Hee, as if everyone if FF doesn't already know who these faux "saints" are. There are no secrets and there are no such thing as saints - when are you going to realize this?? The only saint in FF is the church at 300 E. Burlington "St Gabriel and All Angels". Sounds like a package deal to me - you get a major angel and a lot of minor ones in one visit.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson <mjackson74@> wrote: > > > > For those of us who live afar from Fairfield, can you tell us who the saint > > is that is visiting FF? > > > > > > Dear MJ; > MJ, It is way too dangerous yet to be too open on this list about things like > seeing saints. Even though it is clearly within Guru Dev's prescript for > spiritual development to seek the company of saints, the TM policy is still > decidedly anti-saint and sitting with saints could quickly dis-qualify you > around here with the movement. However the town meditating community of > Fairfield is bustling and vibrant with the spiritually illumined and also the > saintly who are capable. I know Alex's saint across from Farmer's market and > also this one visiting. Both have been interviewed by Rick at BATGAP. > However, "loose lips sink ships" and it is really important for the open > [FFL] list here to not "out" anyone un-necessarily. > > I'd appreciate it if you would call your spies off my tail today. It is a > large satsang there with this person and a lot of people could get in trouble > losing their jobs, housing and Dome badges for Being there. Today's > spiritual consideration is the role of virtue in the mind-body-subtle system > and the impact of bad behavior on the spiritual system of the subtle system > of the light-body and soul. It seems quite a relevant topic for Fairfield to > [meditate] on in satsang with a saint. I'll get back to you more on this. > And also more on the ad hominem threat to [FFL]. > Have a Wonder-full Day, > -Buck > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Buck > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 10:05 AM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Real Fairfield Life Post > > > > > > > > Â > > Dear MJ, we have more to resolve about the ad hominem homids trolling this > > list but I do appreciate that you are trying to help the community here by > > attempting to furnish more substantial spiritual content to the list by > > presenting these questions. They are substantial points and it will be > > especially interesting to watch how the next generation of teachers move > > around them. > > > > Actually there is a living saint in town today having a satsang this > > weekend on the immortality of the soul and virtue of character. > > [appropriate FF topic]. With all the dissonance around here the topic > > seems quite relevant to resolving in the meditating community. > > > > My advice of feeling to the current leadership of the TM.org is to just > > show they are "not that" and move forward in a transparent way doing good > > works. Keep with "we are not that, we are this..." and move forward. They > > got to do a much better job of leadership on this or that David Wants to > > Fly video that is so freely available on the internet every time you do a > > google search for TM will come up impugning the whole TM character. I got > > chores to finish and then go sit with a saint today. But I'll be back much > > later to talk some more about about this and also Ad hominemism on the FFL, > > we all have a lot more to worry over around the Ad hominem as terroristic > > abuse issue yet. > > > > Have a Nice Day, > > -Buck > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > How'z'come it is that we always ask, "Why did Maharishi have sex?" > > > instead of: "Why in the fuck are we such spiritual toads that he's all we > > > could muster up for a guru?" > > > > > > Edg -- Toad #3,589 > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson <mjackson74@> wrote: > > > > > > > > OK, in keeping with Buck's theory of FFL posts being in some way about > > > > FFL, I have an offering, based on the tenuous fact of past habitation > > > > in FF and at the mighty Maharishi U. > > > > > > > > I have a friend who is a dedicated TM meditator (sidha actually) whom I > > > > met at my local TM center here almost 40 years ago. We worked together > > > > on staff for the team of governors who taught the sidhis here in both > > > > North and South Carolina yea those many years ago. > > > > > > > > > > > > This friend is not only a devout TM meditator, but a devout Christian > > > > with strong Christian values. Over the course of these past few years > > > > he has been wrestling with the idea of Maharishi having allegedly had > > > > sex and lying about it to both cover and continue the behavior. > > > > > > > > > > > > For this friend, these allegations are sort of a lynchpin to his whole > > > > feeling about TM. He has been very surprised to talk with sidhas and > > > > especially governors who were around Maharishi and have become > > > > convinced he was sexually active, but don't seem to care, feeling that > > > > TM itself and whatever they personally experienced was more important > > > > than his being able to lie and sexually manipulate women. > > > > > > > > For myself, the sexual content of M's life is just symptomatic of a > > > > systemic problem - he wanted to have certain things (sex, money, to be > > > > looked on as the savior of the world) and to get those things he had to > > > > create a persona of a spiritual leader (easy to do since he had so much > > > > charisma) and lie to get what he wanted, with a desire to see people > > > > improve them selves and the world as a background. > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I believe that that background got forgotten about and > > > > pushed really into the background more and more as the years went by > > > > and his self aggrandizing hedonistic behavior took over more and more. > > > > > > > > > > > > My friend on the other hand still has the idea that Maharishi was > > > > enlightened, and that since the definition M gave of enlightenment in > > > > many places such as the commentary on the Bhagavad Gita is very > > > > specific as to the enlightened person upholding all the laws of nature > > > > for everyone, never does anything that is not life supporting for > > > > anyone etc, that it would have been impossible for Maharishi to sneak > > > > around doing things that were unethical and lie about it. > > > > > > > > So for him, the sexual allegations are paramount, if he decides that M > > > > was sexually active and lying about it, it calls into question the > > > > whole teaching because it means M was not enlightened and therefore > > > > could not have known by experience what enlightenment is. > > > > > > > > My question to everyone who cares to answer is how do you or did you > > > > deal with the idea of Maharishi having sex and lying about it? Do you > > > > think he did, and it doesn't matter or what? > > > > > > > > For me, I do believe it and it was just part of what became an > > > > increasingly deceptive lifestyle he led, and doesn't have the huge > > > > implications on the teaching of enlightenment that it does for my > > > > friend. I am of the opinion that one can have theoretical knowledge of > > > > the idea of and process of enlightenment and even teach about it, but > > > > not experience it oneself. > > > > > > > > > > > > So how did any of you process these allegations that Maharishi was > > > > sexually active? > > > > > > > > > >
