Here you are:-
Let's look at this then, without rancor:
Other than reciting the telephone-enhanced
version of Dettmers' laundry list and re-printing
your handbook, which could apply to everyone from
the Dallas Cowboys to the Rastafarians, you haven't
dealt with a single question I posed.
Your questions do not address the real issues, one
of which is the hypocrisy of a man positioning
himself as God Almighty, and then attempting to
publicly backpedal that when it became inconvenient
or embarrassing, yet to perpetuate that concept as
an underlying premise of his current
entrepreneurship. Sorry, but that is frankly
dishonest. Surely you must see this.
As far as the 'laundry list' and the cult
'handbook', they are both useful compendia of
salient issues, given our mutual interest. Although
I understand your discomfort and denial with
dealing with the 'laundry list' and marvel at your
blithe dismissal -- more like willful ignorance --
of those questions (btw, what do you mean by
'telephone enhanced'?), the 'handbook' is, as I
said, a useful tool for evaluating whatever group
with which you may choose to be involved:
Unitarian, Rastafarian, Rotarian, or even
Here they are again. If you're going to attempt
to answer, please do so based on something
resembling actual reality from the last two
decades. Recycled, revised and re-written
conclusions of others doesn't pass muster.
I suppose the ten commandments wouldn't past muster
either, not having been generated within the last
few years. I suspect nothing an 'ex' writes will
pass muster with you (as if one needed your
approval!) Don't forget, however, that the whole K
trip is/was couched in an absolutist, eternal and
cosmic framework. Timeless truths, you might say.
So your two decade threshhold of tolerance is a
little silly. But no matter, we shall go
As far as 'banalities' and 'public domain
meditation techniques' (another parroted slogan)
goes, those are clearly in the eye of the beholder
and I'd imagine you wouldn't have characterized
them so at other points in your own life.
The 'banalities' refer to the self-evident common
sense notions that M has himself been 'parroting'
for years. As for 'public domain meditation
techniques' (a useful phrase, even as a cliche it
seems to threaten you a bit . . . sorry, brother!)
I still practice them daily and derive IMMENSE
benefit from doing so. While it is true I would not
have dared to think of them in these terms, that I
do so now in no way diminishes them. In fact,
having left the self-limiting manacles of cult
involvement, the enjoyment is much more sublime.
But I really don't care whether you believe that or
I see profound wisdom, delivered regularly with
humor, empathy and clarity, and the strongest, most
effective and simplest way to completely and
reliably center and satisfy a person being offered.
It has worked for me through every conceivable
stage and thrill and spill of my life. It has
worked with and without various belief systems. It
has worked beautifully for every imaginable type of
human being, utterly independent of their location
and circumstance. If that's meaningless to you,
then so be it. I think that's an astounding
Here we may have points of agreement, Harry. Like
many, perhaps most, 'exes', I still value the
practice of meditation. And I agree that it is a
most efficacious centering and peace-inducing
practice. It has accompanied me through almost 30
years of, shall we say, an interesting life, and I
cherish the inner world as my refuge and source of
wisdom and love. But what we need to recognize is
that it is not the big secret -- nor need it be --
about which M makes such an issue, and, it must be
acknowledged, through which he has amassed an
inordinately lavish, if not decadent, personal
fortune. I understand you will find it convenient
to rationalize his behaviour, and that is your
right, and your problem. Others have a right to
question that, and that is their problem.
Meanwhile, the business keeps chugging along, with
the K as carrot that can never be bought, but which
is paid for over and over and over again. Some
people have an instinctive problem with that. You
may not appreciate that. That's fine. The thing is,
the K is simply not the exclusive province of M and
Co. Believe it or not.
This time, please try to read what's actually
written, not your own mental mutterings.
Now Harry, please don't be snotty. Everything you
write could just as well be called 'mental
mutterings', yes? Don't resort to cheap shots, it
is unbecoming and dishonorable.
What percentage of Maharaji's time and teachings
would you say have been dedicated to telling others
how to behave, how not to behave, who to fall in
love with, what to look like, what to eat, how to
express yourself, who to have sex with or what to
believe blindly? How much marriage counseling and
love life advice has Maharaji given from the stage?
Or off it? Whose personal habits have you heard him
publicly criticize? What age, physical condition,
sexual preference, religious background,
nationality, literacy level or affluence status
have you seen him unable to deal with or
Again, Harry, these aren't even the issues worth
addressing. 'Percentage of time' on your own
'laundry list'? Come on, lad. Get with the program:
HE is/was/will ever be the self-styled incarnate
'Lord of the Universe' (whether formerly explicitly
stated or currently denied yet implicitly
communicated). As such he meticulously directed the
behaviours of tens of thousands who, willingly,
innocently, accepted the whole routine. I am
surprised that you are surprised that people may
have been sincere enough to take him at his word,
and who were dedicated to the knowledge and to him
personally, at what ever distance, and who felt
profoundly betrayed when his manifestly selfish
agenda became harder and harder to deny. Go
What does any of this gossip, snottiness,
victimhood and speculation have to do with what he
teaches? Which happens to be, in case you've
forgotten, regular reminders to find, know and
immerse one's self in the pure, perfect and
infinite within. That hasn't changed one bit. If
you don't find the infinite and timeless to be
impressive and it's a little too ordinary and
mundane for your taste...so be it.
Again, points of agreement and points of
divergence: What you characterize as 'gossip,
snottiness, victimhood and speculation' I might
call 'personal testimony, fair criticism, sharing
and communication'. Eye of the beholder, indeed.
The 'reminders' are sweet, clear and charming for
many, no doubt. That's fine and dandy. But there is
a powerful subtext that accompanies all of these
reminders, no? To acknowledge M as the only one who
can afford you 'salvation' and you had better
understand that or you are damned, and, by the way,
'please support me monetarily in my 'work' '.
Can you answer based on what you have seen and
I always do, Harry.
Anything you've 'heard' is of no interest to me
whatsoever, as I've spent enough time around
Maharaji to judge for myself how he is both on and
You are not the only one, my friend.
Do you realize that the behavioral cage you've
tried to place Maharaji into is entirely based on
theory and doesn't apply to anyone else on earth?
Do you apply the same standard to what a brilliant
musician is supposed to act like, what a painter is
supposed to eat, should architects enjoy after
dinner cognacs? How much should a writer weigh?
What should or shouldn't Ray Charles smoke? How
long should a mathematician's hair be? Are
exceptionally perceptive people not allowed to
notice beauty in earthly as well as ephemeral
formats? Does that make them 'lower', higher or
Again, you persist in deflecting the main issues
into these 'red-herring' ideas. Neither I nor
anyone I know has tried to 'place M into a
behavioural cage' (that wouldn't be a slogan now
would it? Just joshing!) Seriously, no rational or
wisdom-loving person would question or judge M (or
any teacher, or anyone for that matter) about
issues of deep importance, based upon the length of
his hair or his diet or weight or superficial
markers. Come now, this is not the issue. The main
issue has more to do with his being honest and
straightforward about his claims and revisions of
claims, to acknowledge and try to rectify his human
fuck-ups (please excuse the term, but they are
legion and well-documented elsewhere), and to
diminish or dismantle the abhorrent citadel of
greed that is his most evident life's work.
You know, 'exceptionally perceptive people' are
going to notice beauty in earthly as well as
ephemeral formats whether they are 'allowed' to or
not. This also is not the question. No one denies
anyone that right. The point is, Harry, many of us
have noted a profound imbalance in our lives as
cogs in M's world, K notwithstanding. Part of that
has to do with the dissonance between M's
relentlessly vaunted 'divinity' and the abject
codependency of the average premie. So, does that
make them 'lower', higher or neither? You tell
P.S.: Here is a selection from Lao Tzu. Hope you
won't object that it predates our era by 2500 years
'Be humble and you will remain entire.'
He who has little will receive.
He who has much will be embarrassed.
Therefore the Sage keeps to One and becomes the
standard for the world.
He does not display himself; therefore he
He does not approve himself; therefore he is
He does not praise himself; therefore he has
He does not glory in himself; therefore he
And because he does not compete, therefore no one
in the world can compete with him.
The ancient saying 'Be humble and you will remain
Can this be regarded as mere empty words?
Indeed he shall return home entire.