--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <rorygoff@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Too bad you missed the siddhis course. It is all about sutras, > > > which use minimal expressions to accomplish big results, like > > > my 14 words bringing about a response of 330 words (yow!) > > > from you.:-) > > > > Ohh! He never took the siddhis course! Many thanks, Jim, I'm > > thinking that may clarify some things. My apologies, Barry; I > > suspect I have been overly hard on you. Did Vaj perchance miss > > them too? > > > > Suddenly a number of puzzling anomalies may be coming into much > > clearer focus. I think I've been sitting in the wrong class! :-) > > Uh...the basis of Jim's putdown above has as much > truth in it as his declaration a while back that > Buddha said "God is love." :-) > > I'm pretty sure that all of us fell for the siddhis > swindle. I flew the first day, was bored by it by > the second day, and by the third day I'd realized > that I'd just spent 5000 dollars on a set of English- > language phrases that I could have gotten from a > $3.95 paperback edition of the Yoga Sutras (and that > probably came from that source). > > But you can consider the TM siddhis "special," and > yourself "special" for having learned them if you > want. Think of it as just a form of "play," like > tripping on your name. And with as much value. :-) > > As for "sitting in the wrong class," I suspect that > the problem may be more related to where you think > you are positioned in that classroom. You seem to > be of the impression that you're sitting in front > of the class and that, like Maharishi, this means > that the "students" owe you something as a result. > Respect, belief in what you say, "obedience,"... > whatever. If you're expecting something, that's > your samskara, not anyone else's. > > Just to clarify, I think that the point that Geez > and I have been making lately about you and Jim is > a simple one. Both of you, from my point of view, > are "cruising" this group for attention. You rarely > go very long without mentioning your supposed real- > ization and your supposed high state of consciousness. > *As with Maharishi*, I think that Geez and I are > suggesting that what you guys *say* about your sup- > posed states of consciousness is meaningless; it's > what you choose to *DO* with it. > > And in both cases, especially lately, what you have > chosen to do with it is put down other people, point > out how much more "advanced" you are than they are, > and then put a smiley face at the end of your posts. > > If that's your idea of what a spiritual teacher is > like and what one can learn from them, then you > should definitely sign up to study from Jim and Rory. > If you're lookin' for a little more, you might want > to keep lookin'. > This time I posted 40 words, and you blathered on for 377! And I'm the one "cruising this group for attention"!? Even your mom would find that one funny.:-)
