The Winner Stands Alone

Trust me, I have enough charisma and ego to be dangerous.

This post relates to humanism in that it discusses (again) the perils of having any movement/idea be too-closely connected to a specific person. But first the set-up...

My search for local humanists took me to a local Unitarian Universalist Society where the humanists were meeting. Being the inquisitive sort (and having nothing better to do on a Sunday morning), I started attending this 'church' with no God. They have something that resembles a church service - meeting every Sunday morning, music, a choir, and a presentation on a particular topic. (Today's music was all Beatles songs, which is appropriate, I guess.)

Today's topic was the Maharishi Effect, as presented by someone who had first-hand experience with the TM (Transcendental Meditation) program. I know of the Maharishi Effect, but have no first-hand experience with the training, or real knowledge of the whole TM movement. (I should also point out that I have not read Gilpin's book, so I'm only going on what I understood of his opinions from what he said today.) Yours truly was completely unaware that the TM movement was largely the product of one person, or that said person came to have so much power as a result of his teaching/ideas. [Start keeping track of the irony points anytime...]

My question to Gilpin had to do with the modern-day TM/Maharishi movement, which is associated with scientists, and what ethics had (or had not) have been taught as a part of the TM training. After learning that the Maharishi had adopted a very authoritarian attitude towards ethical considerations, I guess I wasn't too surprised by all the other revelations about the Maharishi's accumulation of personal power. And I started to wonder which came first - the belief in one's own merit, or the desire for power?

I don't know anything about the Maharishi (other than what was told to me today), but the same pattern of 'teacher/leader accumulating influence leading to his/her own self-destruction' has been repeated often enough in history. You have to wonder if the whole thing is inevitable once you start down that path... The whole thing also reminded of something from a book I'd read - The Ways of the Mystic, by Joan Borysenko. While 'mystic' in this book is firmly associated with God, the points she makes about the varieties of mystical feeling are applicable even to humanistic mystics.

I profiled as someone whose secondary path was Path Three. I'll spare you all the details of what that means, and skip to what this whole thing reminded me of...

Suggestions for the Path-Three Mystic:

1) Beware of power. "It has been said that power has the ability to corrupt." (Nuf said there.)

2) Beware of charisma. "People are naturally attracted to charismatic, or gifted, individuals. If you take this attraction personally... you may end up in unwanted personal entanglements. The attraction that people feel for you may also take a sexual form." (No comment.)

3) Seek conscious communion with God. (Or something higher than yourself.)

4) Take time for yourself. "A person with passion and charisma is generally busy and in demand... but you will last longer if you take time out to rest and care for yourself physically and emotionally. ...Some of the best creative ideas come in leisure moments when our own minds are quiet..."

5) Nurture your relationships. "... Becoming isolated and out of touch is a hazard for a Path-Three mystic... [O]ur friends and loved ones are best able to give us feedback about where we may be going off-track."

6) Cultivate a sense of humor. "... Taking yourself too seriously is a growing is a sign of growing pride and conceit... No matter how wonderful your contribution may be, you are still just one more Bozo on the bus." (That last line should be a bumper sticker.)

7) Cultivate patience. "What most people consider patience is actually impatience stretched to the limit. Even dreams and ideas that are fully formed may take a long time to get into circulation. Have faith. ...Perhaps the hardest lesson to learn is not to be attached to the results of our actions." (I love that first line!)

Having reread/typed all this out just now, I have to wonder... Would this advice have saved the Maharishi (assuming he needed saving from something)? Would the impact of his teachings be any different today had they not been so closely associated with him personally? (I'm thinking of the ethics question again.) And perhaps the most disturbing question of all... Do we need to see our leaders/teachers fall, in order to remind us not to rely on others for truth/power?