Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:18 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Remember when we read the Sociopath Next Door? That gave me much more compassion and understanding about exploitive people. I think the narcissist definition is a better match, but both give an insight that we need to know that some people are functioning fundamentally differently. And within that there can be a lot of gradations of good and bad in their life. Just because Maharishi might have had a narcissistic personality disorder doesn't invalidate whatever good he did accomplish or his own sincerity in accomplishing it. It's just means he is not a good guy to hand your PIN number to, or... like... your whole life! Agreed, Curtis! That was quite a book. Gives insights not only about MMY but others also. Just about the whole nature of exploitation. IMO it's a must-read. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 8, 2008, at 11:52 AM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Feb 8, 2008, at 11:13 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > I think that John has bought into the propaganda > > spread by Nabby and others that you have never > > practiced TM or been a TM teacher. His phrasing > > above seems to imply that. > > > > If I'm not mistaken, neither is true. Like many > > of us here, you both learned TM and spent some > > time on the "front lines" as a TM teacher before > > moving on to other studies, including some that > > involved working with teachers in the *real* > > Shankaracharya lineage. > > > Oh, ok thanks. I'll just ignore his post then like Nabby's! > > Life's too short. Caught with his pants down the complainer runs. LOL! Actually I'm still here, just not into playing games with naive assholes!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 8, 2008, at 11:13 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: I think that John has bought into the propaganda spread by Nabby and others that you have never practiced TM or been a TM teacher. His phrasing above seems to imply that. If I'm not mistaken, neither is true. Like many of us here, you both learned TM and spent some time on the "front lines" as a TM teacher before moving on to other studies, including some that involved working with teachers in the *real* Shankaracharya lineage. Oh, ok thanks. I'll just ignore his post then like Nabby's! Life's too short.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 8, 2008, at 10:52 AM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Feb 8, 2008, at 10:06 AM, do.rflex wrote: > > > Scientology? ...or what? What qualifies you to determine and/or to > > be a final arbiter of the validity of the saints, especially ones > > you've never met or 'experienced'? > > > No interest in scientology or being a "final arbiter". I've trained > and practiced in both Hindu and Buddhist mantrayana lines, including > practices for death and dying. So how does that qualify you to give any legitimate definition to Maharishi, Brahmachari Satyanand or Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, or for that matter, Transcendental Meditation? You have ZERO direct experience with any of those persons or the TM. What do you have more than second hand information in that regard? Not sure what you mean by this "legitimate definition" of Mahesh, etc. is that I'm supposed to be giving or have given. I'm a trained yogi and therefore I can and do express my opinion from that POV and the direct first-hand experience of many different forms of meditation, not just TM.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 8, 2008, at 10:06 AM, do.rflex wrote: Scientology? ...or what? What qualifies you to determine and/or to be a final arbiter of the validity of the saints, especially ones you've never met or 'experienced'? No interest in scientology or being a "final arbiter". I've trained and practiced in both Hindu and Buddhist mantrayana lines, including practices for death and dying.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 8, 2008, at 8:37 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think that it's PERSONAL that Maharishi or any other NPD spiritual teacher doesn't treat their students with respect. My feeling is that they barely even notice that the students are even THERE. Very perceptive, Barry. While I never did take it personally, I didn't give up nor devote nearly as much (timewise or any other way) as many others. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 8, 2008, at 9:35 AM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Feb 8, 2008, at 9:01 AM, do.rflex wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 2008, at 6:39 AM, do.rflex wrote: > > > > > > > What the hell is "same transmission"? > > > > > > Transmission is just a translation of the Sanskrit word > > > "agama" (Agama) --a transmission of the same teaching, in the same > > > practice line as Guru Dev, from one of his students. > > > > Doesn't guarantee its legitimacy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Satyanand? Only stories. Some flattering. Some less so. An > > acharya? > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > You're playing your name games there, fella. The only thing you > > have > > > > is book learning and opinion, no experience. > > > > > > Actually I have more "experience" than book reading! > > > > Which is? > > 40 years. 40 years of what? Spiritual practice and for about 25 of that, training as well.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 8, 2008, at 3:29 AM, george_deforest wrote: curtisdeltablues wrote: I got a lot of peace from the article in the Skeptical Inquirer in 89 or 90 that compared these personality traits with popular gurus... It explained how he could use and discard people as he unfolded his "mission." I don't see this as a putdown. Curtis, this is the main thing that has bothered me about MMY and the TMO--how could he (they) do that? How could they take the good will and good intentions of so many really nice people and treat them like that? I think I may spend a long time pondering that question. I look forward to any revelations along the way. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 8, 2008, at 9:01 AM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Feb 8, 2008, at 6:39 AM, do.rflex wrote: > > > What the hell is "same transmission"? > > Transmission is just a translation of the Sanskrit word > "agama" (Agama) --a transmission of the same teaching, in the same > practice line as Guru Dev, from one of his students. Doesn't guarantee its legitimacy. > > > > > > > > > Satyanand? Only stories. Some flattering. Some less so. An acharya? > > > > > > No. > > > > You're playing your name games there, fella. The only thing you have > > is book learning and opinion, no experience. > > Actually I have more "experience" than book reading! Which is? 40 years.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 8, 2008, at 7:33 AM, do.rflex wrote: I have experienced Guru Dev visually and telepathically myself. Once I 'heard' him repeating something which I'd never heard before, I believe it was in Sanskrit - as if an initiation or such. I know other TM teachers who have had similar experiences. I'm not schizophrenic and neither were they. And what we experience[d] isn't merely 'inspiration' from memories. Unstressing. Return to the mantra.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 8, 2008, at 6:39 AM, do.rflex wrote: What the hell is "same transmission"? Transmission is just a translation of the Sanskrit word "agama" (Agama) --a transmission of the same teaching, in the same practice line as Guru Dev, from one of his students. > > Satyanand? Only stories. Some flattering. Some less so. An acharya? > > No. You're playing your name games there, fella. The only thing you have is book learning and opinion, no experience. Actually I have more "experience" than book reading!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 9:32 PM, authfriend wrote: Let's recap: Responsible professionals do not diagnose people they haven't interacted with on the basis of one person's description. And any professional who thought s/he would get an accurate, objective account of MMY from Vaj is incompetent. --It wasn't on the basis of one persons description. --It wasn't a "diagnosis", it was merely an opinion. --the persons giving the opinions are responsible professionals. But nice try!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:58 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:38 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > *Responsible* professionals don't come > > > up with such diagnoses on a dime the day after > > > a person with whom they have no familiarity has died, > > > > *Particularly* not a person from a completely > > different culture and background who is > > obviously a very unusual character to begin > > with. Not to mention a person about whose > > early life virtually nothing is known. > > > An interesting point Dear Editor. One can have many guesses on > someone's early life and never be sure of what transpired. > > Can you guess 'my guess' of Mahesh's early (unrecorded or > commented) life? What's yours? As Shemp would say, Vaj, stop digging. As Shemp might say to you: START
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:57 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:30 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:04 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:12 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I've spoken to a number of psychologist and psychiatrist > > > > > > > friends on this one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Most point to "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" > > > > > > > > > > > > ROTFL!! > > > > > > > > > > Judy, do tell! > > > > > > > > > > What was your DSM IV guess??? > > > > > > > > I don't make DSM-IV guesses. Neither do responsible > > > > psychologists or psychiatrists make them about people > > > > they haven't at least interacted with. > > > > > > For deceased persons? > > > > > > Yes they do. > > > > And you've spoken to all these psychologist > > and psychiatrist friends to get their diagnosis > > of MMY just since Tuesday afternoon, right? > > Of course not. It was over time Dear Editor. So it *wasn't* "for a deceased person." You're getting rattled again, Vaj, as you always do when someone calls you on one of your more ludicrous pronouncements. LOL. Dead persons have had their life-examples used as examples of their personality types, post-vivo, it's a simple fact. Stop trying to distort my intention Judy. Observe Vaj's explanation of the circumstances under which professionals supposedly make such a diagnosis: > > > Keep in mind, death (irregardless of whether or not it's seen as > > > significant) is like a final stamp on a bank account or > > > administrators account. The "stamp" has fallen. Based on the > > > evidence between Mahesh Srivistava Varma's creation and death we > > > can (and will) look at evidence for a certain personality type > > > (or pathos). But now he informs us it *wasn't* the "falling of the stamp" that enabled his friends to make this diagnosis. Not at all. The data sample has a beginning and an end. That data sample has ended. > > Plus which, any professional who would trust *you* > > to give an accurate enough account of MMY to do a > > long-distance diagnosis is incompetent anyway. Vaj's furious backpedaling notwithstanding, the applies whatever the situation. > > Professionals do sometimes attempt speculative > > diagnoses of historical figures years after they > > die when they have spent considerable time studying > > the records. *Responsible* professionals don't come > > up with such diagnoses on a dime the day after > > a person with whom they have no familiarity has died, > > on the basis of a single person's account (least of > > all someone as unreliable as to facts and as highly > > biased as you). > > And of course, another "Judy's Golem" --a strawman and monstrous > distortion with no resemblance whatsoever to my intentions. See above. Of course, my purported "straw man" was based precisely on what Vaj had said. Yeah...uh huh...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:38 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > *Responsible* professionals don't come > up with such diagnoses on a dime the day after > a person with whom they have no familiarity has died, *Particularly* not a person from a completely different culture and background who is obviously a very unusual character to begin with. Not to mention a person about whose early life virtually nothing is known. An interesting point Dear Editor. One can have many guesses on someone's early life and never be sure of what transpired. Can you guess 'my guess' of Mahesh's early (unrecorded or commented) life? What's yours?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:34 PM, sandiego108 wrote: No, better yet, continue to lose yourself in your layers and signs and Ways and Views...that's the ticket. Arduously discover a glimpse, a painful elicited glimmer of the one true self, no wait, The One True Self Of Compassion--- Hilarious!!! You crack me up Vaj Rant... Every "thing" is a symbol: learn, love and live! Enjoy your own mandala. No self or Self necessary!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:30 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:04 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:12 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > I've spoken to a number of psychologist and psychiatrist > > > > > friends on this one. > > > > > > > > > > Most point to "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" > > > > > > > > ROTFL!! > > > > > > Judy, do tell! > > > > > > What was your DSM IV guess??? > > > > I don't make DSM-IV guesses. Neither do responsible > > psychologists or psychiatrists make them about people > > they haven't at least interacted with. > > For deceased persons? > > Yes they do. And you've spoken to all these psychologist and psychiatrist friends to get their diagnosis of MMY just since Tuesday afternoon, right? Of course not. It was over time Dear Editor. > Keep in mind, death (irregardless of whether or not it's seen as > significant) is like a final stamp on a bank account or > administrators account. The "stamp" has fallen. Based on the > evidence between Mahesh Srivistava Varma's creation and death we > can (and will) look at evidence for a certain personality type > (or pathos). I'm sorry, but that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this forum, and that's saying something. Like, MMY might undergo some massive personality change in the last weeks of his life, so we better wait until the day he actually croaks before we diagnose him. Please. Plus which, any professional who would trust *you* to give an accurate enough account of MMY to do a long-distance diagnosis is incompetent anyway. Professionals do sometimes attempt speculative diagnoses of historical figures years after they die when they have spent considerable time studying the records. *Responsible* professionals don't come up with such diagnoses on a dime the day after a person with whom they have no familiarity has died, on the basis of a single person's account (least of all someone as unreliable as to facts and as highly biased as you). And of course, another "Judy's Golem" --a strawman and monstrous distortion with no resemblance whatsoever to my intentions. Burn strawman burn! Get a new schtick already!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:33 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Although I am sure this will be hard to relate to for some... I got a lot of peace from the article in the Skeptical Inquirer in 89 or 90 that compared these personality traits with popular gurus. I know this seemed horrible to people who may view him as a "real" messiah, but for me it gave me some insight for compassion for Maharishi. It helped me understand how he operated the way he did, and even the odd feeling he would give off when I interacted with him. It explained how he could use and discard people as he unfolded his "mission." I don't see this as a putdown. It is an alternate explanation to the idea that he proposed that he was the most important human in history. Why would someone believe such a thing about themselves? Either he was or he was not, but it requires an explanation. At least it did for me. So for me he remains a fascinating guy with or without this disorder. One piece of evidence I submit that perhaps he was mislead about the power of his teaching are the closest people to him that he left behind, presumably his most advanced pupils. I think we have a pretty good idea that his optimism about his programs exceeded his results. Or is that just me being negative on King Tony and Bevan? Well they are separate people entirely, interpreting a teachers teachings. I get a really sattvic vibe off of king Tony and Bevan always was a kind of archetypal Jupiterian to me--and of course there are good and bad connotations of Jupiter.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:25 PM, sandiego108 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:11 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > Maybe he really wasn't a yogi. Is that a possibility here? > > > > > > Yes! > > > > Be interesting to hear a definition of "yogi" > > from both of you. > > "CC" type attainment as a minimum--the slightly dualistic > turiyatita--"beyond the forth" being what I'd refer to in a TM- style > context. > > But there are non-dual and other yogis as well, so it is good to > specify what "style" of yogi you mean when you make some sort of > declaration. It's not a monolithic thing. I'm always glad to specify > if people are sensitive enough to even ask. > > Most aren't. > and those that know the truth about this sort of thing aren't either. Go home pretender. This notion that you have of their being a never ending path of signs and symbols and sciences and levels of accomplishment is all designed to mollify the fear of complete dissolution, of your own death. Nothing more. All who talk in these terms seek to keep those listening in bondage, keep them seeking outward for what is each of our spontaneous and wholly owned birthright, that of eternal freedom. Some of the trappings of these rituals of Maya are beautiful, but that doesn't make them liberating. There are just two kinds of existence, 1) bound and segregated, and 2) free and integrated. To make a fundamentalist science as you do of all of these gradations and other things keeps the mind busy so that it can believe in something other than its own naturally available annihilation. Just more fear and idiocy dancing with Maya. Uh, thanks, Jim. I'll make sure I tell all the sages I meet.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:04 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:12 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > I've spoken to a number of psychologist and psychiatrist > > > friends on this one. > > > > > > Most point to "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" > > > > ROTFL!! > > Judy, do tell! > > What was your DSM IV guess??? I don't make DSM-IV guesses. Neither do responsible psychologists or psychiatrists make them about people they haven't at least interacted with. For deceased persons? Yes they do. Keep in mind, death (irregardless of whether or not it's seen as significant) is like a final stamp on a bank account or administrators account. The "stamp" has fallen. Based on the evidence between Mahesh Srivistava Varma's creation and death we can (and will) look at evidence for a certain personality type (or pathos). The administrators account has been stamped "final" my dear. Wake up. Please!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:57 PM, do.rflex wrote: > > > Regarding early TMO pundits and "teachers": 'they certainly > > weren't no > > > Acharyas'. :-) > > > > Brahmachari Satyanand, whom I referred to, had spent many years with > > Guru Dev as a disciple. After Guru Dev's 'death' he later went on to > > assist Maharishi spreading Transcendental Meditation, as I understand > > it, until he died himself. I attended a course he conducted at Lake > > Arrowhead in the early 70s and spoke with him individually and > > privately at least three times, one of which was to receive an > > advanced technique. I say this mainly to indicate that Satyanand was > > directly involved with Guru Dev and Maharishi both. > > > IME it's not a guarantee that these people are completely and > holistically trained in these sciences. I really, honestly, see most > of them as naive. Fact is, you haven't seen Guru Dev or Brahmachari Satyanand at all. But I do have lineal transmission of Samaya Sri Vidya directly from his line (Guru Dev's). So I base my View on his same transmission. And I do know that transmission. (So can anyone). Satyanand? Only stories. Some flattering. Some less so. An acharya? No. Brahmanand Saraswati? Emphatically YES. And a yogi with ram (fire) siddhi (at very least).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:12 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Feb 7, 2008, at 6:53 PM, BillyG. wrote: > > > Yes! I think MMY had a Messiah complex and wanted to save the > > world from itself,(not a bad idea) but was only able to muster > > a few dozen 'cling ons' to further his 'dreams'. Had he stayed > > with his original principles like, "for the forest to be green, > > etc...", he may have accomplished more > > I've spoken to a number of psychologist and psychiatrist > friends on this one. > > Most point to "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" ROTFL!! Judy, do tell! What was your DSM IV guess???
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
Here's another, more important, thing we agree on. - Original Message From: authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2008 6:12:38 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Vaj wrote: > > On Feb 7, 2008, at 6:53 PM, BillyG. wrote: > > > Yes! I think MMY had a Messiah complex and wanted to save the > > world from itself,(not a bad idea) but was only able to muster > > a few dozen 'cling ons' to further his 'dreams'. Had he stayed > > with his original principles like, "for the forest to be green, > > etc...", he may have accomplished more > > I've spoken to a number of psychologist and psychiatrist > friends on this one. > > Most point to "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" ROTFL!! Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:26 PM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Feb 7, 2008, at 6:38 PM, do.rflex wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > > > Maharishi's answer doesn't clearly account for, as an example, > > Satyanand's stated experience of hearing Guru Dev's voice *after* Guru > > Dev's body had ceased to function. Nor does it account for my own > > current experiences of Guru Dev, visually and telepathically. [Unless > > of course, one claims that Guru Dev hadn't attained Cosmic > > Consciousness.] > > > > Interestingly, I remember that exchange at Humboldt, as I waited on > > every word. And I shared the frustration I sensed in the person that > > asked that question as Maharishi did not clarify it satisfactorily. [snip] > Regarding early TMO pundits and "teachers": 'they certainly weren't no > Acharyas'. :-) Brahmachari Satyanand, whom I referred to, had spent many years with Guru Dev as a disciple. After Guru Dev's 'death' he later went on to assist Maharishi spreading Transcendental Meditation, as I understand it, until he died himself. I attended a course he conducted at Lake Arrowhead in the early 70s and spoke with him individually and privately at least three times, one of which was to receive an advanced technique. I say this mainly to indicate that Satyanand was directly involved with Guru Dev and Maharishi both. IME it's not a guarantee that these people are completely and holistically trained in these sciences. I really, honestly, see most of them as naive. Some are able to replace education with direct (inner) experience, but this is exceedingly rare in this era. You can also hang or pay to hang with those who do know directly the inner and outer worlds. It seems to me that Mahesh Yogi was someone who hung or paid to hang with some really very cool folks. From there he built his web.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:11 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > Maybe he really wasn't a yogi. Is that a possibility here? > > Yes! Be interesting to hear a definition of "yogi" from both of you. "CC" type attainment as a minimum--the slightly dualistic turiyatita--"beyond the forth" being what I'd refer to in a TM-style context. But there are non-dual and other yogis as well, so it is good to specify what "style" of yogi you mean when you make some sort of declaration. It's not a monolithic thing. I'm always glad to specify if people are sensitive enough to even ask. Most aren't.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 6:53 PM, BillyG. wrote: Yes! I think MMY had a Messiah complex and wanted to save the world from itself,(not a bad idea) but was only able to muster a few dozen 'cling ons' to further his 'dreams'. Had he stayed with his original principles like, "for the forest to be green, etc...", he may have accomplished more I've spoken to a number of psychologist and psychiatrist friends on this one. Most point to "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" but I guess the new name should be Vedic Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I won't go so far as to suggest Maharishi Vedic Narcissistic Personality Disorder. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 6:38 PM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Maharishi's answer doesn't clearly account for, as an example, Satyanand's stated experience of hearing Guru Dev's voice *after* Guru Dev's body had ceased to function. Nor does it account for my own current experiences of Guru Dev, visually and telepathically. [Unless of course, one claims that Guru Dev hadn't attained Cosmic Consciousness.] Interestingly, I remember that exchange at Humboldt, as I waited on every word. And I shared the frustration I sensed in the person that asked that question as Maharishi did not clarify it satisfactorily. At the time of "Humboldt" there was one widely disseminated translation of the Sat-Chakra-Nirupana (and other kundalini texts) translated by the incredible "Arthur Avalon" (pseud.) as "The Serpent Power". In a slightly earlier era it would have been (probably) banned as pornography -- but in the early sixties and even fifties -- people were innovating. It became a classic. And so a lot of people had a lot of questions certain others weren't expecting--and likely did not know. People immediately got "stuck" on this "idea" of seven chakras. Lucky seven. It largely was imprinted from the collective dissemination of this book. The Samaya Sri Chakrins said "nine" but really there is no such limitation. All numbers are sacred. Different transmissions describe different illusory formulations. As one of my teachers said (paraphrasing) 'if you try to reconcile all the different chakra and elements systems you'll ultimately gain no benefit but you may go insane.' Regarding early TMO pundits and "teachers": 'they certainly weren't no Acharyas'. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 6:29 PM, BillyG. wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A recorded lecture by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi > > August 1970, Humboldt State College, California > Student: Today in our discussion group we were discussing levels of > consciousness and this rose (sic) a couple of questions. The first >one is, > at what level of consciousness is it unnecessary for an individual >to > incarnate again. > snip for brevity... That's nice theory and nicely put, but it hardly *fully* addresses the issue, remember, even Christ Re-incarnated as an avatara, what the hell do you think an avatar is anyway: Once again MMY doesn't answer the question regarding Kundalini and Chakras, which the student was eager to hear, MMY was merely testy with him in the end. Maybe he really wasn't a yogi. Is that a possibility here?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 5:46 PM, Michael wrote: You're welcome - it was a real pleasure to listen to that intently. I actually got the recording from a colleague- you might be interested in his commentary as well: Thank you so much (I am very interested) and I'm glad people have the courage to share these old teachings and keep the record straight. An honest love for maintaining real purity. I do hope those who have any such relevant tapes for the sharing will again contact me as I'd be honored to host them at high-speed download for several months. Thanks again. What a wonderful gesture and kindness.
