He has played this card so many times I lost count. But, one thing is for sure
- he can't prove that Rama levitated slowly up off of a sofa at the downtown
L.A. Denny's. The reason he can't prove it is because they don't even have
sofas at the L.A. Denny's. Not to mention that hippies don't even earn enough
money to eat at Denny's, according to Mark Laxer.
"In practice, members give Lenz almost all their money, according to published
reports and ex-followers. They squeeze into shared, unfurnished apartments
while he flies in a Lear jet between houses in Long Island, Santa Fe, and Los
Angeles." - Mark Laxer
'Take Me for a Ride: Coming of Age in a Destructive Cult'
by Mark E. Laxer
Outer Rim Press, 1993.
"I've seen someone levitate. Many times. In many settings, from the Los Angeles
Convention Center to the Anza-Borrego Desert to a Denny's restaurant in the wee
hours of the night." - TurquoiseB
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote :
Okay, this is the only card that Barry ever plays. "Prove It"
I don't see anyone arguing that "it" can be proved.
But, look at it from the opposing angle.
I mean look at what Barry's belief system has produced for him.
A negative, cynical, and apparently lonely person, who spends an inordinate
amount of time in cafes, or pubs, or watching television.
So, is the result of someone who is passionate only about this one cause, and
basically engages with those like minded about this single cause?
Food for thought?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote :
From: feste37 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
I'm not sure what you mean by "normal TM elitist." When I said that the
astrologer Howard Sasportas also happened to be a TM teacher, I certainly did
not mean that that automatically made him better than others. It was just a
piece of information about him, that's all. Sometimes you read things that
aren't there.
I don't think so. I wasn't referring to Sasportas as all, and in fact neither
his name nor any reference you made to him registered to me at all...I've never
heard of the guy. I was referring to a *recurring* sense of elitism that I have
perceived in you and in *most* long-term TMers, exemplified in statements like
"I'm sorry for these scientific types whose minds are so closed. I wonder
whether any of them have ever had their natal chart done by a competent
astrologer. I would doubt it." That's elitism. You *look down* on those who
don't agree with you. Another aspect of elitism, to an even greater degree, is,
"I have studied it, you have not," which as Salyavin pointed out wasn't even
said by Issac Newton about astrology. You say this a different way in your last
statement below.
For the record, I *have no problem* with your statements about having learned
much about yourself from astrology. That's your concern. Mine is just that as a
means of prediction, it's utterly and completely useless. Its predictive value
has never and will never be proven in any kind of scientific context in which
the astrologers are blinded from meeting their clients (and thus "cold-reading"
them) and prevented from making generalized "predictions" that would apply to
anyone. Another aspect of what I call "TM elitism" is that long-term TMers tend
to believe pretty much *what they were told to believe* by Maharishi, and seem
incapable of challenging or questioning it.
We will have to agree to differ about astrology.
That's fine with me.
There's far more to it than intuition.
I don't think so.
As I explained to Sal, the readings I had were not "vague generalities." They
were precise and accurate, and they very much related to me as a specific
individual. You must have either seen some bad astrologers or have been so
lacking in self-insight that you didn't recognize yourself in what they told
you.
Either that, or you are like all of those college students in the famous
experiment who were all given the exact same horoscope to read and told that it
was done for them personally. When the real nature of the experiment was
revealed to them, over half refused to believe that it was true. Even when they
compared the "readings" they'd been given line for line and found them
identical, a few refused to believe it and thought that someone had switched
them to play a trick on them. I think that it's more likely that you bought
into generalities and at this point you don't want to even admit the
possibility that they weren't generalities. But I have no interest in arguing
with you...believe what you want.
By the way, that "lacking in self-insight" was another elitist slam. One might
suggest that YOU are so lacking in self-insight that you don't even realize
when you're being an elitist.
I remember hearing that MMY said that the only purpose of astrology was to
predict the future.
I have heard the same thing...that he said that. That is what I dispute. I
don't think astrology is of *any use whatsoever* to predict the future.
I don't think he cared at all about developing an understanding of the
"relative" self, since he promoted transcendence of it. But I have to disagree
with him over that. To me, predicting the future has been the least important
aspect of astrology.
That's fair, and I have no issue with you feeling that way.
As far as what science says about astrology, I couldn't care less. If science
says astrology is rubbish, that it cannot be true, etc. etc., that directly
contradicts my own experience, repeated many times over half a lifetime. So I
go with my own experience. I would be a fool not to.
No, you would be a True Believer, ready to prefer your own subjective
experience no matter what, and never even consider the possibility that it
could have been mistaken -- even if science shows that it could very well be. I
can understand that, but I cannot respect it.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote :
On the contrary, I will step up to the plate and give Feste a detailed (and
long) answer from my POV, largely because I think he was trying *not* to be
mean...just a normal TM elitist. ("We can't help it if these skeptics don't
know as much as we do.") :-)
From: "Michael Jackson mjackson74@... [FairfieldLife]"
<FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
I'll step aside and wait for Sal to answer this one - anything I say would
just sound mean.
From: feste37 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
In my experience over the past 35 years, and I have said so on this board
more than once, astrology is the best tool for self-understanding that there
is—at least, the best I have found.
Feste will probably be surprised to learn that I agree with him -- that
astrology, used correctly, can be a tool for self-analysis and
self-understanding. But so can tarot cards. So can "reading tea leaves." So can
divining the future by examining the recently-removed entrails of an animal.
*In my opinion*, in ALL of these cases it is possible for a person to gain
valuable glimpses into the lives of themselves or others via any of these
"divining tools."
BUT, I would also say that IMO the "tools" have nothing whatsoever to do with
what they "see" or what they "learn" except by acting as a trigger to set off
their own intuition. The astrology charts don't do diddleysquat, and contain no
useful information. The tea leaves likewise don't do diddley, and as for the
entrails, well, they're just a big steaming pile of internal organs. How all of
these things "work" IMO is that they *trick* the practitioner into accessing
their own intuition.
Think of it in terms of Disney's "Dumbo." Dumbo the elephant had huge ears,
and after his friend gave him a magic feather to hold in his trunk, he could
fly using them. But, after enjoying flying a lot, his friend finally told him
that it was a normal old turkey feather, and that the only reason he could fly
while holding it and couldn't fly before was that he *believed* he could if he
was holding on to the "magic" feather. Well, that is how I think astrology,
tarot, reading tea leaves, and reading the steaming entrails of lemurs "works."
They are psychic tricks that the practitioners of these "arts" play on
themselves to trigger their own latent intuition and kickstart it into working.
You may be surprised that I believe in intuition, but you shouldn't be. I have
had sufficient experience with it -- both my own and the experiences of others
-- to realize that there is *something* called intuition, and that it can work
to "see" things that others cannot. It's not reliable, but IMO it exists. But
to come back to this discussion, IMO the only thing that an astrology chart
does is serve as Dumbo's feather. The charts contain NO useful information
because the whole *premise* of astrology is bullshit.
I'm sorry for these scientific types whose minds are so closed. I wonder
whether any of them have ever had their natal chart done by a competent
astrologer. I would doubt it.
Well, as Salyavin has said in the past (which you would know if you cared
enough to read what he actually says instead of projecting your own assumptions
onto his posts), you'd be wrong in his case. You'd be wrong in mine, too. I
have had both Western and Jyotish charts done for me, by several (six in total,
if I remember correctly) astrologers, about half of whom did it for a living.
In retrospect, while I might have been impressed at the time, NOT A SINGLE
THING they predicted ever came to pass. Their assessments of "who I am" were no
more accurate than those of a carnival "cold reader." If my theory about the
charts triggering their intuition is correct, in my case these guys and gals
failed to even pull the trigger. :-) They saw or revealed NOTHING valuable
about me, my present, my past, or my future.
My suspicion is that 95% of the people who feel otherwise, based on their
interactions with astrologers, are just taking vague generalities that *would
be true of anyone* and (because they'd already spent their money) reacting by
saying, "Wow...how can he/she *know* all this amazing stuff about me." They're
acting like classic suckers on a carnival midway.
Astrology does not get such high marks from me for predicting the future, but
that's not what I have used it for. Astrology can tell you a huge amount about
who you are.
See above. IF you use the practice of astrology as a trigger for your own
intuition, without having to believe that it really "works," then I suspect you
could use it as you describe. But I would suspect that if you had discovered
reading tea leaves of tarot cards *first*, they would "work" just as well.
Again, it's not the props that contain any useful insights into who you are,
it's your own mind, and you're just *tricking* it into revealing them by
looking at an astrology chart.
The first reading I ever had was from an American astrologer named Howard
Sasportas. He also happened to be a TM teacher. He was absolutely brilliant. I
will always be grateful to him for the way he gave me an understanding of
myself through astrology. (And as it happens, his predictions for the future
were pretty spot on too.) As for the sceptics, I am reminded of the remark
attributed to Isaac Newton when the astronomer Halley tweaked him about his
belief in astrology. "Sir, I have studied it; you have not."
And as I tried unsuccessfully to convey to Bhairitu (and before him JR and
Judy and several others), that's just elitism and cult thinking talking. IMO,
the claim that "You can't understand this unless you've studied it as long as I
have" is the same thing as saying "You can't understand this unless you've been
brainwashed as long as I have." People who use this tired old argument want
skeptics to INVEST their time, energy, and money into "learning about
astrology" in the hopes that they'll then be as INVESTED IN IT as they are.
Well, it doesn't work -- back in the 60s I learned how to draw up Western
astrology charts, and without the benefit of any of the programs you probably
use. I used paper ephemeri and math. I read dozens of books, and because NONE
of what I read turned out to have any basis in truth, I still came away a
skeptic. So drop this tired old "You have to study it to understand it"
routine, OK? It's bullshit, and *undermines* your arguments, not strengthens
them.
Here's what would convince me. A real, solid experiment with solid protocols.
For example, for a dozen subjects, a dozen noted astrologers are given their
birth data *and nothing else*. The astrologers never get to meet the subjects,
are never even told what sex they are (it shouldn't matter if "the stars run
everything"), and the subjects don't ask them any questions. Then the
astrologers draw up charts and make three concrete predictions for each
subject.
By concrete I mean something that is not hazy or general in any way and thus
open to interpretation. None of that crap that JR tried to pull once by
"predicting" that "something big will happen to Rick in the next few months."
That's laughable...even carnival hucksters can do better than that. No, these
predictions have to be specific, and VERIFIABLE. If you say that the person
will get ill, you have to say exactly when, and what type of illness it is. If
you tell someone that they will "come into money," again you have to specify
exactly when, but you also have to specify the source and and general amount. I
"come into money" every month when I receive my paycheck, and a charlatan
astrologer could (and probably would) interpret that as having been "correct."
Anyway, you get the picture. There will be judges, and they get to decide
whether the astrologers' predictions are specific and verifiable enough. If
they're not, they either have to drop out of the study or rework them until
they meet the requirements. None of the predictions can be for a period longer
than three months in the future, so that the study can actually be completed.
The subjects are NEVER told what the predictions are. This is key, or they
could mood-make them into "coming true." Only the researchers and the
astrologers ever know what was predicted.
Then you just wait, and after three months you tally up the data. My bet is
that fewer than 5% of the predictions would be verified as true.
But I do this as an exercise in demonstrating how a skeptic like me would
design such a study, and at the same time demonstrating what charlatans the
astrologers are, because they'd never agree to it. They depend (and in many
cases their income depends) on being able to see their clients in real life or
in a photo and thus do a "cold reading" on them, and on being able to get away
with speaking in generalizations that would be true for *anyone*.
There. I've replied, and I hope I haven't been too mean. Now we'll see whether
any of the believers in astrology here are willing to do anything in response
but call me names. :-)
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mjackson74@...> wrote :
And everyone who thinks astrology is crap or at least a benign fantasy would
be laughing at you Bhai.
From: "Bhairitu noozguru@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Maybe this i
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
