Coldblu, thanks for the recap (edits) of this. -Buck
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, coldbluiceman <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> To whom ever wrote this..
> Your answer is very simple..
> With regards to TM and anything Mahesh Yogi wrote or ever said about God was
> from his own perspective..
> Nothing Mahesh Yogi said was regarding God was remotely accurate!!
>
> Just look at Mahesh Yogi's teacher-- Sri Brahmananda -- whom referred to God
> as Ishtadevata.
> Or to use your own words- "Vaishnavas, and they believe in a qualified
> monism, visisht advaita.."
>
> Mahesh Yogi's own master - Sri Brahmananda was a Hindu/ Vaishnavav who taught
> Bhakti as qualified monism to Ishtadevata.
>
> Sri Brahmamnada gave out names of God/Ishtadevata or "mantras" to be "used in
> worship" as He himself even lectured countless times.
>
> Sri Brahmananda had 6 names of Ishtadevata that He used to teach to his
> disciples, and ONLY ONE of the names of God/Ishtadevata(or mantra) was used
> for worship of Nirakar Brahma (the formless form of God).
> The other five mantras related directly to Sakar Brahma- God in His personal
> Form-(either Ram or Vishnu or Shakti, etc). It is important to keep this in
> mind!
>
> If you don't believe me look at Paul Mason webpage devoted to Sri
> Brahmananda..it is all there from Sri Brhamananda's own lectures and
> interviews given by His disciples!!
>
> Which brings us to the - Holy Tradition -that Mahesh Yogi conjured up
> starting with Sri Adi Shankar..
> Who also taught and was (to use your own words) "Vaishnavas, and they
> believe in a qualified monism, visisht advaita.."
> Sri Adi Shankar defeated the Buddhists with the philosphy of advait vedanta.
> But Sri Adi Shankar did not teach advait vedanta.
> Sri Adi Shankar taught devotion to Sri Govinda (Lord Krishna).
>
> It is a fact .. As I can cite all of Sri Adi Shankar Ashrams from Puri to
> Dwarika to Jyosimath to Kanchi to Varanasi..all teach as you pointed out
> "Vaishnavas, and they believe in a qualified monism, visisht advaita"!
>
> So what are we left with regards to Mahesh Yogi?
> Now based upon MY OWN experiences to which I was asked to "PROVE" or
> "DEMONSTRATE" by- Dr. Charles Alexander, PhD at MIU in 1986..
> So I spent 7 nights over the course of 9 months in Dr. Moorecroft's sleep and
> dream lab at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa.
>
> The study that I was only PRIME subject tested was overseen by Dr. Jayne
> Gackenback, PhD University Northern Iowa at Waterloo, Ia and Dr. Stephen
> LaBerge, PhD Stanford University, and Dr. Charles Alexander, PhD MIU.
>
> Here at this website you can read the results of the study done on me as
> submitted to the International Symposium of Sleep and Dream Research in Oslo
> Norway in 1987...
> http://www.spiritwatch.ca/
> A portion of the study said this about me-,
> .."This TM subject (TMS) was a 28 year old male who had been meditating for
> 5.8 years and received one of the highest scores thus far recorded on an
> inventory designed to assess self reports of the attainment of higher states
> of consciousness (Stage of Consciousness Inventory (SCI); Alexander, Davis,
> Dillbeck, Dixon, Oetzel & Muehlman, in press). Further, he received low
> scores on the SCI scales which assess psychopathology and tendency to endorse
> misleading, grandiose sounding statements. During TM practice he displayed
> exceptionally high amplitude alpha spindles across all EEG channels and
> periods of respiratory suspension (Kesterson, 1985)..."
>
> What does this have to do with "Unity Consciousness" ..well I had proven
> beyond any doubt that I had established this "untiy consciousness" and
> furthermore I was the only person willing to subject themselves to the
> rigirous scrutiny of the entire scientific community to prove it.
>
> I can tell you this that the "unity consciousness" that these TM-ers dearly
> seek is a complete waste of time as it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with
> God/Ishatdevata.
> And even IF these TM-ers had this "unity consciounsess" they would not want
> it!
> It is cosmic nothingness.. devoid of God/Ishtadevata!
>
> Ask yourself..how can you be in "unity consciousness" with a stone? or an
> automobile? ..or a glass of water?
>
> These are lifeless objects..there isn't any underlying "Reality" that
> permeates these lifeless objects!
>
> To even persist in that debate is comptelety insane!
> Some burned out x-hippy's fascination with 40 year old acid trip!
>
> Even to a God-realized Saint like Sri Brahmananda the lifeless objects were
> just that..part and parcel of Maya..inantimate and lifeless..
> Sri Brahmananda did not lecture about "oness or unity" with the material
> universe or Maya!!, and neither did Sri Adi Shankar!!
>
> And even to this day in all of Sri Shankar's Ashram the teaching is unity of
> HEART with God/Ishtdevata through the path of Bhakti!!
>
> There isn't any teaching of Sri Adi Shankar regarding intellectual discerment
> and mental repeatition of a "meaningless sound" to achieve "unity
> consciouness" with a rock or automobile!!
>
> See if you can find that nonsense of Mahesh Yogi in any Ashram of Sri Adi
> Shankar!
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I must say, that until now, I was quite clueless of what is going on here
> > at FFL. I mean to say, I can of course read the threads, but I was puzzled
> > by the melodramas that seem to be going on here. I was especially puzzled
> > by one voice, which seemd to me full of contradictions, romanticising, and
> > endless self-reflections.
> >
> > I at first thought that this was all somehow related to Ravi, which I had
> > encountered before here, till somebody gave me hints, and I finally heard
> > the background story, as far as it can be told, and I was led to this post
> > here, to an old post of last june, I was abroad at the time, didn't lurk
> > here, was very busy. I find the following post, which was here discussed
> > quite intensely, and most of my thoughts about it, as much as I can
> > evaluate it at all, have already been covered here by other commenters,
> > especially Rory, Ravi, but also Barry.
> >
> > It's a fascinating post, somehow crazy, disturbing, and I surely don't have
> > a final answer,but I certainly do have opinions,and also ideas I feel
> > inspired to share.
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > What I reject about Unity Consciousness is its correspondence with
> > > reality. Reality being defined as what really is the case.
> > >
> >
> > Have you heard about Edmund Husserl, the founder of phenomenology?
> >
> > > Now what this means is that although a person can experience the
> > > objective and empirically undeniable state of Unity Consciousness, this
> > > does not mean that such a state of consciousness is true to life. That
> > > is, ontologically valid.
> >
> > How could anyone decide that? Also empirical reality IS reality.
> >
> > > Unity Consciousness does NOT mean one is the embodiment of reality.
> > > Reality obviously permits persons to have the experienceeven to function
> > > perfectly in the physiological and mechanical modeof Unity
> > > Consciousness. What reality does NOT endorse is the idea that Unity
> > > Consciousness is a truthful representation of either itself (reality:
> > > Unity Consciousness as a microcosm of what reality is)
> >
> > Reality is represented by what is real.
> >
> > > or of the highest state that a human being is capable of achieving
> > > spiritually.
> >
> >
> > Highest or lowest are relative terms, they cannot be the ultimate
> > definition of reality.
> >
> >
> > > Indeed, as I found out even more convincingly than how I discovered
> > > myself in Unity Consciousness, Unity Consciousness is a form of mystical
> > > deceit, a metaphysically false state of consciousness.
> >
> > There can be no metaphysical false state of consciousness. States of
> > consciousness are simply states of consciousness.
> >
> > > Remember: it is very real, it is an objective state of consciousness;
> > > but, for all that, NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH REALITY.
> >
> > That is a self-contradicting statement. Somehow you have defined 'Reality'
> > before the investigation. It is a statement by definition.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Being in Unity Consciousness meant, for me, being INCAPABLE of being
> > > bested in a one-on-one encounter with another human being. And by this, I
> > > mean that being enlightened meant one was grounded (evidently) in a state
> > > of consciousness which was deeper, more versatile, more creative, more
> > > attuned, more commandingwithout even the faintest effort to BE thisthan
> > > the consciousness of any person who was still in waking state
> > > consciousness.
> >
> > Others have alraedy pointed out, how problematic it is to define unity by a
> > comparision with others, especially by a superiority you felt to others.
> > The very first thing present in unity should be the very absense of an 'I'
> > consciousness, the idea, that it is you being better than others. In fact,
> > if you are truly enlightened, you would perceive everybody else as
> > enlightened as well, you would in fact see no differences. That is what
> > unity is supposed to be about. Otherwise it would be a one-upmanship. You
> > would see existence as the actor, not yourself, and it does not matter if
> > existence acts through you or somebody else.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > And yet I eventually arbitrarily decided that even though my
> > > enlightenment could not, as it were, 'go down to defeat'from ANY
> > > opposition, including MaharishiI knew that it HAD to be rejected and
> > > dismantled.
> > >
> >
> > Reality, existence does not depend on an act. It cannot be rejected or
> > dismantled, it is always there, but can be veiled or revealed.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Well, because essentially I had exposed myself intellectually to another
> > > paradigm of reality other than Maharishi's, other than the Eastern
> > > paradigm of spirituality.
> >
> > This is another BIG misunderstanding: In fact you are equating eastern, and
> > I'll be nice to you and only refer to indian as eastern, spirituality with
> > advaita vedanta, and again advaita vedanta with the consciousness model of
> > Maharishi. Both is false. Most of indian spirituality is not advaita, and
> > also, advaita is not represented by the consciousness model of Maharishi
> > (which is a simplification, as others have pointed out already). Therefore,
> > the conclusions of indian spirituality are not the same as advaita. For
> > example most indian Hindus are Vaishnavas, and they believe in a qualified
> > monism, visisht advaita, which does not agree that you can become one with
> > God. You can, according to them, absorb the qualities of God, and reflect
> > His glory, like a mirror (or glas of water) reflects the sun. Yet it does
> > not become the sun.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > The mere INTELLECTUAL BEAUTY AND INTELLIGENCE AND COMPLEXITY AND
> > > PROFUNDITY of this other paradigm made Maharishi's vision of reality, the
> > > Self, the universe seem shallow, naive, and infinitely less persuasive as
> > > a final reading of what reality was at bottom.
> >
> > So reality is a matter of a paradigm which one adopts?
> >
> > Rory expressed in one commentary something I have been thinking about as
> > well: There is a transition from unity to brahman, that Maharishi
> > describes. In traditional advaita, it is thought, that one can get final
> > enlightenment only by intellectually studying the advaita scriptures, not
> > solely by experience. Maharishi alludes to the fact,that in unity, after a
> > certain time, one has to get the affirmation by the teacher that, you are
> > that, the mahavakyas. There could come experiences, which make you doubt
> > the reality of unity, and then you need an additional push by the teacher.
> > So, it is not just a matter of experience, but also of intuitive knowledge.
> >
> > It is quite possible that here you went wrong IMO
> >
> > Anyway, also in indian spirituality, it remains a matter of choice, which
> > road you go, because in bhakti, you retain a sense of duality.
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > I must go further than this: I must realize that the pantheistic
> > > experience under psychedelic drugswhich first led me into TMwas false,
> > > and that my enlightenment in essence represented the apotheosis of the
> > > Beatles, the Sixties, Peace and Love, and the Wisdom of the East.
> >
> > Your equating indian spirituality, advaita vedanta, with psychedelics, is
> > certainly completely off the point. This was maybe the experience of one
> > generation, but for example i never took drugs before entering TM (and
> > having unity experiences myself)
> >
> >
> > > Now you must understand: TM and Maharishi provided the most beautiful and
> > > sublime EXPERIENCES I have ever had. And even powers and abilities that I
> > > never knew were possibleand were wondrous to display to others (all
> > > converging upon this notion of life as metaphysical theatrebut based
> > > upon the experience of of TM). I have never experienced anyone as
> > > remarkable, as powerful, as mesmerizing, as charming, as Maharishi Mahesh
> > > Yogi. I am convinced, seen from a certain angle (there's a Maharishi-ism
> > > for you), he wasin the early and middle seventies especiallyas striking
> > > a personality as I imagine Christ was. And certainly I thought I loved
> > > him with a love equal to the love any disciple had for Christ.
> >
> > For example I have no such feelings about Maharishi. You equate him with
> > Christ because you have been brought up Christian, if you had been brought
> > up Hindu, you would compare him to Krishna, or to Buddha if you were
> > Buddhist. In each century there live many great saints, just the ones who
> > are known, there are even many more who choose to remain unknown, and work
> > in silence, and behind public recognition. It is only extremely naive to
> > think that the teacher with whom one studied is the greatest since the
> > founder of the religion in which one was born.
> >
> > >
> > > So, you understand, then, that the philosophy of Aquinas (as one
> > > representative of a certain spiritual tradition) appeared to put a choice
> > > before me: either the Self, the Atman, the Absolute is the ultimate
> > > reality, and the perception of the oneness of one's self with creation
> > > the perfection of the human being, or else THERE CAN BE NO SUCH THING AS
> > > THE SELF, THE ATMAN, THE ABSOLUTE, because the final reality is a
> > > personal God who is wholly other than any being he has created.
> >
> > There is a series of tapes, in which Maharishi describes, how the fullness
> > of fullness is afraid of the emptiness. I am just describing from
> > recollection: The fullness of fullness is afraid of the 'other', even
> > though it contains everything, there is the possibility of the Zero.
> > Maharishi is certainly speaking in a metaphorical language here. It
> > ultimately comes to the point, that the fullness of fullness recognizes the
> > 'fullness of' emptiness, it's own negation as itself. This seems to be the
> > one step in Brahman,that unity integrates it's own opposite. Christians
> > often describe God as the 'Other', but if the other has no relation to
> > ourself, there would be no possibility to relate to it at all. But, as
> > Christians believe, that we can indeed relate to God, it means there is
> > some 'ground' on the basis of which a relation is possible.
> >
> >
> > > And every created human being does not, in and of himself, containas the
> > > person he or she isany sort of divinity whatsoever. What is divine in
> > > human beings is not their ultimate self; what is divine in human beings
> > > is the fact that they are the deliberate and conscious creation of a
> > > Person, and that therefore THE FACT OF THEIR EXISTENCE is something that
> > > is GIVEN to them, and it something other than what they, as persons, are.
> >
> > Being can never be GIVEN. Giving is in time, and therefore cannot
> > constitute the ultimate.
> >
> > > Furthermore, no human being is capable of merging with God, with reality.
> > > The separateness of each individual human soul is an absolute, and their
> > > contingent status as a created being [they have no necessary existence]
> > > incompatible with unifying themselves with the intelligence and beingness
> > > that is the cause of the whole of creationand their existence in the
> > > first place.
> >
> > Well, this is what Vaishnavas believe as well. And yet, there is something
> > like a participation in/with God, through his qualities, what else would
> > the point of religion otherwise at all? Then, with this participation, you
> > do in fact have an element of unity. In advaita, it is unity with the
> > essence, not with God as a person as well. And, because of the relative
> > body,there is avidya lesha, even in the advaita realization.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
>
