BG, from memory, sorry for possible mistakes: (kRSNa:) jahi *shatruM*, mahaabaaho (Arjuna), *kaama-ruupaM* duraasadam!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Seraphita" <s3raphita@...> wrote: > > Yes, I'll pick up one of Muktananda's titles - been meaning to do so for > a while. > Re tantric reference: I always think of TM as being tantric, at least in > spirit. So many religious traditions take a dim view of desire (it's > always the ascetics and monks which get star billing) but tantra always > claims that desire can be a royal road to enlightenment. That can > include the whole sex 'n' drugs thing: wonder how many people get stuck > at that level? Maharishi's basic idea that the mind naturally gravitates > towards the source of bliss - his "feeding the monkey" image - would > have struck a chord with tantrics no? > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > > I would suggest looking up Muktananda online. You can find both sites > > pro and con. Back in the late 70s a number of TMers including > teachers > > read his "conversations" books because he answered questions that MMY > > wouldn't. > > > > There are a number of gurus accused of sexual impropriety including > > MMY. The problem of deciding to be a "holy man" and then later > deciding > > that was a mistake. Better to be a tantric which is mainly a > > householder path. > > > > I don't keep track of shaktipat groups. If you go through the FFL > > archives you'll find folks discussing other groups. > > > > People in the arts tend to have heightened spiritual experiences. The > > arts culture it. There was even news last week of a study that showed > > group singing was as good as practicing yoga. > > > > >
