You might give it a try - you might first pull the TM wool from over your eyes, then cease the mantra practice - as to what type of personality you would develop post TM, who knows? Probably not like mine cuz you weren't raised on biscuits and gravy - that makes a difference you know.
________________________________ From: "doctordumb...@rocketmail.com" <doctordumb...@rocketmail.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 1:50 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi Yeah. That's what Barry says too. I did not realize I was powerful enough to influence your worldviews. I am glad that I am. Yes, please do not do any TM on my account. In fact, I expressly FORBID you and Barry from doing TM, ever again. Do you think if I stopped TM today, my personality would begin to morph more like yours and Barry's? One can only hope. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > 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: "doctordumbass@..." > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 12:04 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi > > > Â > " 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. :-) > > >
