Thanks Rick,

Somehow I missed that you interviewed yourself.  Got links?

Do the links show us how you'd define "mind, consciousness and awareness?"

Any yeah, if Hegelin gave a first lecture to a newbie audience, of course, the 
concepts themselves would do great stuff to the common mind.  Of course, 
Hegelin has done some good....if only to model his being a true-believer in his 
community of physicists.  

But I'm so tired of everyone using the same nomenclature and not having any 
logical consistency in their use and then NOT SEEING THIS in the usage of 
others and getting all huffy about stuff when no one is actually talking to 
anyone with the same definitions.

Maharishi said that even abandoned churches did spiritual good by reminding 
folks that "once there was such certainty about God that this edifice was 
constructed."  Like that, I can see Hegelin's place in the order of things, and 
I think it's wonderful for you to cut him that kind of break.

The thing is, Hegelin's part of the money.  If the movement were not paying him 
THE MONEY, (What?....maybe $100,000/year?) he'd not be prancing around for 
free.  He MUST know about the actuality of the money, Girish, the deaths, the 
fraud, etc.  For him to spout sacred truths in a fuzzy manner and take no 
questions and then expect others to honor him for his great acumen gets me 
saying BAH!

Same goes for Bevan.


--- In, "Rick Archer" <rick@...> wrote:
> From: [] On 
> Behalf Of Duveyoung
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:33 AM
> To:
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: BatGap Panel Discussion â€â€Å" John 
> Hagelin, Ph.D., Igor Kufayev, and Mark McCooey. Moderated by Rick Archer
> Rick,
> Of course Hegelin won't come off as holier-than-thou, cuz, natch, he's 
> practiced in the art of civil conversation. And he's smart and accomplished 
> in the real world, so it wouldn't be like him to have low self esteem such 
> that he'd need to put on airs in order to shore up some public image. 
> But note Hegelin's immoral sex life. There's his actual superiority complex 
> running close to red-line. That is: other people's ideas about marital 
> fidelity are to be trod upon without any civility. 
> That can't be ignored. He's a sex addict who harms others without 
> compunction, and probably that personality-dynamic hasn't been dented in the 
> least by TM practice any more than, say, homosexuality would be impacted. 
> Somethings are inborn that TM would label immoral or not evolutionary, etc. 
> Harming others so arbitrarily simply CANNOT be dharmic unless the others are 
> purely demonic and one has the ken of Krishna. Unless he openly confessed 
> about such things and vowed to never indulge again, and offer reasons why we 
> should believe him against all evidence, he can't be enlightened, and so he 
> shouldn't be on ANY panel. 
> Are any of us qualified to cast the first stone? I’ve griped here about 
> John’s alleged sexual misbehavior, but maybe he’s matured and moved 
> beyond that. He is married now. A public apology would be impressive, but 
> don’t hold your breath.
> And of course, his words would be well received, cuz, WHO HAS TAKEN THE TIME 
> I spouted TM jargon and wisdom for 29 years and I had never really thought 
> anywhere nearly as deeply about things as I would have vociferously asserted 
> if I'd been challenged. It took me three years of daily study of Advaita to 
> finally get what I was missing -- it was my definitions and how I was using 
> them. They weren't axiomatically in harmony with each other. And it took a 
> lot to correct that.
> I think Hegelin, and most FFL posters have NOT got the clarity to 
> authentically use most of the words they use. Inconsistency is the norm. I 
> saw it in Maharishi's Gita too. 
> And Rick, you've hung around so many of these folks, isn't it about time that 
> you interviewed yourself for all of us? 
> I would love to hear, and I would STUDY what you say about "mind, 
> consciousness, awareness" such that they are delineated as very different 
> concepts. 
> I’ve been interviewed twice on BatGap, for what it’s worth.
> Regarding Hagelin, MMY, Sai Baba, and whoever, my attitude is that if 
> you’re a human being, you’re flawed. Everyone’s making some 
> contribution, and probably making harmful mistakes along the way, but you 
> have to take the person on the whole, and most spiritual teachers do more 
> good than harm. We’re all holding up our sticks.
> Edg
> --- In <> 
> , "Rick Archer" <rick@ <mailto:rick@> > wrote:
> >
> > From: 
> > <>  
> > [ 
> > <> ] On Behalf Of Duveyoung
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:49 AM
> > To: <> 
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: BatGap Panel Discussion â€â€Å" 
> > John Hagelin, Ph.D., Igor Kufayev, and Mark McCooey. Moderated by Rick 
> > Archer
> > 
> > 
> > Maharishi never authenticated other techniques as "guaranteed to be worthy" 
> > -- TM being the only technique with 5,000 years backing it up; whereas the 
> > others might be 
> > impure-so-be-careful-of-these-seemingly-maybe-sorta-okay-other-techniques, 
> > and that one had to be careful to have this long tradition or the effort to 
> > spread the technique would not be supported by nature -- yada yada.
> > 
> > We were COMMANDED by Jerry Jarvis to not attend lectures of other 
> > teachings, because, "The lecturer will warmly greet the TM initiator's 
> > being in the audience and thus the audience will ask itself 'Why is that TM 
> > teacher there except for him having doubts about TM?'" 
> > 
> > Are you ignoring that dome badges are lost by anyone BUT Hegelin who would 
> > be on one of Rick's panels? L.B. got banned, right? 
> > 
> > Hegelin -- why was he there except that the movement is reaching out in 
> > desperation? 
> > I think he agreed to participate because I was his initiator, so he has a 
> > soft spot in his heart for me. I don’t sense any desperation in 
> > John. Such conferences are small in the big scheme of things, but rather 
> > significant in the contemporary spiritual scene. Hagelin’s talks at 
> > that conference are very well received. He’s very diplomatic. He 
> > doesn’t mention TM and MMY, but people all know he represents them. 
> > They’re on some of his slides. He’s respectful of other 
> > teachers with whom he participates in panel discussions. He doesn’t 
> > come across as holier-than-thou.
> >

Reply via email to