[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
Xenophaneros , your comment here is absolutely fair observation to a reality in the culture of the Transcendental Meditation movement. Certainly as anyone gets closer to the middle of TM administration a judgment of devotion is part of a calculation in cultural fealty test. Certainly the people Bevan keeps around him, people who were let in around Maharishi, and people who are let in currently around Nader Ram now are there by the vetted felt sense of having passed fealty to Maharishi and the teaching. It's a type of a defining esprit de corps. Of course a long consequent is an isolation of that echelon of the movement from everyone else. It was interesting to see the broad assemblage in a lecture amphitheater last week full of veteran meditators of the old movement. Most all of them have never had tea with the Prime Minister of the Global Country of World Peace let alone Bevan coming down and being seen showing up for coffee at a public place like Paradiso Cafe in the morning where the larger meditating community flows through getting coffee or even in the Dome meditating with the group anymore. The show-of- hands of veteran meditators was something else to regard that seems even surprised Bevan how many people are here still from the beginning days. Of course at his level in the bunker he would not know except for some of the fawned ones that get in to that level. That is a fair observation about the group. -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote: What you say is true of regular meditators and learning TM for the most part, but if working in the movement, devotion seems to be considered above all the other conceivable ways you could image what a spiritual path would be. Maharishi promoted this idea, because, I think, of his own experience with Brahmananda Saraswati. Within the movement there is a kind of unspoken peer pressure that the path of devotion, and in particular, devotion to Maharishi's stated ideals, is the one you ought to be pursuing. Further some sort of adulation of Maharishi himself seemed to be part of that influence, whether or not Maharishi himself ever directly said such (he tended to imply that devotion was the superior path without saying 'you should be devoted to me'). There is a lot of hidden and unvocalised (and also vocalised) compulsions in organisations, and particularly spiritual organisations, or any organisations that have a 'mission', that there is a right way to go about it and think, and a wrong way to go about it and think. I was speaking about those more closely allied with the TMO than regular meditators, and many here probably have the sense of what I was writing about. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re I found the emphasis on devotion to the guru in the TM movement always disconcerting: What emphasis? Maharishi was never a guru - he was a teacher of meditation. The guru-shishya tradition is the transmission of teachings from a guru to a disciple. In this relationship, subtle and advanced knowledge is conveyed and received through the student's respect, commitment, devotion and obedience. That sounds nothing like the usual experience of learning TM in which one is given a mantra and left to get on with it on one's own. No devotion or obedience was ever expected. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote: authfriend wrote: 'My parents sent me to Sunday School at a nearby nondenominational Christian church a couple of times when I was around 10 or so, feeling they should at least give me some exposure to religion. I didn't like it, and they didn't make me go again. I had a brief flirtation with Unitarianism in my teens, but it didn't last. Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can go.' My exposure to religion was rather slight, and by high school I was essentially agnostic although at times early influences would kick in on the emotional level. What you said here is pretty much what is available to agnostics, atheists, and non-theistic religions or philosophies (such as Zen Buddhism; Tao). One pretty much has to bypass that conception of a personal level of 'creation' (assuming there really is creation). It is possible other conceptual states might take the place of the personal god concept. What I found as time went on was I would make the attempt not to visualise the goal, I would easily try to deflect the tendency to give it a form. This worked for me. But a lot of people have trouble without some kind of concrete image in the mind, I find it interesting that TM takes
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
Om, II. TM meditators are effortless meditators. Not all Buddhist meditators are effortless meditators. [see preparatory introductory lecture to learning TM]. Therefore, not all Buddhists are transcendental meditators. Om, There are TM meditators There are Buddhist meditators Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist. Therefore, Transcendental Meditators are Buddhists. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: It is said, Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Ok, Richard, nobody else is gonna challenge you on this. Actually I'm not either. But it would be great if you could say more about it. Seems revolutionary (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist. On 11/3/2013 4:42 PM, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: Is it possible to be a Buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly? Yes, according to MMY. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Should TM'er Buddhists even be allowed to have a Dome badge? Is it possible to be a buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly? -Buck ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: Re The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang.: The Yin and Yang concepts point to a Tao that includes the opposites. Imagining that one side of a pair of opposites could gain the upper hand over the other would be a vulgar error. As the little we know about Manichaeism and similar dualist religions/philosophies comes to us from hostile sources isn't it possible that these beliefs weren't as dualist as they've been painted but perhaps also had the idea of a Transcendence that reconciled the positive and negative aspects of life? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... mailto:punditster@... wrote: So, let's review what we know about the prophet Mani. The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang, which is probably derived from the Indian Sankhya, a radical dualism, and later tantra- a theory of polarity which posits male and female energies. The name 'Mani' is Sanskrit. Mani traveled and lived in India for several years, visiting Buddhist lands such as Bamiyan in Afghanistan, so it is not surprising that Buddhist influences would be apparent. Mani apparently adopted his theory of the reincarnation (transmigration of souls) from the Buddhists. Mani's sect structure was apparently based on the Buddhist Sangha, that is, Arhants and the lay follower community. On 11/2/2013 11:31 AM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: No wonder the Near-Eastern realm got so mixed up. It seems that as Manichean ideology spread to the East it incorporated Buddhist concepts along the way in a effort to show the superiority of the Religion of Light. Mani lived during the third century of the current era. Mani used the epitaph Buddha of Light and identified himself as Maitreya. He and his followers specifically borrowed from early Pure Land Sutras and Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy. As it entered the region of Gandhara and spread to China it used the Buddhist Hinayana tradition to support its views of matter, the body and the world. MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM David A. Scott Christ Church College of Higher Education
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
Yes Our Mystical America heritage, Moravians too. Yea the Moravians too were a group of mystical and spiritual Meissner effect 'independents' in old Europe. Going back centuries in European history. In the history of the spiritual West, Moravians too met a fate against an ignorance of faith-orthodoxy the likes of Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutheran religionists and eventually made it safe to America. May the Unified Field bless and keep safe spiritual America always free! -Buck in the Dome Seraphita wrote: (snip) I went to a Moravian school originally founded in 1753 as a utopian community. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: What's yer problem? We're saying we like this kind of thing, the fancier and more elaborate the better. Love the costumes in this clip, the different coordinated black-and-white prints for the vestments. Russian liturgical music is kind of an acquired taste for most Westerners, but it's magnificent once you develop an ear for it. I told you my sister sang with an amateur (but superb) Russian chorus in Boston some years ago, didn't I? They did a tour of Russia at one point, where they had very eager Russian audiences. Choral performance of liturgical music had almost become a lost art under Communism, so people were actually re-learning the style and fine points from them. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: You're all sounding like desiccated corpses drying in the desert. There is another type of Christian life here in America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0M94z3Pev4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0M94z3Pev4 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Seraphita wrote: Re Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can go. : Again very close to my view. Here in the UK, the Anglican Church is essentially a wishy- washy nostalgia circus for reminding grown-ups of their childhood. (With bits of Arthurian romance added to the mix.) So all pretty harmless. Even arch-atheist Richard Dawkins has confessed to occasionally popping into a church just to enjoy the aesthetic experience! Heehee. Be fun to see that guy Spufford look up from his prayers and clap eyes on Dawkins. Having always been intrigued by the occult fringe, I've also seen some attraction in the Catholic position: the Mass as a magical ritual and the unembarrassed veneration of those medieval mystics. Even such unregenerates as Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire and Huysmans finally turned to Rome as they sensed it was the more poetical religion. Huh, I'm attracted by the poetry/music/incense/art/theatrical aspects as well. Goes way back with me to the (wonderful) Audrey Hepburn film The Nun's Story. I think I'd need a Peter Finch equivalent, though. To this day I have no idea whether my late father had any religious sensibility whatsoever, but he adored churches and religious music and painting. I guess it's in the genes. I might be tempted to pop into a Catholic church at some point if they were doing a mass in Latin. There's something really magical about Latin. Like Sanskrit, I suppose, but the music is a lot better. ;-) I once memorized the Hail Mary in Latin just because I loved the sound of it. My Presbyterian ancestors (Huguenots, no less) must have spun themselves nearly out of their graves.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
This may a good time to take a reality check: To meditate means to think things over. Meditation is based on thinking, and there's hardly a person on the planet who doesn't pause at least once or twice every day and take stock of their own mental contents. And, everyone is transcending all the time, even without a technique. Anyone who can think can meditate. MMY meditation: –noun 1 to think calm thoughts in order to relax or as a religious activity: Sophie meditates for 20 minutes every day. 2 to think seriously about something for a long time: He meditated on the consequences of his decision. Source: Cambridge University Dictionary: http://tinyurl.com/dz5ut2 On 11/7/2013 7:20 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: *Om, II.* *TM meditators are effortless meditators.* *Not all Buddhist meditators are effortless meditators.* *[see preparatory introductory lecture to learning TM].* *Therefore, not all Buddhists are transcendental meditators.* *Om,* *There are TM meditators* *There are Buddhist meditators* Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist. Therefore, Transcendental Meditators are Buddhists. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: It is said, Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Ok, Richard, nobody else is gonna challenge you on this. Actually I'm not either. But it would be great if you could say more about it. Seems revolutionary (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist. On 11/3/2013 4:42 PM, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: *Is it possible to be a Buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly?* Yes, according to MMY. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com wrote: *Should TM'er Buddhists even be allowed to have a Dome badge? Is it possible to be a buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly?* *-Buck* ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: Re The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang.: The Yin and Yang concepts point to a Tao that includes the opposites. Imagining that one side of a pair of opposites could gain the upper hand over the other would be a vulgar error. As the little we know about Manichaeism and similar dualist religions/philosophies comes to us from hostile sources isn't it possible that these beliefs weren't as dualist as they've been painted but perhaps also had the idea of a Transcendence that reconciled the positive and negative aspects of life? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... mailto:punditster@... wrote: So, let's review what we know about the prophet Mani. The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang, which is probably derived from the Indian Sankhya, a radical dualism, and later tantra- a theory of polarity which posits male and female energies. The name 'Mani' is Sanskrit. Mani traveled and lived in India for several years, visiting Buddhist lands such as Bamiyan in Afghanistan, so it is not surprising that Buddhist influences would be apparent. Mani apparently adopted his theory of the reincarnation (transmigration of souls) from the Buddhists. Mani's sect structure was apparently based on the Buddhist Sangha, that is, Arhants and the lay follower community. On 11/2/2013 11:31 AM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: No wonder the Near-Eastern realm got so mixed up. *//* It seems that as Manichean ideology spread to the East it incorporated Buddhist concepts along the way in a effort to show the superiority of the Religion of Light. Mani lived during the third century of the current era. Mani used the epitaph Buddha of Light and identified himself as Maitreya. He and
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
authfriend wrote: 'My parents sent me to Sunday School at a nearby nondenominational Christian church a couple of times when I was around 10 or so, feeling they should at least give me some exposure to religion. I didn't like it, and they didn't make me go again. I had a brief flirtation with Unitarianism in my teens, but it didn't last. Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can go.' My exposure to religion was rather slight, and by high school I was essentially agnostic although at times early influences would kick in on the emotional level. What you said here is pretty much what is available to agnostics, atheists, and non-theistic religions or philosophies (such as Zen Buddhism; Tao). One pretty much has to bypass that conception of a personal level of 'creation' (assuming there really is creation). It is possible other conceptual states might take the place of the personal god concept. What I found as time went on was I would make the attempt not to visualise the goal, I would easily try to deflect the tendency to give it a form. This worked for me. But a lot of people have trouble without some kind of concrete image in the mind, I find it interesting that TM takes the mind away from concrete imaging, yet when people come out of the meditation, it does not seem to register that that experience of formlessness has something to do with what one experiences through the senses. Ultimately that empty blank is what is experienced as being all the forms. The Bhagavad-Gita says that those bent on the unmanifest may have a tough time of it - a few translations follow, Chapter 12 Verse 5: 'For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.' 'Those whose minds are attached to the unmanifest aspect have much greater tribulations, because devoid of any perceptible form and attributes, success is achieved with great difficulty due to the beings identifying with the body.' 'There is greater trouble for those whose minds are attached to the unmanifest. For, the path of the unmanifest is difficult to attain by the embodied.' As a kind of space case, perhaps I was attracted to a less concrete view of the universe. For example, without wanting to be a Buddhist, I was attracted to its Zen lineage because of the lack of conceptualisation and emphasis on direct experience. I found the emphasis on devotion to the guru in the TM movement always disconcerting as it did not seem to have any relevance to my so-called path. Others, of course, found devotion quite amenable to them, if it was natural; but faking devotion because one sees others doing it that way probably would be a disaster. I have seen people in the movement live and on tape seemingly straining to appear devoted when it seemed (as it appeared to me) they were just doing it out of peer pressure. Devotion is a property of what you like the most, whatever is most likable to you, that is your devotion, what you pursue, and that pursuit continues until it is fulfilled, or completely thwarted.
