[FairfieldLife] 'Download Free I-Pod Musik- from Croatia'
http://georginealsbury.blogomatic.net/2007/03/03/download-music-free-from-ipod/ - Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Something to chew on from Maharishi, circa 1965
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: [...] my take on the foundation for much of the TM and MMY bashing is that it comes from folks who believed all of that was their salvation, but from a superficial perspective- in other words they would not have to change much but reap all of the benefits. Then when that didn't pan out, they now have found things to bash TM and MMY about, in order to justify their decision to drop it, and to belive this same salvation of theirs can be found elsewhere. Pretty simple really. Consider this gem. I've pointed out that all of his cognitions are standard Hindu beliefs, so MMY wouldn't see anything wrong with them, but he does't appreciate MMY's telling him to be practical in society. I wasn't necessarily speaking about Joe Kellet, but I've read this story before. MMY was right on- I had similar insights but managed to act sane throughout the ensuing imbalanced period. My experience has been that it is only when perfect integration occurs that such cognitions can be dealt with in a way that is balanced and not disruptive. What this guy needed was definitely a lot more worldly experience; carry water, chop wood. He wouldn't have screwed up so badly if that had been the case. Hopefully he doesn't continue to blame the one person who was trying to stabilize him for his troubles. Until one realizes the supremacy of one's own soul, and until it is grounded in one's body, one will always be floating in some kind of doubt- that's a given.. For some, their soul's never really entered the body fully, and they are floating somewhere above their head, in space, as it were... Sometimes, these disembodied souls, let their guard down, since it is weak in the first place, and other entities, with their agenda's can enter. So, many things can be confused, and confusing, if while meditating for many years, there is still no progress, because there needs to be a soul retrival, something the ancients knew of, something the aboriginal's know of- You have to start at the beginnning, and for many perhaps, TM was not the end all and be all of what they needed. What is needed first is to get grounded, in the body. This is the main reason for the insanity within the TM movement, As well as the insanity, in the world, at large. r.g.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
Peter writes: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. There is nothing wrong with effort when it is understood this way. But you don't use the term effort with people first starting TM because for them the term effort means something completely different. The intellect discriminates based on intent. When it makes the final discrimination of Self/no self then it is truly effortless. But as long as consciousness identifies with any object of experience (and for most longterm TMer's it is a very subtle sattvic state of mind-golden ignorance!)the effort/intent is needed to facilitate this discrimination.. I just realized that this is the key as to why so many longtime TMer's are not Realized. They initially utilize the intent of effortlessly thinking the mantra for so many decades, burning out many, many samskaras/points of identification utilizing the natural tendency of the mind to move towards greater pleasure. Subtle states of mind are VERY enjoyable,very sattvic. But now the mind gets stuck in this sattvic condition. Pure consciousness is not sattvic (nor is it tamasic or rajasic either) so effortlessness will not facilitate Realization at this subtle level of mind. Seems like the dharma of TM is to bring you right to the edge of pure consciousness, but that final crossing-over is the subtle Self/no-self discrimination. Perhaps more lontime TMer's need to practice Ramana's experiential (not intellectual) technique of Self-inquiry. Tom T: Using the Alistair Shearer translation as recommended by MMY, Chapter 3 where the Sidhis are enumerated. Sutra 54: Knowledge born of the finest discrimination takes us to the farthest shore. It is intuitive, omniscient and beyond all divisions of time and space. Sutra 55: And when the translucent intellect is as pure as the Self, there is Enlightenment. It has been right here in Patanjali a long time. We get it when we get it. Tom
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
A quote from Jean Klein from his book I AM page 85. In an experience there is still an experiencer who is stuck in the pattern of going in and out of states. Global understanding is the sudden awareness that the perceiver of these states is unaffected by them, that they appear in the perceiver. This insight occurs in a flash when all the fragments preventing us from understanding, yet which point towards it, unfold in the uninvolved witness. Awareness is the essential element allowing non-understanding to become understanding. It does not result from accumulation as when we learn something, a language or an instrument, for example. It is instantaneous like a flash of lightning where the various elements preceding it are suddenly seen simultaneously and are re-orchestrated, just as the particles drawn by a magnet fall into a pattern when they become attached to it. This sudden vision can eliminate all previous problems without leaving the slightest shadow of non-understanding. This resorption into total understanding releases all the energies usually molded into set patterns and opens the way towards ultimate truth, oneness. (Tom comments, we could also use Wholeness or Fullness in lieu of Oneness.)
[FairfieldLife] Bevan's Birth Day Celebration!
If you have an opportunity, please listen to Maharishi's speech on Bevan's BDC! His voice sounds better than for quite a long time, IMO. His priestly accent is interesting. For instance, he pronounced functioning approx. like functionig. Cool! :)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. There is nothing wrong with effort when it is understood this way. But you don't use the term effort with people first starting TM because for them the term effort means something completely different. The intellect discriminates based on intent. When it makes the final discrimination of Self/no self then it is truly effortless. But as long as consciousness identifies with any object of experience (and for most longterm TMer's it is a very subtle sattvic state of mind-golden ignorance!)the effort/intent is needed to facilitate this discrimination.. I just realized that this is the key as to why so many longtime TMer's are not Realized. They initially utilize the intent of effortlessly thinking the mantra for so many decades, burning out many, many samskaras/points of identification utilizing the natural tendency of the mind to move towards greater pleasure. Subtle states of mind are VERY enjoyable,very sattvic. But now the mind gets stuck in this sattvic condition. Pure consciousness is not sattvic (nor is it tamasic or rajasic either) so effortlessness will not facilitate Realization at this subtle level of mind. Seems like the dharma of TM is to bring you right to the edge of pure consciousness, but that final crossing-over is the subtle Self/no-self discrimination. Perhaps more lontime TMer's need to practice Ramana's experiential (not intellectual) technique of Self-inquiry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. Except, one need not have intent to do TM.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
On Mar 4, 2007, at 8:45 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. Except, one need not have intent to do TM. Any meditation using an OBECT will require subtle intent. (Effort in Meditation FAQ #2?)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4, 2007, at 8:45 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. Except, one need not have intent to do TM. Any meditation using an OBECT will require subtle intent. (Effort in Meditation FAQ #2?) Heh. You simply don't get it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. Except that it isn't at all clear that TM even involves *intent*. Charlie Donahue, for one (per my quote in a recent post in response to Peter, which of course Peter will not deign to comment on), has said explicitly that TM is nonintentional. And Vaj, as usual, has been completely unable to actually *discuss* these issues, substituting floods of vicious disdain. Plus which, if Vaj endorses Peter's idea that one doesn't use the term effort with people just starting TM because it means something completely different to them, it's curious why Vaj would have written earlier, The 'effort' myth is probably one of the greatest falsehoods perpetuated by TM adherents and marketeers [sic] and I've seen others directly question this false belief as TMers tried to push this dogma on other, more knowledgeable yogis. In other words, if Vaj is here agreeing with Peter that it's just a matter of not using a term that would confuse neophyte TMers, why did Vaj call it a falsehood and a false belief that TMers try to push as if it were some kind of deliberate deception? On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. There is nothing wrong with effort when it is understood this way. But you don't use the term effort with people first starting TM because for them the term effort means something completely different. The intellect discriminates based on intent. When it makes the final discrimination of Self/no self then it is truly effortless. But as long as consciousness identifies with any object of experience (and for most longterm TMer's it is a very subtle sattvic state of mind-golden ignorance!)the effort/intent is needed to facilitate this discrimination.. I just realized that this is the key as to why so many longtime TMer's are not Realized. They initially utilize the intent of effortlessly thinking the mantra for so many decades, burning out many, many samskaras/points of identification utilizing the natural tendency of the mind to move towards greater pleasure. Subtle states of mind are VERY enjoyable,very sattvic. But now the mind gets stuck in this sattvic condition. Pure consciousness is not sattvic (nor is it tamasic or rajasic either) so effortlessness will not facilitate Realization at this subtle level of mind. Seems like the dharma of TM is to bring you right to the edge of pure consciousness, but that final crossing-over is the subtle Self/no-self discrimination. Perhaps more lontime TMer's need to practice Ramana's experiential (not intellectual) technique of Self-inquiry. This last part is pretty incoherent. Peter appears to be saying that longtime TMers don't experience pure consciousness, but that certainly hasn't been the case with me. A lot of this discussion is deep in the semantic weeds, but folks are avoiding the need to sort out the nuances of the meanings of terms. The result is intractable confusion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4, 2007, at 8:45 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. Except, one need not have intent to do TM. Any meditation using an OBECT will require subtle intent. Perfect example of what I just pointed out about semantic confusion and the unwillingness to even try to sort it out. (Effort in Meditation FAQ #2?) No, FAQs are supposed to clear up confusion, not generate it.
[FairfieldLife] Hagelin's Vedic Cosmology
http://snipurl.com/1bzh5-NZLZG6 4.2 meg PDF with text embedded.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
On Mar 4, 2007, at 9:02 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4, 2007, at 8:45 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. Except, one need not have intent to do TM. Any meditation using an OBECT will require subtle intent. (Effort in Meditation FAQ #2?) Heh. You simply don't get it. Of course I do, you're just stuck in a dogmatic paradigm. There's really nothing more to say other than take the advice of Dr. Pete and re-read that till you get it. Either that or find a Patanjali master who'd be willing to explain it to you ! ;-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Hagelin's Vedic Cosmology
Alternative download site: http://snipurl.com/1b8o1 On Mar 4, 2007, at 9:30 AM, Vaj wrote: http://snipurl.com/1bzh5-NZLZG6 4.2 meg PDF with text embedded.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
Vaj wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. Vaj - Striving and effort presents an obstacle in TM, Tibetan Dzogchen and the practice of Soto Zen. In fact, striving is counterproductive. According to the Buddha himself, enlightenment cannot be achieved by striving. Here's a quote from a Tibetan Buddhist teacher of Dzogchen, who also seems to indicate that you are mistaken. Sogyal Rinpoche: What, then, is meditation in Dzogchen? It is simply resting, undistracted, in the View, once it has been introduced. Dudjom Rinpoche describes it: Meditation consists of being attentive to such a state of Rigpa, free from all mental constructions, whilst remaining fully relaxed, without any distraction or grasping. For it is said that 'Meditation is not striving, but naturally being assimilated into it.' Source: The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying By Sogyal Rinpoche HarperSanFrancisco, 2002 'Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana' http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/133523 Richard Williams wrote: Shakya the Muni, the historical Buddha, is reported to have said: I call to mind how when the Sakyan my father was ploughing, I sat in the cool shade of the rose-apple tree, remote from desires and ill conditions, and entered upon and abode in the First Musing, that is accompanied by thought directed and sustained, which is born of solitude, full of zestful ease. And then I said, 'Is this the Way to the Wisdom?' And on that occasion there came to me the conciousness that follows thought composed, 'Yes, this is the Way to the Wisdom.' Source: M.N. i.242-1
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. sparaig wrote: Except, one need not have intent to do TM. Intent, effort, goal- setting, they're all contrindicated in the practice of dhyana. You are going to get only as much enlightenment as you are going to get. All you have to do is relax and stop striving. According to Swami Brahmanand Saraswati - Brahman is Light, it needs no other light to illuminate it. Meditation does not unfold the Self - the Self unfolds Itself, by Itself, to Itself. - MMY 1967, CBG VI, 5, P. 293
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4, 2007, at 9:02 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Mar 4, 2007, at 8:45 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. Except, one need not have intent to do TM. Any meditation using an OBECT will require subtle intent. (Effort in Meditation FAQ #2?) Heh. You simply don't get it. Of course I do, you're just stuck in a dogmatic paradigm. There's really nothing more to say (At least, that Vaj knows about...) other than take the advice of Dr. Pete and re-read that till you get it. Either that or find a Patanjali master who'd be willing to explain it to you ! ;-) Because, goodness knows, Vaj is incapable of doing so. It isn't impossible that Lawson doesn't get what Peter is saying, but there's no question whatsoever that Vaj doesn't get what Lawson is saying. The difference between Lawson and Vaj is that Lawson is willing and able to explain himself so the issue can actually be *discussed*, whereas Vaj is neither, preferring to dispense his customary expressions of disdain while pretending to understand everything.
[FairfieldLife] THINGS TMers BELIEVE, Volume I
Because this forum is sometimes the home of questions about or criticisms of TM, the TM organization, and/or its founder Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, this is the first of what may become a continuing series. In the series I hope to dispel any misconceptions about TM and its adherents by removing the questions and the criticisms they might have been responding to, and focusing only on strong, long-term TMers and *their own words*, the things that they have come to believe after two to three decades of regular TM practice. I will post the quotes, without attribution, because in my opinion the quotes themselves and their authors are pretty much interchangeable. If anyone wants to find the source of a particular quote, they may use Yahoo!'s 'Advanced Search' feature to find the source of any individual quote. All quotes are from the previous week's posts here on Fairfield Life. My take on the foundation for much of the TM and MMY bashing is that it comes from folks who believed all of that was their salvation, but from a superficial perspective- in other words they would not have to change much but reap all of the benefits. Then when that didn't pan out, they now have found things to bash TM and MMY about, in order to justify their decision to drop it, and to belive this same salvation of theirs can be found elsewhere. Pretty simple really. After an exchange of postings it has become evident that the poster using the name Vaj [TM critic] is a Freemason, apparently of high rank, with (1) little or no understanding of TM and other eastern spiritual practices; and who has confessed to (2) be on a mission to apparently sow doubt about the safety of the practices of i.a. the TM and TM-Sidhi programes. Whatever you do, don't play any of these MP3s [one MP3 of a Leonard Cohen song, sent by a TM critic] - they contain subliminal Illuminati brainwashing messages. I've also had the experience of not doing much of anything during meditation, and not noticing any changes before, during and after, and only going through the motions of keeping my eyes closed for several minutes afterwards 'just in case' I had actually been meditating. I finally decided that since I HAD thought the mantra a few times during that period of 20 minutes, it qualified as TM, even though I couldn't tell any difference between before, during and after. Most of these fellows [TM critics] did not take the Programme seriously at all, I know them from Purusha - they were just in it for the ride. They are fools. The majority of the profesional TM-criticts here on FFL never learned TM in the first place. Lurkers should be aware that Barry [TM critic] is a troll who enjoys inflicting his delusional fantasy world on this forum, most often for the purpose of attacking supporters of TM and misleading readers who aren't well informed about the TMO. Ironically, Vaj [TM critic] says he started TM when he was 14, no doubt making any type of meditation he has practiced afterwards more successful. Rather than honor this essential step in his spiritual journey, he regularly scorns it. [To a TM critic] You may not have realized it, but you are dying from literal diarrhea. The only known cure to this condition is to re- digest your shiite, hoping that there's is left some nourishment in the brown stuff you're chewing on. Doing so shouldnät be a problem - looking at your postings so far, I give the impression of having actualyl acquired a taste for human chocolate. There is a coordinated effort to try to disgrace Maharishi. Several here on FFL is in this business, seemingly fulltime. They are working very hard on this. Why ? Because some structures in a crumbling, capitalistic world is threathened by the fact that TM actually allows the person to experience a state beyond sin, allows them to grow in their own pace towards Godhead, regardless of religion. They fear this very much. Their focus now is currently on Maharishi. Before this Vivekananda, Yogananda and Muktananda were targets. Soon their focus will be on Maitreya. As with the attacs on Maharishi et. al., their attacs on Maitreya will fail utterly, and they will be exposed. Do you really think that peons get a chance to see the Dali Lama these days, unless it is a publicity gimmick? Past a certain size, organizational structure disallows the boss from getting his hands dirty with the peasants. According to Lou Valentino [a regular poster to FFL] freaks like this Mason and Vaj [TM critics] might well be evicted by our Space Brothers to a planet of lower vibrational value where they will fit in better than here. Not to mention a few other outcasts regularily posting on this forum. Lou could be right. One can but hope... [To a TM critic] You are a self-confessed mason with a mission and I think there is a very strong need for you to come clean regarding what you are up to - what the end-vision for you work here really is? Do
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Mar 4, 2007, at 9:02 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Mar 4, 2007, at 8:45 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. Except, one need not have intent to do TM. Any meditation using an OBECT will require subtle intent. (Effort in Meditation FAQ #2?) Heh. You simply don't get it. Of course I do, you're just stuck in a dogmatic paradigm. There's really nothing more to say (At least, that Vaj knows about...) other than take the advice of Dr. Pete and re-read that till you get it. Either that or find a Patanjali master who'd be willing to explain it to you ! ;-) Because, goodness knows, Vaj is incapable of doing so. It isn't impossible that Lawson doesn't get what Peter is saying, but there's no question whatsoever that Vaj doesn't get what Lawson is saying. The difference between Lawson and Vaj is that Lawson is willing and able to explain himself so the issue can actually be *discussed*, whereas Vaj is neither, preferring to dispense his customary expressions of disdain while pretending to understand everything. Steve has created a big problem for himself, prematurely taking on the nickname 'Vaj', making him resistant to any suggestion that he has more to learn. It is his problem, and no matter how much he argues with himself on this forum, not likely to resolve itself soon. The stupidity of his small self encases him like barbed wire.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
In other words, if Vaj is here agreeing with Peter that it's just a matter of not using a term that would confuse neophyte TMers, why did Vaj call it a falsehood and a false belief that TMers try to push as if it were some kind of deliberate deception? Why ? Because either Vaj has an agenda or is confused, or both. I do not understand why anyone bothers to answer him.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
On Mar 4, 2007, at 9:46 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Vaj - Striving and effort presents an obstacle in TM, Tibetan Dzogchen and the practice of Soto Zen. In fact, striving is counterproductive. According to the Buddha himself, enlightenment cannot be achieved by striving. Here's a quote from a Tibetan Buddhist teacher of Dzogchen, who also seems to indicate that you are mistaken. I made no comments on Dzogchen, we were discussing Lawson's TM dogmas of effort vs. effortlessness. Sogyal Rinpoche does state it nicely. The key to understanding this from a Patanjali POV is to understand the difference between samprajnata samadhi, cognitive samadhi and asamprajnata or acognitive samadhi. The former relies on alambanas or supports (or supportive factors). In samprajnata the mind needs an object--either a gross or a subtle one. The objects can be any of the 24 forms of gross and subtle matter or an incarnation of god, etc. These all require effort or subtle effort, usually this involves a meditator (one deciding to meditate), a process of meditation (a process) and an object of that meditation (e.g. a mantra). Achieving a calm or transcendent state, where these three unite somewhat, from such means, is effortful even if one successfully transcends as one is still stuck in a subtle chain of action. One has not transcended action or karma.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
Vaj wrote: Any meditation using an OBECT will require subtle intent. Oh, so now it's subtle effort required in Buddhist sadhana? According to Swami Lakamanjoo, the last living guru of Kashmere Tantra, all you need to do to begin meditiating is feel the body as a whole. It's that simple, Vaj. Just stop your striving! Laksmanjoo: Feeling deepens into this silent harmony. From 'Centering' Translations of Saiva Sutra by Lakshmanjoo in 'Zen Flesh, Zen Bones' by Nyogen Sensaki and Paul Reps Centering: http://tinyurl.com/27sgb8 Maharishi and the last living guru of Kashmir Saivism: http://tinyurl.com/27hz8k
Re: [FairfieldLife] THINGS TMers BELIEVE, Volume I
On Mar 4, 2007, at 10:33 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Whatever you do, don't play any of these MP3s [one MP3 of a Leonard Cohen song, sent by a TM critic] - they contain subliminal Illuminati brainwashing messages. Yeah, go figure, it was only a simply tracking device hidden in an MP3. Subliminal messages, ha!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
On Mar 4, 2007, at 10:38 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Vaj wrote: Any meditation using an OBECT will require subtle intent. Oh, so now it's subtle effort required in Buddhist sadhana? According to Swami Lakamanjoo, the last living guru of Kashmere Tantra, all you need to do to begin meditiating is feel the body as a whole. It's that simple, Vaj. Just stop your striving! Feeling an object of sensation is still meditation on an object.
[FairfieldLife] [was Re: THINGS TMers BELIEVE, Volume I] Things Barry won't face
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because this forum is sometimes the home of questions about or criticisms of TM, the TM organization, and/or its founder Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, this is the first of what may become a continuing series. In the series I hope to dispel any misconceptions about TM and its adherents by removing the questions and the criticisms they might have been responding to, and focusing only on strong, long-term TMers and *their own words*, the things that they have come to believe after two to three decades of regular TM practice. I will post the quotes, without attribution, because in my opinion the quotes themselves and their authors are pretty much interchangeable. If anyone wants to find the source of a particular quote, they may use Yahoo!'s 'Advanced Search' feature to find the source of any individual quote. All quotes are from the previous week's posts here on Fairfield Life. My take on the foundation for much of the TM and MMY bashing is that it comes from folks who believed all of that was their salvation, but from a superficial perspective- in other words they would not have to change much but reap all of the benefits. Then when that didn't pan out, they now have found things to bash TM and MMY about, in order to justify their decision to drop it, and to belive this same salvation of theirs can be found elsewhere. Pretty simple really. LOL! Good work, Detective Tantrum! Here's a quote you selectively 'forgot' from last week (not by me). It speaks volumes, and is I think the origin of the compulsive list of quotes you have just posted. You can run, but you can't hide: With all due respect, Barry, you're the one with the paranoid delusion of being stalked on FFL. Get a fucking grip and start worrying about your own huge projection issues.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
Vaj wrote: Any meditation using an OBECT will require subtle intent. (Effort in Meditation FAQ #2?) sparaig wrote: Heh. You simply don't get it. Too much striving!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
On Mar 4, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Vaj wrote: Any meditation using an OBECT will require subtle intent. (Effort in Meditation FAQ #2?) sparaig wrote: Heh. You simply don't get it. Too much striving! If I have no object, what exactly is it that I'm striving for? ;-) What is their to strike towards if there is no object?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
Vaj wrote: Either that or find a Patanjali master who'd be willing to explain it to you ! ;-) You are supposed to read the book BEFORE you make your comments. Maharishi Patanjali says: When thought ceases, the Transcendental Absolute stands by itself, refers to Itself, as a witness to the world - 'tada drastuh svarupe vasthanam'. Y.S. I.1.3 Chit is thought, citta is conciousness - citta vriti means the turning of thought in the mind. Nirodha is cessation - the turnings have stopped, striving ceased, come to a halt, stilled, blown out, made peaceful, Nirvana. Maharishi Patanjali : http://tinyurl.com/26j355
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
Some refinements, curious if you agree or not (Peter S.): On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. There is nothing wrong with effort when it is understood this way. But you don't use the term effort with people first starting TM because for them the term effort means something completely different. The intellect discriminates based on intent. When it makes the final discrimination of Self/no self then it is truly effortless. But as long as consciousness identifies with any object of experience (and for most longterm TMer's it is a very subtle sattvic state of mind-golden ignorance!)the effort/intent is needed to facilitate this discrimination.. I just realized that this is the key as to why so many longtime TMer's are not Realized. They initially utilize the intent of effortlessly thinking the mantra for so many decades, burning out many, many samskaras/points of identification utilizing the natural tendency of the mind to move towards greater pleasure. Subtle states of mind are VERY enjoyable,very sattvic. But now the mind gets stuck in this sattvic condition. Or get caught in dualistic forms of bliss and never transcend the ananda: caught in the rapture. The sequence in cognitive forms of samadhi one can get caught in ananda and not make it asmita' or I amness. But even if they do make it to I amness it's important to understand, you can get stuck there too, as asmita is a klesha whose basis is moha or stupor. Thus one can get caught in a thought-free state for years and actually be attenuating the kleshas. Such people actually believe they are transcending and purifying stress. Actually they're increasing it. Even if one does attain seeded forms of samadhi, typically only begun once one is established at the level of the third eye, one is *still* producing seeds of action. One of the advantages of a mantra is, it's a nice seed. Pure consciousness is not sattvic (nor is it tamasic or rajasic either) so effortlessness will not facilitate Realization at this subtle level of mind. Seems like the dharma of TM is to bring you right to the edge of pure consciousness, but that final crossing-over is the subtle Self/no-self discrimination. Perhaps more lontime TMer's need to practice Ramana's experiential (not intellectual) technique of Self-inquiry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
According to Swami Lakamanjoo, the last living guru of Kashmere Tantra, all you need to do to begin meditiating is feel the body as a whole. It's that simple, Vaj. Just stop your striving! Vaj wrote: Feeling an object of sensation is still meditation on an object. It's a contemplative poise, Vaj, not a bearing down on an object of perception. Dhyana is a restful duration - there's no object. If there is an object in the mind you will identify with that object. You will find it very difficult to transcend if you stay on the concious thinking level. According to Patanjali: When the turnings of thought stop, a contemplative poise, samapatti, occurs, in which thought, like a polished crystal, is colored by what is nearby, whether perciever, process of perception, or objects of perception. - Y.S. 1.41
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sthapatya Vedic Trailer
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of at_man_and_brahman Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 12:46 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sthapatya Vedic Trailer It's at MERU, and is plainly visible (including kalash) from orbit in Google Earth. The obvious clue is the orientation w/r/t the older structure behind it. Anyone who's been to the campus will recognize the spot where this building is immediately. GE confirms it. MERU meaning Vlodrop? How about a Google Earth link?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are supposed to read the book BEFORE you make your comments. Maharishi Patanjali says: When thought ceases, the Transcendental Absolute stands by itself, refers to Itself, as a witness to the world - 'tada drastuh svarupe vasthanam'. Y.S. I.1.3 Why do you bother Richard ? This Vaj is lost in his own delusion and agenda. He does not digest what you write, nor does he want to. According to Lou Valentino, fellows like him might well be evicted to a more suitable place by our Space Brothers, where he will be amongst fellowmen, a place where negativity will abound. He is begging for it to happen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
Vaj wrote: I made no comments on Dzogchen, So you're saying that Dzogchen isn't Buddhist Sadhana. we were discussing Lawson's TM dogmas of effort vs. effortlessness. Sogyal Rinpoche does state it nicely. It's not a TM dogma - Suzuki, Sogyal, and Laksmanjoo agree that striving and effort is counterproductive to entering into a state of samadhi. According to Swami Venkatesananda, The Spirit of enquiry into the substance of the Pranva dispels all the obstacles or distractions without necessarily wrestling or struggling with them. Maharishi and Swami Venkatesananda: http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/images/vent.jpg The key to understanding this from a Patanjali POV is to understand the difference between samprajnata samadhi, cognitive samadhi and asamprajnata or acognitive samadhi. The former relies on alambanas or supports (or supportive factors). In samprajnata the mind needs an object--either a gross or a subtle one. The objects can be any of the 24 forms of gross and subtle matter or an incarnation of god, etc. These all require effort or subtle effort, usually this involves a meditator (one deciding to meditate), a process of meditation (a process) and an object of that meditation (e.g. a mantra). Achieving a calm or transcendent state, where these three unite somewhat, from such means, is effortful even if one successfully transcends as one is still stuck in a subtle chain of action. One has not transcended action or karma. Says Mumon: Wind flag, mind moves, The same understanding. When the mouth opens All are wrong.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
nablusos108 wrote: Why do you bother Richard? Some people just feel better when they have someone to talk to.
[FairfieldLife] Re: THINGS TMers KNOW, Volume I
nablusos108 wrote: Why not just let it Be and move on. Because the comings and goings of the Maharishi is an obsession?
[FairfieldLife] Re: How old IS MMY?
sparaig wrote: But everyone knows that Gurudev died in 1953, while your Brittanica quote says he died in 1952. Maybe so, but the Britannica confirms that Mahesh worked for a time in factories, that's the point. Typo, or Illuminatti conspiracy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmananda_Saraswati
[FairfieldLife] Re: THINGS Some TMers on FFL BELIEVE about some TM critics on FFL, Volume I
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because this forum is sometimes the home of questions about or criticisms of TM, the TM organization, and/or its founder Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, this is the first of what may become a continuing series. In this projected series, will you eventually be doing a post about what TMers believe about TM, the TM organization, and MMY? In the series I hope to dispel any misconceptions about TM and its adherents by removing the questions and the criticisms they might have been responding to, and focusing only on strong, long-term TMers and *their own words*, the things that they have come to believe after two to three decades of regular TM practice. I will post the quotes, without attribution, because in my opinion the quotes themselves and their authors are pretty much interchangeable. If anyone wants to find the source of a particular quote, they may use Yahoo!'s 'Advanced Search' feature to find the source of any individual quote. All quotes are from the previous week's posts here on Fairfield Life. My take on the foundation for much of the TM and MMY bashing is that it comes from folks who believed all of that was their salvation, but from a superficial perspective- in other words they would not have to change much but reap all of the benefits. Then when that didn't pan out, they now have found things to bash TM and MMY about, in order to justify their decision to drop it, and to belive this same salvation of theirs can be found elsewhere. Pretty simple really. After an exchange of postings it has become evident that the poster using the name Vaj [TM critic] is a Freemason, apparently of high rank, with (1) little or no understanding of TM and other eastern spiritual practices; and who has confessed to (2) be on a mission to apparently sow doubt about the safety of the practices of i.a. the TM and TM-Sidhi programes. Whatever you do, don't play any of these MP3s [one MP3 of a Leonard Cohen song, sent by a TM critic] - they contain subliminal Illuminati brainwashing messages. I've also had the experience of not doing much of anything during meditation, and not noticing any changes before, during and after, and only going through the motions of keeping my eyes closed for several minutes afterwards 'just in case' I had actually been meditating. I finally decided that since I HAD thought the mantra a few times during that period of 20 minutes, it qualified as TM, even though I couldn't tell any difference between before, during and after. Most of these fellows [TM critics] did not take the Programme seriously at all, I know them from Purusha - they were just in it for the ride. They are fools. The majority of the profesional TM-criticts here on FFL never learned TM in the first place. Lurkers should be aware that Barry [TM critic] is a troll who enjoys inflicting his delusional fantasy world on this forum, most often for the purpose of attacking supporters of TM and misleading readers who aren't well informed about the TMO. Ironically, Vaj [TM critic] says he started TM when he was 14, no doubt making any type of meditation he has practiced afterwards more successful. Rather than honor this essential step in his spiritual journey, he regularly scorns it. [To a TM critic] You may not have realized it, but you are dying from literal diarrhea. The only known cure to this condition is to re- digest your shiite, hoping that there's is left some nourishment in the brown stuff you're chewing on. Doing so shouldnät be a problem - looking at your postings so far, I give the impression of having actualyl acquired a taste for human chocolate. There is a coordinated effort to try to disgrace Maharishi. Several here on FFL is in this business, seemingly fulltime. They are working very hard on this. Why ? Because some structures in a crumbling, capitalistic world is threathened by the fact that TM actually allows the person to experience a state beyond sin, allows them to grow in their own pace towards Godhead, regardless of religion. They fear this very much. Their focus now is currently on Maharishi. Before this Vivekananda, Yogananda and Muktananda were targets. Soon their focus will be on Maitreya. As with the attacs on Maharishi et. al., their attacs on Maitreya will fail utterly, and they will be exposed. Do you really think that peons get a chance to see the Dali Lama these days, unless it is a publicity gimmick? Past a certain size, organizational structure disallows the boss from getting his hands dirty with the peasants. According to Lou Valentino [a regular poster to FFL] freaks like this Mason and Vaj [TM critics] might well be evicted by our Space Brothers to a planet of lower vibrational value where they will fit in better than here. Not
[FairfieldLife] was: THINGS TMers BELIEVE... now: Turquoise meditates ? - TM ? !!
A casual lurker might think that Turquoise would be wary of meditation. Which form of meditation, Turquoise? TM ? (From Turquoise, A Ducky Morning in France, FFL 131898, Feb. 27, 2007) I woke up without an alarm and meditated, then made some coffee and wandered out to the terrace overlooking the river with my computer. It's a beautiful morning . --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because this forum is sometimes the home of questions about or criticisms of TM, the TM organization, and/or its founder Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, this is the first of what may become a continuing series. In the series I hope to dispel any misconceptions about TM and its adherents by removing the questions and the criticisms they might have been responding to, and focusing only on strong, long-term TMers and *their own words*, the things that they have come to believe after two to three decades of regular TM practice. I will post the quotes, without attribution, because in my opinion the quotes themselves and their authors are pretty much interchangeable. If anyone wants to find the source of a particular quote, they may use Yahoo!'s 'Advanced Search' feature to find the source of any individual quote. All quotes are from the previous week's posts here on Fairfield Life. My take on the foundation for much of the TM and MMY bashing is that it comes from folks who believed all of that was their salvation, but from a superficial perspective- in other words they would not have to change much but reap all of the benefits. Then when that didn't pan out, they now have found things to bash TM and MMY about, in order to justify their decision to drop it, and to belive this same salvation of theirs can be found elsewhere. Pretty simple really. After an exchange of postings it has become evident that the poster using the name Vaj [TM critic] is a Freemason, apparently of high rank, with (1) little or no understanding of TM and other eastern spiritual practices; and who has confessed to (2) be on a mission to apparently sow doubt about the safety of the practices of i.a. the TM and TM-Sidhi programes. Whatever you do, don't play any of these MP3s [one MP3 of a Leonard Cohen song, sent by a TM critic] - they contain subliminal Illuminati brainwashing messages. I've also had the experience of not doing much of anything during meditation, and not noticing any changes before, during and after, and only going through the motions of keeping my eyes closed for several minutes afterwards 'just in case' I had actually been meditating. I finally decided that since I HAD thought the mantra a few times during that period of 20 minutes, it qualified as TM, even though I couldn't tell any difference between before, during and after. Most of these fellows [TM critics] did not take the Programme seriously at all, I know them from Purusha - they were just in it for the ride. They are fools. The majority of the profesional TM-criticts here on FFL never learned TM in the first place. Lurkers should be aware that Barry [TM critic] is a troll who enjoys inflicting his delusional fantasy world on this forum, most often for the purpose of attacking supporters of TM and misleading readers who aren't well informed about the TMO. Ironically, Vaj [TM critic] says he started TM when he was 14, no doubt making any type of meditation he has practiced afterwards more successful. Rather than honor this essential step in his spiritual journey, he regularly scorns it. [To a TM critic] You may not have realized it, but you are dying from literal diarrhea. The only known cure to this condition is to re- digest your shiite, hoping that there's is left some nourishment in the brown stuff you're chewing on. Doing so shouldnät be a problem - looking at your postings so far, I give the impression of having actualyl acquired a taste for human chocolate. There is a coordinated effort to try to disgrace Maharishi. Several here on FFL is in this business, seemingly fulltime. They are working very hard on this. Why ? Because some structures in a crumbling, capitalistic world is threathened by the fact that TM actually allows the person to experience a state beyond sin, allows them to grow in their own pace towards Godhead, regardless of religion. They fear this very much. Their focus now is currently on Maharishi. Before this Vivekananda, Yogananda and Muktananda were targets. Soon their focus will be on Maitreya. As with the attacs on Maharishi et. al., their attacs on Maitreya will fail utterly, and they will be exposed. Do you really think that peons get a chance to see the Dali Lama these days, unless it is a publicity gimmick? Past a certain size, organizational structure disallows the boss from getting his hands dirty with the peasants.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sthapatya Vedic Trailer
51deg09'23.71 N 6deg09'17.42 E --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of at_man_and_brahman Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 12:46 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sthapatya Vedic Trailer It's at MERU, and is plainly visible (including kalash) from orbit in Google Earth. The obvious clue is the orientation w/r/t the older structure behind it. Anyone who's been to the campus will recognize the spot where this building is immediately. GE confirms it. MERU meaning Vlodrop? How about a Google Earth link?
[FairfieldLife] Re: THINGS Some TMers on FFL BELIEVE about some TM critics on FFL, Volume I
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Because this forum is sometimes the home of questions about or criticisms of TM, the TM organization, and/or its founder Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, this is the first of what may become a continuing series. In this projected series, will you eventually be doing a post about what TMers believe about TM, the TM organization, and MMY? A valid question. The answer is No, I will not be starting such a thread. I think the idea is a good one, and I encourage you to start such a thread if you'd like. The focus of this thread (and its succes- sors in the series) is *not* what TMers say about TM, the TM organization, and MMY, but about what they say and how they act towards other human beings, in particular those who do not believe the same things they do and who have the presumption to talk about those things on this forum. Examples of the latter are presented below. I hope you DO start such a thread, and I hope equally strongly that some of the people quoted below will respond to it and share some of their thoughts on these subjects with us. I think it will be most edifying to read the things that they say they believe about TM, the TM organi- zation, and MMY, and then compare and contrast those things to the things they say about other people. Don't you? I wish you the best of luck with your thread, and look forward to reading it. In the series I hope to dispel any misconceptions about TM and its adherents by removing the questions and the criticisms they might have been responding to, and focusing only on strong, long-term TMers and *their own words*, the things that they have come to believe after two to three decades of regular TM practice. I will post the quotes, without attribution, because in my opinion the quotes themselves and their authors are pretty much interchangeable. If anyone wants to find the source of a particular quote, they may use Yahoo!'s 'Advanced Search' feature to find the source of any individual quote. All quotes are from the previous week's posts here on Fairfield Life. My take on the foundation for much of the TM and MMY bashing is that it comes from folks who believed all of that was their salvation, but from a superficial perspective- in other words they would not have to change much but reap all of the benefits. Then when that didn't pan out, they now have found things to bash TM and MMY about, in order to justify their decision to drop it, and to belive this same salvation of theirs can be found elsewhere. Pretty simple really. After an exchange of postings it has become evident that the poster using the name Vaj [TM critic] is a Freemason, apparently of high rank, with (1) little or no understanding of TM and other eastern spiritual practices; and who has confessed to (2) be on a mission to apparently sow doubt about the safety of the practices of i.a. the TM and TM-Sidhi programes. Whatever you do, don't play any of these MP3s [one MP3 of a Leonard Cohen song, sent by a TM critic] - they contain subliminal Illuminati brainwashing messages. I've also had the experience of not doing much of anything during meditation, and not noticing any changes before, during and after, and only going through the motions of keeping my eyes closed for several minutes afterwards 'just in case' I had actually been meditating. I finally decided that since I HAD thought the mantra a few times during that period of 20 minutes, it qualified as TM, even though I couldn't tell any difference between before, during and after. Most of these fellows [TM critics] did not take the Programme seriously at all, I know them from Purusha - they were just in it for the ride. They are fools. The majority of the profesional TM-criticts here on FFL never learned TM in the first place. Lurkers should be aware that Barry [TM critic] is a troll who enjoys inflicting his delusional fantasy world on this forum, most often for the purpose of attacking supporters of TM and misleading readers who aren't well informed about the TMO. Ironically, Vaj [TM critic] says he started TM when he was 14, no doubt making any type of meditation he has practiced afterwards more successful. Rather than honor this essential step in his spiritual journey, he regularly scorns it. [To a TM critic] You may not have realized it, but you are dying from literal diarrhea. The only known cure to this condition is to re- digest your shiite, hoping that there's is left some nourishment in the brown stuff you're chewing on. Doing so shouldnät be a problem - looking at your postings so far, I give the impression of having actualyl acquired a taste for human
[FairfieldLife] Re: THINGS TMers KNOW, Volume I
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: nablusos108 wrote: Why not just let it Be and move on. Because the comings and goings of the Maharishi is an obsession? Probably. All Saints will get unwanted focus. Not that they care. What is sad is that some unestablished souls, newcomers on the Path, could be confused by the negativity. Though I think they judge the Path by experience more than rubbish written on forums like this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: THINGS Some TMers on FFL BELIEVE about some TM critics on FFL, Volume I
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Because this forum is sometimes the home of questions about or criticisms of TM, the TM organization, and/or its founder Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, this is the first of what may become a continuing series. In this projected series, will you eventually be doing a post about what TMers believe about TM, the TM organization, and MMY? A valid question. The answer is No, I will not be starting such a thread. Then it would probably be a good idea to retitle your series to reflect the content more accurately, along the lines of the subject heading I provided. Otherwise it seems a bit, well, misleading, don't you think? I think the idea is a good one, and I encourage you to start such a thread if you'd like. What TMers believe about TM, MMY, and the TMO is very well represented in the traffic to this forum, so I see no need to start a thread about it. The focus of this thread (and its succes- sors in the series) is *not* what TMers say about TM, the TM organization, and MMY, but about what they say and how they act towards other human beings, in particular those who do not believe the same things they do and who have the presumption to talk about those things on this forum. Examples of the latter are presented below. One might also put together a thread focused on what TM critics say and how they act toward TMers on this forum. That might be even more interesting than the one you propose. Especially interesting would be a thread focusing on individual TM critics, such as yourself, that contrasts what you say you believe with what you say about TMers. I hope you DO start such a thread, and I hope equally strongly that some of the people quoted below will respond to it and share some of their thoughts on these subjects with us. I think it will be most edifying to read the things that they say they believe about TM, the TM organi- zation, and MMY, and then compare and contrast those things to the things they say about other people. Don't you? Again, I think the traffic to this forum provides all the information one needs along these lines, and has the advantage of providing it *in context*, rather than as isolated quotations. I wish you the best of luck with your thread, and look forward to reading it. I think you're mistaking a suggestion you made for something I actually said I would do. In the series I hope to dispel any misconceptions about TM and its adherents by removing the questions and the criticisms they might have been responding to, and focusing only on strong, long-term TMers and *their own words*, the things that they have come to believe after two to three decades of regular TM practice. I will post the quotes, without attribution, because in my opinion the quotes themselves and their authors are pretty much interchangeable. If anyone wants to find the source of a particular quote, they may use Yahoo!'s 'Advanced Search' feature to find the source of any individual quote. All quotes are from the previous week's posts here on Fairfield Life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hagelin's Vedic Cosmology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://snipurl.com/1bzh5-NZLZG6 4.2 meg PDF with text embedded. Er, thanks Vaj. Now people can download it from your site, instead of from the original url, which I posted on the various newsgroups a week or so ago. I'm trying to get him to upload his Is Consciousness the Unified Field? article as well: While tidying up the John Hagelin Wikipedia entry I found this entry listed on SLAC, scanned into PDF by someone in Japan, I guess: http://ccdb4fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img/allpdf?198912227
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4, 2007, at 9:02 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Mar 4, 2007, at 8:45 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. Except, one need not have intent to do TM. Any meditation using an OBECT will require subtle intent. (Effort in Meditation FAQ #2?) Heh. You simply don't get it. Of course I do, you're just stuck in a dogmatic paradigm. There's really nothing more to say other than take the advice of Dr. Pete and re-read that till you get it. Either that or find a Patanjali master who'd be willing to explain it to you ! ;-) But I don't have intent to think my mantra sometimes. In fact, per checking notes, that's just the right start.
[FairfieldLife] Re: THINGS Some TMers on FFL BELIEVE about some TM critics on FFL, Volume I
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Because this forum is sometimes the home of questions about or criticisms of TM, the TM organization, and/or its founder Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, this is the first of what may become a continuing series. In this projected series, will you eventually be doing a post about what TMers believe about TM, the TM organization, and MMY? Ofcourse not. This fellow has an agenda. To sow dissention, perhaps he is making a buck or two on this. He is not really dangerous to anyone but himself because his motivs are so obvious.
[FairfieldLife] THINGS TMers BELIEVE ABOUT TM, THE TMO, AND MMY
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Because this forum is sometimes the home of questions about or criticisms of TM, the TM organization, and/or its founder Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, this is the first of what may become a continuing series. In this projected series, will you eventually be doing a post about what TMers believe about TM, the TM organization, and MMY? A valid question. The answer is No, I will not be starting such a thread. Then it would probably be a good idea to retitle your series to reflect the content more accurately, along the lines of the subject heading I provided. Otherwise it seems a bit, well, misleading, don't you think? I stand by my title for the other thread. It doesn't imply that it's ALL things that TMers believe, does it? I think the idea is a good one, and I encourage you to start such a thread if you'd like. What TMers believe about TM, MMY, and the TMO is very well represented in the traffic to this forum, so I see no need to start a thread about it. Your call. I still think it would be a great thread, *especially* if the same people I'll be quoting in my other thread respond to it. The focus of this thread (and its succes- sors in the series) is *not* what TMers say about TM, the TM organization, and MMY, but about what they say and how they act towards other human beings, in particular those who do not believe the same things they do and who have the presumption to talk about those things on this forum. Examples of the latter are presented below. One might also put together a thread focused on what TM critics say and how they act toward TMers on this forum. Another great idea for a thread. Go for it. Oh...and call it whatever you'd like. That might be even more interesting than the one you propose. Especially interesting would be a thread focusing on individual TM critics, such as yourself, that contrasts what you say you believe with what you say about TMers. You may start this thread, too. You can even use my name in the title if you want. I hope you DO start such a thread, and I hope equally strongly that some of the people quoted below will respond to it and share some of their thoughts on these subjects with us. I think it will be most edifying to read the things that they say they believe about TM, the TM organi- zation, and MMY, and then compare and contrast those things to the things they say about other people. Don't you? Again, I think the traffic to this forum provides all the information one needs along these lines, and has the advantage of providing it *in context*, rather than as isolated quotations. If you say so. I still think the thread idea is a good one. I wish you the best of luck with your thread, and look forward to reading it. I think you're mistaking a suggestion you made for something I actually said I would do. Maybe I'll start the thread after all. All comments are welcomed, and I for one will offer not the least bit of criticism or negativity in response to anything said. Heck, I might even say some positive stuff about all these things myself. TMers, WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE ABOUT: 1) TM, 2) THE TM ORGANIZATION, and 3) MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4, 2007, at 9:46 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Vaj - Striving and effort presents an obstacle in TM, Tibetan Dzogchen and the practice of Soto Zen. In fact, striving is counterproductive. According to the Buddha himself, enlightenment cannot be achieved by striving. Here's a quote from a Tibetan Buddhist teacher of Dzogchen, who also seems to indicate that you are mistaken. I made no comments on Dzogchen, we were discussing Lawson's TM dogmas of effort vs. effortlessness. Sogyal Rinpoche does state it nicely. The key to understanding this from a Patanjali POV is to understand the difference between samprajnata samadhi, cognitive samadhi and asamprajnata or acognitive samadhi. The former relies on alambanas or supports (or supportive factors). In samprajnata the mind needs an object--either a gross or a subtle one. The objects can be any of the 24 forms of gross and subtle matter or an incarnation of god, etc. These all require effort or subtle effort, usually this involves a meditator (one deciding to meditate), a process of meditation (a process) and an object of that meditation (e.g. a mantra). Achieving a calm or transcendent state, where these three unite somewhat, from such means, is effortful even if one successfully transcends as one is still stuck in a subtle chain of action. One has not transcended action or karma. And?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Vaj wrote: Any meditation using an OBECT will require subtle intent. (Effort in Meditation FAQ #2?) sparaig wrote: Heh. You simply don't get it. Too much striving! If I have no object, what exactly is it that I'm striving for? ;-) What is their to strike towards if there is no object? Why is there effort if there is no striving?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. sparaig wrote: Except, one need not have intent to do TM. Intent, effort, goal- setting, they're all contrindicated in the practice of dhyana. You are going to get only as much enlightenment as you are going to get. All you have to do is relax and stop striving. According to Swami Brahmanand Saraswati - Brahman is Light, it needs no other light to illuminate it. Meditation does not unfold the Self - the Self unfolds Itself, by Itself, to Itself. - MMY 1967, CBG VI, 5, P. 293 And or by using any attractive object. YS.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4, 2007, at 10:38 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Vaj wrote: Any meditation using an OBECT will require subtle intent. Oh, so now it's subtle effort required in Buddhist sadhana? According to Swami Lakamanjoo, the last living guru of Kashmere Tantra, all you need to do to begin meditiating is feel the body as a whole. It's that simple, Vaj. Just stop your striving! Feeling an object of sensation is still meditation on an object. Well, at least you understand that much. What, pray tell, is NOT an object?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sthapatya Vedic Trailer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of at_man_and_brahman Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 12:46 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sthapatya Vedic Trailer It's at MERU, and is plainly visible (including kalash) from orbit in Google Earth. The obvious clue is the orientation w/r/t the older structure behind it. Anyone who's been to the campus will recognize the spot where this building is immediately. GE confirms it. MERU meaning Vlodrop? How about a Google Earth link? ER, he's implying that the house behind is the monastery., and that mobile home is MMY's SV mansion... Gigantic bike.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How old IS MMY?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: sparaig wrote: But everyone knows that Gurudev died in 1953, while your Brittanica quote says he died in 1952. Maybe so, but the Britannica confirms that Mahesh worked for a time in factories, that's the point. My point is that there's at least 3 date's that I have seen for MMY's birthday and that any and all may be due to dypos, er, typos... Jan 12, 1911, 1912 and 1917. 1917 appears to be the most common, and Rick says heknows people who have seen MMY's passport and that Jan 12, 1917 is the date on teh passport. What was the name, BTW, Rick? Typo, or Illuminatti conspiracy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmananda_Saraswati
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
sparaig wrote: What, pray tell, is NOT an object? The Absolute, the Transcendent, is not an object of cognition. All meditation requires is the will to begin. An object, such as a sound used in sadhana, simply provides the opportunity for the transcending - the object is not the goal or the real itself - it's like a finger pointing at the moon.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How old IS MMY?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willytex@ wrote: sparaig wrote: But everyone knows that Gurudev died in 1953, while your Brittanica quote says he died in 1952. Maybe so, but the Britannica confirms that Mahesh worked for a time in factories, that's the point. My point is that there's at least 3 date's that I have seen for MMY's birthday and that any and all may be due to dypos, er, typos... Jan 12, 1911, 1912 and 1917. 1917 appears to be the most common, and Rick says heknows people who have seen MMY's passport and that Jan 12, 1917 is the date on teh passport. Of course they have seen this, it is all a part of Maharishis Leela. Two of who I know have seen a passport stating that Maharishi is born 20. october 1912. One claims to have seen 20. october 1917. So next time some fools comes along with the Jyotish of Maharishi, all you have to do is laugh. And 12. january ? Forget it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
Meditation does not unfold the Self - the Self unfolds Itself, by Itself, to Itself. - MMY 1967, CBG VI, 5, P. 293 sparaig wrote: And or by using any attractive object. Or by the use of mantras in meditation or by the use of simples. Psychic and spiritual powers (siddhi) may be inborn, or they may be gained by the use of simples, or by mantra... - Maharishi Patanjali. Y.S. IV, 1
[FairfieldLife] Re: THINGS TMers BELIEVE ABOUT TM, THE TMO, AND MMY
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Because this forum is sometimes the home of questions about or criticisms of TM, the TM organization, and/or its founder Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, this is the first of what may become a continuing series. In this projected series, will you eventually be doing a post about what TMers believe about TM, the TM organization, and MMY? A valid question. The answer is No, I will not be starting such a thread. Then it would probably be a good idea to retitle your series to reflect the content more accurately, along the lines of the subject heading I provided. Otherwise it seems a bit, well, misleading, don't you think? I stand by my title for the other thread. It doesn't imply that it's ALL things that TMers believe, does it? Non sequitur. Read what I wrote again, please.
[FairfieldLife] Re: THINGS TMers KNOW, Volume I
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusos108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willytex@ wrote: nablusos108 wrote: Why not just let it Be and move on. Because the comings and goings of the Maharishi is an obsession? Probably. All Saints will get unwanted focus. Not that they care. What is sad is that some unestablished souls, newcomers on the Path, could be confused by the negativity. Though I think they judge the Path by experience more than rubbish written on forums like this. Agreed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Mar 4, 2007, at 10:38 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Vaj wrote: Any meditation using an OBECT will require subtle intent. Oh, so now it's subtle effort required in Buddhist sadhana? According to Swami Lakamanjoo, the last living guru of Kashmere Tantra, all you need to do to begin meditiating is feel the body as a whole. It's that simple, Vaj. Just stop your striving! Feeling an object of sensation is still meditation on an object. Well, at least you understand that much. What, pray tell, is NOT an object? LOL! good question!
RE: [FairfieldLife] Bevan's Birth Day Celebration!
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of cardemaister Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 5:52 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Bevan's Birth Day Celebration! If you have an opportunity, please listen to Maharishi's speech on Bevan's BDC! His voice sounds better than for quite a long time, IMO. His priestly accent is interesting. For instance, he pronounced functioning approx. like functionig. Cool! :) He has done that for a long time, but didn't always do it. He has this strange way of drawing out and emphasizing certain syllables.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of sparaig Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 7:46 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. Except, one need not have intent to do TM. Maharishi, on my TTC, quoting some Vedic scripture: Be easy to us with gentle effort. He gave a whole lecture, or part of one, about how TM did actually involve gentle effort.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of sparaig Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 7:46 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. Except, one need not have intent to do TM. Maharishi, on my TTC, quoting some Vedic scripture: Be easy to us with gentle effort. He gave a whole lecture, or part of one, about how TM did actually involve gentle effort. Heh. Not always in my experience. Does this mean that I'm doing TM wrong?
[FairfieldLife] Re: THINGS TMers BELIEVE ABOUT TM, THE TMO, AND MMY
I stand by my title for the other thread. It doesn't imply that it's ALL things that TMers believe, does it? Non sequitur. Read what I wrote again, please. Speaking of non sequiturs and thread titles, it looks like you and Jim are once again changing the subject line of threads. What's up with that and why don't you just start a new thread? This Yahoo! Groups forum is already a mess with it's disjointed Pearl scripting. THINGS TMers BELIEVE, Volume I: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/133600
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of sparaig Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 7:46 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. Except, one need not have intent to do TM. Maharishi, on my TTC, quoting some Vedic scripture: Be easy to us with gentle effort. He gave a whole lecture, or part of one, about how TM did actually involve gentle effort. That scripture quote is meaningless without context, Rick, as I've pointed out before. And as I recently posted, Charlie Donahue is quoted as saying TM doesn't even involve *intent* (which is my experience, and obviously Lawson's as well). There's some kind of subtle semantic finagling going on here that serves to confuse rather than to clarify.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
sparaig wrote: Does this mean that I'm doing TM wrong? Transcending is an automatic process; it doesn't require any effort or striving because there is no goal, no destination. You are already in the enlightened state; your mind is just covered over with the appearance of the material world - Maya. All you have to do is isolate the Purusha and let it shine. It's that simple.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of sparaig Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 7:46 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. Except, one need not have intent to do TM. Maharishi, on my TTC, quoting some Vedic scripture: Be easy to us with gentle effort. He gave a whole lecture, or part of one, about how TM did actually involve gentle effort. That scripture quote is meaningless without context, Rick, as I've pointed out before. And as I recently posted, Charlie Donahue is quoted as saying TM doesn't even involve *intent* (which is my experience, and obviously Lawson's as well). There's some kind of subtle semantic finagling going on here that serves to confuse rather than to clarify. I wasn't there, but I suspect that MMY's point was that at most some subtle effort MIGHT be involved, especially at the start.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
authfriend wrote: That scripture quote is meaningless without context, Rick, as I've pointed out before. And as I recently posted, Charlie Donahue is quoted as saying TM doesn't even involve *intent* (which is my experience, and obviously Lawson's as well). There's some kind of subtle semantic finagling going on here that serves to confuse rather than to clarify. That's been my experience as well - often the 'best' meditations are those that come of themselves involving no volition or effort of any kind. On Dogen: In referring to zazen, Do-gen is most often referring specifically to shikantaza, roughly translatable as nothing but precisely sitting, which is a kind of sitting meditation in which the meditator sits in a state of brightly alert attention that is free of thoughts, directed to no object, and attached to no particular content. Dogen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogen
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
On Mar 4, 2007, at 2:56 PM, Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of sparaig Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 7:46 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. Except, one need not have intent to do TM. Maharishi, on my TTC, quoting some Vedic scripture: “Be easy to us with gentle effort.” He gave a whole lecture, or part of one, about how TM did actually involve “gentle effort.” Even if he had, it's well known that any meditation that uses an object will, by it's very nature, require some suble effort since they all rely on some kind of technique. Of course this applies to ALL forms of meditation with an object; Buddhist, Hindu, Tamil, Tantric, Jain, etc., etc. People get attached to the advertising dogma: they believe the sales pitch and then turn the pitch into dogma. TM is simple easy, and that's enough.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hagelin's Vedic Cosmology
On Mar 4, 2007, at 1:48 PM, sparaig wrote: Er, thanks Vaj. Now people can download it from your site, instead of from the original url, which I posted on the various newsgroups a week or so ago. I'm trying to get him to upload his Is Consciousness the Unified Field? article as well: This is different in that not only is it searchable, you can cut paste text from it. It'll be great for people in the future who critique Vedic Creation Science a la TM. I have the other article you mention in hardcopy and IIRC from the web.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
sparaig wrote: I suspect that MMY's point was that at most some subtle effort MIGHT be involved, especially at the start. At most all it takes is the will to live. The fruits of meditation are not the result of effort or concentration. According to Bhagavad Gita, clinging to fruits of one's actions is a detriment. In order to experience the Transcendent, you must give up all notions of ownership - you are not the body - you are eternal spirit soul. Freedom is a reversal of the evolutionary course of prakriti, which is empty of meaning for the purusha; it is also the power of conciousness in a state of true identity. - Y.S. 4.34
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: sparaig wrote: Does this mean that I'm doing TM wrong? Transcending is an automatic process; it doesn't require any effort or striving because there is no goal, no destination. You are already in the enlightened state; your mind is just covered over with the appearance of the material world - Maya. All you have to do is isolate the Purusha and let it shine. It's that simple. That's right. But fellows like Vaj will never get this. People like him will always try to complicate, sow dissention. Their world is simple in the sense of; we know what we have but not what we will get. They hate the whole idea of self-realization. Self realized ? Without the church, without the Government ? No Sir !
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: sparaig wrote: Does this mean that I'm doing TM wrong? Transcending is an automatic process; it doesn't require any effort or striving because there is no goal, no destination. You are already in the enlightened state; your mind is just covered over with the appearance of the material world - Maya. All you have to do is isolate the Purusha and let it shine. It's that simple. I am the witness: I begin the mantra effortlessly, and I witness it. I witness it becoming finer and finer...I forget the mantra, and notice I'm off on a thought...I remember the mantra again...there's a shift, it becomes finer and finer...I can feel the witness throughout the process, and sometimes, just sit with the witness, without any mantra, and without any thoughts...just be. Sometimes I can just be, and feel the body. This I can feel is healing, just witness a sensation in the body, or even an emotion held in the body, which is uncomfortable or frustrating. I feeling the body, or witnessing the body, begins to heal it, and you feel a shift at some point, so, something has moved out. Many times, so-called stresses which Maharishi talks about; Particularly, deep-rooted stresses, can be so intensely attatched to your entire being, that sometimes more intense assistence is required to remove these big stresses, or even other negative energies, lower energies in the system. I'm sure in India, when Maharishi was with Guru Dev, there were some powerful ceremonies, and powerful being which would help to dispel any deep rooted lower energies. Many of these deep rooted lower energies, are what creates the chaos in the world; many of these energies are carried by people without even realizing it. Releasing all of the baggage of the past, as well as the karma of the ancestors, is not an easy road for most. Only the sincerest seeker will arive there. r.g.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4, 2007, at 2:56 PM, Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of sparaig Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 7:46 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. Except, one need not have intent to do TM. Maharishi, on my TTC, quoting some Vedic scripture: Be easy to us with gentle effort. He gave a whole lecture, or part of one, about how TM did actually involve gentle effort. Even if he had, it's well known that any meditation that uses an object will, by it's very nature, require some suble effort since they all rely on some kind of technique. Of course this applies to ALL forms of meditation with an object; Buddhist, Hindu, Tamil, Tantric, Jain, etc., etc. People get attached to the advertising dogma: they believe the sales pitch and then turn the pitch into dogma. TM is simple easy, and that's enough. It's well known, save to those of us who were content to keep to our original practice, rather than seek something better.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hagelin's Vedic Cosmology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4, 2007, at 1:48 PM, sparaig wrote: Er, thanks Vaj. Now people can download it from your site, instead of from the original url, which I posted on the various newsgroups a week or so ago. I'm trying to get him to upload his Is Consciousness the Unified Field? article as well: This is different in that not only is it searchable, you can cut paste text from it. It'll be great for people in the future who critique Vedic Creation Science a la TM. I have the other article you mention in hardcopy and IIRC from the web. Ah, so you ran scanning software? Kool. And thanks.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4, 2007, at 2:56 PM, Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of sparaig Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 7:46 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. Except, one need not have intent to do TM. Maharishi, on my TTC, quoting some Vedic scripture: Be easy to us with gentle effort. He gave a whole lecture, or part of one, about how TM did actually involve gentle effort. Even if he had, it's well known that any meditation that uses an object will, by it's very nature, require some suble effort since they all rely on some kind of technique. Maharishi: TM isn't a technique. We call it a technique because it works. Of course this applies to ALL forms of meditation with an object; Buddhist, Hindu, Tamil, Tantric, Jain, etc., etc. Vaj doesn't realize it, but he's just made the case for TM's uniqueness. People get attached to the advertising dogma: they believe the sales pitch and then turn the pitch into dogma. Wrong. They believe their own personal experience. TM is simple easy, and that's enough. It's also effortless and nonintentional.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of sparaig Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 7:46 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. Except, one need not have intent to do TM. Maharishi, on my TTC, quoting some Vedic scripture: Be easy to us with gentle effort. He gave a whole lecture, or part of one, about how TM did actually involve gentle effort. That scripture quote is meaningless without context, Rick, as I've pointed out before. And as I recently posted, Charlie Donahue is quoted as saying TM doesn't even involve *intent* (which is my experience, and obviously Lawson's as well). There's some kind of subtle semantic finagling going on here that serves to confuse rather than to clarify. I wasn't there, but I suspect that MMY's point was that at most some subtle effort MIGHT be involved, especially at the start. Who the hell knows? We can't possibly tell without context. Rick can't provide a verbatim transcript, and we can't just accept without question his interpretation of a long-ago lecture illustrated by a quote that has no meaning out of context. None of the folks insisting effort and intent are involved will address the quote I posted from Charlie Donahue, who says TM isn't even *intentional*. It's such a subtle point, and so absolutely crucial to TM's effectiveness.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
On Mar 4, 2007, at 3:30 PM, sparaig wrote: It's well known, save to those of us who were content to keep to our original practice, rather than seek something better. And then there are those of us who never abandoned our practice at all, but integrated it with more advanced or more complete practices. There are many people here like that. Sadly most have quited down since the tone of this list turned sour. For example, I know of several people who took their TM mantra and got the full mantra from Amma (for free). And it was a major upgrade for them. Even others went on to receive full initiation into the devata herself, either her tantra, her mandala or her yantra. There are dozens of variations on this theme (all unique, important and beautiful), but if you think TM is the be all and end all, you're sadly mistaken. TM is completely portable if you have the right teacher and the courage to move beyond a sect. IMO, those who took what they found useful and left the rest behind are the healthiest.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
Transcending is an automatic process; it doesn't require any effort or striving because there is no goal, no destination. You are already in the enlightened state; your mind is just covered over with the appearance of the material world - Maya. All you have to do is isolate the Purusha and let it shine. It's that simple. nablusos108 wrote: That's right. But fellows like Vaj will never get this. People like him will always try to complicate, sow dissention. Their world is simple in the sense of; we know what we have but not what we will get. They hate the whole idea of self-realization. Self realized ? Without the church, without the Government ? No Sir! Maybe so, but both Barry and Vaj seem to be believers in the enlightenment tradition, except they got a little mixed up when they adopted Buddhism, not realizing that the practice advocated by Mahesh IS pure Buddhist Yoga. All this got straightened out with the teaching of Bodhi Daruma, the founder of the Chan sect in China. Up until then, the people had mistaken the pointing finger for the moon itself. Enlightenment is sudden, not gradual, and it comes all at once, not in little dribbles. You are either in it or you are not. If not, you're covered over by Maya and you suffer. Everyone is already transcending, even without a technique. The average person couldn't go through a day without once or twice pausing to take stock of their own mind stuff. Meditation simply means to think things over - all you have to do in order to transcend is provide the ideal opportunity for thinking. We don't have to make an effort to think - what we have to do is relax naturally and isolate the Being. It is fruitless to try to be yourself, you already are your Self.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hagelin's Vedic Cosmology
On Mar 4, 2007, at 3:32 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4, 2007, at 1:48 PM, sparaig wrote: Er, thanks Vaj. Now people can download it from your site, instead of from the original url, which I posted on the various newsgroups a week or so ago. I'm trying to get him to upload his Is Consciousness the Unified Field? article as well: This is different in that not only is it searchable, you can cut paste text from it. It'll be great for people in the future who critique Vedic Creation Science a la TM. I have the other article you mention in hardcopy and IIRC from the web. Ah, so you ran scanning software? Kool. And thanks. My OCR packages all take PDF's as input docs. I do this to all the PDF bitmapped documents I get now. You can search for words then. A lot of people are doing entire series of books, encyclopedias, etc.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
On Mar 4, 2007, at 3:40 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Maybe so, but both Barry and Vaj seem to be believers in the enlightenment tradition, except they got a little mixed up when they adopted Buddhism, not realizing that the practice advocated by Mahesh IS pure Buddhist Yoga. Actually that is incorrect as TM comes from known sources in Hindu tantra, not Buddhist tantra. I can't speak for Barry but I am well aware of the similarities and, importantly, the differences between the two and so therefore would not as easily mistake one for the other. Beware of those who do and then go posting it on the internet as fact.
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Beatles Biggest Secrets
Vaj wrote: The Beatles Biggest Secrets On BBC America 3/3/07 10:00 PM http://www.bbcamerica.com/content/200/index.jsp It was okay but not that much to it. You won't see much of Maharishi, just some of Paul Saltzman's photos from Rishikesh.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
Robert Gimbel wrote: I'm sure in India, when Maharishi was with Guru Dev, there were some powerful ceremonies, and powerful being which would help to dispel any deep rooted lower energies. From what I've read, Robert, being in the same room with Guru Dev was a meditation in itself, where transcending just comes of itself - there was no need for a technique or even any instruction. According to Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, the Light needs no other illumination - it is self-shinning. All you need is the ideal opportunity for the transcending. In some cases all you need is to be in the presence of an enlightened saint - that IS a meditation without any effort. It's only because were are alone without a guru or a teacher that we resort to striving and apply effort. As the Yoga Sutras state: yogash chittavritti nirodha which means, Yoga is mental activity cessation - Y.S I.v.2
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: They're Made Out Of Meat
TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaFZTAOb7IE A short film, complete with credits, and starring Tom Noonan, the bad guy from Manhunter. Very funny little film, and one that should raise questions for those who, like Nablusos and Lsoma, just can't wait for the aliens to come and take them away to that big barbeque in the sky. And (actually related for those who have a hard time with following things they consider non-sequiturs), today's Doonesbury, which comments on the double-edged sword of both YouTube and on proudly displaying in public things that might better be kept to oneself: http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20070304 As long as you're looking at comics check out today's Bizarro if you can somehow. Unfortunately they are not posting anything but the first week of each month's comics and only February's is up their now. It has something to do with Lost. :) http://www.bizarro.com/ And today's Opus is very funny too.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of sparaig Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 2:02 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of sparaig Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 7:46 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. Except, one need not have intent to do TM. Maharishi, on my TTC, quoting some Vedic scripture: Be easy to us with gentle effort. He gave a whole lecture, or part of one, about how TM did actually involve gentle effort. Heh. Not always in my experience. Does this mean that I'm doing TM wrong? Gentle means gentle. Just the intention to entertain the mantra is a gentle effort, as compared with just sitting there letting random thoughts run amok.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 2:09 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of sparaig Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 7:46 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. Except, one need not have intent to do TM. Maharishi, on my TTC, quoting some Vedic scripture: Be easy to us with gentle effort. He gave a whole lecture, or part of one, about how TM did actually involve gentle effort. That scripture quote is meaningless without context, Rick, as I've pointed out before. I don't recall that he provided a context. Maybe it was a lecture about the effortless of TM, and he decided to introduce that quote. And as I recently posted, Charlie Donahue is quoted as saying TM doesn't even involve *intent* (which is my experience, and obviously Lawson's as well). Do you have the intent to sit in the chair, or does an unseen hand put you there? Do you have the intent to close your eyes? Sure, the mantra may come automatically after you close them. We all have that experience. But there's a difference between doing TM and just sitting and daydreaming, and that difference, IMO, involves intent, or purpose.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hagelin's Vedic Cosmology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My OCR packages all take PDF's as input docs. Neat. Which packages are these? I do this to all the PDF bitmapped documents I get now. You can search for words then. A lot of people are doing entire series of books, encyclopedias, etc. Wow. I wish that someone would do that with the works of Dorothy Dunnett. On her discussion list when we wanted to search for phrases or characters, we had to rely on Amazon's Look Inside This Book feature. And as nice as that is in many ways, it has a tendency to lock you out after a very few searches. (There may be a way to subscribe to Amazon's feature for a price, but I never investigated it because I so rarely had to use it.) Isn't the sharing of information -- even IF one can legitimately call some of this sharing piracy -- a fascinating phenomenon? The other day Willytex asked how I managed to watch Lost in a remote village in France? How? Easy. Remember that dialogue in the first Pirates of the Carib- bean movie? Will Turner: You cheated. Jack Sparrow: Pirate. How did I keep up with Lost and Dexter and Battlestar Galactica and The Dresden Files? How did I manage to watch most of the interesting movies made last year, even the ones that were never released in France? I cheated. Pirate. And y'know...I just can't work up that much Buddhist guilt about it. I was a Deadhead for too long as a youth to believe overmuch in copyright in my dotage. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4, 2007, at 3:30 PM, sparaig wrote: It's well known, save to those of us who were content to keep to our original practice, rather than seek something better. And then there are those of us who never abandoned our practice at all From your many misdescriptions of TM, Vaj, you couldn't have abandoned the original practice because you were never practicing TM to begin with, but rather your misunderstanding of it. , but integrated it with more advanced or more complete practices. There are many people here like that. Sadly most have quited down since the tone of this list turned sour. For example, I know of several people who took their TM mantra and got the full mantra from Amma (for free). And it was a major upgrade for them. Even others went on to receive full initiation into the devata herself, either her tantra, her mandala or her yantra. There are dozens of variations on this theme (all unique, important and beautiful), but if you think TM is the be all and end all, you're sadly mistaken. TM is completely portable if you have the right teacher and the courage to move beyond a sect. IMO, those who took what they found useful and left the rest behind are the healthiest.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of sparaig Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 2:02 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of sparaig Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 7:46 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife% 40yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. Except, one need not have intent to do TM. Maharishi, on my TTC, quoting some Vedic scripture: Be easy to us with gentle effort. He gave a whole lecture, or part of one, about how TM did actually involve gentle effort. Heh. Not always in my experience. Does this mean that I'm doing TM wrong? Gentle means gentle. Just the intention to entertain the mantra is a gentle effort, as compared with just sitting there letting random thoughts run amok. That dichotomy is a specific situation that sometimes occurs: when you realize you've been having thoughts, but the mantra does not then come of its own accord. For me--and I believe Lawson has said the same thing-- the realization that one has been having thoughts is (or often is) indistinguishable from the mantra. As Lawson points out, the checking notes say that when one begins to meditate and the mantra arises on its own, that is just the right start to meditation. Sometimes it's necessary to use gentle effort to jump-start the mantra at the beginning of meditation or after a train of thought has subsided. So in that sense you could say TM involves gentle effort. To suggest that it involves gentle effort *throughout*, as a rule for how to entertain the mantra, is just wrong.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 2:09 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of sparaig Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 7:46 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife% 40yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. Except, one need not have intent to do TM. Maharishi, on my TTC, quoting some Vedic scripture: Be easy to us with gentle effort. He gave a whole lecture, or part of one, about how TM did actually involve gentle effort. That scripture quote is meaningless without context, Rick, as I've pointed out before. I don't recall that he provided a context. Maybe it was a lecture about the effortless of TM, and he decided to introduce that quote. And as I recently posted, Charlie Donahue is quoted as saying TM doesn't even involve *intent* (which is my experience, and obviously Lawson's as well). Do you have the intent to sit in the chair, or does an unseen hand put you there? Do you have the intent to close your eyes? Red herring. Nobody's disputing that sitting to meditate and closing the eyes isn't intentional. Sure, the mantra may come automatically after you close them. We all have that experience. But there's a difference between doing TM and just sitting and daydreaming, and that difference, IMO, involves intent, or purpose. With regard to sitting down and closing the eyes, certainly. One has the intention to meditate, and nobody ever said otherwise. But the meditation itself, the process, is not intentional.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 2:09 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of sparaig Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 7:46 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife% 40yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. Lawson: Except, one need not have intent to do TM. Rick: Maharishi, on my TTC, quoting some Vedic scripture: Be easy to us with gentle effort. He gave a whole lecture, or part of one, about how TM did actually involve gentle effort. Judy: That scripture quote is meaningless without context, Rick, as I've pointed out before. Rick: I don't recall that he provided a context. Maybe it was a lecture about the effortless of TM, and he decided to introduce that quote. *Of course* there was a context. He didn't just sit there and suddenly come up with the quote and then start talking about something completely different. A lecture about the effortlessness of TM is nowhere near adequate context to fathom the meaning of the quote. Don't you know what context means?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Judy: That scripture quote is meaningless without context, Rick, as I've pointed out before. Rick: I don't recall that he provided a context. Maybe it was a lecture about the effortless of TM, and he decided to introduce that quote. *Of course* there was a context. He didn't just sit there and suddenly come up with the quote and then start talking about something completely different. A lecture about the effortlessness of TM is nowhere near adequate context to fathom the meaning of the quote. Don't you know what context means? From the dictionary: context: the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
On Mar 4, 2007, at 4:09 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Gentle means gentle. Just the intention to entertain the mantra is a gentle effort, as compared with just sitting there letting random thoughts run amok Intent to sit, intent to close eyes (and remove them from their open state), intention to begin to use mantra as a tool to transcend, failing to maintain transcendence and then having the subtle (or even unconscious) intent to return to mantra to correct failure to maintain transcendent--all constitute effort. All are typical of the first stages of meditation using an object, where the object cannot be maintained and must be constantly patching, i.e. not judging and simply bringing the attention back to the object.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hagelin's Vedic Cosmology
On Mar 4, 2007, at 4:18 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My OCR packages all take PDF's as input docs. Neat. Which packages are these? I have Adobe Acrobat Professional, ReadIris Pro and OmniPage Pro. Omnipage for Windows is the best, but also the most arcane if you've never used it. I do this to all the PDF bitmapped documents I get now. You can search for words then. A lot of people are doing entire series of books, encyclopedias, etc. Wow. I wish that someone would do that with the works of Dorothy Dunnett. On her discussion list when we wanted to search for phrases or characters, we had to rely on Amazon's Look Inside This Book feature. And as nice as that is in many ways, it has a tendency to lock you out after a very few searches. (There may be a way to subscribe to Amazon's feature for a price, but I never investigated it because I so rarely had to use it.) Yeah, it is a very useful feature. All the major works in Dzogchen for example, have been scanned in (300 DPI typically) and I've added the text-behind-image to all of them. If I need to search for something, the search feature in Mac OS X will actually look inside them and find it. Isn't the sharing of information -- even IF one can legitimately call some of this sharing piracy -- a fascinating phenomenon? The other day Willytex asked how I managed to watch Lost in a remote village in France? How? Easy. Remember that dialogue in the first Pirates of the Carib- bean movie? Will Turner: You cheated. Jack Sparrow: Pirate. Yeah I missed a number of episodes of TV shows and I just get them online now. It is a good idea to use an IP blocker though. My blocked window has shown the French government scanning IP address several times. I use PeerGuardian which is open source and free. I only, as a rule, use books I already own or are so long out of print and so prohibitively high priced even used as to make them unreasonable to purchase. I feel it is perfectly OK to scan in books I own. It's easy to do now a days. Get Kinkos or your secretary to copy them and then feed them into a document scanner. OCRing takes an hour or so for a large tome. But then you always have it at your fingertips.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4, 2007, at 4:09 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Gentle means gentle. Just the intention to entertain the mantra is a gentle effort, as compared with just sitting there letting random thoughts run amok Intent to sit, intent to close eyes (and remove them from their open state), Irrelevant. intention to begin to use mantra as a tool to transcend, Or not. failing to maintain transcendence and then having the subtle (or even unconscious) intent to return to mantra to correct failure to maintain transcendent Red herring. Not maintaining transcendental consciousness is not a failure in the TM context, of course. Nor is having thoughts. These are an integral part of TM. --all constitute effort. All are typical of the first stages of meditation using an object, where the object cannot be maintained and must be constantly patching, i.e. not judging and simply bringing the attention back to the object. Couldn't possibly have a better demonstration of someone completely misunderstanding the TM process. What Vaj is critiquing *is not TM*.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Mar 4, 2007, at 4:09 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Gentle means gentle. Just the intention to entertain the mantra is a gentle effort, as compared with just sitting there letting random thoughts run amok Intent to sit, intent to close eyes (and remove them from their open state), Irrelevant. intention to begin to use mantra as a tool to transcend, Or not. failing to maintain transcendence and then having the subtle (or even unconscious) intent to return to mantra to correct failure to maintain transcendent Red herring. Not maintaining transcendental consciousness is not a failure in the TM context, of course. Nor is having thoughts. These are an integral part of TM. --all constitute effort. All are typical of the first stages of meditation using an object, where the object cannot be maintained and must be constantly patching, i.e. not judging and simply bringing the attention back to the object. Couldn't possibly have a better demonstration of someone completely misunderstanding the TM process. What Vaj is critiquing *is not TM*. And if this wasn't obvious before, it sure should be now.
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Beatles Biggest Secrets
On Mar 4, 2007, at 3:47 PM, Bhairitu wrote: Vaj wrote: The Beatles Biggest Secrets On BBC America 3/3/07 10:00 PM http://www.bbcamerica.com/content/200/index.jsp It was okay but not that much to it. You won't see much of Maharishi, just some of Paul Saltzman's photos from Rishikesh. It was kind of sleazy I thought, but just about any show with that type of theme is going to be pretty sleazy. It was neat to see what Klaus Voorman looked like now. Of course it does make you wonder how they could ever be considered angels by any means. One interesting comment was about George by someone from the Hamburg days (maybe it was their first manager). He said even though George was the youngest, he was also the most mature. I found that interesting.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sthapatya Vedic Trailer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of at_man_and_brahman Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 12:46 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sthapatya Vedic Trailer It's at MERU, and is plainly visible (including kalash) from orbit in Google Earth. The obvious clue is the orientation w/r/t the older structure behind it. Anyone who's been to the campus will recognize the spot where this building is immediately. GE confirms it. MERU meaning Vlodrop? How about a Google Earth link? ER, he's implying that the house behind is the monastery., and that mobile home is MMY's SV mansion... Gigantic bike. Not exactly. If you look at the coordinates I provided, you'll see the whole campus, with Maharishi's building facing east in one corner of the campus. All other buildings with the same orientation are newer, facing east, including the trailer. The largest building on campus, dwarfing Maharishi's, is the monastery, at an angle (wretched vastu, in Maharishi's words). There's a building jutting off one corner of it that is the older building visible in the trailer picture, directly behind the trailer. It is also near Maharishi's building. The trailer is near its end, away from the monastery (two others are closer to the monastery). You can even see the kalash on the roof, right over the front door. That's pretty amazing that the satellite imagery used in GE can resolve an object no more than 2-3 feet in diameter.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
I don't know about the lecture Rick refers to and the context of the quote, but I have many times seen one of the Humbolt tapes where Maharishi was asked about this. I paraphrase, but it's pretty close. The questioner asked--We are told to think the mantra as effortlessly as we think any other thought. If I'm just sitting there, thoughts arise by themselves, but I actually have to think the mantra and that seems like a contradiction. Maharishi replies--Yes, you are right. It is a contradiction. When we think the mantra we are doing something--we pick up the mantra. That's why we qualify it immediately with the next instruction as effortlessly as a thought comes. We are doing something. We pick up the mantra. But we do it effortlessly. The same message is in the first day checking tape where Maharishi says We don't sit waiting for the mantra to come, at least we open the door. And if the mountain doesn't come to Mohammad, Mohammad goes to the mountain, in the same context. And new meditators are told TM goes almost by itself. Not completely by itself; almost by itself. When the habit of meditating becomes so ingrained that the mantra starts seemingly without intention when we close our eyes, well and good--that's just effortless thinking. It's even in the checking notes. The whole question is elementary and not really worth arguing about. It doesn't mean TM is a concentration technique and there is some huge lie or a plot to fool stupid gullible TMers who are too dumb to know the difference between effortlessness and effort, nor is it a great crack in TM dogma or theory if we admit it. It just is. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 2:09 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of sparaig Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 7:46 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife% 40yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. Lawson: Except, one need not have intent to do TM. Rick: Maharishi, on my TTC, quoting some Vedic scripture: Be easy to us with gentle effort. He gave a whole lecture, or part of one, about how TM did actually involve gentle effort. Judy: That scripture quote is meaningless without context, Rick, as I've pointed out before. Rick: I don't recall that he provided a context. Maybe it was a lecture about the effortless of TM, and he decided to introduce that quote. *Of course* there was a context. He didn't just sit there and suddenly come up with the quote and then start talking about something completely different. A lecture about the effortlessness of TM is nowhere near adequate context to fathom the meaning of the quote. Don't you know what context means?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
According to that reasoning there are plenty of celestial beings around who could enlighten us right now. Why don't they? Maybe we don't deserve it. Meditation is a starting point - nothing more; but if it keeps our energies up, it makes alot of sense to keep it up..., etc. Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert Gimbel wrote: I'm sure in India, when Maharishi was with Guru Dev, there were some powerful ceremonies, and powerful being which would help to dispel any deep rooted lower energies. From what I've read, Robert, being in the same room with Guru Dev was a meditation in itself, where transcending just comes of itself - there was no need for a technique or even any instruction. According to Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, the Light needs no other illumination - it is self-shinning. All you need is the ideal opportunity for the transcending. In some cases all you need is to be in the presence of an enlightened saint - that IS a meditation without any effort. It's only because were are alone without a guru or a teacher that we resort to striving and apply effort. As the Yoga Sutras state: yogash chittavritti nirodha which means, Yoga is mental activity cessation - Y.S I.v.2 - TV dinner still cooling? Check out Tonight's Picks on Yahoo! TV. - Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on Yahoo! Answers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of sparaig Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 2:02 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of sparaig Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 7:46 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. Except, one need not have intent to do TM. Maharishi, on my TTC, quoting some Vedic scripture: Be easy to us with gentle effort. He gave a whole lecture, or part of one, about how TM did actually involve gentle effort. Heh. Not always in my experience. Does this mean that I'm doing TM wrong? Gentle means gentle. Just the intention to entertain the mantra is a gentle effort, as compared with just sitting there letting random thoughts run amok. Yes, but who says that I have the intention to entertain the mantra?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 2:09 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of sparaig Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 7:46 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Effort required in Buddhist Sadhana. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: This could be #1 in a Effort in Meditation FAQ. On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Peter wrote: Intent is subtle effort. Intent is present in TM. Except, one need not have intent to do TM. Maharishi, on my TTC, quoting some Vedic scripture: Be easy to us with gentle effort. He gave a whole lecture, or part of one, about how TM did actually involve gentle effort. That scripture quote is meaningless without context, Rick, as I've pointed out before. I don't recall that he provided a context. Maybe it was a lecture about the effortless of TM, and he decided to introduce that quote. And as I recently posted, Charlie Donahue is quoted as saying TM doesn't even involve *intent* (which is my experience, and obviously Lawson's as well). Do you have the intent to sit in the chair, or does an unseen hand put you there? Do you have the intent to close your eyes? Sure, the mantra may come automatically after you close them. We all have that experience. But there's a difference between doing TM and just sitting and daydreaming, and that difference, IMO, involves intent, or purpose. So, I'm at my computer about 5PM and I briefly close my eyes to rest them and my mantra flits through my mind and 20 or 30 minutes later I open my eyes and realize that I have been meditating, and all this happened because I intended to?
