Thanks for explaining, Fleetwood. This makes sense to me.
On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 7:58 PM, "fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: I am not trying to equivocate the two. Yes, they are different, but the mechanism for sensing each, is the same. The mechanics are the same, in either case, although the celestial I engage naturally, vs. the astral, which happened along, as a side interest. Both worlds if you will, can be accessed equally - all possibilities. However, by my many years of TM and the Siddhis, when this field began to open up, I was naturally drawn to the celestial, vs. the astral - though both are tuned in by the same process, discrimination, at the finest level of the senses. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote : Fleetwood, 2 different spiritual teachers for whom I have a lot of respect both differentiate between the astral and celestial realms. AND this is how the two realms feel to me. I experience them as different from each other. On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 4:00 PM, "fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Sure, but WHY do you disagree? That's where the meaty stuff is...:-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote : Fleetwood, you initially said that the astral and the celestial are the same thing. I don't agree with that. Nor do I agree that they are the "same vibrational spectrum." On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:58 AM, "fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: How is what you say, any different, from what I said? The astral and celestial are in the same realm, same vibrational spectrum, like our earthly light covers a spectrum of different colors, though different neighborhoods. Yes, the beings in the celestial neighborhoods are always the good guys. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote : Fleetwood, I have a different understanding and experience wrt this. What I've heard is that in the celestial realm the beings are benevolent towards humanity; in the astral realm, some are and some are not. e On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:36 AM, "fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Just to clarify, Share, the celestial and astral are the same thing - It depends on the consciousness, where a person naturally ends up (later, you go anywhere you want to)- Satvic equals Celestial, and the rest is what people call the astral. It is simply a layer of life, like ours, where vibrational frequencies are higher, and always evident, like the television broadcasts passing through the atmosphere. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fleetwood_macncheese@...> wrote : Clarity is the key - Since our vision doesn't operate the same way in the astral, we need a lot of light, to go there. The way Maharishi taught the Siddhis, with TM practice preceding the sutras, gives us the protection, to over time, explore any place we desire to go. Separating out the imagination, "traveling" outside the common boundaries of time and space, and dealing with tricksters, are two things to be aware of, should the astral prove appealing. Knowledge, and power, *always* come with an equal share of responsibility. Enjoy your travels! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote : Steve, my memory is not the best but I thought he once said that he stopped doing that. I've heard several spiritual organizations warn about channeling. Evidently it opens one up to the astral realm wherein there is no guarantee wrt the benevolence of the inhabitants. On Monday, September 29, 2014 9:34 PM, "steve.sundur@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: He is a "Channel", Share. The funny part, is that he thinks he's moved on from it. Sort of a blind spot I'd say. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote : Michael, you haven't even been in Fairfield in what, twenty years! Much less been around any TMO leaders. In such a situation, I think it's wrong to attribute such negative motivations to people. On Monday, September 29, 2014 10:55 AM, "Michael Jackson mjackson74@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Despite the way the TMO is portrayed here, and even my own experiences within it, there remains a functioning organization, in all of that, whose purpose it is, to propagate TM. Agreed - yet the TMO propagate TM to keeps its leaders in gold crowns and Mercedes. In short, they do it for money and ego, they like being the rajas they claim to be. ________________________________ From: "fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry email to John sent on Sunday Hi Ann, Your exchange with Dan is interesting - Perhaps the hierarchy thing is easier to understand, from business experience, where communications have more, or less, restrictions, placed on them, intentionally. Despite the way the TMO is portrayed here, and even my own experiences within it, there remains a functioning organization, in all of that, whose purpose it is, to propagate TM. No doubt there is a lot of executive communication that occurs privately, and necessarily so. Complete transparency would not work, any more than it would for General Motors. I am not advocating complete secrecy, either, but a middle ground is there, somewhere. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mjackson74@...> wrote : whose privacy is being invaded? Given the nature and tone of the letter I certainly can't see why it would have to be confidential in any way. I thought he stated his reasons for finding George's "conversation" with MMY suspect and perhaps superfluous and it all came across as simply his viewpoint on the thing. Why Hagelin would feel he needs to keep this letter private and exclusive smacks of the hierarchical BS that seems to abound in the Movement - something I can't abide. Hagelin's letter was fine, there were no trade secrets, no mysteries revealed, nothing shocking to report. I respect his views given his experience of having been around MMY and I don't think his letter was unreasonable or extreme in any way. I don't think it needs to be private because it simply gives the reader a clear idea of where Hagelin stands on this subject (no surprises there). Dear Ann, If a person wishes to keep their private letters private. That is their right. It is not up to someone else to decide whether the content deserves privacy. Do you see that? Dan Here is what I see, Dan. The letter was addressed to Governors (of the Age of Enlightenment?).This would make this a relatively public letter. Dear Ann, are you a Governor of the Age of Enlightenment? Is everyone on this forum a Governor of the Age of Enlightenment. Is everybody a Governor of the Age of Enlightenment?This is not a letter from John Hagelin to another single person. It is a letter to a specific and well designated group of people. And not you. This is a leaked letter to a large group of people who, for some reason, have been singled out as worthy recipients of this correspondence. Depending on ffl to identify who is deemed worthy is absurd. At best. I think you'll be getting closer to Turq, now. Now, why would Hagelin think this is only relevant to Governors and not to all those who have questions and an interest in this George guy's message purportedly from MMY after death? Ask John Hagelin directly, you seem to feel that you are in his inner circle and need to be privy to his every thought. Which you are not. Should I repeat that again, Ann? To my mind it is because this is how the Movement appears, in this case, to be set up as some hierarchy. I say it is unnecessary BS. Hagelin's message to all of the Governors on the planet Is your implication that YOU ANN should be included in all Governor business? How was that TTC? Maharishi give you personal guidance that would change your life? Or not so?is hardly a private message. What don't you understand about a letter that is marked private?I don't like hierarchies for the sake of hierarchies. There has to be a good reason for this kind of secrecy and need for exclusivity and as far as I can tell Hagelin's letter doesn't qualify. But maybe you have some insight I am not privy to. ALMOST AN INFINITE AMOUNT. That I had wanted to share. Good luck with this future endeavor. It is bringing out something in you. And you as well. But I'm not angry as a result of your opinion on the matter. I am nothing if not stubborn, especially if the other person has failed to convince me that I am in error. But one question: why do you think Hagelin would only want Governors to read this letter? Because he sent it to only them. Ann, you have convinced yourself. That is a problem. Your friend, dan
