TM-Free Blog Comments Now up to 10K characters allowed
Heaven is applauding and welcoming
His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
I wasn't aware that Hindus had a 'heaven' concept. I wonder if the archbishop of Canterbury is aware of this, or the Pope or Fred Phelps.
After all- We had a good time. He made meditation known i the west. God bless him, all of You and mayby me.
Maharishi is a great Guru , who had given this earth a great gift i.e meditation , He never leaves us , but still our heart feels it had lost its beat , Maharishi even though you had gone to Heaven , i know you will look on us like a mother
Channel 3 on the link seems to be broadcasting a non-stop church service? Are we witnessing the birth of a new-age religion?
A very sad occurrence, the world has lost the physical form of a very great Soul.
A Soul which gave so much solace, peace and contentment to so many people, with such a simple process, has left us in body but not in spirit, he shall continue to live in our hearts forever,
Great guru? Great soul? I don't think so. How about charlatan and con artist?
If there is a heaven and he shows up to check in at the gate, I hope the suits up there are reviewing his "accomplishments" and exacting some sort of price for the misery he has caused.
Paul ...
I think the new-age religion was birthed long ago. The TM movement has always been a religion desipite its repeated denials and protestations to the contrary.
If it walks like a church ......
Maharishi has gone to Heaven? Isn't this proof that he was not a Yogi? What a goofy religion he has spawned...
Yup, a religion, what a waste of a precious idea, that it is simple and easy to find the silence and peace and energy within.
When I was a kid I went to Sunday School, the whole tone of the Rev. Morris is one of Sunday School Superindendant.
Mahesh kindled an interest in meditation. Good on him. Mahesh used the ideas of others to cobble together the checking procedure and the steps of initiation. Good on them.
Mahesh manipulated everyone he could into making the TMO. Not good on any of them.
Beyond that, what Mahesh did amounts, in my opinion, to spiritual treachery, spiritual treason.
He stole from anyone and everyone in order to make himself look good. Yes, in the old days he was sort of cute, cuddly; he turned into a squeaky voiced Attila the Hun for those who knew him behind the scenes, behind the cameras.
I'm told that Fairfield is kind of shoddy as far as the campus is concerned, not well cared for. The photos of Vlodrop, if they are current, show how his brilliant ideas come to fruition ... by their fruits and all that.
Please, people, don't let yourselves or others deify this con artist.
Fairfield is shoddy.
Those on the invincibility course keep meditating away, saying: "nothing has changed, why should it?"
I thought that Mahesh kept saying that all of our meditating had created "Heaven on Earth" It has dawned, how many times I can not count. So if he's gone to "heaven" then I guess he's here, but dead nonetheless.
Kate
How does the song go?
what is here is everywhere and what is not here is nowhere at all
Mahesh may have had good intentions at some point, but I agree with Sudarsha that something, maybe Guru Dev and/or the Beatles, disappointed him in some way, or their rejection caused him some sort of psychotic break, so from under what might have been good, emerged an embittered personality and weakness of character that manifested (do love that foolishly used word) selfishness, narcissism, greed and craving, a power struggle with things beyond his control and the emergence of a religion of mythical nonsense and childish projections of magical thinking.
We must weigh what we know of Mahesh against a real world, a world of mathematics, physics and supportable conclusions leading to a genuine understanding of our world.
Mahesh is dead and we must let his foolish playground die with him.
This man did nothing but encourage us to be fully actualized human beings and love others. A message not so different from Jesus, so why are you people so quick to condemn him. As for the "new age religion" critics, Vedant is the oldest existing philosophy on the planet and is based on observation obtained using the scientific method with the human consciousness as the instrument. Quantum physics is just now verifying things about the nature of matter that was elaborated in Vedic text that are more then 10000 years old. Don't ignore this simply because white people(like myself) didn't discover it.
Dammen, those here who criticise Maharishi are mainly doing so after many years of involvement with him and/or his organisation, that is they are the very opposite of being 'so quick to condemn him'.
As to whether or not Maharishi encouraged his followers to be 'actualizd' and 'to love others', I don't know that he did!!! Did he ever use the word 'actualized'. Can you cite a quote of his where he encouraged his followers to love others?
Hi, Paul, I can tell you of a time when Maharishi *didn't* encourage his followers to love others!
It was an audiotape, right before Maharishi started teaching the sidhis. I heard it about 1975, so I'm paraphrasing. He said something to the effect that "We've been doing TM all these years and dipping into the Absolute all these years, and yet people aren't manifesting the qualities of the Absolute in the their personal lives very much yet. Why not and what to do?"
He then went on to ask the TM teachers in the audience what were some of the main qualities of the Absolute or the Unmanifest, that we'd want to manifest in our lives. People suggested "all-mighty, "all-knowing,"source of all knowledge," "unbounded" and so forth. Someone suggested that one of the qualities of the Absolute was "Love." Maharishi responded with disgust or disdain, "No, no, no!"
The part of my brain that was still thinking said, "This is terrible!" And I remember thinking, "He can never say now that TM is not in conflict with Judaism or Christianity." The part of my brain that was brainwashed said, "I'm sure he doesn't mean that. I misunderstand." I continued in TM for another 6 years.
Laurie
Laurie, thanks for your recollections. I too suspect that interpersonal love was not a part of Maharishi's philosophy. In fact he seemed to view it solely as reflected love of oneself. An interesting idea, if a somewhat freaky one at that.
No love and in certain situations no compassion. I was told by an Israeli that in Israel the sutra for compassion was not given, in case they might develop concern for the Palestinians.
Dear Anonymous, Senthilnathan, Dammen and Paul and all others,
I don't believe Hindus believe in Heaven. Isn't that a Christian or Muslim concept? I think they believe in reincarnation, or maybe dissolving into the Absolute if they're enlightened. See the puja: "Sansara" etc.: the wheel of karma. Why would an "enlightened" soul - if Anonymous and Senthilnathan believe Maharishi to be so - go to a "relative" place like Heaven, to be greeted at a "relative" holy gate, and welcomed in by "relative" angels?
Dammen, please see my posting, about 2 above, regarding Maharishi's lack of interest in the quality of love.
I have another memory regarding Maharishi's opinion on love. I don't remember where I heard this one, but I recall someone asking him his opinion of marriage. To paraphrase from my memory, "after some prodding, he conceded that he felt it was 'a waste of time.' "
Here are some personal experiences I had showing the low importance the TMO placed on human love.
1. When I was learning the sidhis, at one point a student asked the administrator, "When we experience the moon, is it our consciousness on the moon, or has the essence of the moon come to our consciousness, or what?" The administrator got angry and barked, "Now is not the time for intellectual understanding! Now is the time for experience!" I sensed a threat in there, i.e., "If you don't have the proper attitude, you will be thrown off the course." We had never been warned that asking intelligent questions showed the wrong attitude, but here this questioner was treated with disrespect. (Incidentally, the time never did come for intellectual understanding!) And no one dared ask an intelligent question again.
2. On that same sidhis training course, a woman or two were pregnant. When the administrators found this out, she/they were angrily thrown off the course. Somehow they were supposed to have known without being told that pregnant women were not eligible for the course. The sense was that *they* were at fault. I got the feeling that they therefore didn't get a refund. Does anyone know?
3. The TMO asked for payment for courses in advance, in cashier's checks. It's been 37 years now; to the best of my recollection, you had to send in the cashier's check with the application form, even before you were accepted. Does anyone remember this? But, if they cancelled the course, or did not accept the applicant, they were slower than molasses in returning the funds. I remember sending them reminder after reminder to return my check to me. Finally I wrote them, "It has now been six months since I asked for my money back. If I do not hear from you, my next letter will be from my lawyer." I got the check promptly. Does that show love? I also remember that we were afraid to send a letter like that to TM National headquarters, because then we might be blacklisted for poor attitude or "unstressing"! (Talk about a Catch-22!)
4. My sister, also a TM Teacher, was all packed and set to go to India for some TM course. Just as she was walking out the door to get into her car to head for the airport (about 4 hours notice,) the phone rang. It was the TMO, telling her she was not accepted for the course. This seems disrespectful to me.
5. This one happened to me when I was on a 6-week ATR course (Advanced Training and Rest course for TM Teachers, composed of extra meditation and videotapes of Maharishi) in South Fallsburg, NY. Over dinner, one of the other participants said that she worked at the TM National Headquarters, in one of the offices. She said that one of the financial offices was always kept locked. I remember she said, "It hurts that the person who you love most in the entire world (she meant Maharishi) is not being entirely straight with you."
Laurie
"Quantum physics is just now verifying things about the nature of matter that was elaborated in Vedic text that are more then 10000 years old."
That is a classic bit of Hindui renaissance rhetoric.
The vedic texts are old, but not 10,000 years old. Anyone who says that is at best misinformed.
And it is a common old chestnut in Hindu Renaissance rhetoric to try to make yoga and Hinduism seem respectable by insisting that they are 'scientific' and can be validated by science.
Genuine classical Hindu teachers such as Guru Dev, who unlike MMY actually read Sanskrit and were Brahmin initiates, never used Western science to validate religion.
To Guru Dev and the Sanskrit scholars, Westerners were irrelevant and barbarians and they considered it impossible to even convert Westerners to Hinduism.
Only fakes like Maharishi tried to proslytize Westerners--and he took good care to warn his students away from the Sanskrit texts actually used and taught by Guru Dev.
Because if any of MMY's students had actually learned the truth about classical Hinduism, he or she would then have known that MMY was just a non Brahmin counterfeit, pretending to be something he was not--and taking advantage of the sad truth that 40 years ago most Westerners didnt have sufficient background information to exercise discernment (viveka) or even to know that classical Hindu tradition taught that critical thinking and discernment were necessary when assessing whether a guru was the right person to study with.
The tip off of a fake guru is he or she will emphasize devotion and loudly rail that critical thinking and viveka are incompatible with spirituality. This dichotomy between critical thinking and spiritality is bogus and not found in classical Hinduism. It is a tip off that the person is using rhetoric derived from Vivekananda and others of the modern, non-ancient Hindu reform movement that is only about 150 years old--and that devalued ancient, and classical Hinduism, which emphasized ritual for householders and rigorous intellectual training for its Brahmin scholar monks--of whom Guru Devo was a leading light. MMY was not a Brahmin and lacked the qualifications to even be a sanyassi, let alone be mandated to teach by Guru Dev. MMY was like someone presuming to practice medicine without a valid licence.
The sad matter is guru-ing is unregulated in India and it is up to aspirants to know this, know there are charlatans galore and always use critical thinking before becoming a disciple. But the counterfeit gurus who target Westerners never told us that ancient Hinduism taught the equivalent of 'seeker beware'.
If you study MMY you will see his language patterns are far more heavily based on the rhetoric of Vivekandanda and others of the Neo-Hindu/Hindu Renaissance reform movement--which was heavily anti-intellectual and considered people like Guru Dev to have corrupted Hinduism. The Hindu Renaissance types steered Westerners away from Sanskrit texts and fostered a comfy, 'experience based' anti intellecutual stance.
http://kelamuni.blogspot.com/200...nanda-
part.html
http://kelamuni.blogspot.com/200...da-
part_11.html
The actual teachings of Shankara--and Guru Dev http://kelamuni.blogspot.com/200...f-
shankara.html
The rishis were considered the guardians of true Hinduism, according to the reformers, and the rishi-guru's 'experience' was considered paramount, whereas Shankara, in whose lineage Guru Dev taught, insisted that personal experience had to be validated by existing scripture, or monstrosities would result.
So with good intentions, the Hindu reformers tried to end the tyranny of the Sanskrit Brahmin scholars and ritualists by substituting the tyranny of the experience based rishi/guru. So in this context it makes sense that our little dude named himself **Maharishi** and did all he could to seduce foolish Western scientists who didnt have the training in Indian culture to see that he was a fake--like a Scientologist conning a foreigner into thinking Scientology is Roman Catholicism.
http://kelamuni.blogspot.com/200...nanda-
part.html
""Now is not the time for intellectual understanding! Now is the time for experience!" I sensed a threat in there, i.e., "If you don't have the proper attitude, you will be thrown off the course." (One persons report of time spent in TM)
Versus Kelamuni's article about Vivekananda and how V replaced the supposed tyranny of scholars and ritualists with the tyranny of the Rishi-Guru who claims priviliged 'experience'--which it is impossible to question:If experience is the source and basis of all religion, then it is also the supreme authority. Accordingly, for Vivekananda, personal religious experience is the basis of the authority of the guru:
No one can teach a single grain of truth until he has it in himself. From "The Teacher of Spirituality." Selections, p. 66. "Have you seen this God whom you want to preach? If you have not seen, vain is your preaching; you do not know what you say. From "The Sages of India." Selections, pp. 236-237.
We are now in a position to put Vivekananda's views on experience and authority into context. While Vivekananda's relationship towards the Vedas remains ambiguous, it is at least clear that, for Vivekananda, the authority of the Vedas does not have to do with their being anonymous revealed scripture (shruti) per se, but with their being the "record" of the religious experience of certain individuals. In other words, it is not scripture here that grounds and authenticates personal religious experience, but religious experience that grounds and authenticates scripture.What this does, in effect, is wrest control away from the perceived traditional mediators of authority, represented here by the "Pundits," and sets up in their stead a new priest-craft, the "Gurus," whose claim to authority is based not on the Veda but on their own personal experience. The oligarchy of the "Pundits" and their self-validating scripture has effectively been replaced by the tyranny of the Guru and his whimsical "experience."
"The theme of the contrast between "talking" and "realization" occurs frequently in the writings and speeches of Vivekananda:"Religion is realisation, and you must make the sharpest distinction between talk and realisation. From "The Teacher of Spirituality." Selections, p. 59."
There is, you remember, all the difference of pole to pole between realisation and mere talking. Any fool can talk. Even parrots talk. Talking is one thing, realising is another. Philosophies and doctrines, and arguments, and books, and theories; but when that realisation comes these things drop away.... So the man of realisation says, "All this talk in the world about its little religions is but prattle; realisation is the soul, the very essence of religion." From "The Real and the Apparent Man." Selections, pp. 137-138. While it is not immediately evident what Vivekananda means by "realization" here, elsewhere, it becomes clear that he means a direct cognition or intuition of the nature of reality -- an "experience" that transcends discursive and intellectual understanding:"You say there is a soul. Have you seen the soul?... You have to answer the question, and find out the way to see the soul.... If a religion is true, it must be able to show us the soul, to show us God.... We have to go beyond the intellect; the proof of religion is in direct perception. From "The Need of Symbols." Selections, pp. 63-64. "
ntil superconsciousness opens for you, religion is mere talk.... You are talking second-hand, third-hand and here applies that beautiful saying of the Buddha when Brahmins. They came discussing about the nature of Brahman, and the great sage asked, "Have you seen Brahman?" "No," said the Brahmin"; "Or your father?" "No, neither has he," "Or your grandfather?" "I don't think even he saw Him." "My friend how can you discuss about a person whom your father and grandfather never saw?".... Let us say in the language of Vedanta, "This Atman is not to be reached by too much talk, no, not even by the highest intellect, no, not even by the study of the Vedas themselves." From "The Sages of India." Selections, p. 236. (AK If any of these quotes by Vivekananda resemble stuff you've heard from MMY, this is a clue that MMY stole a lot of his stuff--including his methods shaming people who asked intelligent questions--from Vivekananda.
Here it gets VERY interesting: Kela wrote:"While Vivekananda often contrasts "talking" with "realization," he also contrasts an approach that emphasizes "talking" with an approach that emphasizes "practice"
quote from V)We always forget that religion does not consist in hearing talks, or in reading books, but is a continuous struggle, a grappling with our own nature.... From "The Teacher of Spirituality." Selections, p. 54.
Here, Vivekananda shuffles the dichotomy, shifting it from a distinction between absolute and relative truth ("realization" vs. "talking") to a distinction between two relative forms of practice ("talking" vs. "real" practice):"It is imperative that all these Yogas should be carried out in practice; mere theories about them will not do any good. First we have to hear about them, then we have to think about them... and we have to meditate on them, realise them, until at last they become our whole life. No longer will religion become a bundle of ideas or theories, nor an intellectual assent; it will enter into our very self... Religion is realisation; not talk or doctrines nor theories... It is being and becoming not hearing and acknowledging. From "The Ideal of a Universal Religion." Selections, p. 161.
The roles of listening and discussion have now become ambiguous. Note that the above passage begins by recommending the practices of listening (shravana) and deliberation/discussion (manana), but then concludes with their dismissal. This kind of inconsistency is typical among modernist reinterpretations of Vedanta that attempt to draw upon the authority of traditional Vedanta while simultaneously attempting to dismiss it. Perhaps, it might be argued, the point is that listening and deliberation/discussion are not, on their own, sufficient for realization. This makes for an facile compromise, but it does not adequately take into account Vivekananda's repeated denunciations of "talking." (kela continues)I would suggest that the dichotomy here between "talking" and "practising" is largely a polemical construct, and that Vivekananda has someone in mind when he refers to "talking" -- be it the Christian minister, European professor of philosophy, or Indian pandita.
"In other words, ***it is only the talk of certain teachers that need be dismissed; the rants of the Neo-Vedantin may still be taken to heart."
all this is from the article http://kelamuni.blogspot.com/200...nanda-
part.html
The sad thing is the Hindu reformers such as Vivekananda were trying, sincerely, to adapt Hinduism to the needs of the modern world and assist Indians to find a basis for national identity, and a platform by which to engage in social justice and an ultimate independence from colonialism--all worthy goals.But the unforseen outcome was that Hindu reform rhetoric, which is anti intellectual and distorts the actual history of Hinduism became a basis for a new system of oppression, the tyranny of 'experience' if claimed by special enlightned person, and the New Age dichotomy between spirituality and critical thinking, which has led us into a multitude of mudholes and traps--and empowered legions of scoundrels--an outcome Vivekananda would have deplored.
Bharati stated at the very end of his article on 'The Hindu Renaissance and its Apologetic Patterns' that the Hindu reformer were trying to bring in a concept they derived not from Hinduism but from their Westernized education--the dignity and infinite worth of the human person.It is most regrettable that MMY did not include this in his program. If he had had the slightest regard for the dignity of the human person, he would have immediately discontinued methods that generated casualties. And he would have respected his disciples enough to tell them the truth.
There is a lot of truth offered here at TM-Free, it's great!!!!
Laurie, there are two (at least) lines of thought about Heaven in Indian thinking, (& Hell too), but conventional Hinduism tends to court the notion of Heaven, calling it by many names but mainly Swarg or Devaloka. Commonly the worlds are described as the the Trailokya, the three worlds,
Quote from Kelamuni:
"Here it gets VERY interesting: Kela wrote:"While Vivekananda often contrasts "talking" with "realization," he also contrasts an approach that emphasizes "talking" with an approach that emphasizes "practice"quote from V)We always forget that religion does not consist in hearing talks, or in reading books, but is a continuous struggle, a grappling with our own nature.... From "The Teacher of Spirituality." Selections, p. 54.
Here, Vivekananda shuffles the dichotomy, shifting it from a distinction between absolute and relative truth ("realization" vs. "talking") to a distinction between two relative forms of practice ("talking" vs. "real" practice):"It is imperative that all these Yogas should be carried out in practice; mere theories about them will not do any good. First we have to hear about them, then we have to think about them... and we have to meditate on them, realise them, until at last they become our whole life. No longer will religion become a bundle of ideas or theories, nor an intellectual assent; it will enter into our very self..."
If Vivekananda's advice is followed, there is left no way for anyone to take an objective stance in relation to yoga, or what a guru says.
There is left no means to assess whether a spiritual project is going off the rails or whether it is actually giving the benefits it is advertised to give.
Vivekanandas' rhetoric can be used by any crook to shame or invalidate someone who dares to ask inconvenient questions.
And because this is quite a sophisticated bit of rhetoric, any counterfeit guru who covertly uses Vivekandanda's "judo" and who has not told his or her trustful Western audience about Vivekananda's material has a solid ideology of invalidation that will give that guru a powerful weight of authority when chastising a sincere and loyal questioner.
A guru who has covertly learned Vivekananda's anti intellectual rhetoric will seem quite scholarly to someone who cant tell the difference between classical Hinduism and fake pseudo ancient Hinduism that derives from Hindu Reform rheteric that claims an ancient pedigree but is just 150 years old at most.
It seems ancient because the reformers had a very few texts which they liked to quote--Agehananda Bharati tells us how this works--they prefer mostly the Bhagavad Gita and easy texts that derive from village saints, and the Rig Vedas, but even then, Bharati informs us that they quote selectively even from this very limited cull of texts.
This 'selective canon' is used to assert the authority of a counter feit guru's whimsical exprience and to con disciples into devaluing **their own experience**--and misgivings.
Again, in the hands of counterfeit gurus, the Hindu reform ideology, which was anti intellectual and distorted Indian history to serve a political agenda most Westerners dont know about was at least an attempt to make the Western Humanist concept of inherant dignity of the human person compatible with Hinduism.
But the counterfeit gurus did something that even the reformers whose rhetoric he used would have deplored--I am personally convinced MMY used Vivekananda's material to devalue the authority of classical Hinduism in relation to which MMY was a counterfeit and legitimize MMY as a rishi--a seer, not a scholar, by making classical scholarship irrelevant.
But MMY did not recognize the dignity of the human person by caring for the health, sanity and well being of his followers. He only saw the human person as useful--to him--not as having inherant dignity as an autonomous person with a destiny unique and apart from TM.
My outsider's sense is that MMY only recognized the human person as an worker bee for building his empire, a human person being just a unit by which to collect revenue/nectar and bring it back to the TM hive.
And there is no heaven. In the classic Advaita Vedanta taught by Shankara and his successor Guru Dev, one merges with the absolute. Heaven is irrelevant and falls out of the equation.
the Doonsbury cartoons makes more and more sense
thank you, all
Guru Dev on Heaven and Hell:-
'Man certainly endures the fruits of the karma he does.
Really it is like this, do the karma (action) that has the best fruit.
A thief is free to steal but the upshot is dependent on a court, really however much punishment will be given he is to suffer it whether he desires it or not. Similarly man can do what he wants. Who does cherished works goes to Heaven etc and can experience heavenly pleasure or by doing paapa (sinful) karma you can obtain great ghastly distressing hell, raurava (a hell) etc.
Birth as a man means a birth of action. Here man is free to act, that is to say that he can do as he wishes. If man desires to he can meet with Paramatma the all-powerful, sachchidananda (truth, consciousness, bliss).
Man certainly endures the fruits of the karma he does. Any actions a man does but does not desire the fruit of then such cannot be. Yes, it is certain that:-
धर्मेंण पापमपनुदति
" dharmeMNa paapamapanudati " *
'dharma destroys sinful thoughts' - by performing dharma, paapa is destroyed. In case any sinful karma happens then you should do some holy work for destroying that. Merit will grow then paapa (sin) will be controlled. Therefore it was said before -
जपतो नास्तिपातकम्
" japato naastipaatakam " **
- 'by doing japa of the mantra of Bhagavan's name, paapa is destroyed.' Therefore if someone took a way that was prohibited and was more sinful and that they now desire to get rid of all sins then do holy work, engage in doing good works and apply your own proper faith & devotion in doing the japa of the name of Bhagavan's name. After this manner, slowly, slowly past sin becomes destroyed and in a while is completely mended and additional good effects are collected which will assist with your salvation.
* Taittiriya Samhita (Mahanarayana Upanishad),
**From the sloka:
'kR^ishito naasti durbhikSham . japato naasti paatakam .
mounena kalaho naasti naasti jaagarato bhayam . '
'Ploughing eliminates famine, japa eliminates sin.
Silence eliminates quarrels, eliminate fear by wakefulness.'
Even if one remembers Bhagavan unwillingly then from that action sins fade away. In the manner that also without desire the agni (fire) is blown and ignites. The significance of this is that it is the nature of agni to ignite on contact, this is the manner of the nature of Bhagavan that those who remember him, their sins are destroyed.
Over many lifetimes the mind has been spoiled, therefore it is difficult to create a love of Bhagavan with a filthy or corrupted mind, [but] if you will think of Bhagavan then you acquire Bhagavan's grace.
In this there is one thing to understand that whatever the mind desired before, however much it was corrupted, however much you desired wicked or sinful living, it is of no concern. But the purifying strength of Bhagavan's name is not for doing sin.'
[Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita kaNa 3 of 108]
translation - Paul Mason © 2007
Dear AK and Paul,
Thank you so much for your very well-researched and thorough explanations of the history and philosophy of Hinduism and of Guru Dev. I was fascinated by the discussion of the "Hindu Renaissance." This puts into context where Maharishi was coming from.
Laurie
For a full discussion of what has been termed the Hindu Renaissance, those articles by Kelamuni are a good start.
Then try and read a very knotty but informative paper by Agehananda Bharati entitled 'The Hindu Renaissance and Its Apologetic Patterns.'
(I was able to get a copy of this online at my public library--main branch)
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2942625
Bharati's starting point was that academic disciplines had become so splintered that it had become difficult to identify what he considered a very important ideological trend within Indian political and religious thought and he used the term 'Hindu Renaissance' to identify it.
His concern was that though the Hindu reformers who used this Hindu Renaissance/revival ideology were well intentioned, they had distorted Indian history and were mis-representing Hinduism, making their version seem authentic and ancient, when in fact it was a modern revival.
Bharati listed ways one could identify whether someone was using this ideology, because those who were using it did not identify themselves as using it. Its not like the US, where you can say, right off the bat, 'I am a libertarian, I am a conservative Democrat or a liberal Republican'.
No one will say, 'I get my inspiration from the Hindu Renassance ideology.'
Instead you have to look for signs. Bharati stated that even MK Gandhi used Vivekananda's material to some extent--but did not acknowledge it. Gandhi seems quintessentially Indian and he presented as such, but he had received a British education, became a barrister, and was deeply influenced in his social justice work by Ruskin and Tolstoy. Signficantly, Gandhi encountered and was inspired by the Bhagavad Gita--but in an English translation. This is a classic
career path for a Hindu Renaissance figure.
And Bharati insists that the Bhagavad Gita and NOT the work of Shankara has become the ID badge of the Hindu Renaissance, particularly certain quotes. He states the Hindu Renaissance 'There is a definitively anti-Sanskrit stance among the apologists.' This is also very reassuring to Westerners who want exposure to Hindu spirituality but are afraid to learn Sanskrit. The Hindu Renaissance counterfiet gurus reassure us that Sanskrit studies are not only irrelevant but are a hindrance to spiritual development--which is exactly the message many non Indians want to hear.
Now, a few Sanskrit words and phrases are used by Hindu Renaissance types, but becoming expert at Sanskrit--that is what is frowned upon. Bharati tells us "Part of the style of the apologetic is the inclusion of highly coded Sanskrit terms (coded meaning they are given a special meaning within the Hindu Renaissance jargon), such as 'sastri' a traditional scholar, the Manu and Yajavalkya-smirtis, two important texts on Hindu law and polity, vanaprastha and sannyasa, the two final stages theoretically enjoined upon the high caste Hindu, with or without reproachful intent. All quotes that follow are from this paper by Bharati. I urge all interested readers to obtain a copy of their own. It will reveal the source of many export guru's rhetorical tricks--and many of these have become part of the non Hindu New Age--particularly the devaluation of critical thinking.
First Bharati does mention our friend.
"At this very moment (the paper was published in 1970)orthodox Hindu scholars are rejecting the doctrine of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, guru of such a motley assortment of disciples as Mia Farrow and the Beatles--as facile, wrong, and not in line with the tradition. But Mahesh Yogi's attraction for his Indian disciples dervied from the pizza effect (Bharati's whimical term for a cultural artificat that is modified abroad and then, in modified form gains a prestige in the country of origin that its original form never had) as did Vivekananda's and other swamis who had inspired *Western audiences* and who made it known in India tha they had done so." (In other words, people who got no respect in India gained respect if they could thrill and impress Westerners!)
"A limited number of passages from the Upanishads, about a dozen slokas from the Bhagavadgita, perhaps some verses by medieval saints like Kabir, Nanak, Mirabai, are quoted and may be requoted with impunity; but reference to further texts is frowned upon--for it bespeaks "intellectual jugglery" (Vivekananda's recurrent phrase), pride in traditional learning(which is bad)or it is felt to border on the wide limbo of "superstition"
And another typical feature of the Hindu Renassiance rhetoric is constant use of scientific similes. "VIvekananda introduced the "scientific simile" Bharati tells us. "and his subsequent emulators add some intended modernisms every decade or so--direct and oblique references to soem simple technological paradigm; the incorporation of gagetry language is now part of religious homilitic (preaching). "Swamiji is an electric powerhouse" a Ramakrishna monk said to a rapt, elegantly dressed audience in New Delhi; "And the various ashrams all over the world are like the power substations, like transformers". He pointed to a lit up globe indicating the locations of the Ramakrishna Mission Centers. He had his audience captured--there was deeply enthusiastic breathing and nodding in the room."
Bharati also offers us this: "The parlance of the (HR) apologist contains constant disparagement of the type of theology which had been german to the (Brahmin Sanskrit literate) pandits at all times. It equally opposes Western dialectic, particularly of the analytic type...I see the modern Indian desire for total solutions as an intellectually inhibiting factor: professional philosophers (at the two Indian universities where Bharati taught in the 1950s) presumbably the best minds of the day, espouse Berkeley, Bradley, Spinoza, Hegel, and other thinkers of the European past who propose **total solutions**of one kind or another. Analytic philosophy does not; it works piecemeal and it does not promise, or even claim to work for total solutions. I think that the (Hindu Renaissance) apologists antagonism both against indigenous (Sanskrit) learning, and Western analytical philosophy derives from the same source: defiance of any quest which is not a quest for totality, for holistic solutions, ultimately convertible into terms for mukti (salvation), negotiable in the redemptory frame of the neo-Vedanta diction of Renaissance thought." (Bharati, 1970)
So...this may well mean that Hindu Renassiance ideology cannot fit into Western participatory democracy. Ever notice how these gurus can only create kingdoms based on some rarified ideal? To solve day to day relationship and political problems and do social reform, not salvation, one needs some form of analytical philosophy that does not give a total and final solution, but just solves a problem for the relatively short term, trusting future generations will continue to fine tune it as new problems arise.
And regarding MMY's contant attempts to use Western science and (god help us) quantum physics to legetimize his counterfeit product, his strategy of resorting to science and use of scientific metaphore is Hindu Renaissance, not traditional Vedic wisdom.
Bharati tells us "The traditional pandit does not allude to Western authors, not only because he does not know them, but because their views are really beside the point in the traditional sastratha (theological dialogue)." One doesnt use a football when playing baseball.
Whilst we might have suspected that Mahesh was foisting his own version of Hinduism on us, it's much more helpful to know that the little guy was only propagandizing for a Hindu renaissance that was not only inauthentic (as we might have expected), but not really a renaissance of Hinduism at all.
Do I have this right?
Appearing to market world peace but actually popularizing his own version of someone else's version of Hinduism was what it was all about? -- my suspicion is that by the time the 'sidhi' nonsense came along, Mahesh had given up on any mission he might have been on. For one thing his putative mission was turning into a cult of which he really didn't have the kind of control he needed (the horses were taking the driver on the trip). For another, any kind of Hinduistic vision was simply giving way to his greed to have more money than any other guru in history. This meant selling the cult what it wanted rather than what he wanted.
It's kind of fantastical and I am not sure it really has any substance, but maybe it explains how Mahesh ended up as the figurehead of a bunch of lunatics wearing Burger King hats as opposed to achieving anything remotely connected to world peace.
I agree with so much of what Sudarsha says here. My take on it is that Maharishi was less than clear about his purpose. Was he teaching a non-religious meditation that aimed at transcending thought? Was he introducing the west to a form of Hinduism? Was he making himself the most famous philosophical Indian thinker of our age? If he had stuck with the option of the non-religious meditation technique then I think he would have listened when people had misgivings about the use of the mantras & about the puja. He seems to have been outputting several methodologies which do not work well with one another. Each of them separately makes sense. It is possible to meditate and transcend without the use of a TM mantra & to experience profound peace and energy as a result. From what I understand it is also possible for a religious minded Hindu to gain profound extasy by using a mantra in the worship. But after well over thirty years of practise I would say the two practises should be taught seperately. Surprising to say, it is my experience that it is a more direct path to yoga, nirvana, being, etc to dispense with mantra and drop everyday thoughts in meditation to good effect.
Jay Guru You
For those who benefit from doing research, I recommend that you read all the things Ive excerpted. I do not want to run the risk of filtering things through my own biases.
And I didnt serve time in TM as you did and you will know very much more than I ever can about TM texts and also the content of MMY's speeches, and that may assist you to identify whether he was utilizing the lingo of the Hindu Renaissance--which is exactly what many export gurus do and have done since Vivekananda in the 1890s. Bharati stated that most modern day Indians who have received Western educations (eg studying physics as MMY did) actually get their understanding of Hinduism through the Hindu Renaissance writers!
As for why MMY didnt accomplish what he set out to accomplish, namely world peace--he may have been derailed by exactly the bias mentioned by Bharati--the desire for totalistic solutions, for salvation rather than merely social analysis and reform.
"I think that the (Hindu Renaissance) apologists antagonism both against indigenous (Sanskrit) learning, and Western analytical philosophy derives from the same source: defiance of any quest which is not a quest for totality, for holistic solutions, ultimately convertible into terms for mukti (salvation), negotiable in the redemptory frame of the neo-Vedanta diction of Renaissance thought." (Bharati, 1970)
I still think it fascinating that in a 1981 interview Bharati said this:
U(interviewer): You are an initiate of an advaitic school, but you don’t really care for advaitic philosophy, as you have said. Why?
Bharati: I think, first of all, it doesn’t really generate a sense of humor. It’s also very dry, and the trouble is, the great pieces of Indian art and music were composed in spite of monism, not because of it. But monism is a good, solid guideline for the kind of meditation I enjoy. But I think it’s drudgery, I think it’s very bad philosophy.
Uinterviewer: In what way?
Bharati: For me, philosophy is to solve problems. In monism, there are no problems. The problems are of a linguistic sort.
(It appears Bharati preferred analytic philosophy--precisely the sort that facilitates solving problems rather than positing total solutions)
http://www.dci.dk/index.php?view...ntent&
Itemid=36
AK, Bharati hits the nail on the head to a great extent, for Advaita can appear really dry and humourless. I'm sure that it didn't start out that way but was a reaction to religious thinking, and seems intent on clarifying that there is a level at which everything makes sense.
Bharati shines a light on that great no-no of using philosophy to excuse one from taking effective action.
And....Bharati had reason to pass judgement on any philosophy that excused taking action against injustice.
He grew up in Vienna and was under heavy pressure from Catholic priests at his school who disapproved of his interest in Indian culture and languages. Then, the Nazis entered Vienna, and young Leonard found himself forced in school to study Hitler's literary output.
When he was in the Indian Legion of the German Army Leonard was bullied by the German officers because he chose to hang out with the Indian rankers--something the Germans resented.
He ended up hating all forms of authoritarianism and dishonesty. When he joined the Ramakrishna Order in India, he discovered, belatedly that this was a monastic order based on Vivekenanda and the Hindu Renaissance and that it was heavily anti intellectual anti-scholarly and that professors refused to admit it when Leonard caught them making errors in logic or by misrepresenting texts during the classes. He was kicked out.
And..years later, much as he loved India, Bharati was disappointed and horrified to learn that many Indians including monks he otherwise respected, considered Hitler an avatar and were Holocaust denialists--in the 1950s and Sixties, and used the Bhagavadgita to justify all this.
Arthur Koestler, who became a friend of Bharati's, visited India in 1958, investigating to see if two nondual philosophies--Hinduism in India or Zen in Japan--could help Westerners deal with the moral questions that mattered following World War II--and that matter to anyone in a participatory democracy.
Koestler interviewed a bhakti guru named Meera, a representative of the Hindu Renaissance (an admirable successor to Gandhi named Vinoba Bhave who was charismatic and inspired a land reform movement), he interviewed two classical Advaita teachers, Krishnamenon and the Shankracharya of Kanchi.
Koestler found that advaita, even classical advaita was just not suited for recognizing, let alone solving the problems that mattered to him--and to many of us. It generated logical conundrums. He ran into the same problem when interviewing Zen masters in Japan.
So though Koestler wrote in quite a different manner than Bharati, he seemed to identify the same problem.
These nondual forms of philosophy support meditation, but if we are to solve problems generated by society, we need the tools provided by some sort of analytic philosophy. Bharati in the 1981 interview, felt comfortable with doing both--but at different times of day. And perhaps that is the only way to work it out if one wants to combine the Western Humanist concept of inherant dignity of the ordinary human person with the insights given by nondual philosophy.
I dont see it as such a terrible problem. In Zen, we discover in meditation that form is emptiness and emptiness is form. But in Zen kitchen practice, one had better make a distinction between sugar and salt or the meals one cooks for the community will be inedible.
And, by golly one had better be able, in kitchen practice, to make the vital distinction between rat poison and sugar...(wry smile). There are times when nondual philosophy has to be told to turn itself off, just as we recognize there are times to turn off the radio and concentrate on the road conditions ahead of us.
Koestlers book is entitled The Lotus and the Robot.
For a very interesting comparison, get and read Jeffrey Moussieff Masson's book, 'My Father's Guru.'
The Masson family guru was a Theosophist named Paul Brunton. In 1958, young Jeffrey was able to visit India with his father, and he was so horrified at the poverty he witnessed that he utilized the nondual concenpt of reality as illusion to numb himself to it all.
Stating that suffering all around you is illusion guarantees there will be little effort to try to solve it.
Its a huge contrast with the West where, before antibiotics, we began to solve public health issues by identifying contaminated water as the source for cholera and, in the 18th century, methods were found to immunize people against smallpox.
There was a problem solving mentality at work, not a problem-denying mentality.
When one has a general take that something, anything can be improved, that generates radical differences compared with 'We have always done it this way, it has to be good.'
AK, you are right of course, about trying to nail the source of problems, which is known as 'scientific' these days. But I would figure that the origin of the knowledge of yoga meditation was also that, to practice a method that would solve problems at source, problems originating in the mind. However, many of the meditation practices are accompanied by all sorts of wierd philosophies, dogmas and reverence for figurehead persons claiming infallibility. So I suspect that through the process of stilling the mind and slowing and suspending the breath, one is able to function more efficiently, at the very least.
Commenting by HaloScan
