I saw Breaking Dawn 2 as well with my younger kid recently. Was this idea of guidelines for groups derived by masculine experiences and traditions related to a certain aspect of the movie?
________________________________ From: Share Long <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 7:28 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Euripides' The Bacchae I've never heard that carrying the soup analogy before. Thanks for passing it along Judy. And I'm gonna add a but. Because I do think that women are natural multitaskers. By which I mean I think our brains are hard wired from cave days to do several tasks at once. Carry the baby, stir the saber toothed tiger stew, watch out for predators while the menfolk are hunting more bison, etc. I think that a lot of spiritual groups are hampered by having guidelines derived mainly or only by MASCULINE spiritual experiences and traditions. We were talking about this in the car yesterday coming back from Breaking Dawn 2. Years ago Maharishi told a woman that she's in Unity. Later that woman attended a lecture by Andy Rymer, one of the guys in a TM Unity group that once existed. She told Andy that her experience of Unity was very different than what he was describing. Not sure that went over well. I also once heard a gov say that Maharishi explains that at a certain point, there is no inner and outer. ________________________________ From: awoelflebater <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 8:23 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Euripides' The Bacchae --- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchydog@...> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "seventhray1" <lurkernomore20002000@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> > > wrote: > > > > > I agree with Share here. "Living in the now" is not a > > > technique for spiritual growth; it's the result of > > > spiritual growth. The phrase is DEscriptive, not > > > PREscriptive. *Trying* to "live in the now" is a recipe > > > for utter cluelessness. > > > > > > Well maybe the key phrase is "trying". I don't know if it is something > > you "try" to do, it is just something you do. But maybe that > > distinction doesn't matter. > > > > But why exactly would "trying" to live in the now be a recipe for utter > > cluelessness? > > > > Maharishi described "trying to live in the now" as an attempt to carry a bowl > of soup while engaged in activity. It divides the mind between attempting to > maintain inward attention (try not to spill the soup) and outward attention > (going about your business). It's the same reason TMers meditate with eyes > closed, to withdraw the senses from external surroundings, tapas. According > to Maharishi dividing the mind between inward and outward attention weakens > the mind. A weak mind is a clueless mind. Just to add my three cents here: Trying to "live in the now" is one strange goal. What does that really mean and why in the world would one need to try and do that? Doesn't "now" mean in the present. We are all, from moment to moment, living in the present, it is a feature of something we can't help even if we tried. Our bodies are certainly "in the now" and whatever we experience is what we are experiencing at that moment, whether it is a memory, a hope, a dream or a fly that is crawling on our hand. So, quite literally, we are all in the "now" unless any of you happen to own a time machine. For me, I think I'll scratch that little goal of "living in the now" and move on to the next one of my list which is, um let's see here, oh yes here it is, vacuuming out my car. >
