---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :

 Salyavin, one of my very favorite bits from Geo Hammond was when he said that 
the bottom line is teaching people how to turn within, that TM is a subset of 
turning within. 

 

 I learned this one mindfulness technique that seems so innocuous that anyone 
who'd been steeped in TM lore would dismiss it as rubbish and say that it 
couldn't possibly lead to anything, unlike TM because that involves magic 
mantras and puja and evading the conscious mind blah, blah. But I did it when I 
was standing up on a train simply because there was a crap view out of the 
window and it blew my mind in no small way, like there was a waterfall of sweet 
light streaming through me.
 

 I know it all sounds hideously cheesy but the thing is, I realised how it was 
working while it was happening and it was so simple I hadn't even thought it 
might compare to TM in that way, makes the effortlessness of TM seem like 
playing chess. I started laughing at my discovery that I got from a library 
book.
 

 There was a point to this post that was relevant to your comment but I got 
carried away with the memory.... Turning within! Yes, he's right but there are 
so many ways of doing it that I wonder if anyone knows them all. Or even how 
effective they are for different people, or if some should be avoided by 
different people. So I'm not sure I'd recommend my approach to a newbie TMer 
because it's hard to explain. It's the sort of thing you have to find your own 
way through.
 

 So the bottom line for me is not being too dogmatic about it whichever type 
you do, but don't create confusion in the minds of the unenlightened.
 

 Damn, I'm rambling and there's something good on TV.
 

 From: salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 1:04 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Live Stream | 30th November
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mjackson74@...> wrote :

 So you switch around and do whatever you feel in the moment, you don't just do 
TM twice a day like a good TM lad?
 

 Sometimes I do go recklessly of the programme yes. But certain situations 
require particular solutions. For instance, I was down the beach for the 
sunrise on saturday and after I'd got my photo I thought I'd have a meddy on a 
bench before doing some Crimbo shopping. I tried TM but was a bit tired and it 
didn't settle at all, so I did this mindful technique I picked up and had what 
I can only describe as a vision of my eternal soul.
 

 At least that's what others would call it, I go along with that as it sounds 
cool. The point is, if I'd stuck with 20 mins of TM I wouldn't have enjoyed it 
as I'm well aware of how it goes if you just aren't in the mood. The TMO 
describe it as "unstressing" that you have to go through but give me a wild and 
peaceful trip instead of uncomfortableness that can be avoided. 
 

 There's more than one way to cook a goose!
 

 
 

 From: salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 12:13 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Live Stream | 30th November
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :

 Salyavin, huh?! You had written to MJ that you continue doing TM because it's 
better than not doing it. So I was simply asking what happened when you didn't 
do it.

 

 Oh right, every question is a chance to give the answer I've already prepared 
;-)
 

 What happens is, the feeling of TM-ness wears off. If you miss it it's telling 
you to start again. If not then maybe it's time to do something else.
 

 I know about 3 effective techniques - and am learning another off a friend 
soon - what you need is the self instinct tto know when a particular type will 
have most benefit depending on how you feel at the time.
 

 Onwards and upwards.
 

 From: salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 8:27 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Live Stream | 30th November
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :

 Salyavin, from your comments I wonder if you've ever NOT done your TM. What 
happened?

 

 What happened is what happens. Minus the belief stage. Without that, what is 
it really? More, less or identical? There's only one way to find out.
 

 From: salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 1:51 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Live Stream | 30th November
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mjackson74@...> wrote :

 "but that doesn't mean he didn't do a lot in teaching meditation and 
popularising spiritual seeking" 

 

 This is something that even M's critics sometimes say, and I disagree. He 
wasn't the only huckster from India trying to make a living hawking his 
country's esoteric blabber as ultimate knowledge. What he did that made him 
seem to eclipse the others was he got lucky. The Beatles fell for his Anton 
Mesmer routine and he got tremendous amounts of attention from the news media 
due to them. And we see that they were done with him in less than a year. 

 

 True but he did popularise meditation. I sure wouldn't be doing it if it 
wasn't for him!
 

 I'm just being charitable as like TM, I'm as aware as anyone here how the TMO 
turned out. I've seen the madness myself. Sat in the same room as it but I 
worked out what was going on and it never got it's claws into me. Not like it 
has poor old George Hammond.
 

 TM still works I just don't think it's doing what was promised. While it's 
better than not doing it I shall continue.
 

 Were it not for the Beatles, he would have been another long haired Indian 
vying for the attention of the gullible masses. He deserves no credit for 
"popularizing" meditation since he did it for total self serving purposes, 
which is I believe in direct contravention to any number of Hindu and Vedic 
admonishments to the contrary. 

 

 Gullible masses or genuine seekers? Or does that end up as the same thing? I 
think there is a need or desire in everyone to go beyond what they are and 
experience something profound. We seem wired that way, I sure am I'm just 
re-evaluating what the experience means. 
 

 And what did his teaching produce? Such men as George Hammond who are willing 
to stand in front of an audience and make a big ol' donkey of themselves 
spouting things that are obvious hallucinations and made up bullshit. Come on.
 

 LOL, you've got me there. Marshy would have seen what was happening with his 
devotees and didn't stop it. Encouraged it too. Introducing John Hagelin as the 
man who finished Einteins work is a case in point. Without the idea that he was 
some sort of superman a lot of the TMO wouldn't have happened. It's easier to 
get people working hard growing the movement when they think it's divinely 
inspired. But at least we now know that Jehovah and Jesus approved. Phew!

 From: salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 4:05 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Live Stream | 30th November
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mjackson74@...> wrote :

 I am going back and looking at this from the beginning - what a bunch of crap. 
I think this guy is using the "I talked to Marshy" deal as a platform to 
attract an audience to get 'em to listen to his off the wall beliefs.  Just 
another (sincere) huckster following in Marshy's footsteps who was himself as 
one of the most successful hucksters in the 20th century.

 
 

 

What if it was true and all these Gods did exist and had meetings together, 
would they actually accept Maharishi as one of their great representatives 
among mankind? To answer yes is to elevate him to the same historical standing 
as the others. I'm pretty sure that isn't going to happen worldwide, but that 
doesn't mean he didn't do a lot in teaching meditation and popularising 
spiritual seeking - at least at first . My worry is all the obvious profit 
making through selling of prayers and bullshit cult philosophy that the TMO 
does, I can't see Jehovah getting off on that. Or maybe he'd be pissed off that 
he didn't think of it first?
 

 It is nice that the gods all get along with each other though. There's an old 
atheist saw that says "You only believe in one of the thousands of gods, I just 
believe in one less than you" Now we know that we can believe in all of them! 
The idea that they are all faces of the same thing must be wrong, and I always 
thought that was a good idea of Marshy's - very inclusive -  I see that Hammond 
forgot that part of his teaching. Surprised he wasn't reminded by the man 
himself!
 

 But I can't help thinking they'd all be more at odds with each other.The 
eastern and western religions really were different, the old testament god was 
a total wanker, vindictive and merciless. And the eastern ones were all 
fundamentalist, caste based anti-feminist fatalists. When did it all change, 
how come they are like a big new age happy family? They'd be smiting each other 
as badly as they used to do us. I'm starting to smell a rat....
 

 If only he'd given the Scientologists a message from Xenu. Then we'd know he 
was in touch with the Great Ones and not just stringing us a line from a 
daydream he had.
 

 

 From: salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 3:19 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Live Stream | 30th November
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <noozguru@...> wrote :

 


 Everyone is "merged" with the absolute, the process of enlightenment is 
realizing it.  The absolute is all that is and  everything else is just an 
illusion. 
 This is where I go wrong. I'm utterly convinced it's the other way round!
 
 
 
 


 













 













 













 













 













 


 









Reply via email to