlightenment" the same as other Hindu or Buddhist teachings on it?
Did I used to think he was enlightened, or not? Why?
Did he hint that he was enlightened?
Did he want us to believe he was enlightened?
Did he believe he was enlightened?
What the heck is "enlightenment" anyway?
Does such a thing as "enlightenment" exist?
Was Maharishi's teachings on "enlightenment" the same as other Hindu or Buddhist teachings on it?
Did I used to think he was enlightened, or not? Why?
How can a person tell if someone is enlightened?
Are supernormal powers a proof of enlightenment?
Did I ever see Maharishi exhibit supernormal powers?
Did I ever hear rumors of Maharishi exhibiting supernormal powers?
If I saw or heard of him exhibiting supernormal powers, what did I make of it at the time? What do I make of it now?
So many questions still floating around. Has this issue been part of your healing path, of un-knotting the puzzle? Of "clawing your way, millimeter by millimeter, out of the TM mindset" as TM-Free contributor Sudarsha calls it?
Are supernormal powers a proof of enlightenment?
Did I ever see Maharishi exhibit supernormal powers?
Did I ever hear rumors of Maharishi exhibiting supernormal powers?
If I saw or heard of him exhibiting supernormal powers, what did I make of it at the time? What do I make of it now?
So many questions still floating around. Has this issue been part of your healing path, of un-knotting the puzzle? Of "clawing your way, millimeter by millimeter, out of the TM mindset" as TM-Free contributor Sudarsha calls it?
So, here are some of my memories and musings on a few of the questions above about Maharishi and enlightenment. I invite readers to contribute their own thoughts on the topic.
(1) Did Maharishi ever say he was enlightened? In my eleven years in the TM world, I heard him hint at it a few times. Once, at M.I.U., about 1980, he said that we should do whatever he told us to do because "I am in constant communion with the Absolute." That was the clearest I ever heard him on his status.
I remember on TTC Maharishi telling us about a TM prison program. Someone got up and said, "Maharishi, you're wrong." Maharishi bristled and demanded, "I? I am WRONG?!" in a tone indicating that it was absurd that he could be wrong about anything. Maybe because an enlightened person is never wrong?
I remember Maharishi bursting with laughter as he told us about the businessman who explained his philosophy of life to Maharishi. "HE was telling ME his philosophy of life!" he laughed, implying that it was hilarious for an unenlightened person to think they could instruct an enlightened person on how to live.
Then there were two poems he wrote. Does anyone aside from me know of this first poem that he wrote to Guru Dev? I'm quoting it from memory. The first verse went something like this:
"Love has set the heart on fire,
Hatred puts all fire out,
(Sorry, I can't remember the third line)
Hatred is poison for a godly sprout."
And the last verse went something like this:
"To my Guru Dev this is dedicated,
To Him who led me on a fortunate trail,
(And I can't remember the third line),
Strength to lift the all-repressive veil."
Then there is Maharishi's poem "Love and God." (This poem was put to music by Rick Stanley and is on one of his albums.) Maharishi waxes, like a mystic, about his relationship with God:
"...God my love,
Light of my life....
Thou art one,
The one becomes the many,
As one seed appears as many leaves....
In Thee I rest,
In Thee I dwell....
Lord, Thou art the goal in me,
My Lord, my love, my God."
(Again, this is from memory, so my apologies for any errors.)
He also said, "If it weren't for my Guru Dev, I would never have met my God."
The two poems, and his comment about Guru Dev, seem to me sincere expressions of a person with first-hand experience of God, or of enlightenment.
I remember in the summer of 1971 at Humboldt State College, someone asked Maharishi if it was true that the only thing standing in the way of enlightenment was the physical stresses in a person's body. Maharishi said yes. The questioner then asked if it was true that an enlightened person could manipulate the physical universe in any way they wanted. Again Maharishi said yes. The questioner then asked, laughing, if Maharishi would please remove the physical stresses from his body. Maharishi replied, laughingly, something like, "But then I would be depriving you of your free will, to reap the consequences of your own actions." Maharishi's response indicated to me that he did have the ability to manipulate the physical universe in any way he wanted - in other words, that he was enlightened.
(2) Did Maharishi have supernormal powers? Here are my first-hand experiences: I remember that when he entered a room, I felt a sort of magnetic force. When he looked around the room, I felt a magnetic light-energy fall on whomever he looked at. Once, my boyfriend gave Maharishi a flower. Afterwards, as he walked back towards his seat, the people whom he passed looked like they felt a wave of energy come from him, like a residue from Maharishi. I felt that energy when he sat down next to me. I also remember that on my TM Teacher Training course, Maharishi asked those of us who were having difficulty memorizing the puja (Sanskrit ceremony) to stand up. He looked around at all of us standing, and I felt energy pass through me. After that, I was able to memorize the puja easily. That ability to memorize continued for about 5 months, even back home at college. I also remember that one time, when I sat very near Maharishi, I felt overcome by something - power or energy or bliss or unconsciousness.
(3) What do I make of those experiences now? Maybe Maharishi had supernormal powers, maybe he was enlightened. Or maybe it was a matter of expectations or placebo effect or self-hypnosis. Or maybe it was transference.
(4) I have heard quite a few rumors (second and third hand) about Maharishi's superpowers. For instance, I heard that once, when his helicopter was running late, he made the clouds move by pointing his finger at them. Also, I read on TMFree that he told Doug Henning that he could heal Doug of cancer (but if he did so, then Doug would have to be born another time. Hmm, is this or is this not consistent with Maharishi's comment, above, that he wouldn't remove a person's stress because it would interfere with a person's free will?) Then, there was the friend of mine who told me that she had broken her leg, and after she talked with Maharishi, her leg started healing rapidly. And I heard that someone once asked Maharishi, "You say that enlightened people have supernormal powers, but can you prove it?" The story goes that Maharishi nodded, and then did something-or-other for about 30 seconds. The questioner said, "Thank you!" with great conviction. The second half of this rumored story is that this interchange between the questioner and Maharishi was videotaped, and that when the you get to the section after Maharishi nods, the tape has a 30-second outage. Another story I heard was that Maharishi was once in a car driving down the street somewhere in Africa, and as he drove past a stranger, he remarked, exhibiting precognition, "That man is going to be very helpful to us in spreading TM in Africa." I also remember in the book "A Hermit in the House" that Mother Olsen wrote that the room that Maharishi stayed in had a strong sacred energy in it. And I remember that sometimes someone at a TM symposium would lecture in a foreign language, and the rumor was that if someone asked Maharishi if he wanted a translator, that Maharishi would say, "No," because he had the ability to understand all languages since he was at home with the source of all languages.
These were all rumored stories. Were any of them true? I don't know. And if they were, what did it mean?
So those are some of my thoughts. Please share with us your comments, memories and musings on this topic, below!
I remember on TTC Maharishi telling us about a TM prison program. Someone got up and said, "Maharishi, you're wrong." Maharishi bristled and demanded, "I? I am WRONG?!" in a tone indicating that it was absurd that he could be wrong about anything. Maybe because an enlightened person is never wrong?
I remember Maharishi bursting with laughter as he told us about the businessman who explained his philosophy of life to Maharishi. "HE was telling ME his philosophy of life!" he laughed, implying that it was hilarious for an unenlightened person to think they could instruct an enlightened person on how to live.
Then there were two poems he wrote. Does anyone aside from me know of this first poem that he wrote to Guru Dev? I'm quoting it from memory. The first verse went something like this:
"Love has set the heart on fire,
Hatred puts all fire out,
(Sorry, I can't remember the third line)
Hatred is poison for a godly sprout."
And the last verse went something like this:
"To my Guru Dev this is dedicated,
To Him who led me on a fortunate trail,
(And I can't remember the third line),
Strength to lift the all-repressive veil."
Then there is Maharishi's poem "Love and God." (This poem was put to music by Rick Stanley and is on one of his albums.) Maharishi waxes, like a mystic, about his relationship with God:
"...God my love,
Light of my life....
Thou art one,
The one becomes the many,
As one seed appears as many leaves....
In Thee I rest,
In Thee I dwell....
Lord, Thou art the goal in me,
My Lord, my love, my God."
(Again, this is from memory, so my apologies for any errors.)
He also said, "If it weren't for my Guru Dev, I would never have met my God."
The two poems, and his comment about Guru Dev, seem to me sincere expressions of a person with first-hand experience of God, or of enlightenment.
I remember in the summer of 1971 at Humboldt State College, someone asked Maharishi if it was true that the only thing standing in the way of enlightenment was the physical stresses in a person's body. Maharishi said yes. The questioner then asked if it was true that an enlightened person could manipulate the physical universe in any way they wanted. Again Maharishi said yes. The questioner then asked, laughing, if Maharishi would please remove the physical stresses from his body. Maharishi replied, laughingly, something like, "But then I would be depriving you of your free will, to reap the consequences of your own actions." Maharishi's response indicated to me that he did have the ability to manipulate the physical universe in any way he wanted - in other words, that he was enlightened.
(2) Did Maharishi have supernormal powers? Here are my first-hand experiences: I remember that when he entered a room, I felt a sort of magnetic force. When he looked around the room, I felt a magnetic light-energy fall on whomever he looked at. Once, my boyfriend gave Maharishi a flower. Afterwards, as he walked back towards his seat, the people whom he passed looked like they felt a wave of energy come from him, like a residue from Maharishi. I felt that energy when he sat down next to me. I also remember that on my TM Teacher Training course, Maharishi asked those of us who were having difficulty memorizing the puja (Sanskrit ceremony) to stand up. He looked around at all of us standing, and I felt energy pass through me. After that, I was able to memorize the puja easily. That ability to memorize continued for about 5 months, even back home at college. I also remember that one time, when I sat very near Maharishi, I felt overcome by something - power or energy or bliss or unconsciousness.
(3) What do I make of those experiences now? Maybe Maharishi had supernormal powers, maybe he was enlightened. Or maybe it was a matter of expectations or placebo effect or self-hypnosis. Or maybe it was transference.
(4) I have heard quite a few rumors (second and third hand) about Maharishi's superpowers. For instance, I heard that once, when his helicopter was running late, he made the clouds move by pointing his finger at them. Also, I read on TMFree that he told Doug Henning that he could heal Doug of cancer (but if he did so, then Doug would have to be born another time. Hmm, is this or is this not consistent with Maharishi's comment, above, that he wouldn't remove a person's stress because it would interfere with a person's free will?) Then, there was the friend of mine who told me that she had broken her leg, and after she talked with Maharishi, her leg started healing rapidly. And I heard that someone once asked Maharishi, "You say that enlightened people have supernormal powers, but can you prove it?" The story goes that Maharishi nodded, and then did something-or-other for about 30 seconds. The questioner said, "Thank you!" with great conviction. The second half of this rumored story is that this interchange between the questioner and Maharishi was videotaped, and that when the you get to the section after Maharishi nods, the tape has a 30-second outage. Another story I heard was that Maharishi was once in a car driving down the street somewhere in Africa, and as he drove past a stranger, he remarked, exhibiting precognition, "That man is going to be very helpful to us in spreading TM in Africa." I also remember in the book "A Hermit in the House" that Mother Olsen wrote that the room that Maharishi stayed in had a strong sacred energy in it. And I remember that sometimes someone at a TM symposium would lecture in a foreign language, and the rumor was that if someone asked Maharishi if he wanted a translator, that Maharishi would say, "No," because he had the ability to understand all languages since he was at home with the source of all languages.
These were all rumored stories. Were any of them true? I don't know. And if they were, what did it mean?
So those are some of my thoughts. Please share with us your comments, memories and musings on this topic, below!
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Revisiting the TM-Sidhis. Part 1: The Early Years
I first heard Maharishi talking about the TM-Sidhis program in 1975 on an audiotape. He was recounting a conversation he had had with his staff members. "They asked me, 'What more can we do, Maharishi, to help spread the World Plan?' I told them, 'More lectures, rounding, meeting with government officials, newspaper articles.' 'But, Maharishi, what more can we do?' they kept insisting. And finally I said, 'You know, I am very tempted to give you something.' And that was how the TM-Sidhis program came to be."
But before people learned the much-longed-for TM-Sidhis per se, there was a gray area. That was the Six-Month Course, the quasi-TM-Sidhis course/not-TM-Sidhis course where you were sort of promised the Sidhis but sort of not. I don't know exactly what the course participants were told that made them want to attend, but whole batches of them returned home without the Sidhis. However, they did come home with a several-hours-long "program" that they had to do twice a day. They were sworn to secrecy as to what this program consisted of, and they did it behind closed doors. "One Six Month Course will enlighten some people, two Six Month Courses will enlighten most people, and three Six Month Courses will enlighten a horse!" Maharishi told us, laughing mirthfully.
The people who took the first Six Month Courses were real pioneers. I met one such pioneer in the spring of 1975. His life revolved around staying on his "program." He spent hours a day alone in his room, and had to be in bed by 10 o'clock. He was unhealthily skinny, his skin glowed white, and he ate mostly oranges, almonds, yogurt and honey, which Maharishi had said were the most "sattvic" (pure/spiritual) foods, and which would apparently assure quickest spiritual growth, and support his no-longer-quite-human body. I feared for his health. His high spiritual vibration did not preclude him from walking into my bedroom one night, however, wearing only his underwear. Years later I realized that he had been offering to have sex with me. At the time, though, I had naively assumed that sex, like alcohol, was off limits for him.
I had a second friend who had also taken a Six Month Course. They had been told that they would be taught the Sidhis. That didn't exactly happen, but her course was promised that if they showed up for a second Six Monther, they would be taught for sure. So she saved her money and took a subsequent course. They weren't taught the TM-Sidhis on the second course, either. "Why didn't they teach you?" I asked, horrified by this breach of promise. "Because we were bad," she replied. "We were supposed to send Maharishi a monthly report saying how we were doing with the long program he had given us, and some of us didn't send it in every month."
The first "real" sidhas I met were the two women who ran the Advanced Training and Rest (ATR) course I attended in late 1975, at South Fallsburg, New York, U.S.A. Their skin seemed to glow. They appeared to float, rather than walk, through the air, with a special grace. They were both very pretty, and very dignified, and they wore graceful, feminine silk dresses which were modestly cut. I thought they could read my mind. I was in awe of them, and I was scared of them, too.
Are there are any readers out there who attended one of those early Six Month Courses? Or do you know anyone who did? If so, please break the code of silence. Please tell us in the "Comments" section below what they promised you, what they taught you, what you did there, what the results were, what the side effects were, what program you had to follow when you returned home, how you felt about all of it, or anything else that you would like to share from those days.
So these are my memories of the early days of the TM-Sidhis. Since I am writing from memory, I'm sure there are errors in this article, and I'd be glad for any corrections you'd like to make.
I'm sure many of us were told different stories. There was so much secrecy and rumor going around at that time. For instance, were you told the same stories I was told about how the TM-Sidhis came to be?
If you'd like, share with us your own memories, thoughts and feelings about those early days of the TM-Sidhis.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Quantum gods don't deserve your faith
Interesting, brief article on the state of "quantum spirituality." Worth a peek.
Friday, February 20, 2009
"Unhooking" from TM Beliefs
If you have been reading TM-Free Blog for some time, then you are probably familiar with the theory that at TM residence courses, participants, by meditating many times a day, experienced reduced critical thinking ability which left them susceptible to having Maharishi’s beliefs installed into their minds without their consent. Many of us, myself included, returned home from these courses with new beliefs that we had not freely chosen.
In the “Comments” section of my TM-Free Blog essay “Post-Hypnotic Suggestion and Trance Logic,” published 2/06/09, Gina has wittily and brilliantly compiled a list of many of the beliefs she was taught by the TM movement. Since Maharishi’s teachings changed from week to week, each of us who spent time in the movement will have a different list. One technique that I have found helpful in “unhooking” from the TM movement is to make my own list, look at every item on it, decide whether I actually believe that item or not, and if I believe it only because Maharishi said it was true but I have no other reason for believing it, to consciously remove it from my beliefs, and to break the taboo and do it.
By doing this, I have discovered that, for me at least, all the beliefs are linked together in my brain. Therefore, as long as I believe and continue to obey even one proscription, I find myself reeled into the entire Maharishi belief system.
For example, when I first attempted to separate myself from the TM movement, I came up with two strategies: choosing a new mantra for myself, and meditating in the lying-down position. I thought that by meditating in this manner I had broken Maharishi’s hold over me. It was only when someone encouraged me to cease any sort of TM-related meditating for the sake of my recovery that I gave up my new and improved technique. When I gave it up, I discovered that even though I had changed two variables in the TM technique, I had still been meditating two times a day, 20 minutes each time, morning and evening, before breakfast and before dinner, on an empty stomach, starting with one half minute of silence and ending with two minutes of silence, and using the mantra in the exact way Maharishi had taught us.
It was only when I quit meditating all together, I realized just how thoroughly I still believed. I found myself fearfully thinking, “Oh no! I can’t give up meditating. It is my safety net, assuring me physical health, mental health, spiritual progress, support of nature and superiority to other people!” Stopping meditating all together helped me break the pull of those beliefs. And when I stopped meditating, I felt as if a weight of grief had been lifted from my shoulders.
I have also discovered that, for myself at least, it is important for the sake of my recovery to unearth, question and reverse every single tiny little insignificant belief associated with TM. (I believe this is what Sudarsha, one of the contributing writers for TMFree, has referred to as "clawing ones way out of the Maheshistic belief system, one millimeter at a time.")
For instance, on my TM Teacher Training Course in La Antilla, Spain in 1974, Maharishi instructed us to never blow out candles, (specifically, candles used during TM initiation) but to fan them out with one’s hand. More than ten years after leaving TM, I realized that I was still fanning out candles. I believed that this was certainly an inconsequential rule, but I decided that for the sake of my recovery, I would stop fanning out candles as an experiment. So I blew out the next available candle, and to my surprise, I found fear and a number of beliefs parading through my mind: “Oh no! Blowing out that candle was a bad move! My life force goes out of my body when I blow out a candle! That weakens me! My life force is precious. It needs to be preserved. My body is a delicate vessel, especially since I have been spiritually purifying it all these years. Preserving the life force will lead to enlightenment. Therefore having sex is bad. Hmm, is this why I have been uncomfortable hugging my partner? Is this why I’ve been scared to have sex?”
It was amazing how many significant beliefs and behaviors were connected to that one minor proscription. So in the spirit of recovery, I am listing all the beliefs I can remember that I imbibed during my time in the TM organization between 1971 and 1981. Maybe they will remind you of beliefs you didn’t realize you still had. Or maybe they will inspire you to write up your own list. If you'd like, share your list in the “Comments” section. What have been your experiences with “unhooking” from the beliefs that Maharishi taught?
MY PERSONAL LIST OF TM BELIEFS
Ingesting:
Don’t eat: meat, poultry, fish, eggs, onions, garlic, mushrooms, peanuts, chocolate, coffee, tea, cooked honey, brown rice.
Eat lots of: nuts (especially almonds), fruits (especially oranges), milk products (especially yogurt), honey, white rice.
Don’t partake of cigarettes, alcohol, recreational drugs.
Do the TM “grace” before meals, silently, with eyes closed.
Meditating:
Never miss a meditation.
20 minutes each time.
Twice a day.
Don’t say the mantra aloud, or write it, or think it outside of meditation.
Don’t teach anyone except by the approved 7 steps.
Meditate in a sitting position.
Do not meditate when the stomach is full.
Meditate before breakfast and before dinner.
Don't meditate right before bed.
Start with ½ minute of silence, and end with 2 minutes of silence.
Put pets out of the room when you meditate – they will drain your energy.
All other meditation techniques are inferior- don’t do them.
Use the mantra in this manner: (well, you know what I mean).
TM is not a religion.
Hatha Yoga:
Lie down for the amount of time instructed before doing hatha yoga. (Specified time, taught on different courses, varied from 10 minutes to 30 minutes.)
Do the yoga postures that you were taught by the TM organization.
Do them in the order taught.
Do them for 10 to 20 seconds each.
Do them in the manner taught.
Do the yoga postures immediately before doing pranayama (yogic breathing exercises.)
Do pranayama the way it was taught in the TM organization, for the amount of time taught, and immediately before doing TM.
(Side note: I recently took a hatha yoga class. Boy, was I pleasantly surprised at how much benefit and pleasure I got from doing the postures the way my experienced yoga teacher taught them! We did postures that I didn't learn in TM, and we held them a lot longer than 20 seconds, and we did them in a different order, and she showed me better ways to do some of the postures that I had learned in TM. [I’d been doing at least one wrong for 20 years with no results.] Personally, I recommend taking a yoga class, or learning from a yoga book, or even practicing hatha yoga from a yoga magazine, to get unhooked from "TM asanas.")
Clothes:
Only wear natural fibers.
Don’t wear hand-me-downs.
Wear bright colors.
Women, cover up your arms and legs.
If Maharishi touches your coral bead necklace, he has "blessed" them.
Wearing the beads next to your skin will help your spiritual growth.
Don't let anyone touch the beads after Maharishi has touched them, or it will undo the blessing.
Dignified clothes are best.
Mental Health:
Psychotherapy is bad for you.
Don’t see a therapist.
To heal emotional problems:
- do TM
- go on residence courses
- do more asanas
- bath more frequently ("Psychological problems are caused by not bathing frequently enough." - Maharishi Mahesh Yogi)
- read the Ninth Mandala (Sama Veda) out loud.
Sex:
Sex is bad for you.
Having sex slows down spiritual growth.
One of the worst things you can do for your spiritual progress is to have sex if you're not married.
When you have sex, you exchange karma with your partner.
Only lifetime celibates can achieve immortality.
Don't have public displays of affection.
Miscellany:
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is a supernormal person. He is not a person like you and me.
Women, stay in bed for the first three days of your menstrual cycle.
Don’t criticize, don’t gossip.
When you say curse words or dirty words, you create a demon.
That which you put your attention on grows stronger.
Many sidhas putting their attention on something causes results.
Social and political action is a waste of time.
Do not place on the floor any flowers that you will be offering.
Do not sniff flowers that you will be offering.
Sleep with your head facing east.
Be in bed by 10:00 p.m.
Oh yes, and fan out your candles – don’t blow them out.
In the “Comments” section of my TM-Free Blog essay “Post-Hypnotic Suggestion and Trance Logic,” published 2/06/09, Gina has wittily and brilliantly compiled a list of many of the beliefs she was taught by the TM movement. Since Maharishi’s teachings changed from week to week, each of us who spent time in the movement will have a different list. One technique that I have found helpful in “unhooking” from the TM movement is to make my own list, look at every item on it, decide whether I actually believe that item or not, and if I believe it only because Maharishi said it was true but I have no other reason for believing it, to consciously remove it from my beliefs, and to break the taboo and do it.
By doing this, I have discovered that, for me at least, all the beliefs are linked together in my brain. Therefore, as long as I believe and continue to obey even one proscription, I find myself reeled into the entire Maharishi belief system.
For example, when I first attempted to separate myself from the TM movement, I came up with two strategies: choosing a new mantra for myself, and meditating in the lying-down position. I thought that by meditating in this manner I had broken Maharishi’s hold over me. It was only when someone encouraged me to cease any sort of TM-related meditating for the sake of my recovery that I gave up my new and improved technique. When I gave it up, I discovered that even though I had changed two variables in the TM technique, I had still been meditating two times a day, 20 minutes each time, morning and evening, before breakfast and before dinner, on an empty stomach, starting with one half minute of silence and ending with two minutes of silence, and using the mantra in the exact way Maharishi had taught us.
It was only when I quit meditating all together, I realized just how thoroughly I still believed. I found myself fearfully thinking, “Oh no! I can’t give up meditating. It is my safety net, assuring me physical health, mental health, spiritual progress, support of nature and superiority to other people!” Stopping meditating all together helped me break the pull of those beliefs. And when I stopped meditating, I felt as if a weight of grief had been lifted from my shoulders.
I have also discovered that, for myself at least, it is important for the sake of my recovery to unearth, question and reverse every single tiny little insignificant belief associated with TM. (I believe this is what Sudarsha, one of the contributing writers for TMFree, has referred to as "clawing ones way out of the Maheshistic belief system, one millimeter at a time.")
For instance, on my TM Teacher Training Course in La Antilla, Spain in 1974, Maharishi instructed us to never blow out candles, (specifically, candles used during TM initiation) but to fan them out with one’s hand. More than ten years after leaving TM, I realized that I was still fanning out candles. I believed that this was certainly an inconsequential rule, but I decided that for the sake of my recovery, I would stop fanning out candles as an experiment. So I blew out the next available candle, and to my surprise, I found fear and a number of beliefs parading through my mind: “Oh no! Blowing out that candle was a bad move! My life force goes out of my body when I blow out a candle! That weakens me! My life force is precious. It needs to be preserved. My body is a delicate vessel, especially since I have been spiritually purifying it all these years. Preserving the life force will lead to enlightenment. Therefore having sex is bad. Hmm, is this why I have been uncomfortable hugging my partner? Is this why I’ve been scared to have sex?”
It was amazing how many significant beliefs and behaviors were connected to that one minor proscription. So in the spirit of recovery, I am listing all the beliefs I can remember that I imbibed during my time in the TM organization between 1971 and 1981. Maybe they will remind you of beliefs you didn’t realize you still had. Or maybe they will inspire you to write up your own list. If you'd like, share your list in the “Comments” section. What have been your experiences with “unhooking” from the beliefs that Maharishi taught?
MY PERSONAL LIST OF TM BELIEFS
Ingesting:
Don’t eat: meat, poultry, fish, eggs, onions, garlic, mushrooms, peanuts, chocolate, coffee, tea, cooked honey, brown rice.
Eat lots of: nuts (especially almonds), fruits (especially oranges), milk products (especially yogurt), honey, white rice.
Don’t partake of cigarettes, alcohol, recreational drugs.
Do the TM “grace” before meals, silently, with eyes closed.
Meditating:
Never miss a meditation.
20 minutes each time.
Twice a day.
Don’t say the mantra aloud, or write it, or think it outside of meditation.
Don’t teach anyone except by the approved 7 steps.
Meditate in a sitting position.
Do not meditate when the stomach is full.
Meditate before breakfast and before dinner.
Don't meditate right before bed.
Start with ½ minute of silence, and end with 2 minutes of silence.
Put pets out of the room when you meditate – they will drain your energy.
All other meditation techniques are inferior- don’t do them.
Use the mantra in this manner: (well, you know what I mean).
TM is not a religion.
Hatha Yoga:
Lie down for the amount of time instructed before doing hatha yoga. (Specified time, taught on different courses, varied from 10 minutes to 30 minutes.)
Do the yoga postures that you were taught by the TM organization.
Do them in the order taught.
Do them for 10 to 20 seconds each.
Do them in the manner taught.
Do the yoga postures immediately before doing pranayama (yogic breathing exercises.)
Do pranayama the way it was taught in the TM organization, for the amount of time taught, and immediately before doing TM.
(Side note: I recently took a hatha yoga class. Boy, was I pleasantly surprised at how much benefit and pleasure I got from doing the postures the way my experienced yoga teacher taught them! We did postures that I didn't learn in TM, and we held them a lot longer than 20 seconds, and we did them in a different order, and she showed me better ways to do some of the postures that I had learned in TM. [I’d been doing at least one wrong for 20 years with no results.] Personally, I recommend taking a yoga class, or learning from a yoga book, or even practicing hatha yoga from a yoga magazine, to get unhooked from "TM asanas.")
Clothes:
Only wear natural fibers.
Don’t wear hand-me-downs.
Wear bright colors.
Women, cover up your arms and legs.
If Maharishi touches your coral bead necklace, he has "blessed" them.
Wearing the beads next to your skin will help your spiritual growth.
Don't let anyone touch the beads after Maharishi has touched them, or it will undo the blessing.
Dignified clothes are best.
Mental Health:
Psychotherapy is bad for you.
Don’t see a therapist.
To heal emotional problems:
- do TM
- go on residence courses
- do more asanas
- bath more frequently ("Psychological problems are caused by not bathing frequently enough." - Maharishi Mahesh Yogi)
- read the Ninth Mandala (Sama Veda) out loud.
Sex:
Sex is bad for you.
Having sex slows down spiritual growth.
One of the worst things you can do for your spiritual progress is to have sex if you're not married.
When you have sex, you exchange karma with your partner.
Only lifetime celibates can achieve immortality.
Don't have public displays of affection.
Miscellany:
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is a supernormal person. He is not a person like you and me.
Women, stay in bed for the first three days of your menstrual cycle.
Don’t criticize, don’t gossip.
When you say curse words or dirty words, you create a demon.
That which you put your attention on grows stronger.
Many sidhas putting their attention on something causes results.
Social and political action is a waste of time.
Do not place on the floor any flowers that you will be offering.
Do not sniff flowers that you will be offering.
Sleep with your head facing east.
Be in bed by 10:00 p.m.
Oh yes, and fan out your candles – don’t blow them out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)