If history has anything to say, > >, what I think you're "feeling" in > revering Shakerisms is the same thing you try to > promote here on FFL, Doug -- a sense of "community." >
Not revering, just observing. Just proactive interest. Not just Shakerisms. Not revering but steeping some little in 18th and 19th Century American spiritual movements and their European and Eastern roots. Is a lot of descriptive material available and some that is proscriptive, that can be learned from about life of spiritual movements. The proscriptive insights they give in their own voice can be a useful perspective to how it is going for Transcendental Meditation. Jai Adi Shankara, -D in FF > > > > I have found this same teaching in quite a few spir- > > itual traditions, all of whom make this same distinc- > > tion. If you hear "voices," if you have visions in > > which someone or something is telling you what to do > > or what to convince others to do, you may be in fairly > > serious trouble. > > > > Interesting point about this particualar commonality in spiritual > traditions. I find it too in the old Quaker ways for instance. > Quaker meditation from way back was Patanjali-like and they were > group meditators, very spiritual and cultivated that way. They > clearly discerned the difference between spiritual practice and > spiritualism. Completely discounting the troublesome interference of > spiritism in spiritual progress. > > The Shakers by contrast were a different movement entirely from > Quakerism. Shakers started off in the days of their founder as a > spiritual (shakti) movement but seg-wayed in to spiritualism in their > succession after the founding generation passed on. > > Following their founder Shaker generation came the turning of the > spiritism trick until it even died out in some time. Seems the first > half of the 19th century and then parts of the late 19th century > again were fascinated with spiritualists. The shakti of spiritual > progress would die down with doctrinal religion of the rise in tide > by contrast. Shakers died out with the loss of shakti and then after > that the loss or turn down of spiritualism phenomena. Shakers late > in the 19th Century and through the 20th century became at a loss for > much of anything to keep them going, other than the doctrine of how > it once was. > > See the theme by comparison? > > The American Transcendentalists, as in Ralph Waldo Emerson, a pure > spiritual critic, commentated on this in that day too: > > "Animal magnetism, omens, spiritism, mesmerism have great interest > for some minds. They run into this twilight and say, "There's more > than is dreamed of in your philosophy". Certainly these fact are > interesting and deserve to be considered. But they are entitled only > to a share of attention, and not a large share. It is a low > curiosity or lust of structure, and it is separated by celestial > diameters from the love of spiritual truths. It is wholly a false > view to couple these things in any manner with the religious nature > and sentiment, and a most dangerous superstition to raise them to the > lofty place of motives and sanctions. This is to prefer halos and > rainbows to the sun and moon. These adepts have mistaken flatulency > for inspiration. Were this drivel which they report as the voice of > spirits really such we must find out a more decisive suicide. The > whole world is an omen and a sign. Why look so wistfully in a > corner. Man is the image of God. Why run after a ghost or a > dream?" -Emerson essay, "Demonology" > > Is an old teaching evidently. Like Guru Dev's comment. > > However, is noteable to find Maharaj Tony and Raja Konhaus > lately 'pitching' channeling and spiritualism as a direction for re- > kindle and salvation for the TMmovement after Maharishi, in > distinction to what was a meditator shakti movement. Seemingly > becomes now a contest on the road to Damascus to find who 'hears' > from Maharishi the clearest, as they are framing it. Who will be the > next Saul? While Konhaus confronts anyone, "If you don't beleive, > then find another guru". > > Not a lot of shakti in that teaching. > > Is a lesson in history too. > > One thing folks mostly have in common here though is that they came > as meditators, or are meditaors from that standpoint. That > commonality in itself is a lot different than channeling or even > belief in Maharishi. These guys are fighting history with their > moodmaking and play-acting spiritism. > > Run! > > Jai Guru Dev, > > -Doug in FF > > > > > > > > Think of it this way -- you suddenly find yourself > > dropped into a completely different city. You don't > > know anyone you meet, or what their intentions are. > > You don't even know WHERE you are, or where these > > beings you see come from. And then one of them walks > > up to you and starts talking to you and telling you > > things that you should do in your life to make it > > "better," or to make the lives of others "better." > > > > Would you believe them? Would you do what this abso- > > lute stranger tells you to do? > > > > If so, then channeling and having conversations with > > disembodied voices is for you. :-) > > > > It's the same thing. These are just voices that these > > people have encountered while cruising the astral > > planes. The voices may TELL these folks who are talking > > to them who or what they are, but is that who they > > really are. In Tibetan lore, many of them are shape- > > shifters, so they may even *appear* to look like > > or sound like someone you know. They may even LIE, > > because a lot of the disembodied beings are not happy > > campers, and live to fuck with those who still have > > bodies. > > > > So these traditions -- and Maharishi himself back in > > the early days of his teaching -- all said the same > > thing: DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEM. Don't > > believe anything they tell you, and certainly don't > > live your life based upon what they tell you. Because > > you DON'T know who or what you are dealing with. You > > know only what they appear to be, or what they have > > told you they are. > > > > 'Nuff said. > > >
