On Jun 5, 2006, at 4:43 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:46 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:
> > >
> > > All of which swerves widely from the main point: Could MMy have
> some
> > > knowledge of sexually related tantric practices by one of many
> means?
>
>
> > Of course you know it's likely he could, esp. if he really is a
> yogi,
> > since one of the main texts on yoga contains rather explicit
> > instructions...
>
> OK then.
>
> > There's just absolutely no evidence he practices these.
>
>
>
> And it appears, to the same degree your statement above reflects the
> truth, "There's just absolutely no evidence that he DOESN'T practice
> these."
>
>
> > > > It's possible he received transmission of Sri Vidya in this
> manner,
> > > > however there is no evidence that I am aware of he did
> receive such.
> > >
> > > Agreed. So its possible. Not established either way.
>
>
> >
> > He also has brought people in to teach him things.
>
> Oh the shame, the shame!!!! Were (among) their names, Larry Domash
> and John Haiglin?
No...
>
>
>
> > > > Indeed some of
> > > > the more prominent revelations of MMY are straight out of
> various
> > > > commentaries.
> > >
> > > And you expected him to teach something outside of the Holy
> Tradition?
>
>
> > > > In other words, if he did claim to have received such
> revelation, I
> > > > (personally), would take it with a very large grain of salt.
> > >
> > > Ok. And if he didn't claim such. But simply shared some
> insights he
> > > got from listening to scripture,and discussing such from pundits.
> >
> > Unfortunately it didn't come out that way to the disciples.
>
> I didn't realize he had disciples outside of india (and avery few ex
> western ones). So either you have some MUCH MUCH more inner knowledge
> of M and TMO, or are overcome by the reflected light of myths which
> reflect on mirrors MUCH MUCH on the outside from point from where I
> observed things.
>
> How often did you see M discuss things with Pundits? I did everyday
> for a long time. And of course there have been many more days in the
> past 30 years that I have not. I don't claim comprehnsiveness. But in
> my in-person experience, I recall a lot of gentle back and forth,
> respective and loving exchanges, and LOTS of respect paid by M to the
> pundits.
And that's fine, that's what I'd expect. I'm glad you have good
memories of your time spent (no pun intended with M.
>
> Who are referencing besides {Tom??} from Estes Park?
I am not referring to anyone named Tom, sorry.
>
>
> > I think he did get insights from listening to pundits, but it ended
> > up coming out as "the Great rishi hath spoken this revealed
> > material."
>
> You personally witnessed this? I never did. Rick, did you?
Then show me where they are credited. Perhaps he has in his spoken
lectures credited these men--or perhaps it's in some writing I missed.
>
> Or are you going on 2nd, 3rd and 4th hand accounts? Where layers of
> "interpreatations" come into play. And tell me with a straight face
> that Tom(?) the Estes Park guy doesn't have a specific angle, and
> exhibits strong attempts to convince people of his POV. Not a crime,
> but he clearly is not an impassioned observer.
>
> > >
> > > INmy personal observation, M never claimed to be a Rig Veda
> scholar.
> > > THATS why in the early 7o's he invited Pundit Devarat -- the most
> > > respected Rig Veda pundit at thattime, to join him. To chant and
> > > discuss things in RV everyday. I personally saw M give great
> respect,
> > > honor and reverence to Deverat everyday. Same with SamaVed
> Pundits.
> > >
> > > What pundits did you personally see him "rob" stuff from.
> >
> > Now you're saying I said he "robbed" stuff from pundits?
> > <sigh> Nevermind.
>
> OK. Why get dismissive and condescending, friend? I take this as a
> friendly exhange to get to what we know and what we do n't know. It is
> my word "rob", not yours, describing what I interpreted what you were
> trying to say. What verb would you use to best describe his actions
> towards them.
I'm merely responding to your remarks attempting to imply I said
something which I did not, or imply some sort of tone to my response.
There was no intention whatsoever to condescend.
>
> > In short, I see no evidence to support your Maharishi-as-tantric
> > adept enlightening his female students thru sex from the spontaneous
> > transmission he received from SBS once-upon-a-time.
>
> Which I am not claiming as certain. But as one of many possiblities.
> I hope the above is not a strawman formulation. You read more clearly
> than that. I have raised the possibility that:
>
> 1) M had or probably had access to i) a tantric teacher, ii) a number
> of tantric / yogic adepts, iii) passive and active transmission, from
> ii) and iv) a culture where real tantra was known by many. And thus M
> MAY have had some knowledge of the small subset of trantra having to
> do with sex and internal energies. I see this as quite probable. You
> may not.
Anythings possible...but I still find the idea lacking, or more
likely desperation of your part. It just doesn't wash in so many ways.
>
> 2) M is an experimenter. Maybe in your experience around him, you were
> not fortunate enough to see this. But its a wonderful adaptiveness and
> responsiveness to what works and tossing, or waiting on, things that
> don't work. Its constant. So if #1 is possible and even likely, I
> personally find it possible, if not likely that M experiemented with
> sexual tantra in his encounters with 20ish quite shaki-laden women
> (one of the shakti-laden woman I used to observe every night).
Of course we know he is an experimenter, but there has never been any
overtly sexual teachings brought out, or any meetings with tantrics
reported. Of course it could have happened. But he also could have in
depth sexual imformation from the extraterrtrials in that UFO in
Switzerland. At least some people witnessed that...
>
> So that you see no evidence to support your "Maharishi-as-tantric
> adept enlightening his female students thru sex from the spontaneous
> transmission he received from SBS once-upon-a-time" most odd
> characterization is no surprise. Its a limited and distorted,
> strawmanish representation of what has been said, its mind-boggling
> that its coming from you. Who I take as a open, open-inquiry,
> rational, non-dogmatic, balanced kind of guy.
Well let's look at what you've presented and see if it jives with the
above statement.
Did you not propose he was a tantric adept possibly having tantric
sex with shakti-laden female disciples?
Did you not propose he could have received a mind-to-mind
transmission of tantric teaching from SBS?
Did you not propose he could have gotten this from tantric adepts he
met with in secret?
>
> So forget your IMO distorted formation of the issue. The relevant
> question is do you have any evidence of substance that disproves or
> discounts the possibility of #1 and #2 above. Its NOT saying #1 and #2
> are true, but simply acknowledging that they are hypotheses that
> cannot be concluseively disproven (at this point).
Above and beyond what I've already conveyed, not right now. However I
think you should consider the idea of "transgressive practices" and
violation of natural law.
If you've never had formal initiation into any of the inner, outer or
secret tantras however, you may want to consider some of the unique
elements of tantric initiation--esp. those into a sexual tantra--that
you might not be aware of. In fact, based on your comments I have to
assume you have not.
>
>
> > Certainly not an Occam's razor kinda idea.
>
> To me, the preceeding paragraph is the simplest credible hypothesis.
Well, it's an interesting one.
>
> > Perhaps Rick could pass on this idea to some of the women he had
> > "tantric sex" with and you could get their response?
>
> With all of this discussion, can you with a straight face state that I
> have been claiming Jennifer and all absolutely had tantric sex with M?
> If so, reread. Or maybe try drugs to open the door of perception. All
> else seems to have failed. :)
Honestly I have no idea, but since these represent logical extensions
of your argument it does have to considered!
The reason I mention the reciprocity is that there is only a couple
of other options in terms of tantric sexual practice if this is not
occurring. But again the issue would be one of transgression. Do you
think M. would eat meat to obtain an initiation?
I think you lack the big picture in terms of tantric initiation, why
M. would've been dismissive of it in the first place and why it would
be anathema for him to acquire initation from a tantric.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Religion and spirituality | Maharishi mahesh yogi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
