On Jun 5, 2006, at 9:49 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:

>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...

hahahaha. Yea. Ask Casey Coleman and Rick Stanely who people on FFL
SWORE they had heard these guys say they witnessed UFOs with M. They
each responded on FFL and basically said, "What crap".

> >
> > 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

No! I said its a resonable hypothesis he pick up some knowledge of
sexual tantra in 30+ years in India, around yogis, sadhus, pudnits and
tantrics. And just being in indian culture. And maybe using ritam.
"mmm, tantra, what is this? mmmmmmmm ahhhhhhh I see."

> possibly having tantric
> sex with shakti-laden female

Definately had sex with female staff. I hypothesize it could have
involved some tantric experimentation.

What point is unclear?

>disciples?
Never. He never has had a female disciple to my knowldege. Rindi maybe.

> Did you not propose he could have received a mind-to-mind
> transmission of tantric teaching from SBS?

Sure, that might have been one many possibilities that he picked up
some basic knowledge of tantra. Including the small subset involving
sex. A low probability one. But I "threw" in the trasmission
possibility due to your general discussions of it. So if its
absolutely not a possiblity,then letstake it off the table. So then
we are left with the possibilities that he picked up some knowledge of
sexual tantra in 30+ years in India, by being around yogis, sadhus,
pudnits and tantrics. And just being in indian culture. Jeez, I
picked up some basic knowledge of it in my first month coursein 1968.
Hardly as deep a crowd as M mingled with in 30years.
Or, possibly he he picked up some basic tantric sexual knowledge
directly like Shankara in prep for with Mishra and his wife.

> Did you not propose he could have gotten this from tantric adepts he
> met

Sure. Its possible that he picked up basic sexual tantric knowlege
from any number of yogis saints and sadhus in his time before, during
and after SBS. See above

>with in secret?

"in secret" ???

Are you really saying "Maharishi-as-tantric
adept enlightening his female students thru sex from the spontaneous
transmission he received from SBS once-upon-a-time" is a fair
represtation of the above Q and A. If so, WOW!!! I am flabergasted.
Shocked. Way disappointed.

It's a synopsis of your presentation, no mine!


"Maharishi-as-tantric adept" -- never said "was adept"

"enlightening his female students" -- never said enlightening

"thru sex" -- yes its clear he had sex

"from the spontaneous transmission he received from SBS
once-upon-a-time" -- oneof many possible avenues to get tantric
knowledge. An obscure and low probability on IMO. Ritam, discussion
with sadhus,yogis and tantrics in 30 years in india, Indian culture,
books, pundits, are all possible means that he may have gotten some
working knowldge of sexual tantra. Why is that such an odd possibility
in your mind.

It's not odd, it just doesn't wash, sorry (for the numerous reasons I've given already).


> >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,

Which provides nothing regarding the disproving of the possibility,
the hypotheses of #1 and #2 above.

Do your statements discount them? Not on my book. But thanks for your
input.

>However I
> think you should consider the idea of "transgressive practices" and
> violation of natural law.

I will. I could better if I knew what they meant.

The use of meat and wine. 



> 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--

Well, I think even you could agree that if I never had formal
initiation into such, it would be hard for me to "consider some of
the unique elements of tantric initiation".

But thanks for implying my ritam is THAT strong.

That's was not what I was implying.


> that
> you might not be aware of.

Again, exactly how does one consider things they are not aware of?

Gain some experience in the subject at hand?


I have read Svobodas trilogy. Read some other things. Tantra is not
totaly foreign to me. Hardly makes me an adept.

But, how does all this secret knowldge affect the hypotheses I proposed?

You might understand the reticence of M. to discuss tantra and also his reticence to practice it.


I suppose its a secret. You have proof my hyptheses are wrong but the
refutation is a secret? Is that it?

> 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?

Yes. And use bhang or other such. Or take a drink of wine "juice"
--funny story on that (meat, bhang, wine not necessarily related). Not
that he has. That he might under certain circumstances.

I believe M would do ANYTHING SBS asked. Or suggested. Without
hesitation. Based on M's MO, it appears reasonable tome that SBS told
M something along the lines of, "you have the basic knowledge and
skills. now go out and figure out what works for 'the world', then do
it.". From day one, we see a pattern of experimentation. Try
something, get feedback (from nature), revise. Try again.

Did M start in day one with "rounding" for residence courses? No.
First, Deep Meditation. Many hours in TM. Then he found "unwinding"
occuring. Later to become "unstressing". Added some asanas and
pranayam before and after long meditation. Then rounds of A&P
before/after shorter meditation. Then walk and talks. Then buddy
system. It was NEVER, "I have cognized the ultimated truth, here its
is in full" or " "I have received the complete detailed program
instructions from SBS, here they are". NO. It started simple.Feedback
came, program revised,refined, over the years.


But he hated the "Hong Kong fish".HAHAHAHa

Ever hear the "salt" story. I have told it several times over the
years on FFL.

Does not sound familiar.

"

> 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.

RED HERRING!!!!! You never stop trying do you. I said, A: "some
knowlege of sexual trantra practices". You continue to say B: "he was
not a tantra adept". Two way different things. Saying B is not true
does not in anyway refute A. 

__._,_.___

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




__,_._,___

Reply via email to