Elan Vital Today
the Most Reliable Information Source!
The Grapevine Index
Posted on Forum V
Date: Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 20:11:09
A friend relates that a premie lady he knows was disturbed by something she heard Maharaji say.
Maharaji was apparently discussing the Monica Lewinsky / Clinton debacle with a few people in private.
Maharaji apparently said words to the effect that 'the people who were upset with Clinton were just jealous that he was having so much fun.' I understood that he said this in front of Marolyn and that although the latter was apparenty unflustered, this other premie lady took it badly - ie as a rather too macho comment for her tastes! It blew her 'concepts' and she has now had felt compelled to re-assess things a bit, according to my friend.
I would guess that Maharaji would also say that disgruntled premies (such as those whom he forbade the indulgence of 'wordly pleasures' whilst he clearly was enjoying them fully) are similarly 'just jealous'.
I agree with him but would say that it is not 'just' jealousy alone that makes people question their relationships with him. 'Rightly jealous' would perhaps be a better description!
One difference with him and Clinton is that Maharaji advocated that committed premies should 'renounce the world'. I don't think Clinton made moral demands on anyone. (of course he was quick to pretend to be all repentant and moral, when he was caught out with Monica.)
Political power structures of all-sorts (including the Pop World for instance ) seem to give their 'stars' plenty of opportunity for such indulgences, but there the performers are most often admired for their excesses! Of course the 'stars' are unashamed role models for many people who aspire to be as them. It is given that these are ordinary people who, through luck or talent have earned an envied position. We could be like them! No premie need waste their time aspiring to share Maharaji's indulgences in his autocratic world though.
I think that modern western political systems, certainly in the USA and UK, have to some extent evolved built-in safeguards that permit leaders to exercise their position to indulge themselves privately if they wish, but prevent them from letting this effect their job. Certainly the conditions are that they don't get caught doing controversial things.
In a way the nature of politics is that it needs people who are rather unscrupulous to fight equally unscrupulous opponents.
There is some comparison to draw with Maharaji I feel.
We can see from Hilary Clinton's recent electorial success, for instance, that responsible and 'moral' people are perfectly willing to vote someone into a responsible job who may be 'deeply flawed as an individual' (This is a quote from a TV program about the Clintons, who were both described, amongst other things, as being absolutely inured to lying whenever it suited their ambitions- not something that people seem too bothered about)
It is the leaders commitment to certain political goals which is the main consideration for voters The fact that they demonstrate ruthless ambition may be may bolster the impression that the he or she has the stomache to fight hard to achieve political ends. Even moderate alcoholism or drug abuse may be acceptible to the inner teams that support powerful leaders. Of course Kennedy's inner circle did not consider his habits innappropriate, but understood the public would not see it this way and so sought to cover up his activities.
Is this not exactly what we see with Maharaji?? Is not the comparison with Clinton even more uncanny considering the resemblance of his one of his alleged mistresses' name to Monica Lewinsky? Are we not looking at a political phenomenon here - in short- a political leader. Something Elan Vital is keen to deny.
Premies attitude to Maharaji is very like a voter's attitude to a President.
I say this because I spoke with a premie (once a UK co-ordinator) the other day who expressed that it was a shame that people allowed their feelings about Maharaji as a person to put them off being his 'pupil'. In short he implied that people who judge Knowledge by Maharaji's behaviour were making a big mistake -totally missing out and denying themselves that wonderful experience. Of course he as much admitted that Maharaji, as a person, was surely not everyone's 'cup of tea' although he loved and admired Maharaji deeply. But he could not see how Maharaji's private behaviour should rightly reflect on his role as a Master.
It seems to me that Premies could be said to have, albeit silently, 'elected' Maharaji as the figurehead of their experiences and beliefs, and that they, like those who elect these presidents etc. do not consider that it matters a jot whether their Master is a nice person or corrupted by his position etc. What is important is that he in some way acts as a catalyst for their experience. Or put another way -fulfills their needs. Most actually like him the more for his human weaknesses.
Am I right that premies accept that Maharaji is the 'man for the job' despite his character flaws, much in the same way that a country tolerates a leader who seems to be going roughly in the right direction? In other words with hope rather than certainty?
I suppose my feeling is that if God were to exist and seek to influence us via any particular chosen man, it would be most unlikely that he would also inspire this 'chosen man' to feel that he needs to cover-up for his human weaknesses (as Maharaji seems to have done -' a la Presidente' - by encouraging his inner circle to do so for him). Rather one would have thought that he may , like Clinton at the very least, have the foresight to see that to admit to his human frailness and acknowledge mistakes with appropriate accountabilty and integrity, would serve him well.
There is one last comparison that comes to mind bearing in mind that Dettmer's writings paint a picture of a man who apparently really does seem to have some disdain for those who believe in him.
Hilary Clinton is said to have commented to her driver after speaking to a hall of honest-to-good country folks - ' get me outta here as fast as you can'.
She allegedly then likened the crowd, that she had just been so keen to woo, to people 'straight out of the film Deliverance' !
Finally, I have been truly wondering whether it is I who am long imprisoned in this restricting belief that I should be honest, integral and well-behaved!
I was in the late seventies (naively) shocked to learn that Mahatma GuruCharanand, a supposed celibate celebrity I think you'll agree, had indeed had marvelous sex, and when he was instructor too! - with my best friends girlfriend! (At least that's what she told him and he told me ~ all malicious lies of course!)
Anyway, since all these 'once denied' things are generally now being furtively whispered as being true, even by premies, I wonder if I was the stupid, tight-arsed one (thank you Mark) who could justly be derided for obediently having been celibate in the ashram, when Maharaji had simply supposed (judging us naturally by his own standards) that we would know that we didn't really have to take his instructions literally !
Maybe if more of us had followed the example of the much favoured Mr 'Loose' GuruCharanand then we would not now be 'eaten up with regrets' after all. I mean it's our fault for being so stupid as to have taken Maharaji's Agya (order) so seriously isn't it?