Well, from your verbal behavior I would have to say that you are a perfect reason not to do TM - of being in CC leads to the way you operate, no thanks to TM and CC.
________________________________ From: "doctordumb...@rocketmail.com" <doctordumb...@rocketmail.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 12:04 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi " Jimbo will keep claiming he's in CC" I missed this misinformation earlier. I used to claim to be in CC, which I was. Man, was that painful! Just as it grew from TC, CC also supports higher states of consciousness. It must, just like a dirt pile supports a mountain. Wake up, and catch up, please. I have been climbing for awhile, now, since my proclamation of CC. It is no fun trying to run in place with you. Recognize that static awareness is not in the interest of someone making progress spiritually. There is nothing to defend in looking backwards, or remaining steadfastly in place. You however, with your denial of your subjective reality, your own emotional awareness, what is sometimes called the shadow, or the subconscious, continue to be stuck. The bad stuff, and the good stuff, sadly, for you, is always outside of you. You hide from your subjective reality, as many seekers do, believing that if the world would simply change to their liking, they would be happy. You cherry pick the highlights of your outside life, while continuing to not recognize that these are not highlights. These are expressions of this creation, available 24/7. *Unless you think you know better*. In that case, the creation graciously allows your denial of the gifts that could be yours, and allows you the continued existence of a childish life. A childish life is hallmarked by the refusal to face one's shadow, living superstitiously as you do, with your senseless beliefs. I call them senseless, because they are not direct, they are not innocent. They are merely in place to hold YOU in place, to hold you down. A person living a childish life pays a great price for their web of beliefs in themselves. It is a self centered existence, which it has to be, having fear at its core. The lack of ability to see one's subjective self, one's emotions as they paint one's thoughts, the shadow, the subconscious, causes such a warping of life, that one lives crippled by that which they refuse to see within themselves. So you can say anything you like about me, though I really, really appreciate those who operate in the NOW, the present. Chasing down and dealing with your particularly moldly ideas is a drag. Thanks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > Anyone can claim he or she is enlightened. But can he or she fly? > > > > > > Nobody in the TM movement can fly. Is that really a criteria related to > > > enlightenment? Is that anything a normal, healthy human being should be > > > able to do? Does it have relevance to anything worthwhile or useful? Are > > > humans who could fly smarter, more compassionate, more beautiful to look > > > at? > > > > Basically, MMY said that anyone claiming to be in fully mature Unity > > Consciousness who was unable to perform any and all of the siddhis at will, > > was fooling themselves. > > > > My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and the TM-Sidhis > > program regularly every day and start to believe that you are in Unity, you > > can consult your own personal history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your > > own beliefs: if you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, > > you certainly haven't suddenly attained "full enlightenment." > > > > This is similar to the check for being in full-blown CC: you may have 24 > > hour/day witnessing, but unless your meditation period leads you into > > transcending for the entire period, every time, you can be certain that you > > are not fully in CC. > > Lawson, Lawson, Lawson...haven't you learned yet that > "Maharishisez" is only valid when it agrees with some- > thing that one of his supposed followers WANTS to believe? :-) > > Thus Robin will still keep claiming that he was in UC, > and Jimbo will keep claiming he's in CC, and others will > keep claiming whatever it is that their out-of-control > egos claim, regardless of what Maharishi said about it. > And gullibleniks like JohnR will keep claiming that MMY > could fly, even though neither he nor anyone else ever > saw it happen. > > Personally, I don't think that Maharishi's "definitions" > of ANYTHING are accurate, but it always amazes me that > those who claim *to* believe that they are can be so > willing to disregard them any time they want to claim > something else that makes *them* seem more self important. > > And it's all Maharishi's fault. After all, *HE* was the > one who taught them for decades that the ultimate "test" > of reality was one's subjective experience. As a result, > they'll write Maharishi off as "uninformed" as easily as > they'll write off objective reality. > > As for Ann's comment, the Fred Lenz - Rama guy *could* > levitate, full hanging-there-in-mid-air-in-the-same-way- > that-a-brick-doesn't stuff. Hundreds of people saw him > do it, often in public lectures full of non-students who > witnessed this. Does that make him enlightened? > > A lot of people did. I was never one of them, although > I certainly witnessed this myself. I always believed > what Maharishi *used* to say, back in the early days of > his teachings, that there was *no relationship whatsoever* > between the ability to perform siddhis and being enlight- > ened. Apples and oranges. The only thing that ever led > me to even suspect that Rama might have had some enlight- > enment of some kind going for him was what it was like > to meditate with him. As you stated above in your comment > about CC, that experience was just pure, thoughtless > silence. That was never my experience during the few > times Maharishi ever meditated with us; quite the > opposite, in fact. > > Good to see you're still hanging in there, Lawson, and > still making good sense from time to time. Also good to > see that you're avoiding the Standard Cult Response > that so many here rely on -- reacting to some criticism > of MMY or TM or the TMO that they cannot counter intel- > lectually or rationally by playing Demonize The Critic. > > Do they think that no one *notices* that they do this, > while never addressing the criticisms that pushed their > buttons? Go figure. :-) >