Today's Considerations
Next, let’s re-consider the accuracy of some of the criticisms
set forth about Maharaj and some of the labels which were applied to Maharaj over the decades
as he shifted from using a religious / non-dual version of the Ultimate
Medicine to using a spiritual / non-dual version of the Ultimate Medicine to using a psychologically-based version of the Ultimate Medicine:
CRITICISMS (from among some of those shared in the eBook "SRI NISARGADATTA MAHARAJ and HIS EVOLUTION"):
"The later books of Maharaj do not enjoy the same
clarity as 'I Am That'. It seems that he himself got complicated or rather
evolved himself or declined maybe as happens to many teachers.
"His direct disciples who later on became notable
teachers are of an especially low quality (e.g. Ramesh Balsekar, Wolinsky and
others) which makes one to wonder how come."
"He taught an extreme form of narcissism in which 'I'
am everything."
"At first when he was still listening to his guru he
was telling the truth, like he did in 'I AM THAT.' In his other talks, his ego
made him start telling things he dreamed up on his own that were not
true."
"He deteriorated from one of the great spiritual men of
all times to one of the least spiritual people of all times."
“He seemed to understand non-duality early on but later on
he lost it. I think he went crazy or became senile or maybe it was Alzheimers.”
LABELS
He was a rebel.”
He was a maverick.”
He was a nonconformist.”
He was eccentric.”
He was the odd one out.”
He was a dissenter.”
He was a radical.”
He was a free spirit.”
Such labeling can only manifest in duality, when "someone" is contrasted
with "someone else" or when "someone" is contrasted with "the way they are now" as compared
to "the way they were before."
Sometimes the labels used to describe Maharaj were meant as criticisms and
sometimes they were meant as compliments, but they always involved first judging
and then either acceptance or rejection. He was viewed “positively” as “a rebel
and maverick and nonconformist," etc. by those who had received no clarity at all by listening to the typical messages being offered by the typical teachers of the day. He was
viewed “negatively” as “a rebel and maverick and nonconformist," etc. by those
who were attached to the religious or spiritual identities which had been assigned
to them or which they had assumed.
All who were deemed to be religious but who later abandoned their religion persona,
and all who were deemed to be spiritual but who later abandoned the playing of their spiritual persona,
should be aware that – among the duality-entrapped masses – the applause of the
villagers can readily turn into the scorn of the townspeople if one does not accept
each and every component of the belief systems of the villagers and townspeople.
Thus, many who had applauded Maharaj when he reinforced their assumed roles suddenly began attacking Maharaj after he saw that neither a
religious nor a spiritual version of the Ultimate Medicine was treating
the Ultimate Sickness successfully. As the case is with those who only take some antibiotics
but do not complete the full dosage, the version of the Medicine prescribed to religious or spiritual persons might
have sent the Sickness into a temporarily-less potent state or into a temporarily-dormant
state for a period; yet Maharaj saw that the Sickness always eventually
recurred.
Therefore, when he turned to focusing on the real root of –
and the actual seat of - the Ultimate Sickness (namely, the mind), then the criticisms
and labels came forth, especially when he said:
"Forget spirituality"
and when he encouraged seekers to
and when he encouraged seekers to
follow "their normal inclinations," (that is, to
follow their natural tendencies, to abandon all of their spiritual work and
just abide naturally - not unnaturally and not supernaturally, i.e., neither
"religiously" nor "spiritually" nor
"philosophically")
and when he told visitors to
"Do your normal duties"and "just give up spirituality."
Consider: in Christian-dominated cultures, children are told
an astonishing lie for years, a lie about an ancient, white, white-bearded man who had been around
forever and who lives in another place
and who is omniscient – even knowing if they are asleep or if they are awake –
and who rewards those who are good with gifts. (Hummm. Sound like Someone else you've heard of?) Later, they are told by
relatives – or they figure out on their own or they are told by friends who
know the truth – that they were lied to, tricked, hoodwinked, duped, fooled, conned,
taken in, deceived, and bamboozled.
Here, when the shift beyond the third-of-seven-steps happened
– that third step being the one where religious and spiritual roles were assumed and played – many people make comments along these lines: “Floyd, you have allowed your ego to drive you to break
relationship with God, and you will pay dearly for that.”
The question is, “If a child who believed a lie – like, say,
believing in Santa Claus – then found out the truth and never again believed
the lie and never again allowed the lie to affect her or his thoughts and
words and actions, would one conclude that the child who eventually understood
the truth had - "negatively" - become a “rebel,” a "maverick,” a “nonconformist,” etc.? Or would
the child simply be one who had finally come to understand the truth and, as a consequence, had quit believing a lie, even a lie which the child had also repeated for years?
Or, if a parent put a child to bed at 8 PM and if the child stayed asleep for a long time but then suddenly woke up at 7 AM when the light began streaming through the bedroom window, would the parent conclude that the child who woke up is obviously and most certainly "rebellious" or "in a state of decline" or "deteriorated" or "narcissistic and egotistical," all because the child had simply awakened?
With Maharaj there, and in the case here, and in all cases
where seekers wake up to the fact that they were taught a big pack of lies (and
in all cases where they then return to a state in which differentiating between
what is true and what is false is the norm rather than the exception), can any of
those that determine to stop believing the lies and re-telling the lies which they had been taught
suddenly be deemed – logically - to have “deteriorated” simply because they are rejecting lies or because they are telling the truth? Logically? No.
Typically? Yes.
Why is that? That angry reaction among the masses will always happen when some begins marching to the beat of a different drum which is pounding out a
cadence which differs from the beat to which the masses are marching. In such cases, the village
will turn against them, the state can turn against them, the nation can turn
against them, and those all around the globe who are judging them can turn
against them.
Why? They are pissed off because their belief systems and their very identities are being challenged and because they, therefore, feel that they are literally being threatened or hurt or even . . . destroyed. Their misperceptions lead them to believe that a 130-pound female human who is walking away from them is a bigger threat then an 830-pound female bear that is charging toward them.
That is the core irony among humans about the truth: the truth can set them free, but
it’s most likely going to piss them off first.
Tomorrow: So why did Maharaj’s treatment plan shift away from the use of religion and away
from the use of spirituality and away from endorsing the use of “Self-Inquiry” and toward (1) addressing
the issues with the mind and (2) addressing (via “self-inquiry”) the issues with
the multiple personalities which persons have been assigned or which they assume are real identities?
To be continued.
Please enter the silence of contemplation.
[NOTE:
The four most recent posts follow. You may access all of the posts in
this series and in the previous series and several thousand other posts as well by clicking on the links in the "Recent Posts and Archives" section.]
