This is pretty damned funny, 7th!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Mikey, talk to me here.  Something occurred to me while I was taking a
> shower.  You know, you may be a victim of, of, well, The Maharishi
> Effect.  I have noticed, that people who attempt to strike on their own
> and develop their own following, and more often than not, fail, come
> back as the harshest critics of "The Knowledege".
> 
> And obviously, you seem a somewhat ambitious fellow, and fresh from your
> stint as foot soldier at MUM you naturally want to aspire to greater
> things.  So you hang out your shingle as a channeller. You come up with
> an attractive persona, practice a suitable channel voice and voila'
> you're MJ the next new thing in channeling.
> 
> The problem of course, is if no one comes, or you get some dingy little
> group of three or four people.  Okay, not to be discouraged it's on....
> 
> to Act II.  You're gonna help the vets.  So, goodbye Mikey the channel,
> hello Mikey the do gooder.  So you assemble all your bonifides, put
> together some spiffy presentation, and what happens, the DLF was there
> right before you and all you get is an "don't call us, we'll call you"
> 
> I feel for ya Mikey.  We can get through this.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote:
> >
> > Regardless of a swan's ability to do anything, I know Marshy was a
> liar and a greedy opportunist. I also know that TM technique seems to
> have some good effects for some people, some great effects for some
> people, perhaps some fabulous effects for a few people.
> >
> > I also know that those positive effects are not unique as Marshy and
> Company said they were, and that other kinds of practices can have equal
> and or better effects, without the downside of TM - its addictive
> quality, the strange way TM'ers always feel fatigued in the afternoon if
> they don't do TM, and the unstressing effects. Like it or not you also
> have to, for the most part, go to an organization for TM that lies,
> promotes bullshit and abuses people (like the Dome no see other saints
> policy) and worse.
> >
> > I am also aware that some people are ok with knowing they are going to
> or sending their friends to a bunch of really strange people at best and
> a bunch of abusive liars at worst who have TM in their hands for giving
> instruction. I am not ok with supporting these yahoos, and I have no
> regard for those who do because they think they personally get something
> from the practice.
> >
> > The attitude is "Oh, I feel good when I do TM, so I am going to ignore
> what a bunch of lying, abusive bastards the people who teach it are."
> >
> > When you condone, even tacitly their behavior you are adding a great
> deal of negative energy in collective awareness in the world, made all
> the more egregious by the fact the negative energy is created under the
> deceitful guise of actually trying to be the saviors of the world. The
> arrogance of a group that claims to have a lock on Supreme Knowledge and
> everyone will come flocking to them to give them Supreme Life, and you
> can't see what you condone and support and what a unbelievable
> megalomaniac that bastard Maharishi was?
> >
> >
> > I watched this kind of attitude and lived it myself at MIU. We, the
> lowly peons who actually did the grunt work that kept the place in
> business put up with, turned a blind eye to, condoned, aided and abetted
> all the crappy behavior the administration committed because we wanted
> to be in the Domes, or get an advanced technique, or become a governor,
> or be a student. We were the little snakes that allowed the big snakes
> to eat up whatever they wanted. But, hey it was all for personal and
> global enlightenment, oh wait, they don't say that anymore, it was all
> for world peace and to inaugurate the Global Country of Gullible Goobers
> who enable the fat ass leeches who love high on other people's money.
> >
> >
> > That about sums it up, and may I say Seventh Ray, as an analyst, you
> would be better off going back to your real avocation of being an ass.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:29 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> > One analogy Maharishi used, that I always enjoyed was the swan who was
> able to separate the milk from the water in drawing nourishment from a
> plant. Â This analogy was used in explaining how the faculty of
> discrimination grows in separating the real from the unreal as one grows
> in higher consciousness.
> >
> > I mention it only in that MJ appears to have no ability to make any
> kind of discrimination between anything to to with TM or M's teaching .
> Â It is all a bunch of hooey in his opinion. Â
> >
> > Here's a link about whether or not a swan really can separate milk
> from water. Â Evidently the jury is still out. Â But I think the
> analogy still  holds.
> >
> >
> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_swan_able_to_separate_water_from_milk_and_d\
> rink_only_milk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, agreed. And in that spirit, I enjoy the things Maharishi raised
> awareness about - Not that I will EVER take seriously the warning about
> entrances, but, at the same time, I appreciate becoming more sensitive
> to the world around me, the cardinal points, what a yagya is, etc. I
> like to think about the many things he brought up, not necessarily
> adopting them as personal law, nor rejecting them automatically, as
> empty.
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" awoelflebater@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "You have a fight with the TMO. Thus everything you say is
> negative about
> > > > > TM. The reality is more complex than your "everything TM is
> wrong"
> > > > > agenda. It is quite boring to the folks here 'cause we have
> heard it all
> > > > > before by people able to present more articulate and thoughtful
> > > > > arguments than you present here."
> > > > >
> > > > > I have no fight with the TMO - I merely see things clearly where
> I didn't before, thanks in great degree to my participation here on FFL.
> And not only as many will assume from the posts of Barry, Curtis, Edg,
> and Sal, but even more from the posts of folks like you, Nabby, feste,
> dr d, and seventh ray. To see the degree to which these folks can
> believe in the nonsense promoted by Marshy and the TM Movement helped me
> to see the Light! Wheeeeee!
> > > > >
> > > > > It also made me realize the real problem with TM champions is
> they all have something wrong with their olfactory sense - they don't
> believe that shit stinks.
> > > > >
> > > > > I mean TM is supposed to make you stronger on every level, yet
> in practice it often leads to people becoming weaker and weaker. One of
> the things I love about not doing TM anymore is that I no longer get
> tired in the afternoon. During the years I did TM everyday, I ALWAYS got
> tired in the afternoon, especially if I was not able to do "program" in
> the afternoon. No TM, no afternoon fatigue.
> > > > >
> > > > > When I see people doing TM for years and believing they have to
> go through south facing entrances, have to have yagyas, can't go outside
> during a solar eclipse - I mean man! If TM leads one to be that
> gullible, no thanks.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, I think that people that fall for all of the hooplah -
> Vedic honey, south facing entrances, Rajas, allowing others to dictate
> their movements and activities - these people didn't become "gullible"
> because of TM they were already excellent candidates to fall for
> everything - hook, line and sinker. There are many people who NEED these
> things to believe in, to be told what is what, to have their lives
> structured by others or by a system.
> > > >
> > > > These are human beings who yearn for the security this kind of
> heavy structure brings to their lives. No real decisions need to be made
> about anything. The kind of house they should live in, what they should
> eat, who they should study, what they should be doing twice a day at
> exactly the same time - these are all laid out for them. Certain types
> of people seek this, they like it.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think that true independent thinkers would settle for such
> structure, but maybe I'm wrong. I know when, at MIU, I was faced with
> various degrees of this kind of hard structure I'd find myself drinking
> a few beers in town, most nights going to my boyfriend's pod for some
> great sex or refusing to stop my art halfway through class every day to
> have a 10 minute meditation break as dictated by the professor (I
> figured twice a day was enough). I was incorrigible. Probably always
> have been and most likely always will be.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: emptybill
> > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:06 PM
> > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÂÂ
> > > > > Sorry but you have only jumped to your own prepared conclusion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Shankara wrote refutations of yoga as a vedic ultimate but
> accepted it
> > > > > as a provisional practice to assist someone searching for
> ultimate
> > > > > knowledge/practice.
> > > > >
> > > > > You have a fight with the TMO. Thus everything you say is
> negative about
> > > > > TM. The reality is more complex than your "everything TM is
> wrong"
> > > > > agenda. It is quite boring to the folks here 'cause we have
> heard it all
> > > > > before by people able to present more articulate and thoughtful
> > > > > arguments than you present here.
> > > > >
> > > > > You appear to want to spin Shankara's commentary until he seems
> to dance
> > > > > with Michael J.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dance if you wish.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > you best read it all again
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: emptybill emptybill@
> > > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:30 PM
> > > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Â
> > > > > > Shankara did NOT say such a thing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In many places he discusses the benefits of yogic meditation.
> However,
> > > > > the benefits according to Shankara are "purification of the
> heart"
> > > > > rather than either "union with brahman" or "freedom from bondage
> to
> > > > > prakriti".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The purpose of the post was to examine the real but unstated
> > > > > differences between the "recognition/practice" found in Yoga and
> Vedanta
> > > > > rather than a polemic against TM.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >that means that meditation like what marshy taught was
> essentially a
> > > > > meaningless pursuit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: emptybill emptybill@
> > > > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:45 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] What Maharishi did NOT say ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > > > > Since the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya
> Vidyaranya), the
> > > > > Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until
> "Yogic"
> > > > > advaita has become the norm.ÃÆ'‚Â It
> manifested in the idea that
> > > > > "transcendence" or nirvikalpa-samaadhi was the experiential
> requirement
> > > > > for brahma-jÃÆ'Æ'±ana (knowledge of
> brahmÃÆ'Æ'¢tman).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This notion is directly adverse to Adi Shankara's written
> > > > > declarations about liberation:
> > > > > > > Upadesasahasri
> > > > > > > Shankara did not
> > > > > > > extol yogic nirvikalpa-samaadhi (non-conceptual absorption
> or
> > > > > transcendence).
> > > > > > > Rather, speaking from the understanding that the Self
> (Atman) is
> > > > > already
> > > > > > > nirvikalpa by nature, he firmly contrasts the true nature of
> the
> > > > > Self and the
> > > > > > > mind:
> > > > > > > As
> > > > > > > I have no restlessness (viksepa)
> > > > > > > I have hence no absorption (samadhi). Restlessness or
> absorption
> > > > > belong to the
> > > > > > > mind which is changeable.
> > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > > > > A similar view
> > > > > > > is expressed in 13.17:
> > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > > > > How
> > > > > > > can samadhi, non-samadhi or anything else which is to be
> done belong
> > > > > to me? For
> > > > > > > having meditated and known me, they realize that they have
> completed
> > > > > [all] that
> > > > > > > needed to be done.
> > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > > > > and 14.35:
> > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > have never seen "non-samadhi", nor anything else [needing]
> to be
> > > > > purified, belonging
> > > > > > > to me who am changeless, the pure Brahman, free from evil.
> > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚Â In 15.14 Sankara presents a
> critique of
> > > > > > > meditation as an essentially dualistically structured
> activity:
> > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > > > > One
> > > > > > > [comes] to consist of that upon which one fixes one's mind,
> if one
> > > > > is different
> > > > > > > from [it]. But, there is no action in the Self through which
> to
> > > > > become the
> > > > > > > Self. [It] does not depend upon [anything else] for being
> the Self,
> > > > > since if
> > > > > > > [it] depended upon [anything else], it would not be the
> Self.
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > > > > Furthermore,
> > > > > > > in 16.39-40, Sankara implicitly criticizes the Sankhya-Yoga
> view
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > liberation is dissociation from the association of purusa
> and
> > > > > prakrti, when he
> > > > > > > says:
> > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > is not at all reasonable that liberation is either a
> connection
> > > > > [with Brahman]
> > > > > > > or a dissociation [from prakrti]. For an association is
> non-eternal
> > > > > and the
> > > > > > > same is true for dissociation also. One's own nature is
> never lost.
> > > > > > > As is
> > > > > > > evident in his writings, Sankara implicitly rejects both the
> > > > > emancipation of
> > > > > > > yoga, namely, that liberation has to be accomplished through
> the
> > > > > real
> > > > > > > dissociation of the purusa from prakrti, and the yogic
> pursuit
> > > > > towards that
> > > > > > > end, - ÃÆ'‚Â that is, the achievement of
> > > > > > > nirvikalpa or asamprajata-samadhi (transcendence).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Read it and weep.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


Reply via email to