Someone sent me a private email which both expressed displeasure at my posting here about the Maharishi and his organization, and contained a suggestion that I delete the post:
http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=960
This person I think has no illusions about Maharishi, and is well aware of the darkness in him and his organization, but felt that way about my post because it would insult people.
The truth is that I do use satire, sometimes very withering satire, which on the surface, can look very mean and unkind. But here is part of the email message I wrote in response to that person:
My use of satire is not mean or cruel or angry by the way, though it may look it. Satire is one of the most powerful ways of protecting people from destructive myths. I do believe in protecting people from being insulted, but I don’t let protecting people from insults get in the way of protecting them from destructive myths, because living under a destructive myth is far, far more harmful than being insulted.
It’s ‘cruel to be kind’.
Any thoughts? It’s a complex issue, isn’t it?
The truth is that my conscience is clear when I do such a thing. If I satirized with anger, my conscience would not be clear.
Does it come down to a matter of personal style?
Hi David:
The bottom line is we are always responsible for how our actions affect others, regardless of our intentions.
Like intent, “style” has never been a good excuse for harming anyone. I’m not sure there ever is a good excuse, though we all do it, and we all have our excuses.
That is why Patanjali put a yama (restraint) in his Yoga Sutras called “ahimsa.” It means “non-harming,” and it is there for a reason. To do otherwise increases bondage. What we do to others, we do to ourselves.
In stillness we know the truth.
The guru is in you.
PS – As for “destructive myth,” it undoes itself in due course. In any case, it is not AYP’s mission to confront all the destructive myths out there. The focus here is on utilizing the tools of yoga for promoting spiritual progress by those who have the desire to make the journey.
Yogani, just as you were posting that reply, I was sending the following to a friend via email. I thought it was too personal to post here in public, but your posting convinced me to go ahead and put it out there.
I was talking to someone who asked a question similar to David’s, about the harm of an off-the-cuff snarky comment (and longtime forumites know I’m one to succomb to the temptation to snark).
Stuff like that is like free radicals. People trying to take offense, or just generally sensitive types, latch on to stuff like that and it gives them an off feeling. It pollutes.
If you’re an “intense” person, simply being who you are is challenging in itself. Even running in neutral, the intensity will rub people wrong. I’ve gone, in my life, from actively irritating (I’ve always craved friction) to trying to back off a few notches, to putting it in neutral. And now I’m trying to go the other way. It’s an ahimsa issue, but more in the sense of being driven to change from deep insight than from a notion of “right” and “wrong”.
Quite frankly, the more mud is cleaned off my windshield, the more dismaying a picture I’m seeing of how I’ve long impacted the world. I’ve always been more generous, more service oriented, more honest and empathic than most people. I just am that way naturally. And I thought that this gave me “money in the bank” in terms of what I give and what I take. I had the conviction (not quite smug) that I’d been, all along, helping the universe marginally more than I was hurting it.
Then I had the most stunning realization: that every bit of anxiety (and I’ve had a lot of anxiety), every bit of friction (which, again, I once craved), and every shining glare of randomly projected intensity I’ve put forth into the world has put people off their peace. And in light of that, I have no money in the bank at all. I always thought little gestures were less important than big noble convictions and actions. I saw clearly the cumulative weight of my free radicals, and was shocked.
I’m presently working to pump as much peacefulness into the world (more precisely: allowing myself to be used as a smooth, wide-open vehicle for peacefulness to be pumped) as I can. I clearly see how poorly I’ve been at putting appropriate attention into the gentleness of minute actions and encounters. I’m seeing how the nuances - little motions of my finger under the water of this big swimming pool - have created myriad ripples that caused dis-ease. I’m not the least bit Catholic, so it has nothing to do with that mindset, but I feel like I’m paying back a debt. Out of joy, not guilt, though.
PS-- here’s a real killer one: shyness and awkwardness also spew free radicals. It’s “taking”. It’s self-indulgent.
PPS–I’m not talking about conventionally “nice”. You don’t need to hold everyone’s hand and look soulfully into their eyes. What I’m talking about is the effects of small actions. The following was one catalyst. it’s from an account of a guy who went to africa to take the shamanic drug iboga, and described the experience:
Later, my personal faults and lazy, decadent habits were replayed for me in detail. When I asked what I should do, the answer was stern and paternal: “Get it straight now!”
When I was shown other faults that seemed rather petty and insignificant, I tried to protest that some of these things really didn’t matter. Iboga would have none of it, insisting: “Everything matters!” Iboga told me that I had no idea of the potential significance of even the smallest actions.
Daniel Pinchbeck
Yogani said:
The bottom line is we are always responsible for how our actions affect others, regardless of our intentions. Like intent, “style” has never been a good excuse for harming anyone. I’m not sure there ever is a good excuse, though we all do it, and we all have our excuses.
Absolutely. I didn’t intend to be suggesting that style is an “excuse” for bad action, and certainly, intent is none either.
Rather, there is more than one style of helping and they seem to conflict; while they may be both helping, but cannot be done at the same time. Like Mother Teresa and the Surgeon, one is kind and gentle to you, but the other cuts you up; both work to heal. Mother Teresa should surely never have been a surgeon (she didn’t have that kind of brain) and most surgeons should not have tried to be what she was.
What I am saying is that someone with one style may be horrified at another style; or they may get through that and recognize the other style as a valid way of operating even though it is “not for them”. Just as Yogananda had a very different style to Sri Yukteswar’s more confrontational style but recognized its validity and worth and praised it. Yogananda drew a parallel between Sri Yukteswar’s ways and those of a surgeon who would heal by cutting ignorance away with a scalpel.
>> That is why Patanjali put an observance in his Yoga Sutras called “ahimsa.” It means “non-harming,” and it is there for a reason. To do otherwise increases bondage. What we do to others, we do to ourselves.
We don’t differ in belief in ahimsa, “non-harming”. But I see the principle of “Ahimsa” as being a duty to minimize harm, not to minimize our apparent responsibility for harm. Big difference.
And so people’s interpretation of the duties that arise from Ahimsa differ. Krishnamurti felt that Ahimsa required America not to fight against Nazi Germany. If America had agreed with him, the world would certainly be very different today; xertainly, Jim and Victor would not be here; and there were plans in place to continue the ‘liquidation’ process when the Jews were disposed of. The world might well be all white by now, and maybe Japanese also.
My interpretation of Ahimsa is that America had, if anything, a duty, under ‘Ahimsa’, to defend itself against Nazi Germany, quite the reverse of that of Krishnamurti, and I am glad mine prevailed, and I am deeply grateful to all those Americans who lost their lives to that cause ( my own country did not in itself fight, but many individuals from my country volunteered and I honor their sacrifice). Ahimsa to me does not involve the complete avoidance of any action that contains harm; reality is complex and real Ahimsa is complex and intelligent.
My central point here is that the fact that a certain amount of harm (or pain) follows from an action is not enough to indicate that it violates the principle of Ahimsa.
I believe that Maharishi has done great harm to people because of the myths that he maintained and propagated of himself, and people I know have been severely harmed under those myths. I believe I do a service to the world in the rapid and decisive dissolution of that myth before it does further harm, a service that entails a certain amount of hurt or insult for some people, but that I do more harm than good in that.
It’s not that I am into mere ‘guru-bashing’. My satire is quite focussed and well-researched, and has not fallen on anyone who has not deserved it. And I hope it never will.
-David
Thanks, Jim.
I am glad you shared that. Wow, it is downright beautiful.
Yes, everything matters. It is a shock to find out – hard to face. Inner silence (the witness) delivers the realization. Once we become more attuned to it and learn to operate on true cause and effect instead of on our often misguided “best intentions,” it is a huge breakthrough – the unraveling of karma. We shift from being careless to caring. It makes all the difference. Then we seek to inspire instead of criticize. “Do unto others…” comes alive. A big shift in energy flow to divine love comes with that. Then we really know what ahimsa is. It is part of our essential nature.
The guru is in you.
Yogani said:
A big shift in energy flow to divine love comes with that.
I agree. And it sometimes becomes possible to see the divine love operating in what looks on the surface like wicked satire. 
Jim,
Wow. Amazing Post. Is going to lead a lot of people, including me to some heavy soul searching. I’m gonna have to go back and read this one again more than once…
Blessings to you,
Kathy
Hi David,Jim and Yogani:
You three guys are awsome. Reading this dialog is a huge lifetime lesson for me.
I just wanted you to know
Guy
Hey Jim… I want to be just like you… can I … can I… please please please please please… with sugar on top!!! 
Thanks Robert. You are kind.
Shanti said:
Hey Jim… I want to be just like you… can I … can I… please please please please please… with sugar on top!!!
Jim, with sugar on top! LOL!
Yogani said:
As for “destructive myth,” it undoes itself in due course.
Some people sometimes think these myths need a bit of help in undoing themselves. Here is another recent criticism of Maharishi from the forum:
Yogani said:
As for the Maharishi, he has had his own agenda, and unfortunately the spiritual aspirations of people everywhere have gradually slipped into a distant second place from his point of view. <SNIP> When someone blames others for their own problems, it is pretty much over, isn’t it?
Though it is lacking in the element of satire, the ‘true believers’ in the TM organization might well find it just as hurtful as my satire. Perhaps even more so, because the author is less inclined to criticise than I am. In any case, the criticism is at least as deep and strong and decisive as mine.
I also believe it that this criticism is as well-motivated as mine, as responsible, as well-researched, and that the author would not in this way play his own part in confronting these destructive myths without having a strong sense that it is called-for. The element of Divine Love in that criticism would not be visible to all, particularly maybe anyone who feels pain from it. But it’s visible to me, who knows a lot about the background involved and why the criticism is a good thing.
When I started this post, I didn’t intend to be defending criticism per se, but only to discuss the use of satire as a tool to criticise. To get back to satire itself, I think satire can be a great tool of criticism. In fact, someone said, (I can’t remember who) that myths cannot be disproven or argued against: that it is ultimately satire that dissolves myth properly.
I also think satire can be good and healthy for the people who have been hurt by the myths; it can help them to get the myths out of their system and give them a special kind of relief and can reach places that serious talk cannot reach, no matter how kind.
Sometimes it’s good to just have an almighty laugh at the shadows. There are many great things about America, but I think it can sometimes be a bit too uptight about the business of just giving something that deserves it an almighty, unwholesome ragging.
Satire is an ancient tool, a great tool, a worthy tool, which like any tool, can be used for good or for ill.
-David
I like Jim’s post. Rather than trying to check our actions for our own limited meaning of “right” and “wrong”, it is better to try to know whats really right & wrong.
These actions I feel are really small things and dont matter in the long run unless we are really hurting someone. I personally feel it is better to leave the individual on his own to learn from himself rather than trying to correct him forcefully.
Genes are a result of karma RATHER THAN A CAUSE OF IT - Yogani
David: You quoted me out of context. Here is the rest of what I said, which was intended to be a balanced statement in reply to Richard’s concerns about how the Maharishi treated the UK:
"As for the Maharishi, he has had his own agenda, and unfortunately the spiritual aspirations of people everywhere have gradually slipped into a distant second place from his point of view. It is no reflection on the UK or any other nation that has seen the teaching of Transcendental Meditation whither away. It has happened in the USA too, and I think we have been similarly blasted. When someone blames others for their own problems, it is pretty much over, isn’t it?
"The unstoppable force of spiritual evolution goes on at an ever-increasing rate. Interestingly, and very much to his credit, the Maharishi played an important role in fostering the shift of human consciousness during the 20th century. But now we are in the 21st century and the rules of the game are changing fast. We are moving into powerful integrated systems of self-directed practice. The age of wide open yoga science is dawning!
“We owe much to the people and nations, warts and all, who have played a role in getting us to this point. Hopefully we, warts and all, can do as good a job as they did in passing something useful on to our successors.”
Yes, I do believe it is over as far as the Maharishi’s role on the world stage is concerned. Few today would argue that, given his actions in recent years. Hey, he is well up in his 90s, and has made remarkable contributions over his lifetime. But something has gone wrong and everyone knows it. So the world moves on. This is not an ongoing program of trying to undo anything or anyone. It is what it is, and that is my opinion. No satire. No games. No tricks. And most of all, no ongoing program of character assassination.
As I wrote in lesson 260, contrary to popular belief, enlightened people do make mistakes. They do not know everything. When someone like the Maharishi makes mistakes (and he has made plenty), it does not mean that everything he has ever done ought to be flushed down the toilet. A wise course is to take the good and let the bad go. The right thing to do is give credit for the good even while acting to avoid the bad. We had the discussion about throwing the baby out with the bathwater a month or two ago, and it seemed that everyone got it. Well, maybe not.
If there is an agenda to destroy the work and reputation of this sage because he has made mistakes, I am not for it. It becomes especially offensive when it is veiled behind satire, wittiness, or any other mask that assumes self-evident truth. The end does not justify the means if the end is wrong. I believe it is wrong to try and entirely discredit anyone by any means. In fact, we have a rule here in AYP that no teacher or tradition is to be disrespected. If I did so by expressing my opinion about the shortcomings of a great teacher, then I do apologize.
Let us have no ongoing programs of discrediting teachers or traditions going on here. It is an unnecessary distraction from the important work of AYP, which is the effective application of spiritual practices.
And if you want to use satire, David, make sure you use it for something that is not a foregone personal conclusion that may be biased and unfair. In that case, satire is only a gimmick, a ruse. Better to come out and give a straightforward opinion, so we can see what is really on your mind. In either case, if it is about systematically discrediting a spiritual teacher or tradition, it does not belong here.
The guru is in you.
David…
Now when you put it out of context that way… it does sound funny 
…
It was the please that had the sugar on top of it… not Jim!!!
But now that I re-read his post…
Maybe the sugar was on top of Jim … hey as Yogani would put it…Good things are happening.
Hi,
To believe that satire or criticism of anyone or thing is correct, is only ones own opinion and does not make it correct or incorrect.If anyone thinks they are on a white charger trying to save the world of all evils they will be dissapointed.Much better to live a 'good’life and treat others with respect and hopefully change peoples mindset by their own energy and not yours.Just my opinion and not correct or incorrect.
L&L
Dave
‘the mind can see further than the eyes’
Hi David:
To be honest, I really could not think of a spiritual use for satire. The word reminds me of the proverbial heartless theater critic, running roughshod over the hard work of dedicated artists with his/her twisted wit.
Then it occurred to me, an excellent spiritual application for satire would be to do it on ourselves! Turn it into a mirror and then we will have something useful. Can you do that?
I am not trying to be a smart Alec here. It is a time-tested principle that when we examine ourselves with as much intensity as we examine others, much bigger positive changes can be accomplished.
Maybe that is why the wisest people are self-deprecating to the point of satirizing themselves, while the rest of us idiots are out skewering each other to no avail.
The importance of focusing on fixing ourselves instead of others has already been said by several in this thread. The only suggestion I am adding is to take the satire itself and use it for self-examination.
As Jesus said, “You see the speck in your brother’s eye; but you do not look at the plank in your own eye.”
The guru is in you.
The anonymous, humble, and not nearly as holy and smart as everyone thinks,
Yogani
PS – The biggest “destructive myths” are the ones within us.
Opps, sorry about the poor typing gloves.
What I intended to say was, yes, but let us not forget that he also threw the money changers out of the temple.
Hello there
I know the soul mirrors techniques I studied Franz Bardon for some time before I came over to AYP I personally don’t like it, the constant self analysis is very draining. In AYP all this becomes a natural process you just do the practices and go out and interact with the world. you are not at it twenty four seven as you are in the western mystery traditions the rising inner silence addresses these problems perfectly and makes this sort of soul searching unnecessary.
RICHARD
Tantra = magic
And yoga and tantra are inextricably tied up (though something tells me they weren’t always so).