[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Larry inmadison@ wrote: Maharishi's model of enlightenment has always puzzled me as well - right from the Intro lecture - really, why should a true Indian sage have any concern about World Peace when he should be talking about how the world is illusion . . . how the world is as it should be . . . shouldn't we be walking around pondering the I AM . . . Perhaps this is what made Maharishi so unique - perhaps why he was invited into heaven (should that be the case) - because he cared about the world - because he placed raising world consciousness even above the self-realization of his followers. he also said the world is as you are, so world peace and self- realization from that perspective are one and the same. Bingo.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Larry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maharishi's model of enlightenment has always puzzled me as well - right from the Intro lecture - really, why should a true Indian sage have any concern about World Peace when he should be talking about how the world is illusion . . . how the world is as it should be . . . shouldn't we be walking around pondering the I AM . . . Perhaps this is what made Maharishi so unique - perhaps why he was invited into heaven (should that be the case) - because he cared about the world - because he placed raising world consciousness even above the self-realization of his followers. I think it's based more on budget considerations. Heaven has been having a...uh...hell of a time raising money lately, and they figure that Maharishi can help out with this.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
I have always felt that in that sense he was a true Bodhisattva. Maharishi understood that atomics brought forth a new aera of world responsibility for its future. Thus we meditated for the world, not for ourselves. Maharishi learned that from Guru Dev from the huge yajnas GD had. And Maharishi was a real genius. But I feel we all have incarnated at once to make this spiritual time happen, according to our best wishes. I remember a dream where alot of people were standing behind me out of sight, and one says, He's looking alot more like Varaha, about a man sitting on a podium with a really long face that looked like a boar. Who I understood to be Maharishi because the long face looked with the tusks like a beard. I think Maharishi established at least a structure of responsibility of the world for some future Vedic yajnas. I always wonder though whether yajnas are really acceptable anymore under the circumstances of global warming - adding more carbonic matter to the air, etc Not sure about pundit living conditions, to keep them like cattle. Be better now I think to burn money by spreading benefits to the people one has forgotten about. All that yajna money would have finished starvation in India had it been used for living beings and not for immaterial. Bollywood and India should start a huge lottery where all the yajna money goes to remaking the impoverished with better standard of living. They could remake their ghettos according to Feng Shui. And Green. That would be a worthy ambition. One can be sure the Protestant TMers will come out of England. That will be the first official TMO rift. - Original Message - From: Larry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 9:47 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement Maharishi's model of enlightenment has always puzzled me as well - right from the Intro lecture - really, why should a true Indian sage have any concern about World Peace when he should be talking about how the world is illusion . . . how the world is as it should be . . . shouldn't we be walking around pondering the I AM . . . Perhaps this is what made Maharishi so unique - perhaps why he was invited into heaven (should that be the case) - because he cared about the world - because he placed raising world consciousness even above the self-realization of his followers. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, abutilon108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Thanks for your comments about what I wrote, very insightful. I especially dug when you talked about people projecting special power on to you. And you knew it! Good for you. I'm still working it all out. I don't have a model of enlightenment I do currently have a model of enlightenment and what's interesting is that it's a far cry from what Maharishi presented to us. It has more to do with the dropping away of the illusion of separation/doership. Of course one can find concepts in Maharishi's talks/books that would seem to be about that, but his focus on relative perfection makes me feel he wasn't really getting at what interests me. It's fascinating to find myself having lost my interest in his descriptions of the states of consciousness when once I was so enamored with that. It feels as if my path has taken me into a whole different universe. these days really so I am back to the physiological stuff when thinking about Maharishi. I believe he was functioning in a different way than I am but so is Donald Trump. I don't have to ascribe a pathology to recognize that he and I are cut from radically different cloth psychologically. Actually, I don't like ascribing pathology to anyone, so not sure how that came up except that idea -- of being able to act exactly as someone would want you to be -- had been mentioned in regard to Scott Peterson. And, much as I don't like to admit it, I'm not so sure I'm cut from a radically different cloth psychologically from Maharishi... I don't buy the simple con theory. I think he believed most of his rap. Yes The gap is where the weirdness of all of us got reflected back to him due to his role with us all. Just as you described in your teaching experience. But he also didn't end up a billionaire with an uncompleted Gita commentary by accident... Didn't follow this -- please explain! I just mean that he was money motivated at a Trumplike level. You don't get that rich by accident, it takes tremendous focus. Likewise, despite his claim to loving knowledge more than anything, he never finished most of his long term mental projects. If you spend day after day with him it is like chasing an ADD child, but leaving actual human lives in his wake. Interesting... Nice rap man, I'll keep an eye out for your posts.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for your comments about what I wrote, very insightful. I especially dug when you talked about people projecting special power on to you. And you knew it! Good for you. I'm still working it all out. I don't have a model of enlightenment I do currently have a model of enlightenment and what's interesting is that it's a far cry from what Maharishi presented to us. It has more to do with the dropping away of the illusion of separation/doership. Of course one can find concepts in Maharishi's talks/books that would seem to be about that, but his focus on relative perfection makes me feel he wasn't really getting at what interests me. It's fascinating to find myself having lost my interest in his descriptions of the states of consciousness when once I was so enamored with that. It feels as if my path has taken me into a whole different universe. these days really so I am back to the physiological stuff when thinking about Maharishi. I believe he was functioning in a different way than I am but so is Donald Trump. I don't have to ascribe a pathology to recognize that he and I are cut from radically different cloth psychologically. Actually, I don't like ascribing pathology to anyone, so not sure how that came up except that idea -- of being able to act exactly as someone would want you to be -- had been mentioned in regard to Scott Peterson. And, much as I don't like to admit it, I'm not so sure I'm cut from a radically different cloth psychologically from Maharishi... I don't buy the simple con theory. I think he believed most of his rap. Yes The gap is where the weirdness of all of us got reflected back to him due to his role with us all. Just as you described in your teaching experience. But he also didn't end up a billionaire with an uncompleted Gita commentary by accident... Didn't follow this -- please explain! I just mean that he was money motivated at a Trumplike level. You don't get that rich by accident, it takes tremendous focus. Likewise, despite his claim to loving knowledge more than anything, he never finished most of his long term mental projects. If you spend day after day with him it is like chasing an ADD child, but leaving actual human lives in his wake. Interesting... Nice rap man, I'll keep an eye out for your posts. This is the first group I've participated in. Still getting the hang of it and am overwhelmed by the volume of posts (was even before MMY's death increased the activity). Wanted to reply here, though, because this line of conversation really interests me, and it's been helpful to think/feel some things out here. Thanks! And by the way, I'm not a man...
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
Now that we've chewed the final heck out of my original post about what I did not like about the movement, I'd like to share my other (igrored) post. Have a look at message 164997 and let's change the focus to the other side (for a little while). regards, Fred
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
Have a look at message 164997 and let's change the focus to the other side (for a little while). Yes, Fred, I read your previous message and I enjoyed it very much. But I've got my own memories to deal with right now. All I can say is that now comes one boy_boy babbling leela Krishn chanter calling himself an 'x-TMer' ala Sri Ji Boy! What will he come up with next to twist us around to his memory slot? Vaishnava personalist views? Next he will be telling us that Nanda Kisore Babaji was a genuine Sannyasi and that the six Goswamis found the real thing! Go figure. Then he will fall in with that Jahnu cross-posting spammer, Prabhu, the wannabee, and claim Chaitanya was some kind of tantric trickster type. Hey! boy_boy! Next time you circle that lake I suggest you make increasingly smaller and smaller circles. That way, you will really change your focus.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
Maharishi's model of enlightenment has always puzzled me as well - right from the Intro lecture - really, why should a true Indian sage have any concern about World Peace when he should be talking about how the world is illusion . . . how the world is as it should be . . . shouldn't we be walking around pondering the I AM . . . Perhaps this is what made Maharishi so unique - perhaps why he was invited into heaven (should that be the case) - because he cared about the world - because he placed raising world consciousness even above the self-realization of his followers. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, abutilon108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Thanks for your comments about what I wrote, very insightful. I especially dug when you talked about people projecting special power on to you. And you knew it! Good for you. I'm still working it all out. I don't have a model of enlightenment I do currently have a model of enlightenment and what's interesting is that it's a far cry from what Maharishi presented to us. It has more to do with the dropping away of the illusion of separation/doership. Of course one can find concepts in Maharishi's talks/books that would seem to be about that, but his focus on relative perfection makes me feel he wasn't really getting at what interests me. It's fascinating to find myself having lost my interest in his descriptions of the states of consciousness when once I was so enamored with that. It feels as if my path has taken me into a whole different universe. these days really so I am back to the physiological stuff when thinking about Maharishi. I believe he was functioning in a different way than I am but so is Donald Trump. I don't have to ascribe a pathology to recognize that he and I are cut from radically different cloth psychologically. Actually, I don't like ascribing pathology to anyone, so not sure how that came up except that idea -- of being able to act exactly as someone would want you to be -- had been mentioned in regard to Scott Peterson. And, much as I don't like to admit it, I'm not so sure I'm cut from a radically different cloth psychologically from Maharishi... I don't buy the simple con theory. I think he believed most of his rap. Yes The gap is where the weirdness of all of us got reflected back to him due to his role with us all. Just as you described in your teaching experience. But he also didn't end up a billionaire with an uncompleted Gita commentary by accident... Didn't follow this -- please explain! I just mean that he was money motivated at a Trumplike level. You don't get that rich by accident, it takes tremendous focus. Likewise, despite his claim to loving knowledge more than anything, he never finished most of his long term mental projects. If you spend day after day with him it is like chasing an ADD child, but leaving actual human lives in his wake. Interesting... Nice rap man, I'll keep an eye out for your posts. This is the first group I've participated in. Still getting the hang of it and am overwhelmed by the volume of posts (was even before MMY's death increased the activity). Wanted to reply here, though, because this line of conversation really interests me, and it's been helpful to think/feel some things out here. Thanks! And by the way, I'm not a man...
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Larry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maharishi's model of enlightenment has always puzzled me as well - right from the Intro lecture - really, why should a true Indian sage have any concern about World Peace when he should be talking about how the world is illusion . . . how the world is as it should be . . . shouldn't we be walking around pondering the I AM . . . Perhaps this is what made Maharishi so unique - perhaps why he was invited into heaven (should that be the case) - because he cared about the world - because he placed raising world consciousness even above the self-realization of his followers. he also said the world is as you are, so world peace and self- realization from that perspective are one and the same.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
---That's why MMY is a 200% Guru: 100% for Advaita and 100% for (as an ideal: Heaven on Earth). But some clarification and discussion would be advisable. Just some thoughts: 1. First, what do we mean by Heaven on Earth. We can go all the way back to Isaiah for some serious considerations in this matter - turning swords into plowshares, etc. This means and end to war and the basic New Deal stuff: full employment, a chicked in every pot, a car in every garage. Healthwise, an end to global diseases; since for example about 16,000 infants die daily due to malnutrition and the most pernicious cause of infant death: tainted water. Although MMY has not mentioned these specific problems, the various measures he's come up with (new or ancient) are designed to ideally cope with both aspects of life: Absolute and relative. Thus the 200%. Although as pointed out by another contributor, MMY's philolsophy is pure Advaita Vedanta (Cf. SBAL, BG); there are some major differences between his implementation of this and the Neo-Advaitins. This brings us to the comment below: why not just address the dualistic illusion or delusion and zero in on the I AM?? (the Self). That's the Neo-Advaitin approach - the modern grandparents of this being Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj. The proposal in this school is that if one addresses the root cause of suffering (the ignorance of dualism), then ALL other levels of suffering will automatically be nipped in the bud. But here's the key point: Suffering on those levels will supposedly be eradicated among the Enlightened, REGARDLESS of what transpires in the relative sense. Thus, there's no particular effort to addresss problems on their own level. So isn't that MMY's position? No quite. SOME of his proposals have been designed to address problems on their own level, for example, those RAAM gold coins. To conclude, MMY though a proponent of Advaita Vedanta, is not in the same school as the Neo-Advaitins; and from his POV, just addressing the I AM would be insufficient. More is needed: the Maharishi Effect, scientific studies, Yagyas, universities, the whole bit. Neo-Advaitins (examples - Gangaji, Eckart Tolle, Byron Katie, etc...) are not into the peripheral stuff; since they believe that addressing the root cause of ignorance is sufficient. Ramana Maharshi regarded bodily existence as excess baggage. Ultimately, IMO, Glorification of the physical body - attaining a Rainbow Light Body - would be a more desirable goal than simply realizing the Self and dropping the body as excess baggage. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Larry inmadison@ wrote: Maharishi's model of enlightenment has always puzzled me as well - right from the Intro lecture - really, why should a true Indian sage have any concern about World Peace when he should be talking about how the world is illusion . . . how the world is as it should be . . . shouldn't we be walking around pondering the I AM . . . Perhaps this is what made Maharishi so unique - perhaps why he was invited into heaven (should that be the case) - because he cared about the world - because he placed raising world consciousness even above the self-realization of his followers. he also said the world is as you are, so world peace and self- realization from that perspective are one and the same.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 no_reply@ wrote: Some responses: But that isn't the distinction, at least not the one we were discussing. It's between *names* of personal gods and *mantras* associated with personal gods. Your comment reminds me of this: in J, sometimes we can make use of one of God's names as a mantra. It is more hinted at than overtly stated in Kaballistic writings. Rabbi Abulafia (I think) boldly went into more detail about this then others were happy to see in print. In J, as you know, there is no distinction made between Hashem as personal or impersonal God. There is no small g god within J. None. There is acknoweldgement of other practices of other groups who have lots of smaller g discussion and practices. It was known and many fences were erected to block any contact with that sphere. Did you see my suggestion of a parallel between the Sephiroth and the Hindu deities, metaphysically speaking? Maybe this can be helpful, boyboy? Never having heard of Sephiroth, I looked it up and found an excellent description here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephirot The parallels to the descriptions I've heard from the Hindu traditions are astonishing. Fortunate are they who live in Union with God. They are man's guides on earth, furthering the evolution of all creation. They are above the limitations of religion or race. Whether they play with God or hold Him as one with their own Being is a point to be settled between them and God. They live as devotees of God or they become united, become one with their Beloved--it is a matter between them. Let it be decided on that level of Union. One view need not exclude the other. It is a sin against God to raise differences over the principle of Union. Let the followers of both schools of thought aspire to achieve their respective goals and then find in that consciousness that the other standpoint is also right at its own level. --From MMY's commentary on the Gita, 6:32 In H there is a strong basis for the belief that enlightenment is a Union with the Divine where the individual takes on the status of the Whole at some level of Enlightenment. That depends very much on the flavor of Indian philosophy you're referring to. It's true of Advaita Vedanta, but there is strong disagreement among other schools. That's basically what MMY was addressing above, but it should apply to the thinking of non-Hindu philosophy and religion as well.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
Some people have said that Judaism stems from Samkhya.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
Kirk wrote: Some people have said that Judaism stems from Samkhya. Here's the funny part: when Sanskrit was finally determined to need an alphabet, they choose ancient Hebrew for the starting place. I'm wondering: when an oral tradition goes into print, is that the start of serious erosion of the contents? For thousands of years, we're told, the oral tradition of passing down scriptures by the strictest of memorization systems, was perfect, and I tend to believe it -- seeing merely the fantastic accomplishments of those who, today, orally read the Ved. I can easily believe that, memorizing the Rig Ved is indeed a sign of perfection -- not freedom from thought, but sinless thoughtangelic ideation. And toss this into the discussion: by throwing shadows on the wall by using a ram's horn, one can create the original Hebrew letters. I'm always stunned by that discovery. Try finding a more ancient use of the golden mean. Okay, the chambered nautilus, but that was God's work. Jews keep astounding me. Two best things: the concept of the Sefirot and that they invented writing when Huckabee thought dinosaurs were still running around. I would call the Sefirot one of the most amazingly subtle conceptual sets of ancient thinking.if anything, Hinduism's subtlety can only match it -- never give a better symbol of the ritam level of the Godhead. Same deal with Buddhism's very refined levels of consciousness concepts. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
Geez wrote: But I think by the beginning we were thinking of Beacon Light days...1955. I'm trying like to hell to find the source of my many years belief that it was just Ram (or Raam) at first. I am certain I read this. I'll try and find it. The very first bija mantras used by Marshy were Ram for the guys and Shyam for the gals. Closer inspection of the published booklet of 'Beacon Light' lectures reveals on page fifty-nine, four Sanskrit verses forming a variant of a well known prayer in veneration of the guru's sandals, popularly known as the Guru Paduka-Panchakam and attributed to Adi Shankara, the founder of the Shankaracharya tradition of monks. Interestingly, of these verses one contains no fewer than three TM-style bij mantras. This is seemingly compelling evidence of a connection between an older tradition of bij mantra meditation and the Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation. Transliteration of the particular Sanskrit verse is as follows: Read more: Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental From: Paul Mason Date: Tues, Oct 12 2004 11:26 am Subject: TM-style bij mantras http://tinyurl.com/2s2amr In purusing Shankara's 'Soundaryalahari,' all the fifteen bija mantras to Tripurasundari are not translated, even in the English translation. Apparently translating bija mantras even eluded the translator of the 'Nirvana Tantra', Arthur Avalon. And strictly speaking, some of the 'bijas' you cite, i.e. 'Sri,' 'Ram,' and 'Shyam,' are not actually bijas, but common words found in Sanskrit literature used to preface or suffix the actual bija; a bija is an esotreic sound, not a word. Read more: Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental From: Willytex Date: Tues, Aug 30 2005 9:37 pm Subject: The Source of the TMer Tradition http://tinyurl.com/2np2lz
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You know, I am trying to find an understanding of what went on with Maharishi. Me too! It's an interesting process. First he became a fallible human being and then the question of what was actually going on with him. How did it all evolve? In the process, there's been a disentangling from notions I held as true for so long, as well as deliberations, much like yours, about MMY -- his personality, psyche, motivations, etc. If you start with a guy who is sincere A big question is -- was he basically sincere? Clearly there are people who are consciously deceptive and manipulative, and he could have been one of them. I remember seeing a show about Scott Peterson where it was stated that a psychopath can be a genius at being exactly what people wanted him to be in order to achieve his ends. MMY could be incredibly charming and was really good at reading people, I gather. At the same time, I still feel a lot of affection for MMY and find it difficult to entertain that idea about him. At this point, I'm just rolling various things around in my mind and heart and haven't really landed anywhere definitive. I'm not an expert on psychology, for sure, and don't really know if the diagnostic categories we've developed here in the West apply in other cultures, nevertheless the idea of someone who is expert in developing a personality that works could certainly fit Maharishi. and has a pretty good head for hype and business, honed through his PR experience for Guru Dev... He was a genius at marketing for sure. Add in that he is blocked from advancing in his teacher's system by caste... That's really an interesting angle! Oh yeah and subtract the type of conscience that keeps the rest of us more restrained... Yeah, again that's what I'm wondering -- was there that lack of conscience? And as the people start giving him rock star status, he starts to dig it first, then believe it a bit more... This, I feel, is definitely a large part of what went on. Teachers get inflated by how their followers are viewing them. IMO much of the power of a spiritual leader is projected onto them, so that they are in a sense a channel for the energy of the group. I've seen this effect on a very small scale in my own life. I've done some teaching related to healing and spirituality. When teaching there was a phenomenon where I was infused with energy and often serendipitous events would happen within the group that made me seem somehow special to people -- to be the source of something. It's too much to try to describe this whole phase here, but suffice it to say it was easy for me to fall into believing that. I actually had a reputation in my local area among certain people which was really their projection. Hey maybe it IS my mission to spiritually regenerate the whole world Yes, this thinking wouldn't have gotten very far without those who wanted to believe and wanted someone playing that role. And the West can't get enough of it, adoring crowds, blond women... And he gets enough money to create a little insulated kingdom in Switzerland and he keeps weeding out the people who raise their eyebrows at anything he says... Yes, and all the people around him are then surrounded only by those who entertain the same view... I could keep this up all night, feel free to add more pieces of this enigma named Maharishi. But I am feeling kindlier. Personally I think it was a bit of snake oil but I'm willing to believe that he believed his own rap, he wasn't just a two bit shyster cynic like a Benny Hinn. Yeah, I'm leaning on the side of a something more innocent having happened. I don't think he started out to con people, but I still entertain that possibility at times. I had developed a theory with some similar elements at one point. In that theory it all started out with MMY losing Guru Dev and being unable to bear the loss. Maybe his attunement to Guru Dev (and his reputed enlightenment through that) was more a psychological dependency? Maybe he was so identified with Guru Dev and being his disciple that he had to continue to keep him alive in himself and thus it all began. But I'm not so fond of this theory anymore... But he also didn't end up a billionaire with an uncompleted Gita commentary by accident... Didn't follow this -- please explain!
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
Thanks for your comments about what I wrote, very insightful. I especially dug when you talked about people projecting special power on to you. And you knew it! Good for you. I'm still working it all out. I don't have a model of enlightenment these days really so I am back to the physiological stuff when thinking about Maharishi. I believe he was functioning in a different way than I am but so is Donald Trump. I don't have to ascribe a pathology to recognize that he and I are cut from radically different cloth psychologically. I don't buy the simple con theory. I think he believed most of his rap. The gap is where the weirdness of all of us got reflected back to him due to his role with us all. Just as you described in your teaching experience. But he also didn't end up a billionaire with an uncompleted Gita commentary by accident... Didn't follow this -- please explain! I just mean that he was money motivated at a Trumplike level. You don't get that rich by accident, it takes tremendous focus. Likewise, despite his claim to loving knowledge more than anything, he never finished most of his long term mental projects. If you spend day after day with him it is like chasing an ADD child, but leaving actual human lives in his wake. Nice rap man, I'll keep an eye out for your posts. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, abutilon108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: You know, I am trying to find an understanding of what went on with Maharishi. Me too! It's an interesting process. First he became a fallible human being and then the question of what was actually going on with him. How did it all evolve? In the process, there's been a disentangling from notions I held as true for so long, as well as deliberations, much like yours, about MMY -- his personality, psyche, motivations, etc. If you start with a guy who is sincere A big question is -- was he basically sincere? Clearly there are people who are consciously deceptive and manipulative, and he could have been one of them. I remember seeing a show about Scott Peterson where it was stated that a psychopath can be a genius at being exactly what people wanted him to be in order to achieve his ends. MMY could be incredibly charming and was really good at reading people, I gather. At the same time, I still feel a lot of affection for MMY and find it difficult to entertain that idea about him. At this point, I'm just rolling various things around in my mind and heart and haven't really landed anywhere definitive. I'm not an expert on psychology, for sure, and don't really know if the diagnostic categories we've developed here in the West apply in other cultures, nevertheless the idea of someone who is expert in developing a personality that works could certainly fit Maharishi. and has a pretty good head for hype and business, honed through his PR experience for Guru Dev... He was a genius at marketing for sure. Add in that he is blocked from advancing in his teacher's system by caste... That's really an interesting angle! Oh yeah and subtract the type of conscience that keeps the rest of us more restrained... Yeah, again that's what I'm wondering -- was there that lack of conscience? And as the people start giving him rock star status, he starts to dig it first, then believe it a bit more... This, I feel, is definitely a large part of what went on. Teachers get inflated by how their followers are viewing them. IMO much of the power of a spiritual leader is projected onto them, so that they are in a sense a channel for the energy of the group. I've seen this effect on a very small scale in my own life. I've done some teaching related to healing and spirituality. When teaching there was a phenomenon where I was infused with energy and often serendipitous events would happen within the group that made me seem somehow special to people -- to be the source of something. It's too much to try to describe this whole phase here, but suffice it to say it was easy for me to fall into believing that. I actually had a reputation in my local area among certain people which was really their projection. Hey maybe it IS my mission to spiritually regenerate the whole world Yes, this thinking wouldn't have gotten very far without those who wanted to believe and wanted someone playing that role. And the West can't get enough of it, adoring crowds, blond women... And he gets enough money to create a little insulated kingdom in Switzerland and he keeps weeding out the people who raise their eyebrows at anything he says... Yes, and all the people around him are then surrounded only by those who entertain the same view... I could keep this up all night, feel free to add more pieces of this enigma named Maharishi. But I am feeling
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
Well, I feel that Maharishi believed in the power of Hinduism and he has made a bunch of rich people responsible for perpetuating it. By making them stand for it even in their quirky dress. They can't escape their responsibilities towards Vedic India now. Maybe they might just try to really get yajnas for peace going now in perpetuity. But it depends upon their intentions. If they wish to serve life then they may, if they wish to become more solipsistic then they may well also be. Just depends on their motive. They ostensibly have the apparatus now to effect changes in collective consciousness. Let's see the bastards give it the old college try. - Original Message - From: abutilon108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 7:01 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You know, I am trying to find an understanding of what went on with Maharishi. Me too! It's an interesting process. First he became a fallible human being and then the question of what was actually going on with him. How did it all evolve? In the process, there's been a disentangling from notions I held as true for so long, as well as deliberations, much like yours, about MMY -- his personality, psyche, motivations, etc. If you start with a guy who is sincere A big question is -- was he basically sincere? Clearly there are people who are consciously deceptive and manipulative, and he could have been one of them. I remember seeing a show about Scott Peterson where it was stated that a psychopath can be a genius at being exactly what people wanted him to be in order to achieve his ends. MMY could be incredibly charming and was really good at reading people, I gather. At the same time, I still feel a lot of affection for MMY and find it difficult to entertain that idea about him. At this point, I'm just rolling various things around in my mind and heart and haven't really landed anywhere definitive. I'm not an expert on psychology, for sure, and don't really know if the diagnostic categories we've developed here in the West apply in other cultures, nevertheless the idea of someone who is expert in developing a personality that works could certainly fit Maharishi. and has a pretty good head for hype and business, honed through his PR experience for Guru Dev... He was a genius at marketing for sure. Add in that he is blocked from advancing in his teacher's system by caste... That's really an interesting angle! Oh yeah and subtract the type of conscience that keeps the rest of us more restrained... Yeah, again that's what I'm wondering -- was there that lack of conscience? And as the people start giving him rock star status, he starts to dig it first, then believe it a bit more... This, I feel, is definitely a large part of what went on. Teachers get inflated by how their followers are viewing them. IMO much of the power of a spiritual leader is projected onto them, so that they are in a sense a channel for the energy of the group. I've seen this effect on a very small scale in my own life. I've done some teaching related to healing and spirituality. When teaching there was a phenomenon where I was infused with energy and often serendipitous events would happen within the group that made me seem somehow special to people -- to be the source of something. It's too much to try to describe this whole phase here, but suffice it to say it was easy for me to fall into believing that. I actually had a reputation in my local area among certain people which was really their projection. Hey maybe it IS my mission to spiritually regenerate the whole world Yes, this thinking wouldn't have gotten very far without those who wanted to believe and wanted someone playing that role. And the West can't get enough of it, adoring crowds, blond women... And he gets enough money to create a little insulated kingdom in Switzerland and he keeps weeding out the people who raise their eyebrows at anything he says... Yes, and all the people around him are then surrounded only by those who entertain the same view... I could keep this up all night, feel free to add more pieces of this enigma named Maharishi. But I am feeling kindlier. Personally I think it was a bit of snake oil but I'm willing to believe that he believed his own rap, he wasn't just a two bit shyster cynic like a Benny Hinn. Yeah, I'm leaning on the side of a something more innocent having happened. I don't think he started out to con people, but I still entertain that possibility at times. I had developed a theory with some similar elements at one point. In that theory it all started out with MMY losing Guru Dev and being unable to bear the loss. Maybe his attunement to Guru Dev (and his reputed enlightenment
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
As usual, nicely said, Stu. In a way it's going to be a pity when the strike is settled and you get back to overwork and aren't able to post as much here. But we'll have new episodes of PD to comfort us. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is an irony to this discussion. Judaism and Hindism have similarity in that they are ethnic religions. Both emphasis the passing of the religion from generation to generation. The caste system and the 10 tribes both support a mechanism for priestly continuation. And they both suppress conversion into the religion. Interestingly, it was the reform of Buddhism and xtianity that liberated the caste/tribal limits and promoted conversion from these two ethnic religions. Judaism and Hinduism share characteristics of ethnocentrism. MMY as a charismatic leader knew this when he traveled West. He understood he would not convert new Hindus into a new world religion, this would go against edicts of Hinduism. He was very careful to couch his rhetoric about yoga as a practice devoid of Hinduism. He was equally careful to avoid discussions of god as well, preferring to use neutral scientific terms to describe the effects of TM. In the 50's MMY talked about Hindu concepts to largely Hindu audiences. Later, when MMY did discuss a specific Hindu basis for TM it was in response to western followers who were looking for a deeper spiritual understanding to the experiences they were having with TM. As a Jew, we have choices. We can take a very fundamental approach to the religion. In that case it is a closed club. No eating at the neighbors house lest we are exposed to a dangerous cheese burger. Like other fundamental religions any gander outside the faith is met with disapproval. To me this tunnel vision medieval approach to one's religion is outmoded. Its a clinging to a regressive social model long out of style with the world of Kings and Priests running the village. Or you may want to reformulate Judaism for the modern era. Maybe even start with the Jewish philosopher Spinoza who interpreted g-d more like the concept of Brahman rather than the patriarchal old man in the sky. It may even be possible to reconcile the wonderful benefits of adding a meditation practice to your life and going to services on Saturday without inciting a theological meltdown. It would be impossible to follow all the nutty laws as required by the OT. When a women has her period are you careful not sit where she has sat? I don't think even the compulsive obsessives fundamentalists living illegally in the West Bank today can follow these arcane and random rules. Fred, why are you obsessing on this short phrase from the OT and the remote possibility that a fantasy creature is going to respond to your calling its name silently? Isn't it time to wake up? Isn't waking up the goal? s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wvansant111 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With the recent photos of the leadership now splashed all over the world, how anyone in their right mind can take these people seriously and not see them as faux-Hindu wannabe's is beyond me. They look so silly I just laughed out loud. I wish them well and best of luck. Seriously. They could at least hire *me* or someone else with some basic fashion sense to design them some cooler looking attire. One comment I read referring to the outfits saying they looked like a McDonalds Pope. I can't imagine what they will feel in a month or two when the reality sets in that MMY is gone but they have this burden of maintaining the faux government. AND that they PAID to do it and could be retired on a beach somwhere instead. An interesting way to look at the whole Raja and costume and global country thing might be Maharishi's Practical Joke On The West. He rolls back into India one last time to die, having made millions and possibly billions of dollars from gullible Westerners, so of course the other Indians are curious as to how he did it. Then they look *AT* the Westerners, and they see that Maharishi has convinced them to dress in long flowing robes and wear Burger King crowns and they *REALLY* crack up. It's like Maharishi going nudge-nudge to his fellow Indians and saying, See? They really ARE as stupid and gullible as we always thought they were.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
Perhaps you would have had better results using his real name. Try yeshua and see what happens? Fred --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I still like my idea that sounds whose effects are known refers to *all* the bija mantras as a whole, i.e., they all have good effects, whereas words like mike and so on would have little if any effect. This is the heart of this for me. Why do we assume that effortlessly meditating with different sounds has a different effect at all? I can speak only from my own experience, but shortly after I learned TM, I experimented using Jesus as my mantra, with disappointing results.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It reveals that the Children of Israel were easily tempted to follow just about anything going, including all the mishigas (nonsense) of the Egyptian, Cananite, Phillistine religions. They loved 'em all. Like a child in a candy store. Look but do not touch was too weak. It was Do not look, do not try, do not imitate, remove all of it from within your boundaries. Very strict. In later generations, the Rabbis, as I understand it, took this even further in a process that came to be known as building a wall around the Torah. --- Quick tangent: I once heard a feminist rabbi make the case that Eve should be considered the first Rabbi, since she was the first to build a wall around God's commandments: And the woman saith unto the serpent, `Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we do eat, and of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden God hath said, Ye do not eat of it, *nor touch it*, lest ye die' (Genesis 3:2-3; emphasis added). God never said they were not to *touch* the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, only that they were not to eat it. --- Is your observance generally very strict, or do you pick and choose to some extent? (I don't mean to be disrespectful; there's a wide range of degrees of observance. And feel free not to answer my question, because it's pretty personal.) It's been suggested that surrounding an important principle with a thicket of regulations actually *weakens* understanding of the principle and compliance with its spirit. The principle here is the prohibition against idolatry, worshipping other gods than YHVH. To even prohibit speaking the names of other gods appears to me to implicitly accord them more power and influence than they warrant. Does this not diminish the perception of YHVH's power relative to that of other gods, and diminish the importance of YHVH's covenant with the Jewish people? Eve's wall-building didn't do her much good in the end. Was Moses also building a wall around God's commandment against idolatry? Again, I mean no disrespect. As a nonbeliever, I'm fascinated by these kinds of issues in the philosophical/metaphysical and literary contexts, rather than as matters of faith, so there are distinct limits to how I can relate to them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
I thought I had read that some time ago. Thanks. Fred --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 12, 2008, at 3:40 PM, boyboy_8 wrote: Thought: there is an assumption within TMO and MMY's teachings that using his specific mantra formulations is the ONLY trustworthy way of assuring the correct transcendental pathway to enlightenment, etc. What happens if there are non-TM mantra-like sounds that can lead the individual to transcend, lower heart rate, calm mind, all without a Puja and money transaction? Isn't that what Benson proved, years ago? Yes and others. Benson's research has been duplicated.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: snip I suppose I could speak more precisely as you clearly value precision. I think it's particularly important in this context. The TMO back in the early 70s when I learned TM, certainly implied that the mantras were special secrets. There was no google to find out otherwise. To be more precise, you bought the technique which included your mantra. You listened to some lectures with lots of charts, brought the flowers and the hankie, looked at a mysterious picture and heard words in a language you did not understand and in a few minutes were taught how to meditate. You were told not to say your mantra out loud or to tell it to anyone. It was special. This last is pretty standard with mantra meditation techniques. From the reading I have done here in the past hour, it appears that secrecy is not uncommon. Nevertheless, my point was that the importance of the mantra was highly emphasized and I as a person totally new to TM bought into the special significance of my mantra. Now I question its special significance. I seems like there is a lot of questioning about exactly what the mantras are all about and what sutras are all about. Now the technique is sold for a significant amount of money, essentially elitist which violates my western democratic sensibilities. I also cannot separate the high charges from the mysteries of where does the money go? Nobody likes the money situation. But it doesn't have anything to do with the theory of the TM technique. Well, sorta, kinda.I have to take much of the TM claims on faith. My willingness to have faith is colored by all the baggage surrounding the TMO. But, on the other hand, the baggage is not evidence that a theory is wrong, it just makes me less inclined to trust. As far as the knowledge being lost, I have heard a number of TM'ers say that knowledge of TM was once available throughout the world but was lost. Certainly, the specific mantras were not used in the western world during recorded history nor is there evidence of use of a TM type technique in the western world. I'm not sure that's true, actually. On the other hand, I'm not sure throughout the world is true either. And if these people meant to imply that TM *per se* was available, that's just wrong. The idea that knowledge of *effortless transcending* was widely available throughout the ancient world seems to me to be plausible. Although as the lawyers say, just about anything is plausible, I have nothing to base a belief that effortless transcending was widely available throughout the ancient world. I have nothing to base a belief that the bija mantras that people are talking about here were used anywhere else in the world besides India. Anyone have anything to show me otherwise? I did ask if anyone was aware of effortless transcending techniques outside of TM but no clear answer as of yet. I have to say (well, no, I don't have to, but I'm gonna), your thinking on these issues seems to me much less clear and objective than it has been in discussions on other topics. (And no, it's not just because we don't agree. I'm just getting a sense of muddledness. Apparently I'm a minority of one on that point, though.) Maybe the impression of muddledness is due to the fact that I come from a different place than you and most others here. I started meditating years ago like most here. But, after a few courses that I did not in the least enjoy, I stayed away from the TMO and mostly away from other meditators. I thought very little about TM over the years, until recently. I have cut back on the amount of work I do and have more time for reflection. So, many of the things you and others here have talked about over and over again, and thought about and read about for years, I have ignored until recently. As far as objectivity, I would say I am as objective as anyone here. We all view the world through our own experiences. If you are referring to snide comments I might have made, they have a lot to do with frustration about how TM knowledge is sold and how TM knowledge is communicated. Or not communicated.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
Thought: there is an assumption within TMO and MMY's teachings that using his specific mantra formulations is the ONLY trustworthy way of assuring the correct transcendental pathway to enlightenment, etc. What happens if there are non-TM mantra-like sounds that can lead the individual to transcend, lower heart rate, calm mind, all without a Puja and money transaction? Isn't that what Benson proved, years ago? Fred --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Well, sure. But lots of anecdotal accounts accumulated over time ain't always chopped liver. That's the basis of folk medicine, after all, and quite a few of its prescriptions have turned out to be effective when they were tested scientifically. And you might want to be *very* careful even testing a substance that folk medicine warns is harmful. [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Curtis, Out of my great love for you, I will, henceforth, try to write worst than you. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Thanks Nabby. Alright Edg, Mr. #5, I'm gunning for your ass buddy. Here is the start of my campaign to improve my NAB ranking: I just want to announce that on behalf of all the Rajas, we are preparing the earth for Lord Maitreya to return as predicted by our beloved Mr. Benjamin Creme, through our practice of group flying with our precious TM an TM sit-there programs. Come on Nabby give me bump man, I gotta Edge out Edg, I just gotta! This time Edg put in a strong application for a rise on the ladder... And the words from Curtis could, perhaps with a slightly different wording, very well turn out to be prophetic. In which case his application for elevation will be seriously considered.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis, Out of my great love for you, I will, henceforth, try to write worst than you. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Thanks Nabby. Alright Edg, Mr. #5, I'm gunning for your ass buddy. Here is the start of my campaign to improve my NAB ranking: I just want to announce that on behalf of all the Rajas, we are preparing the earth for Lord Maitreya to return as predicted by our beloved Mr. Benjamin Creme, through our practice of group flying with our precious TM an TM sit-there programs. Come on Nabby give me bump man, I gotta Edge out Edg, I just gotta! This time Edg put in a strong application for a rise on the ladder...
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, abutilon108 abutilon108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I think the special sounds business was only important for branding. I thought in the beginning of teaching in India Maharishi only used the mantra Raam? Later the articulated system came out which would have helped if people were comparing mantras. It isn't as special if everyone has the same one. It's interesting to speculate why some TTCs were given different sets of mantras from other TTCs (and presumably only one mantra in the beginning). If it was all based on what Guru Dev and the tradition passed on to MMY, why wouldn't it have been clear from the get go which mantras to use and why wouldn't they have remained consistent? I know when I was a TB I could find a way to justify anything that MMY did. I had, or needed to have, blind faith in him. I could come up with all kinds of reasons now as well that would preserve MMYs image as a perfect, infallible teacher whose every action was calculated to bring about the best possible result for the individual and the world, but that's no longer something I need or want to do. The possibility that it was for branding purposes does seem very real. The claim that MMY gave out only one mantra in the beginning flies in the face of Paul Mason's own publications about how Gurudev explained that certain mantras were not suitable for women, OM, specifically. Lawson How so? MMY did, very specifically say (in Beacon Light) that Om was like fire to the ladies or something to that effect. But the mantra reportedly used in those days was Ram, not Om.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://web.archive.org/web/20020802224530/minet.org/mantras.html Looks like you are right Lawson. In '61 there was a different mantra for men and women. Ram for dudes and Shiriram for chicks By 69 it shifted to the age based system we know and love, but in a much more limited form. This could be correct for 1961 Curtis. But I think by the beginning we were thinking of Beacon Light days...1955. I'm trying like to hell to find the source of my many years belief that it was just Ram (or Raam) at first. I am certain I read this. I'll try and find it. (Not that reading something makes it true of course!)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
http://web.archive.org/web/20020802224530/minet.org/mantras.html Looks like you are right Lawson. In '61 there was a different mantra for men and women. Ram for dudes and Shiriram for chicks By 69 it shifted to the age based system we know and love, but in a much more limited form. The claim that MMY gave out only one mantra in the beginning flies in the face of Paul Mason's own publications about how Gurudev explained that certain mantras were not suitable for women, OM, specifically. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, abutilon108 abutilon108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I think the special sounds business was only important for branding. I thought in the beginning of teaching in India Maharishi only used the mantra Raam? Later the articulated system came out which would have helped if people were comparing mantras. It isn't as special if everyone has the same one. It's interesting to speculate why some TTCs were given different sets of mantras from other TTCs (and presumably only one mantra in the beginning). If it was all based on what Guru Dev and the tradition passed on to MMY, why wouldn't it have been clear from the get go which mantras to use and why wouldn't they have remained consistent? I know when I was a TB I could find a way to justify anything that MMY did. I had, or needed to have, blind faith in him. I could come up with all kinds of reasons now as well that would preserve MMYs image as a perfect, infallible teacher whose every action was calculated to bring about the best possible result for the individual and the world, but that's no longer something I need or want to do. The possibility that it was for branding purposes does seem very real. The claim that MMY gave out only one mantra in the beginning flies in the face of Paul Mason's own publications about how Gurudev explained that certain mantras were not suitable for women, OM, specifically. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
The claim that MMY gave out only one mantra in the beginning flies in the face of Paul Mason's own publications about how Gurudev explained that certain mantras were not suitable for women, OM, specifically. Lawson What was the rationale? Any particular mantras not suitable for men?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the special sounds business was only important for branding. I thought in the beginning of teaching in India Maharishi only used the mantra Raam? Later the articulated system came out which would have helped if people were comparing mantras. It isn't as special if everyone has the same one. It's interesting to speculate why some TTCs were given different sets of mantras from other TTCs (and presumably only one mantra in the beginning). If it was all based on what Guru Dev and the tradition passed on to MMY, why wouldn't it have been clear from the get go which mantras to use and why wouldn't they have remained consistent? I know when I was a TB I could find a way to justify anything that MMY did. I had, or needed to have, blind faith in him. I could come up with all kinds of reasons now as well that would preserve MMYs image as a perfect, infallible teacher whose every action was calculated to bring about the best possible result for the individual and the world, but that's no longer something I need or want to do. The possibility that it was for branding purposes does seem very real.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
I know when I was a TB I could find a way to justify anything that MMY did. I had, or needed to have, blind faith in him. I could come up with all kinds of reasons now as well that would preserve MMYs image as a perfect, infallible teacher whose every action was calculated to bring about the best possible result for the individual and the world, but that's no longer something I need or want to do. You know, I am trying to find an understanding of what went on with Maharishi. If you start with a guy who is sincere and has a pretty good head for hype and business, honed through his PR experience for Guru Dev... Add in that he is blocked from advancing in his teacher's system by caste... Oh yeah and subtract the type of conscience that keeps the rest of us more restrained... And as the people start giving him rock star status, he starts to dig it first, then believe it a bit more... Hey maybe it IS my mission to spiritually regenerate the whole world And the West can't get enough of it, adoring crowds, blond women... And he gets enough money to create a little insulated kingdom in Switzerland and he keeps weeding out the people who raise their eyebrows at anything he says... I could keep this up all night, feel free to add more pieces of this enigma named Maharishi. But I am feeling kindlier. Personally I think it was a bit of snake oil but I'm willing to believe that he believed his own rap, he wasn't just a two bit shyster cynic like a Benny Hinn. But he also didn't end up a billionaire with an uncompleted Gita commentary by accident... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, abutilon108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I think the special sounds business was only important for branding. I thought in the beginning of teaching in India Maharishi only used the mantra Raam? Later the articulated system came out which would have helped if people were comparing mantras. It isn't as special if everyone has the same one. It's interesting to speculate why some TTCs were given different sets of mantras from other TTCs (and presumably only one mantra in the beginning). If it was all based on what Guru Dev and the tradition passed on to MMY, why wouldn't it have been clear from the get go which mantras to use and why wouldn't they have remained consistent? I know when I was a TB I could find a way to justify anything that MMY did. I had, or needed to have, blind faith in him. I could come up with all kinds of reasons now as well that would preserve MMYs image as a perfect, infallible teacher whose every action was calculated to bring about the best possible result for the individual and the world, but that's no longer something I need or want to do. The possibility that it was for branding purposes does seem very real.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As far as objectivity, I would say I am as objective as anyone here. We all view the world through our own experiences. Yes, how could anyone ever be completely objective? IMO objectivity doesn't really exist!
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some responses: But that isn't the distinction, at least not the one we were discussing. It's between *names* of personal gods and *mantras* associated with personal gods. Your comment reminds me of this: in J, sometimes we can make use of one of God's names as a mantra. It is more hinted at than overtly stated in Kaballistic writings. Rabbi Abulafia (I think) boldly went into more detail about this then others were happy to see in print. In J, as you know, there is no distinction made between Hashem as personal or impersonal God. There is no small g god within J. None. There is acknoweldgement of other practices of other groups who have lots of smaller g discussion and practices. It was known and many fences were erected to block any contact with that sphere. Did you see my suggestion of a parallel between the Sephiroth and the Hindu deities, metaphysically speaking? snip Consider another thing. I have a theory. I think that Judaism was taught (by Moses) as an Ascendant Technology. TM is a transcendant technique. They are not the same thing. They might both be strokes in the swimming pool. One might be the breast stroke, the other a crawl. They are not the same. The ascendant path is different. Perhaps they both reach the same place; I really do not know. I think that they achieve different things. Interesting idea. snip Speak for yourself, please. (I was not required to bow down when I was initiated, nor was I encouraged to feel grateful to Guru Dev. I think that your experience was not the majority. Ask around. I have. I know of many people who didn't bow down. Majority, I dunno. I haven't done a statistical survey. But you acknowledged yourself that it was an *invitation*, not a requirement. If you didn't get the message that the Puja was a great show of gratitude to Guru Dev, then I can't help you on that. Oh, I got that message, but with regard to gratitude *on the part of the teacher*. As I said, I was told it had nothing to do with me. I thought the whole thing was pretty silly and overdone. I didn't know the dude from a hole in the wall, and he hadn't *done* anything for me yet. (me) No, in his teaching there is an obfuscation of what is really going on. (you) Well, you're just contradicting here. How can you be so sure he didn't really believe what he was teaching? I think you missed my point. He truly believed what he taught. He also hid what he did not want people to take note of. Obstruction as such in my view was almost akin to putting a stumbling block before the blind. In the Torah this is forbidden. A person is supposed to aspire to speak truthfully. Not a personal truth, but THE truth. How can truth be anything *but* personal? As to what he believed, what I'm suggesting is that he believed what was really going on was exactly what he was teaching. But what was really going on for Hindus, in his view, wasn't the same as what was really going on for non-Hindus. I have come to doubt that MMY spoke THE truth and this my subjective idea/feeling/belief. I think that he would have said anything at the outset to establish a foothold in the West, including hiding much that would turn people off had they access to it. I don't think he would have said anything--that covers a lot of ground!--but I think he believed that what he didn't speak about wasn't of any significance and would just mislead people. Hence no translation of the latter chapters of the Gita. Hence the transmutation of Hindu to Vedic, which in my view was a slight of hands trick. People in the West just had so little knowledge back then that it worked well for him. Oh boy, I think you're wrong about Hindu vs. Vedic. Hinduism is sectarian; Advaita Vedanta is generic, metaphysical. Referring to deities, you wrote: What if we call them aspects (plural) of one's own consciousness? You really believe that? Ok, no, I don't. Which brings me to another big difference between J and H. In J there is a distinct I and thou relationship. There is God almighty, the Creator of my soul and the entirety of creation and then there is me, just a small spark of light. I and HE are not the same. I can never be Him, nor merge on an equal basis with Him. He will always be seperate from me. Fortunate are they who live in Union with God. They are man's guides on earth, furthering the evolution of all creation. They are above the limitations of religion or race. Whether they play with God or hold Him as one with their own Being is a point to be settled between them and God. They live as devotees of God or they become united, become one with their Beloved--it is a matter between them. Let it be decided on that level of Union. One view need not exclude the other. It is a sin against God to raise differences over the principle of Union. Let
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, even now I still get confused between Brahma and Brahman. Perhaps Brahman is closer to the J conception of God. Maybe. There are similarities. Very strong similarities, particularly in terms of the Kabbalistic descriptions. re: Gitaoh, I'd love to get my hands on that.pretty please? I have a bootleg Xerox copy that was given to me only on condition that I give my word not to spread it around. This was several years before it began to be used on WPAs, however, so I'm not sure that promise really still applies. But the thing is in storage at the moment! Maybe someone who attended one of those WPAs can help you out. It might be important, however, to also have Vernon Katz's account of MMY's informal commentary on those later chapters, though. From what I've heard, it was as unlike the standard interpretations as MMY's commentary on the first six chapters. You might want to check MUM Press. It's just possible there are videotapes of his lectures at those courses.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thought: there is an assumption within TMO and MMY's teachings that using his specific mantra formulations is the ONLY trustworthy way of assuring the correct transcendental pathway to enlightenment, etc. That may be an assumption within the TMO, but it ain't from MMY's teaching. What happens if there are non-TM mantra-like sounds that can lead the individual to transcend, lower heart rate, calm mind, all without a Puja and money transaction? Bring 'em on! MMY used to say that there could well be methods of meditation that were as effective as TM, but they'd all be called transcendental meditation. I understood him to mean the *method* would be identical, but the objects of attention could vary. Isn't that what Benson proved, years ago? Only up to a point. He wasn't teaching the TM *method*, first of all (he had never learned TM himself, let alone take teacher training, because he wanted to remain objective, so he really never undestood the nature of the instruction and wasn't able to replicate it); and the TM studies whose results he was able to match were among the earliest and crudest.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps you would have had better results using his real name. Try yeshua and see what happens? I dunno. My reason for choosing Jesus was that I had positive associations with it, whereas I don't with Yeshua. (In fact, I have pretty strong *negative* associations with it due to its use by the loatheome Jews for Jesus-type movements.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: snip The TMO back in the early 70s when I learned TM, certainly implied that the mantras were special secrets. There was no google to find out otherwise. To be more precise, you bought the technique which included your mantra. You listened to some lectures with lots of charts, brought the flowers and the hankie, looked at a mysterious picture and heard words in a language you did not understand and in a few minutes were taught how to meditate. You were told not to say your mantra out loud or to tell it to anyone. It was special. This last is pretty standard with mantra meditation techniques. From the reading I have done here in the past hour, it appears that secrecy is not uncommon. Nevertheless, my point was that the importance of the mantra was highly emphasized and I as a person totally new to TM bought into the special significance of my mantra. Now I question its special significance. (I know that was your point. I was just making a side comment about the secrecy part of it.) My experience was completely the opposite. At first I thought the special significance of the mantra was nonsense. It took awhile before I had to change my mind. I seems like there is a lot of questioning about exactly what the mantras are all about and what sutras are all about. There's actually a lot more ambiguity about the mantras than the sutras, at least in terms of what MMY taught. Now the technique is sold for a significant amount of money, essentially elitist which violates my western democratic sensibilities. I also cannot separate the high charges from the mysteries of where does the money go? Nobody likes the money situation. But it doesn't have anything to do with the theory of the TM technique. Well, sorta, kinda. I have to take much of the TM claims on faith. My willingness to have faith is colored by all the baggage surrounding the TMO. But, on the other hand, the baggage is not evidence that a theory is wrong, it just makes me less inclined to trust. If you haven't had good experiences with TM, I can understand why that would make a difference. As far as the knowledge being lost, I have heard a number of TM'ers say that knowledge of TM was once available throughout the world but was lost. Certainly, the specific mantras were not used in the western world during recorded history nor is there evidence of use of a TM type technique in the western world. I'm not sure that's true, actually. On the other hand, I'm not sure throughout the world is true either. And if these people meant to imply that TM *per se* was available, that's just wrong. The idea that knowledge of *effortless transcending* was widely available throughout the ancient world seems to me to be plausible. Although as the lawyers say, just about anything is plausible, I have nothing to base a belief that effortless transcending was widely available throughout the ancient world. In my view, the basis for plausibility is how easy it is to meditate effortlessly, and how easy it is as well to get off the effortless track. Seems to me something so easy and rewarding would have likely spread like wildfire once it was discovered, just as TM did in its early days; but almost as quickly, the knack of effortlessness could have been forgotten in a few generations. I have nothing to base a belief that the bija mantras that people are talking about here were used anywhere else in the world besides India. No, as I think I said, it would be a mistake to think the TM mantras would have been used outside India. snip I have to say (well, no, I don't have to, but I'm gonna), your thinking on these issues seems to me much less clear and objective than it has been in discussions on other topics. (And no, it's not just because we don't agree. I'm just getting a sense of muddledness. Apparently I'm a minority of one on that point, though.) Maybe the impression of muddledness is due to the fact that I come from a different place than you and most others here. I started meditating years ago like most here. But, after a few courses that I did not in the least enjoy, I stayed away from the TMO and mostly away from other meditators. I thought very little about TM over the years, until recently. I have cut back on the amount of work I do and have more time for reflection. So, many of the things you and others here have talked about over and over again, and thought about and read about for years, I have ignored until recently. Seems likely that's what I'm picking up on. As far as objectivity, I would say I am as objective as anyone here. We all view the world through our own
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, even now I still get confused between Brahma and Brahman. Perhaps Brahman is closer to the J conception of God. Maybe. There are similarities. re: Gitaoh, I'd love to get my hands on that.pretty please? Fred [snip] I'll try to explain that difference from a linguistic POV, although I understand that it might be a bit hard to grasp for people in whose native language the difference between short and long vowels is not very important. In Sanskrit, like in my native language, it is EXTREMELY(!!!) important. Mistä alkaisin? Well, I'm not quite sure why the word referring to the Absolute is in Western sources usually written as 'Brahman'. The reason might be, that the difference between that basic form (nominative singular) of the words 'brahma' and 'brahmaa' is too miniscule, or stuff. I guess many of us are familiar with some mahaa-vaakyas, like: ayam aatmaa brahma sarvaM khalvidaM (khalu + idam) brahma We can notice that the word referring to 'Brahman' is actually in the form 'brahma'. One more example from the Giitaa: anaadimat paraM brahma Usually, I believe, in non-Sanskrit texts the word 'Brahma' is understood to refer to the Creator, whose nominative singular is actually 'brahmaa', with a long a-sound at the end. I'm not sure, but I guess in this verse from the Rgveda diirghatamaa maamateyo jujurvaan dashame yuge apaam arthaM yatiinaam brahmaa bhavati saarathiH the form 'brahmaa' refers to the Creator, although some translations seem to suggest (because they use the form Brahman) it refers to the Absolute, in which case the long a-sound at the end would be a metrical lengthening. Ouch! I rest my case... :/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
On Feb 12, 2008, at 3:40 PM, boyboy_8 wrote: Thought: there is an assumption within TMO and MMY's teachings that using his specific mantra formulations is the ONLY trustworthy way of assuring the correct transcendental pathway to enlightenment, etc. What happens if there are non-TM mantra-like sounds that can lead the individual to transcend, lower heart rate, calm mind, all without a Puja and money transaction? Isn't that what Benson proved, years ago? Yes and others. Benson's research has been duplicated.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
On Feb 12, 2008, at 3:45 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: I did ask if anyone was aware of effortless transcending techniques outside of TM but no clear answer as of yet. There's been lengthy discussion on this topic before. MMY has stated that TM is not effortless. It is however very easy and natural. To some, that may seem be hair-splitting but the only reason it is significant is because there are forms of meditation which are indeed effortless, but in each case these are 'pathless paths' where there is no support used, i.e. a mantra, the breath, etc. Any meditation method that uses a support, by definition, cannot be effortless. Patanjali talks of this in the yoga-sutra. If something, anything needs to be transcended there was a process involved (of some sort) and therefore some subtle effort. It took me making the mistake of describing TM as effortless in front of some pundits from the Holy Shanakarcharya Order to get my first lesson on this. But the same distinctions also occur in Buddhist meditation, and no doubt others as well. As Patanjali says: The effort to remain there is practice. Interestingly the Sanskrit word for meditative effort, prayatna, is also the word the word for meditation technique or method. To be effortless: no meditator, no method, no goal.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
On Feb 12, 2008, at 2:41 PM, boyboy_8 wrote: Some responses: But that isn't the distinction, at least not the one we were discussing. It's between *names* of personal gods and *mantras* associated with personal gods. Your comment reminds me of this: in J, sometimes we can make use of one of God's names as a mantra. It is more hinted at than overtly stated in Kaballistic writings. Rabbi Abulafia (I think) boldly went into more detail about this then others were happy to see in print. In J, as you know, there is no distinction made between Hashem as personal or impersonal God. There is no small g god within J. In Judaism it would be called the Small Face (as opposed to the Vast Face, infinite consciousness devoid of differences). The Small Face of God, the Ze'ir Anafin, is actually referred to in Kabbalah as the seed of seeds, the bija of bijas...
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
It reveals that the Children of Israel were easily tempted to follow just about anything going, including all the mishigas (nonsense) of the Egyptian, Cananite, Phillistine religions. They loved 'em all. Like a child in a candy store. Look but do not touch was too weak. It was Do not look, do not try, do not imitate, remove all of it from within your boundaries. Very strict. Fred --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 no_reply@ wrote: I too am no expert in the vagueries of mantra meanings. The point is that they are phrases...meaningless sounds whose meaning is known? (Semantically) meaningless sounds whose *effects* are known. Maybe the meaning is that they invoke an energy whose association is known and is found within Indian religious systems? Or within *all* religious systems, i.e., within human experience. snip We were told to cut down sacred trees in Palestine because of what they represented to the people who worshipped them. The tree by itself was not a danger; it was the fact that we might find the worship of a tree of interest and before you know it we're off the path. This is revealing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
Yes, even now I still get confused between Brahma and Brahman. Perhaps Brahman is closer to the J conception of God. Maybe. There are similarities. re: Gitaoh, I'd love to get my hands on that.pretty please? Fred [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
Some responses: But that isn't the distinction, at least not the one we were discussing. It's between *names* of personal gods and *mantras* associated with personal gods. Your comment reminds me of this: in J, sometimes we can make use of one of God's names as a mantra. It is more hinted at than overtly stated in Kaballistic writings. Rabbi Abulafia (I think) boldly went into more detail about this then others were happy to see in print. In J, as you know, there is no distinction made between Hashem as personal or impersonal God. There is no small g god within J. None. There is acknoweldgement of other practices of other groups who have lots of smaller g discussion and practices. It was known and many fences were erected to block any contact with that sphere. An energy within the meditator's own consciousness, one that leads to transcendence of all forms and boundaries. Yes, that's true. Consider a few things for a minute. Many paths up the mountain. One was chosen for the J's. Specifically chosen. Taking other paths will take them along a way they were supposed to avoid. Sounds like an implicit contradiction if the top is the shared objective? Maybe. It was God's word so I would have to take it up with Him. Consider another thing. I have a theory. I think that Judaism was taught (by Moses) as an Ascendant Technology. TM is a transcendant technique. They are not the same thing. They might both be strokes in the swimming pool. One might be the breast stroke, the other a crawl. They are not the same. The ascendant path is different. Perhaps they both reach the same place; I really do not know. I think that they achieve different things. Again, though, the circuit is within one's own consciousness, not a circuit between one's consciousness and something external (at least in the esoteric TM context). I hear your point. I had the following scenario go through my mind. Switchboard: what number would you like me to dial for you? Ok, here we go (dials 416-967-) Switchboard: what numberyes sir, right away (dials main number at Pentagon). Circuits might be just like that. You plug into what you connect to. For example, if you invoke the energy of a high spirit, say, an angel you happen to know that name of, might not this invocation get you connected to a very specific energy within the Astral Realms? I suppose it would. Just like that by invoking the energy of a sound that has its place within H might just get a connection (within ones own consciousness) of an energy we are NOT supposed to dial up? Speak for yourself, please. (I was not required to bow down when I was initiated, nor was I encouraged to feel grateful to Guru Dev. I think that your experience was not the majority. Ask around. If you didn't get the message that the Puja was a great show of gratitude to Guru Dev, then I can't help you on that. (me) No, in his teaching there is an obfuscation of what is really going on. (you) Well, you're just contradicting here. How can you be so sure he didn't really believe what he was teaching? I think you missed my point. He truly believed what he taught. He also hid what he did not want people to take note of. Obstruction as such in my view was almost akin to putting a stumbling block before the blind. In the Torah this is forbidden. A person is supposed to aspire to speak truthfully. Not a personal truth, but THE truth. I have come to doubt that MMY spoke THE truth and this my subjective idea/feeling/belief. I think that he would have said anything at the outset to establish a foothold in the West, including hiding much that would turn people off had they access to it. Hence no translation of the latter chapters of the Gita. Hence the transmutation of Hindu to Vedic, which in my view was a slight of hands trick. People in the West just had so little knowledge back then that it worked well for him. Referring to deities, you wrote: What if we call them aspects (plural) of one's own consciousness? You really believe that? Ok, no, I don't. Which brings me to another big difference between J and H. In J there is a distinct I and thou relationship. There is God almighty, the Creator of my soul and the entirety of creation and then there is me, just a small spark of light. I and HE are not the same. I can never be Him, nor merge on an equal basis with Him. He will always be seperate from me. In H there is a strong basis for the belief that enlightenment is a Union with the Divine where the individual takes on the status of the Whole at some level of Enlightenment. You become a God person, someone fully realized, you can also be worhshipped if enough people think you've achieved that level. Big difference. Cheers, Fred [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Thanks Nabby. Alright Edg, Mr. #5, I'm gunning for your ass buddy. Here is the start of my campaign to improve my NAB ranking: I just want to announce that on behalf of all the Rajas, we are preparing the earth for Lord Maitreya to return as predicted by our beloved Mr. Benjamin Creme, through our practice of group flying with our precious TM an TM sit-there programs. Come on Nabby give me bump man, I gotta Edge out Edg, I just gotta! And I'm gunnin' for Vaj. Maitreya is a wuss who, rumor has it, has ...uh...abnormal relationships with small animals. Benjamin Creme knows this, and keeps it all hidden by shipping the now- pregnant animals off to hidden farms in the countryside to bear their cross-breed young. Now, doesn't THAT earn me a 10? :-) Relax, I'm not impressed. I read you, curtis and Edg like an open book. Two of you can't be very bad even when you try. Slimeballs yes, but nor very bad. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My best friend is a Wilbermaniac. I will ask him In that same chapter I recommended, BTW, Wilber makes an argument against the notion of a path to the realization of Brahman, some of it directed against TM (although he doesn't name it), particularly MMY's teaching that such a realization is physiologically based. I would have loved to hear MMY respond to Wilber's presentation on those points. The first three chapters of that book are also just fascinating. In his earlier works, Wilber's clarity was superb. IMHO, it's become less so over the years.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
Whao, you have hit a few hot buttons for me. You wrote: He didn't believe in cultural intermarriage, one should marry their own race, or they would fall from Dharma What? By openly encouraging Western women to flounce around in Sari's was his way of supporting them staying within the boundaries of their dharma? Did I miss something here? By encouraging listening to Vedic music and the exclusion of Western modes this was his way of supporting their originating dharma? Huh? By spending decades encouraging Westerners into indulging more and more Vedic modes of lifestyles (heh, get a load at our neighbours Lingam out front) is a way of supporting their family Dharma? I guess I must have been out having a beer when that truck rolled by. Sorry, for me that is a loadMMY was not concerned if he was going to draw his followers into an Indian modality. He was delighted by it. As I would be if I had his objectives. Spread Vedic this and that, uphold India and its values, make Indian philosopy look good, continue the [practically silent] work of his guru, etc. Bringing world peace and individual peace was also a nice objective. It's a shame that on the whole those objectives missed their mark. Cheers, Fred [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
I fully accept how you feel. For me I have found my relationship to J goes up and down. For me it is a lively thing where I deeply struggle to find my way to another level, another way to cling to Hashem, to grow closer but also listen to how much I dislike modern Rabbinic Judaism. I have much to say on that matter but will do so another time/day. cheers, Fred --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you fred. Many times these discussions, especially regarding Hashem, and Torah, just go on and on, and on, as though one is thrilled to find little gem of knowledge that the rabbis of old also spent countless hours in ascertaining its meaning. Somewhere along the way, it lost its allure for me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 no_reply@ wrote: Ok, I've had enough posting for today. Time to pack it in and go for a beer. I'll be back tomorrow. All the best to everyone fred [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
Dear S (Stu?), I have a few minutes here at work to try and respond. You are correct in my view to point out that H and J (Hinduism and Judaism) both have a caste structure. There is an interesting note a friend of mine told me (can't recall if he said it was actually an opinion written in the Gemorra) which stated that the main reason that the Talmidim of Rabbi Akiva perished was because they felt in their hearts to be of a higher (caste) than their brothers in the rest of the country. This type of arrogance was spiritually a big no-no and they were summarily punished, etc. I should really look more into that story one day. The children of Israel were more tribal than caste but the point is well taken. The division within the Levites into the highest caste (Cohanim - Priests) and Leviim (the rest of the Levites) functioned very well in Israelite society until after the First Temple Period. In the second temple period, great corruption crept into the system and it was all downhill from there. The choices you outline for Jews to take are well said but not entirely what I would say. Its a bit too much 'all this or all that' when I think you'd agree that Judaism has so many variants and colorations. The reformulation of J into a modern formula started the day Napoleon freed the Jews from the ghettos of Europe. The Haskala sprouted, Jews shaved their beards off, doffed their head coverings, neglected fringes, wore the same clothes as their non-Jews and became civilized and tried to melt in. At the same time a counter-reformation sprung up in Germany with Rabbi S.R. Hirsch. That's the way it always is in religions. As soon as a new wave arrives, there is a resistance to that change. Same thing happened with the schisms in Chassidism and C verus Mitnagim, etc. Always fragmentation and we grow further apart as a people. The tunnel vision medieval approach you speak of has worked just fine for the Ultra's and always will. It might not suit you or me and that's also fine. There are many J's in the world who have no trouble following each of the hundreds of commandments. It's a lifestyle maybe you and me choose not to follow, but it is a valid one for those whose hearts are drawn to it or who are born into it. You write: Fred, why are you obsessing on this short phrase from the OT and the remote possibility that a fantasy creature is going to respond to your calling its name silently? Isn't it time to wake up? Isn't waking up the goal? A single point clearly made makes not an obsession. Short phrase from OT was succinctly written and for me is unambiguous even on the p'shat, literal level. The religion was given in all it's exclusivity with a purpose and as far as I can tell, no shelf life to that exclusivity. I am not entirely sure what fantasy creature you are referring to here? If by this you refer to a deva within the H system, then I could not comment on how remote the possibility is. The point is not the percent chances of connection. The point is we are supposed to avoid looking in the first place. When you tell a child not to poke its finger in the electric socket you don't do so by looking at the odds but by stating that it is dangerous and just don't do it. You might find the danger overstated or entirely false. You might be right. I doubt that the restrictions were given for no good reason and for me I trust that it should be paid attention to. Kind regards, Fred [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Soon it'll be Gotta Get Ruth, because Ruth's cred- ence and intelligence here on FFL are growing at the same time that Judy's are decreasing. Dream on, Barry. Wishing doesn't make it so. I've admired Ruth's contributions ever since she arrived (and I've told her so in private email; ask her). I simply don't think her latest TM-related posts have been up to her usual standards of objectivity. She recognizes that herself: For some reason, I'm rapidly losing my openmindedness, she wrote. I rest my case. There it is, an obvious attempt to bait Ruth into an argument. Not, sorry. More Barry-fantasy (which is where virtually all his cases rest). Ruth doesn't need to be protected, Barry. She'll do her own thing with a degree of integrity far beyond your capacity to comprehend, let alone emulate, regardless of what any of us says about her (or what any of you say about me, for that matter).
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Soon it'll be Gotta Get Ruth, because Ruth's cred- ence and intelligence here on FFL are growing at the same time that Judy's are decreasing. Dream on, Barry. Wishing doesn't make it so. I've admired Ruth's contributions ever since she arrived (and I've told her so in private email; ask her). I simply don't think her latest TM-related posts have been up to her usual standards of objectivity. She recognizes that herself: For some reason, I'm rapidly losing my openmindedness, she wrote. I rest my case. There it is, an obvious attempt to bait Ruth into an argument.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whao, you have hit a few hot buttons for me. You wrote: He didn't believe in cultural intermarriage, one should marry their own race, or they would fall from Dharma What? By openly encouraging Western women to flounce around in Sari's was his way of supporting them staying within the boundaries of their dharma? Did I miss something here? By encouraging listening to Vedic music and the exclusion of Western modes this was his way of supporting their originating dharma? Huh? By spending decades encouraging Westerners into indulging more and more Vedic modes of lifestyles (heh, get a load at our neighbours Lingam out front) is a way of supporting their family Dharma? I guess I must have been out having a beer when that truck rolled by. Sorry, for me that is a loadMMY was not concerned if he was going to draw his followers into an Indian modality. He was delighted by it. As I would be if I had his objectives. Spread Vedic this and that, uphold India and its values, make Indian philosopy look good, continue the [practically silent] work of his guru, etc. Bringing world peace and individual peace was also a nice objective. It's a shame that on the whole those objectives missed their mark. Cheers, Fred The association of India with the Vedas aside (their knowledge had to be preserved, albeit much in a corrupted form, somewhere...I guess if it had been Idaho, we'd all be eating potatoes for enlightenment?), you may want to read about Dharma as a universal law in the Gita, not just as it applies to cultural values.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
My best friend is a Wilbermaniac. I will ask him Fred [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
Comment below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marek wrote: I've assumed the mantras emerged really early on, some sort of very early-on primate or hominid type of recognition and appreciation thing for some tribal/family sound; some kind of eureka moment among early hominids that caught on, something with emotional staying power.(*) So, you're thinking that the TM mantras didn't come from scripture - they were discovered before language was adopted, before agriculture was used, and before the invention of civilization? That would mean that the TM mantras are older than written history. If so, why do you suppose the TM mantras weren't mentioned until the Gupta Age in India? From what I've read, the Indus Civilization flourished before 3,000 BC and the Vedas were composed around 1500 BC, but no mention is made of any TM mantras until the composition of the Tantras. **end** My speculations about the origin and attachment to certain sounds that may have become enshrined as mantras is just that -- speculation. In large measure it's just a function of looking behind what I was taught and what I had accepted as true in order to gain a different perspective on the subject. Frees me up to a certain extent from the mythology of the movement. But the lack of written record of mantras until later doesn't invalidate the theory. All the shastras, including mantra shastra, are written records of oral traditions that are presumed to have predated the writings by generations, at least, if not for thousands of years. If your position is that no oral traditions exist outside of or independent of the written record, I can't deny it but it isn't dispositive just because you believe it. There's lots and lots of ways of remembering Who's there and being the inquisitive monkeys that we are we'll keep on trying things out and hootin' and hollerin' when we catch another way of lifting the curtain. Marek
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip That's exactly it. You and Curtis have a similar vibe and intent in my opinion, marked by the fact that neither of you ever tries to assert that your view of things is right or correct. You never try to SELL it as the proper view. Really just astounding. A couple of examples from geezerfreak's posts addressed to me in the last couple of days: No Judith, this is not what Barry said. Read it again and think about it real carefully. Read what you just wrote. How the hell do you know if they 'knew of women who had rebuffed him and were not thrown out?' Your arguments in this thread are quite weak. IMO of course. To say that there is no relation of the words to one another in the advanced techniquesyou've got to be kidding! (Note: I hadn't said anything at all about the advanced techniques.) Judy always does. She's *compulsive* about having to win, to prove someone wrong. Her whole LIFE is in terms of these Strike one...strike two... wanna go for strike three? comments. Nope, only when the person makes dumb mistakes. I've been characterizing it lately as the Gotta Get mentality. Barry says something that she disagrees with, so she's Gotta Get Barry. Vaj says something she disagrees with, so she's Gotta Get Vaj. You say something she disagrees with, and she's Gotta Get Geez. In fact, all three of yez are deeply sunk in the Gotta Get Judy mentality. As far as geezerfreak is concerned, he's been the one who *initiated* the only two actual debates I've had with him, both in the last couple of days. Other than that, our interactions have been limited to his Gotta Get Judy attacks. I've never gone after him because I disagreed with something he said. Soon it'll be Gotta Get Ruth, because Ruth's cred- ence and intelligence here on FFL are growing at the same time that Judy's are decreasing. Dream on, Barry. Wishing doesn't make it so. I've admired Ruth's contributions ever since she arrived (and I've told her so in private email; ask her). I simply don't think her latest TM-related posts have been up to her usual standards of objectivity. She recognizes that herself: For some reason, I'm rapidly losing my openmindedness, she wrote. So soon she'll find a way to try to suck Ruth into one of these head-to-head nitpick battles so that she can claim, Strike one...strike two...strike three about her as well. Hardly. I don't do that with people I respect. Just a further note: Of Barry's 10 posts today, four have been Gotta Get Judy posts. They won't be the last, either. And every one of the four has been crammed with falsehoods, whether deliberate or simply a function of Barry's penchant for fantasy. The really stupefying falsehoods have been his account of my interactions with geezerfreak.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
Vaj wrote: Sometimes, yes. For example, a typical TM mantra is the bija of Lakshmi, is an epiphet of Lakshmi: Shree + the terminator letters, the chandra and the bindu, -- the sound ing -- which is the part that pulls the mind into no-thought, the calm state, the transcendent. Basic mantra-shastra teaches these meanings, but also layers of meanings and eventually, ineffability. All the TM mantras have many meanings in similar ways. Actually, the word 'Shree' isn't a mantra nor a beej mantra. Shree is a Sanskrit word with meaning - 'auspicious'. In TM you get only one single bija mantra. The appended phrases are just words - more like fertilizer on the root - but, there is only one root bija mantra in TM.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
Judy wrote: Jeepers, Curtis, it's been around for *millennia*. The idea that specific sounds have specific effects is just about ubiquitous in ancient cultures. Richard J. Williams wrote: According to Mircea Eliade, the first mention of yogic meditation in India was made by the historical Buddha (circa 400 BC). No TM mantras are mentioned in Indian literature until after the Gupta Age. For example, there are no bija mantras mentioned in the Rig Veda. History in India begins with the historical Buddha, so where, exactly, is there any mention of bija mantras before that? Eliade says that yogic introspection is native to South Asia. Curtis wrote: I had hoped you would weigh in with some details Richard. So, I guess we can conclude from the above comments that none of the TM teachers know *exactly* where or how the TM bija mantras originated, whether they were composed by the rishis who composed the Vedas or made up by Maharishi, or whether they came from a cosmic, primordial source or from pre-stone age native inhabitants who could not write or speak Sanskrit. All we can then say is that, when used in the appropriate manner, they seem to work to provide the ideal opportunity for transcending. But, we must also conclude that none of the TM teachers know exactly why they work. All we can say is that certain individuals accepted the notion that repeating non-sense syllables was an effective process and one that could induce a certain level of relaxation. And so, nobody seems to know why they are memorizing gibberish and then teaching it to others. If the TM bija mantras have no semantic meaning, then they are meaningless - not words with meaning - but mere sounds. The TM bija mantras are not found in a standard Sanskrit lexicon. So, the TM bija mantras are sounds vibrations whose effects are known? This doesn't make much sense. Known by whom? By the mythical sage Vyasa? This is just outrageous!
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Nabby. Alright Edg, Mr. #5, I'm gunning for your ass buddy. Here is the start of my campaign to improve my NAB ranking: I just want to announce that on behalf of all the Rajas, we are preparing the earth for Lord Maitreya to return as predicted by our beloved Mr. Benjamin Creme, through our practice of group flying with our precious TM an TM sit-there programs. Come on Nabby give me bump man, I gotta Edge out Edg, I just gotta! And I'm gunnin' for Vaj. Maitreya is a wuss who, rumor has it, has ...uh...abnormal relationships with small animals. Benjamin Creme knows this, and keeps it all hidden by shipping the now- pregnant animals off to hidden farms in the countryside to bear their cross-breed young. Now, doesn't THAT earn me a 10? :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
I'm actually a rather average 5.5, but thanks for the kind thoughts of an 8. I would rather think an 8 would kill my wife. 8s are worshippable though as worship is understood by the porn industry. Anything larger is usually reserved for the freaky aisle. What was Jesus again? A 10? I see why the women thought he was the son of God. - Original Message - From: nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 10:16 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: ALL other spiritual teachings were lesser than his. ALL of them. ALL other techniques of medi- tation or spiritual development were lesser than TM. Not ONE of the others was on the same level as TM and his teachings. Not one. He actually never said that. But of what is available to a western audience he meant it, and was ofcourse correct. But for once I agree with you on the above Mr. 9,5, if it had been a quote I would agree. Don't I get to be a 10 then? :-) Actually I was more in favor of adoring you with a 8, but this thought of 9,5 kept coming and would not go away. Personally I do not see you as a 10 in this incarnation, though things may change. :-) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, abutilon108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I think the special sounds business was only important for branding. I thought in the beginning of teaching in India Maharishi only used the mantra Raam? Later the articulated system came out which would have helped if people were comparing mantras. It isn't as special if everyone has the same one. It's interesting to speculate why some TTCs were given different sets of mantras from other TTCs (and presumably only one mantra in the beginning). If it was all based on what Guru Dev and the tradition passed on to MMY, why wouldn't it have been clear from the get go which mantras to use and why wouldn't they have remained consistent? I know when I was a TB I could find a way to justify anything that MMY did. I had, or needed to have, blind faith in him. I could come up with all kinds of reasons now as well that would preserve MMYs image as a perfect, infallible teacher whose every action was calculated to bring about the best possible result for the individual and the world, but that's no longer something I need or want to do. The possibility that it was for branding purposes does seem very real. The claim that MMY gave out only one mantra in the beginning flies in the face of Paul Mason's own publications about how Gurudev explained that certain mantras were not suitable for women, OM, specifically. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
Curtis, Out of my great love for you, I will, henceforth, try to write worst than you. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Nabby. Alright Edg, Mr. #5, I'm gunning for your ass buddy. Here is the start of my campaign to improve my NAB ranking: I just want to announce that on behalf of all the Rajas, we are preparing the earth for Lord Maitreya to return as predicted by our beloved Mr. Benjamin Creme, through our practice of group flying with our precious TM an TM sit-there programs. Come on Nabby give me bump man, I gotta Edge out Edg, I just gotta! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: My point? Both prop dictators, for the supposed love of stability, one of America, at the expense of good karma and the rest of the planet, the other at the expense of good taste and refined sentiment. Forgot about you, it's easy to see why. A clear # 8, IMO. Did you ever clarify the details of your judgmental system Nabby? Is 10 good or bad. This is critical cuz I am either better than or worse than Dr. Peter and Turq on your chart and I can use something new to crow about. No need for further clarification, Mr. Turq already did this a couple of days ago. Giving Vaj straight 10 pretty much says it all.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
He once did say that people should marry into their own race. Sorry you weren't there for that. As for superficialities - which you seem very hung up on - that's your problem. Here's a great but laconic question for you - when is God not God? What name of God is not God, and where does God not exist, or better yet, where does She? Jewish is not more nor less godly than shittish or mulish. - Original Message - From: boyboy_8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 12:29 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement Whao, you have hit a few hot buttons for me. You wrote: He didn't believe in cultural intermarriage, one should marry their own race, or they would fall from Dharma What? By openly encouraging Western women to flounce around in Sari's was his way of supporting them staying within the boundaries of their dharma? Did I miss something here? By encouraging listening to Vedic music and the exclusion of Western modes this was his way of supporting their originating dharma? Huh? By spending decades encouraging Westerners into indulging more and more Vedic modes of lifestyles (heh, get a load at our neighbours Lingam out front) is a way of supporting their family Dharma? I guess I must have been out having a beer when that truck rolled by. Sorry, for me that is a loadMMY was not concerned if he was going to draw his followers into an Indian modality. He was delighted by it. As I would be if I had his objectives. Spread Vedic this and that, uphold India and its values, make Indian philosopy look good, continue the [practically silent] work of his guru, etc. Bringing world peace and individual peace was also a nice objective. It's a shame that on the whole those objectives missed their mark. Cheers, Fred [snip] To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Hey Geez...remember only a few days back when I predicted that you would be next on Judy's Gotta Get list? Was I right, or what? Yep, no doubt about it. I was just thinking about that after I logged off last night. But shame on me. I've been around here long enough to know better than to get sucked into one of her whirlpool games of points and imaginary scores. There's plenty of other rational folks around to interact with. Whether I agree with them or not doesn't matter. That's exactly it. You and Curtis have a similar vibe and intent in my opinion, marked by the fact that neither of you ever tries to assert that your view of things is right or correct. You never try to SELL it as the proper view. Judy always does. She's *compulsive* about having to win, to prove someone wrong. Her whole LIFE is in terms of these Strike one...strike two... wanna go for strike three? comments. I've been characterizing it lately as the Gotta Get mentality. Barry says something that she disagrees with, so she's Gotta Get Barry. Vaj says something she disagrees with, so she's Gotta Get Vaj. You say something she disagrees with, and she's Gotta Get Geez. Soon it'll be Gotta Get Ruth, because Ruth's cred- ence and intelligence here on FFL are growing at the same time that Judy's are decreasing. So soon she'll find a way to try to suck Ruth into one of these head-to-head nitpick battles so that she can claim, Strike one...strike two...strike three about her as well. I just think it's SAD, that's all. The woman IS potentially intelligent. She just WASTES all that potential by trying to score points and win and declare herself the winner in discussions that aren't even a CONTEST, for fuck's sake. Your last sentence said it all. It's just fun to talk, to discuss, to learn from each other, *whether or not we agree with them*. Only a fundamentalist tries to make everyone agree with them...
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 no_reply@ wrote: snip Speak for yourself, please. (I was not required to bow down when I was initiated, nor was I encouraged to feel grateful to Guru Dev.) Judy, you are not a TM teacher right? (I honestly can't remember whether or not I've read that you are or not.) Nope, I'm not. I'm thinking not, because part of the initiation instructions are to gesture to the student to kneel down with you. Now it's not like you would refuse to teach the person if they did not, or did not understand your hand gesture. But the intent is clear.you're inviting the student to bow down with you in gratitude to the holy tradition. Yes, I know all this. But it's an *invitation*, not a requirement, was my point. And you were asked to bring fruit flowers and handkerchief for the ceremony of gratitude to Maharishi's teacher and the tradition. I was told the ceremony of gratitude to Guru Dev was for the teacher's benefit, not mine, and that the fruit, flowers, and handkerchief were my offering to *my* teacher, not to Guru Dev. So not only were you encourage to be grateful to Guru Dev, you were made to actively participate. If you didn't bring the required worship items you would have been asked to go get them and come back, at least when I was teaching. You're missing my point (willfully, I suspect). I was responding to this (snipped from your post) from boyboy, describing initiation: if you'd just bow down just a wee bit we can finish this off, and don't you feel greatful to that past master who MMY just adores? Regardless of what the TM teacher may have had in mind, *I* didn't have this in mind, because it ain't what I was told. So I didn't bow, and I didn't feel grateful. Why should I when I hadn't learned anything yet? That's why I said, Speak for yourself, you see. Your arguments in this thread are quite weak. IMO of course. You're more than welcome to show *how* they're quite weak. One strike so far. To say that there is no relation of the words to one another in the advanced techniquesyou've got to be kidding! snicker I didn't say that. I haven't discussed the advanced techniques at all. Two strikes. Want to try for three? Hey Geez...remember only a few days back when I predicted that you would be next on Judy's Gotta Get list? Was I right, or what? Yep, no doubt about it. I was just thinking about that after I logged off last night. But shame on me. I've been around here long enough to know better than to get sucked into one of her whirlpool games of points and imaginary scores. There's plenty of other rational folks around to interact with. Whether I agree with them or not doesn't matter.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: ALL other spiritual teachings were lesser than his. ALL of them. ALL other techniques of medi- tation or spiritual development were lesser than TM. Not ONE of the others was on the same level as TM and his teachings. Not one. He actually never said that. But of what is available to a western audience he meant it, and was ofcourse correct. But for once I agree with you on the above Mr. 9,5, if it had been a quote I would agree. Don't I get to be a 10 then? :-) Actually I was more in favor of adoring you with a 8, but this thought of 9,5 kept coming and would not go away. Personally I do not see you as a 10 in this incarnation, though things may change. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: (As a courtesy to the TBs, I removed my sarcasm that was inserted here. For some reason, I am rapidly losing my openmindedness) I have to say (well, no, I don't have to, but I'm gonna), your thinking on these issues seems to me much less clear and objective than it has been in discussions on other topics. (And no, it's not just because we don't agree. I'm just getting a sense of muddledness. Apparently I'm a minority of one on that point, though.) Welcome to the world of Judy Stein, Ruth. She's just getting started on you. Ignore her and keep posting. Ruth, ignore geezerfreak. He just made a couple of big bloopers and is trying to take his frustration and embarrassment out on me. I suspect that Ruth is smart enough to have noticed that Geezerfreak has never once tried to win or score points on this forum, and that that's pretty much ALL that you do. That's just insane, Barry. Of geezerfreak's posts addressed to me, more than 50 of a total of around 60 have attempted to score points or win against me. Do a search if you don't believe me, then try to figure out how you managed to miss all 50-plus of them. (Mostly scoring points, as completely unprovoked attacks. During his sojourn here since MMY died, he's actually twice engaged me in substantive debates, the first times he's ever done that.) I further suspect that she'll draw the right conclusion from having noticed that...
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I picked Jesus to use instead of the mantra because my heritage was Christian, although I wasn't a believer. But I had always approved of Jesus, even had a certain amount of reverence for him, so I thought that would load the dice a bit in favor of my expectations. I figured it was the TM folks' reverence for their tradition that made them so sure their mantras were special. But it didn't work. Jesus is living in Italy and will be one of the Masters to publicly come forward together with Maitreya. I'm sure you would be able to ask Him about this. My understanding is that His name was never meant to be used as a mantra. http://www.shareintl.org
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: ALL other spiritual teachings were lesser than his. ALL of them. ALL other techniques of medi- tation or spiritual development were lesser than TM. Not ONE of the others was on the same level as TM and his teachings. Not one. He actually never said that. But of what is available to a western audience he meant it, and was ofcourse correct. But for once I agree with you on the above Mr. 9,5, if it had been a quote I would agree. Don't I get to be a 10 then? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ALL other spiritual teachings were lesser than his. ALL of them. ALL other techniques of medi- tation or spiritual development were lesser than TM. Not ONE of the others was on the same level as TM and his teachings. Not one. He actually never said that. But of what is available to a western audience he meant it, and was ofcourse correct. But for once I agree with you on the above Mr. 9,5, if it had been a quote I would agree.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My point? Both prop dictators, for the supposed love of stability, one of America, at the expense of good karma and the rest of the planet, the other at the expense of good taste and refined sentiment. Forgot about you, it's easy to see why. A clear # 8, IMO.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy wrote: Jeepers, Curtis, it's been around for *millennia*. The idea that specific sounds have specific effects is just about ubiquitous in ancient cultures. According to Mircea Eliade, the first mention of yogic meditation in India was made by the historical Buddha (circa 400 BC). No TM mantras are mentioned in Indian literature until after the Gupta Age. For example, there are no bija mantras mentioned in the Rig Veda. History in India begins with the historical Buddha, so where, exactly, is there any mention of bija mantras before that? Eliade says that yogic introspection is native to South Asia. I had hoped you would weigh in with some details Richard. Thanks.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: snip You were told not to say your mantra out loud or to tell it to anyone. It was special. This last is pretty standard with mantra meditation techniques. Having TAUGHT other techniques of meditation, I can say that this is not true. It's about half-and-half as far as I can tell. Some traditions believe this and teach it, others do not. It is FAR from standard. I'd say half-and-half makes it standard--in other words, not unusual: regularly and widely used, per my dictionary. Standard doesn't mean exclusive. To say that it IS standard reveals how little Judy knows about the larger world of meditation, and that pretty much the only things she does know are from TM.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
TurquoiseB wrote: I taught classes to hundreds of people, NEVER using a puja or any other tradition form of initiation. When the meditation involved a mantra (not all of the techniques did), the mantras were NOT the TM mantras, and were simply spoken aloud to a group of people in a large room, who then proceeded to meditate using them. So, where did you get the bija mantras to meditate on?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: snip You're more than welcome to show *how* they're quite weak. One strike so far. To say that there is no relation of the words to one another in the advanced techniquesyou've got to be kidding! snicker I didn't say that. I haven't discussed the advanced techniques at all. Two strikes. Want to try for three? Hey Geez...remember only a few days back when I predicted that you would be next on Judy's Gotta Get list? Was I right, or what? Notice how easy it is for Barry to ignore that what I was responding to was another in a very long line of geezerfreak's Gotta Get Judy attacks, all unprovoked. It's *OK* for geezerfreak and Barry and anybody else to Get Judy. It's *not OK* for Judy to defend herself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
Marek wrote: I've assumed the mantras emerged really early on, some sort of very early-on primate or hominid type of recognition and appreciation thing for some tribal/family sound; some kind of eureka moment among early hominids that caught on, something with emotional staying power.(*) So, you're thinking that the TM mantras didn't come from scripture - they were discovered before language was adopted, before agriculture was used, and before the invention of civilization? That would mean that the TM mantras are older than written history. If so, why do you suppose the TM mantras weren't mentioned until the Gupta Age in India? From what I've read, the Indus Civilization flourished before 3,000 BC and the Vedas were composed around 1500 BC, but no mention is made of any TM mantras until the composition of the Tantras.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I still like my idea that sounds whose effects are known refers to *all* the bija mantras as a whole, i.e., they all have good effects, whereas words like mike and so on would have little if any effect. This is the heart of this for me. Why do we assume that effortlessly meditating with different sounds has a different effect at all? I can speak only from my own experience, but shortly after I learned TM, I experimented using Jesus as my mantra, with disappointing results. While I do not dispute Judy's personal, subjective experience, I might suggest that it could have easily have been caused by preprogramming. She had been told -- and told emphatically, as if it were Truth -- that the TM mantras were unique and caused uniquely beneficial effects. Having been told that HAD to have affected any experiment she later performed. Well, actually, the reason I experimented (no scare quotes required) was that I *didn't believe* those claims. I thought they were nonsense and intended to prove it. I was convinced it was the *effortlessness* and not the mantra that did the trick. Benson's Relaxation Response book had just come out, and I was sure his technique was identical to TM, but without using Sanskrit mantras. After all, he'd proved that with science. I was very pleased with myself for having seen through the mumbo-jumbo. I picked Jesus to use instead of the mantra because my heritage was Christian, although I wasn't a believer. But I had always approved of Jesus, even had a certain amount of reverence for him, so I thought that would load the dice a bit in favor of my expectations. I figured it was the TM folks' reverence for their tradition that made them so sure their mantras were special. But it didn't work.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's like Maharishi going nudge-nudge to his fellow Indians and saying, See? They really ARE as stupid and gullible as we always thought they were. -No offense, but that's getting to be a trite observation. But an accurate one. When even the *Indian* press makes snide and derogatory comments about the Rajas and how they dress and comport themselves, that pretty much clinches the deal for me. We do know that Maharishi above all else liked dignity. I would say instead that Maharishi valued above all else the *illusion* of dignity. He would have been perfectly comfortable as the Wizard of Oz, pulling strings from behind the curtain, convincing people that he was the All-Powerful Oz. What he didn't like was having the curtain pulled back to reveal that it was just an ordinary man behind it. Maharishi's focus was on pomp and circumstance, with dressing things up to make them *look* dignified. Someone with inner dignity doesn't have to do that. He liked to feel he was of the ilk of Vashishta and other rishis of the Vedas who inspired kings to sacrifice their whole kingdoms for a drop of wisdom. I would agree with this. Then not finding such lavish treatment... Treatment of himself, that is...how he expected to be treated when he left India. ...he devised a solution. Recreate the whole world in the ideal of which he was hankering for - a dignified world. A world which would go to war for the love of a woman. Instead of a world which sends women to war. Poetic, I guess, but you lost me on this one... Maharishi was a conservative - no duh - the likes of which will not be followed again on this planet. Here I'm with you 100%. snip Maharishi was more like the Taliban in mental makeup than anything else. Exactly, and for similar reasons. The Taliban are so self-absorbed and convinced that they are RIGHT that they cannot even *conceive* of any other way of seeing things than theirs. It's their way or the highway. That was Maharishi in a nutshell. While preach- ing reverence for tradition, he wanted to tear down all of the historical buildings and monu- ments in all of the capitol cities of the world because they weren't in compliance with HIS ideas of vastu and natural law. ALL other spiritual teachings were lesser than his. ALL of them. ALL other techniques of medi- tation or spiritual development were lesser than TM. Not ONE of the others was on the same level as TM and his teachings. Not one. He felt so strongly about what he believed being right that he literally advocating making TM *mandatory*, making it illegal NOT to do TM. Who else thinks like that? The Taliban.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
Maharishi was more like the Taliban in mental makeup than anything else. The vigilance committee member knocking on your door at 10:00 to see if anything was wrong that you light was still on. Excommunicating the teacher in Gainesville Fl for living with her boyfriend. You nailed it! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's like Maharishi going nudge-nudge to his fellow Indians and saying, See? They really ARE as stupid and gullible as we always thought they were. -No offense, but that's getting to be a trite observation. We do know that Maharishi above all else liked dignity. He liked to feel he was of the ilk of Vashishta and other rishis of the Vedas who inspired kings to sacrifice their whole kingdoms for a drop of wisdom. Then not finding such lavish treatment he devised a solution. Recreate the whole world in the ideal of which he was hankering for - a dignified world. A world which would go to war for the love of a woman. Instead of a world which sends women to war. Maharishi was a conservative - no duh - the likes of which will not be followed again on this planet. He didn't believe in cultural intermarriage, one should marry their own race, or they would fall from Dharma. He was more conservative than GWB, and therein lies why he focused on Bush so much, that is, they both were more similar than he let on. You can't argue with persons on topics you have no ostensible knowledge about, and Maharishi and GWB were both very similar in many ways. Hence, MMY felt close enough to the topic of Bush to feel able to comment upon him. My point? Both prop dictators, for the supposed love of stability, one of America, at the expense of good karma and the rest of the planet, the other at the expense of good taste and refined sentiment. Maharishi was more like the Taliban in mental makeup than anything else.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
The thing is:
I wonder who this sounds like...
The process of Transcendental Meditation is a process of
transcending thought...
New info for this group no doubt.
There are all kinds of ways to transcend thought: excersize, music,
whatever you 'lose' yourself in...
Specifically the mantras which Maharishi has given out, have
specific and life-supporting effects.
This is the claim I am challenging. Now let's hear the replay of
Maharishi's attempt at proof by analogy:
{I am sure you have listened to some sounds or some music, which you
must have experienced as jarring, or upsetting, confusing or even
depressing.
Here is where the analogy breaks down. The claim would have to be
that a single sound made you feel something,not a whole series of
notes. Or maybe an arpeggio of two or three notes which is even
closer to the early mantras. If I could get this out of my
performance I would never have to play a whole song. It is an another
assertion used to prove the first assertion. Neither is true IMO.
Some vibrations are lower vibrations of the lower world:
They have there own lower feelings, bad smells, darkness, seperation
and confusion}
Any chance you could post your IPOD song list? I must be missing some
good stuff!
The idea that simple vibrations make you feel a certain way on their
own without musical composition to create the influence is what
created all that crappy New Age music without any structure floating
around on pure tones. It takes a lot in a musical composition, many
many skillfully placed sounds to get an emotional effect and half the
time (or more) the audience reacts in unknown ways due to their own
personal history and associations. For me minor keys mean sad, for
the Gypsies it means the party is ON! My blues makes me so happy
and filled with joy. Some people say they hate that sad blues crap.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Roberto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(snip)
I can speak only from my own experience, but shortly
after I learned TM, I experimented using Jesus as
my mantra, with disappointing results.
I wonder about this too. It seems that pretty sounds are used. My
mother had a very lovely unusual name with lots of long vowels. I can
meditate using her name to the same effect as my mantra.
(snip)
The thing is: The process of Transcendental Meditation is a process of
transcending thought...
There are all kinds of ways to transcend thought: excersize, music,
whatever you 'lose' yourself in...
Specifically the mantras which Maharishi has given out, have specific
and life-supporting effects.
{I am sure you have listened to some sounds or some music, which you
must have experienced as jarring, or upsetting, confusing or even
depressing.
Some vibrations are lower vibrations of the lower world:
They have there own lower feelings, bad smells, darkness, seperation
and confusion}
And then there are the higher vibrations-
Sound is vibration.
Silence is the absence of vibration.
The mantra given in TM is used as a vehicle to transcend thought.
To bring the mind to stillness, to silence.
The whole process is to begin to experience the backround on which
thoughts are formed: consciousness. itself. the witness of the self,
beyond ego.
After one has learned to transcend thought, and can maintain some sense
of silence,
Then one can begin to witness, and introduce a sutra or vibration of
the intention.
Then one could think 'Indra' and could feel the essence of a storm.
One could think 'Shivayai' and begin to feel the vibration of the
aspect of God called Shiva.
So one begins to feel the world as energy, vibration.
And eventually one can stand apart from the spin of the whole thing...
Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu, the three gunas...
From my experience, it is necessary first, to still the mind;
To silence the mind and then introduce the vibration you wish to
attract.
In other words, about your Mom...
Stilling yourself, think her name, and you would begin to have the
sense of her, being with you.
In the same way, we can vibrate the vibration of compassion, for
example, which is more abstract;
Or, in the example that was used for using Jesus as a mantra-
From my experience it would be better to use the name that is closest
to the actual name of Jesus.
The intention to attune yourself to him, and the closest name/form:
Yeshua...
In silence you 'call' to you, whatever you vibrate..
Gods and Goddesses, Avatars and Saviors...
The Jews use - Adonoi, Elocheem...
Some say the name of God, can't be spoken.
The transcendent cannot be spoken, very true.
Buddha said: it's not this, and it's not that...same idea.
The silence, which is your own silence, becomes the backround-
It's just a matter of clearing the noise from the system, really.
Clearing the noise.
You intend to 'vibrate' the vibration of that which you seek.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
One syllable - bija mantras are nirguna - meaning unqualified. Herein lies a huge point which makes a difference in TM Movementism. The whole of TM was trying to establish some effortless base for deep samadhi which is a quality-less experience. Thus, one can point fingers all they like at any level of the TMO but all one comes up with is the basic empty-fullness of the unqualified. This isn't a joke. One can dualize all the members of TMO and Maharishi all they like but the entire point of this long exercise has been to increase experience of the nirguna state of being. - Original Message - From: Vaj To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 6:45 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement On Feb 12, 2008, at 7:04 AM, hugheshugo wrote: I'm so glad you chose my mantra to illustrate that, I've often wondered where it came from. Trouble is, according to MMY if you know the meaning of the mantra it won't work, I'll let you know later if that's the case ;-) I think this whole siddhi/intention debate has been interesting but for one obvious oversite; the sidhis, at least as taught by MMY do absolutely doodley squat. And that is my experience from ten years practice and fifteen years observation. Sure, they deepen the trance state but as for getting the desired results I've never seen it. Any evidence to the contrary greatly appreciated. Well, I'd stick to what Tat Wala Baba's successor said. It's also interesting how different texts will sometimes hide the explanation of mantra in symbol, thus they rely on oral instructions to explain. The mantra shreeng is another good example of this. For example the Triput Stotra: recite the first of thy golden Bija Bakam placed on Vahni accompanied by Trimurti combined with Sasanka, you attain all prosperity. Huh? It's almost completely unintelligible--until the symbolism is explained: Bakam, means crane actually is twilight language for the letter Sa. Vahni or fire is synonymous with the letter Ra, Trimurti means the letter I (ee) and Sasanka or the Moon is candra-bindu, the terminator of the mantra (-ng). Together these make the bija shreeng. There are esoteric references hidden here as well which a good teacher would explain: another inner level.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That Ruth can really lay it down, can't she Curtis? She's become my favorite writer herebumping you from the top peg wasn't easy brother! I was a fan from her first posts here! I don't mind being bumped' by her...er...well...you know what I mean! What's next? ...special hats?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was a fan from her first posts here! I don't mind being bumped' by her...er...well...you know what I mean! Two in a row. I can't take this. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 no_reply@ wrote: I too am no expert in the vagueries of mantra meanings. The point is that they are phrases...meaningless sounds whose meaning is known? (Semantically) meaningless sounds whose *effects* are known. I'm not sure how anyone could know this Judy. I mean, we can probably rule out a history of trying a bunch of different sounds experimentally and watching some people have bad experiences or have harm come to them right? So we are really just dealing with a level of belief, tradition, and I suspect a bit of a marketing hype here aren't we? I say this because I don't understand how we could possibly know if using one mantra over another has any different effect. And I don't see anything in the Vedic literature that indicates an experimental attitude towards them. So mantra's effects are still an intangible for me. What effects? Compared to what? It seems as if the claim that the effects of the whole process of meditation is known, but not the mantras on their own, especially when compared to using some other sound. Maybe the meaning is that they invoke an energy whose association is known and is found within Indian religious systems? Or within *all* religious systems, i.e., within human experience. The whole magic of the mantras doesn't ring true to me. To say they invoke an energy whose association is known within all religious systems, i.e., within human experience is a big leap to take. First of all, why should India be blessed with this knowledge and no one else? I have heard some say the knowledge was lost, but really, there is no evidence for that other than the say so of some people. So, we are back to taking things on faith. I just no longer am buying the idea that TM is the one with the right mantras and by the way, not only are the TM mantras the right mantras they are always the right mantras. And the only way you can get them is to purchase them. WTF? Why did I ever believe that to be the case? I am suddenly amazed at myself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
Howdy. Yes, the Rabbi's carried the protective mentality to the n'th degree by creating more and more restrictions, each rationalized as a protector of the Torah way of life. For example, the law of Kosher wine does not come about in the Torah. It came about by Rabbinic decree. Not sure Adam and Eve were humans as you and I are. Maybe but then again maybe they did not exist in this dimension. I also read somewhere that the skins that Hashem made for them was not the same skin you and I have. There is a tradition about the skin that I think we see a hint at when we do havdalah and say goodbye to Shabbas. We hold our fingernails up to the candle light and look at our nails. Why? Because the nail looks a lot like the skin that was made for Adam and Eve.I think that is what I read My observance these days is hard to express. I went through a hugely shocking experience in the fall last year and I felt a distinct fall in my observance. I can't go into the details about that shock. I can say that it has taken about 6 months for me to now get back to doing my regular morning prayer routines. I am not the same person I was before I got the shock. The shock was information and that's all I will say. Garden of Eden, oh, that's always the slippery one. touch and eat are different. Touch is external, eat is internal. Eat meant to incorporate, to take into your body, to absorb, to be transformed. Honestly the Zohar does a much better job of it. All you have to do is try and figure out what the heck these guys are talking about. The thicket of regulations probably has done more harm than good. That too is a big discussion. I will say for now that the Judaism of today is probably no where near what Moses had in mind. Not even within a country mile or kilometer. Not even close. I conceive of Moshe having taught a lifestyle of elevation of consciousness, leading to unimaginable high levels of enlightenment. We haven't even touched on what the n'vua or prophetic level is all about. Maybe we will. Cheers, Fred [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--OK, true - Enlightenment is part of the Kaballistic teachings, and? Isn't the idea to reach the goal as quickly as possible? There are 2 ways to do this: 1. Accept a faith-based prescription based solely on Scripture and/or Religious Tradition, or some Authority. 2. Second, rely on no religious traditions and simply examine a form of meditation totally divorced from Religious trappings and Traditions. (Sam Harris is attempting to do this - he's into investigating the physiological effects of meditation but wants nothing to do with Buddhism as a religion). Also, various clinical researchers believe that meditation-effects can be analyzied with their instruments and haven't groked the fact that if one extracts meditation from a Tradition, this might be like pulling up a flower by its roots. 3. Follow the guidelines established by Sakyamuni Buddha: carefully evaluate any teachings, any techniques; in the light of your own experience and accept nothing through blind faith alone. It seems to me you are in the #1 category. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some responses: But that isn't the distinction, at least not the one we were discussing. It's between *names* of personal gods and *mantras* associated with personal gods. Your comment reminds me of this: in J, sometimes we can make use of one of God's names as a mantra. It is more hinted at than overtly stated in Kaballistic writings. Rabbi Abulafia (I think) boldly went into more detail about this then others were happy to see in print. In J, as you know, there is no distinction made between Hashem as personal or impersonal God. There is no small g god within J. None. There is acknoweldgement of other practices of other groups who have lots of smaller g discussion and practices. It was known and many fences were erected to block any contact with that sphere. An energy within the meditator's own consciousness, one that leads to transcendence of all forms and boundaries. Yes, that's true. Consider a few things for a minute. Many paths up the mountain. One was chosen for the J's. Specifically chosen. Taking other paths will take them along a way they were supposed to avoid. Sounds like an implicit contradiction if the top is the shared objective? Maybe. It was God's word so I would have to take it up with Him. Consider another thing. I have a theory. I think that Judaism was taught (by Moses) as an Ascendant Technology. TM is a transcendant technique. They are not the same thing. They might both be strokes in the swimming pool. One might be the breast stroke, the other a crawl. They are not the same. The ascendant path is different. Perhaps they both reach the same place; I really do not know. I think that they achieve different things. Again, though, the circuit is within one's own consciousness, not a circuit between one's consciousness and something external (at least in the esoteric TM context). I hear your point. I had the following scenario go through my mind. Switchboard: what number would you like me to dial for you? Ok, here we go (dials 416-967-) Switchboard: what numberyes sir, right away (dials main number at Pentagon). Circuits might be just like that. You plug into what you connect to. For example, if you invoke the energy of a high spirit, say, an angel you happen to know that name of, might not this invocation get you connected to a very specific energy within the Astral Realms? I suppose it would. Just like that by invoking the energy of a sound that has its place within H might just get a connection (within ones own consciousness) of an energy we are NOT supposed to dial up? Speak for yourself, please. (I was not required to bow down when I was initiated, nor was I encouraged to feel grateful to Guru Dev. I think that your experience was not the majority. Ask around. If you didn't get the message that the Puja was a great show of gratitude to Guru Dev, then I can't help you on that. (me) No, in his teaching there is an obfuscation of what is really going on. (you) Well, you're just contradicting here. How can you be so sure he didn't really believe what he was teaching? I think you missed my point. He truly believed what he taught. He also hid what he did not want people to take note of. Obstruction as such in my view was almost akin to putting a stumbling block before the blind. In the Torah this is forbidden. A person is supposed to aspire to speak truthfully. Not a personal truth, but THE truth. I have come to doubt that MMY spoke THE truth and this my subjective idea/feeling/belief. I think that he would have said anything at the outset to establish a foothold in the West, including hiding much that would turn people off had they access to it. Hence no translation of the
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
Thanks Nabby. Alright Edg, Mr. #5, I'm gunning for your ass buddy. Here is the start of my campaign to improve my NAB ranking: I just want to announce that on behalf of all the Rajas, we are preparing the earth for Lord Maitreya to return as predicted by our beloved Mr. Benjamin Creme, through our practice of group flying with our precious TM an TM sit-there programs. Come on Nabby give me bump man, I gotta Edge out Edg, I just gotta! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: My point? Both prop dictators, for the supposed love of stability, one of America, at the expense of good karma and the rest of the planet, the other at the expense of good taste and refined sentiment. Forgot about you, it's easy to see why. A clear # 8, IMO. Did you ever clarify the details of your judgmental system Nabby? Is 10 good or bad. This is critical cuz I am either better than or worse than Dr. Peter and Turq on your chart and I can use something new to crow about. No need for further clarification, Mr. Turq already did this a couple of days ago. Giving Vaj straight 10 pretty much says it all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
snip --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He rolls back into India one last time to die, Er, no, he was already dead when he was rolled back into India.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willytex@ wrote: Judy wrote: Jeepers, Curtis, it's been around for *millennia*. The idea that specific sounds have specific effects is just about ubiquitous in ancient cultures. According to Mircea Eliade, the first mention of yogic meditation in India was made by the historical Buddha (circa 400 BC). No TM mantras are mentioned in Indian literature until after the Gupta Age. For example, there are no bija mantras mentioned in the Rig Veda. History in India begins with the historical Buddha, so where, exactly, is there any mention of bija mantras before that? Eliade says that yogic introspection is native to South Asia. I had hoped you would weigh in with some details Richard. Thanks. Actually, it's a non sequitur to my point. Here's what you said that I was responding to: This is the heart of this for me. Why do we assume that effortlessly meditating with different sounds has a different effect at all? And given how differently people react to meditation when I taught, I really doubt that it would be possible to create a causative connection between the mantra rather than its use as the culprit in bad results. Think of how many factors would have to be considered to claim causation of the mantra as the problem. It makes more sense to me that this explanation appealed to modern ears.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
But it didn't work. This experience is different from Maharishi's claim that using other words can work but they will have negative consequences on the more subtle levels. According to him you can transcend on any word. You might have just needed a Jesus checking! The mental conflict that would go on with such a test is a long way from innocent I believe. There might have been an undercurrent of internal duologue that would have taken some practice to forget about and just transcend again. But it misses the point of the claim which is that there will be damage with the wrong sounds or not life supporting' effects. Now as a professional transcender you might not find the same difficulties. Of course the proper set and setting might be necessary in teaching it. I remember when Chopra gave me his technique without a puja. It was a mantra with a clear meaning and we used it just like TM. Seemed to work fine. The authority of the teacher may be important. I would never have experimented with another word on my own like that back in the day. I'm not really sure if I have totally shaken that phobia to this day to be honest. But I can't distinguish the experience of transcending with any vehicle now. Or no vehicle. But again, this is not the claim I am disputing. --- 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, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I still like my idea that sounds whose effects are known refers to *all* the bija mantras as a whole, i.e., they all have good effects, whereas words like mike and so on would have little if any effect. This is the heart of this for me. Why do we assume that effortlessly meditating with different sounds has a different effect at all? I can speak only from my own experience, but shortly after I learned TM, I experimented using Jesus as my mantra, with disappointing results. While I do not dispute Judy's personal, subjective experience, I might suggest that it could have easily have been caused by preprogramming. She had been told -- and told emphatically, as if it were Truth -- that the TM mantras were unique and caused uniquely beneficial effects. Having been told that HAD to have affected any experiment she later performed. Well, actually, the reason I experimented (no scare quotes required) was that I *didn't believe* those claims. I thought they were nonsense and intended to prove it. I was convinced it was the *effortlessness* and not the mantra that did the trick. Benson's Relaxation Response book had just come out, and I was sure his technique was identical to TM, but without using Sanskrit mantras. After all, he'd proved that with science. I was very pleased with myself for having seen through the mumbo-jumbo. I picked Jesus to use instead of the mantra because my heritage was Christian, although I wasn't a believer. But I had always approved of Jesus, even had a certain amount of reverence for him, so I thought that would load the dice a bit in favor of my expectations. I figured it was the TM folks' reverence for their tradition that made them so sure their mantras were special. But it didn't work.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
Judy wrote: Jeepers, Curtis, it's been around for *millennia*. The idea that specific sounds have specific effects is just about ubiquitous in ancient cultures. According to Mircea Eliade, the first mention of yogic meditation in India was made by the historical Buddha (circa 400 BC). No TM mantras are mentioned in Indian literature until after the Gupta Age. For example, there are no bija mantras mentioned in the Rig Veda. History in India begins with the historical Buddha, so where, exactly, is there any mention of bija mantras before that? Eliade says that yogic introspection is native to South Asia.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: (As a courtesy to the TBs, I removed my sarcasm that was inserted here. For some reason, I am rapidly losing my openmindedness) I have to say (well, no, I don't have to, but I'm gonna), your thinking on these issues seems to me much less clear and objective than it has been in discussions on other topics. (And no, it's not just because we don't agree. I'm just getting a sense of muddledness. Apparently I'm a minority of one on that point, though.) Welcome to the world of Judy Stein, Ruth. She's just getting started on you. Ignore her and keep posting. Ruth, ignore geezerfreak. He just made a couple of big bloopers and is trying to take his frustration and embarrassment out on me. I suspect that Ruth is smart enough to have noticed that Geezerfreak has never once tried to win or score points on this forum, and that that's pretty much ALL that you do. I further suspect that she'll draw the right conclusion from having noticed that...
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: snicker I didn't say that. I haven't discussed the advanced techniques at all. Two strikes. Want to try for three? No. Trying to have a conversation with you is useless. It deteriorates into a game of winning, scoring and endless rounds of condescending bullshit. Bingo. Buh-bye now. The ONLY sane thing one can do in a discussion with Judy is say buh-bye.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 no_reply@ wrote: snip Speak for yourself, please. (I was not required to bow down when I was initiated, nor was I encouraged to feel grateful to Guru Dev.) Judy, you are not a TM teacher right? (I honestly can't remember whether or not I've read that you are or not.) Nope, I'm not. I'm thinking not, because part of the initiation instructions are to gesture to the student to kneel down with you. Now it's not like you would refuse to teach the person if they did not, or did not understand your hand gesture. But the intent is clear.you're inviting the student to bow down with you in gratitude to the holy tradition. Yes, I know all this. But it's an *invitation*, not a requirement, was my point. And you were asked to bring fruit flowers and handkerchief for the ceremony of gratitude to Maharishi's teacher and the tradition. I was told the ceremony of gratitude to Guru Dev was for the teacher's benefit, not mine, and that the fruit, flowers, and handkerchief were my offering to *my* teacher, not to Guru Dev. So not only were you encourage to be grateful to Guru Dev, you were made to actively participate. If you didn't bring the required worship items you would have been asked to go get them and come back, at least when I was teaching. You're missing my point (willfully, I suspect). I was responding to this (snipped from your post) from boyboy, describing initiation: if you'd just bow down just a wee bit we can finish this off, and don't you feel greatful to that past master who MMY just adores? Regardless of what the TM teacher may have had in mind, *I* didn't have this in mind, because it ain't what I was told. So I didn't bow, and I didn't feel grateful. Why should I when I hadn't learned anything yet? That's why I said, Speak for yourself, you see. Your arguments in this thread are quite weak. IMO of course. You're more than welcome to show *how* they're quite weak. One strike so far. To say that there is no relation of the words to one another in the advanced techniquesyou've got to be kidding! snicker I didn't say that. I haven't discussed the advanced techniques at all. Two strikes. Want to try for three? Hey Geez...remember only a few days back when I predicted that you would be next on Judy's Gotta Get list? Was I right, or what?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
(snip)
I can speak only from my own experience, but shortly
after I learned TM, I experimented using Jesus as
my mantra, with disappointing results.
I wonder about this too. It seems that pretty sounds are used. My
mother had a very lovely unusual name with lots of long vowels. I can
meditate using her name to the same effect as my mantra.
(snip)
The thing is: The process of Transcendental Meditation is a process of
transcending thought...
There are all kinds of ways to transcend thought: excersize, music,
whatever you 'lose' yourself in...
Specifically the mantras which Maharishi has given out, have specific
and life-supporting effects.
{I am sure you have listened to some sounds or some music, which you
must have experienced as jarring, or upsetting, confusing or even
depressing.
Some vibrations are lower vibrations of the lower world:
They have there own lower feelings, bad smells, darkness, seperation
and confusion}
And then there are the higher vibrations-
Sound is vibration.
Silence is the absence of vibration.
The mantra given in TM is used as a vehicle to transcend thought.
To bring the mind to stillness, to silence.
The whole process is to begin to experience the backround on which
thoughts are formed: consciousness. itself. the witness of the self,
beyond ego.
After one has learned to transcend thought, and can maintain some sense
of silence,
Then one can begin to witness, and introduce a sutra or vibration of
the intention.
Then one could think 'Indra' and could feel the essence of a storm.
One could think 'Shivayai' and begin to feel the vibration of the
aspect of God called Shiva.
So one begins to feel the world as energy, vibration.
And eventually one can stand apart from the spin of the whole thing...
Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu, the three gunas...
From my experience, it is necessary first, to still the mind;
To silence the mind and then introduce the vibration you wish to
attract.
In other words, about your Mom...
Stilling yourself, think her name, and you would begin to have the
sense of her, being with you.
In the same way, we can vibrate the vibration of compassion, for
example, which is more abstract;
Or, in the example that was used for using Jesus as a mantra-
From my experience it would be better to use the name that is closest
to the actual name of Jesus.
The intention to attune yourself to him, and the closest name/form:
Yeshua...
In silence you 'call' to you, whatever you vibrate..
Gods and Goddesses, Avatars and Saviors...
The Jews use - Adonoi, Elocheem...
Some say the name of God, can't be spoken.
The transcendent cannot be spoken, very true.
Buddha said: it's not this, and it's not that...same idea.
The silence, which is your own silence, becomes the backround-
It's just a matter of clearing the noise from the system, really.
Clearing the noise.
You intend to 'vibrate' the vibration of that which you seek.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
On Feb 12, 2008, at 7:44 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis and Judy, very interesting exchange. My plan was to leave this place when I had my thoughts straightened out, but exchanges like this have enticed me to hang around. As I have no experience with Vedic texts, this is helpful. I accept the Arabian Nights challenge to try to keep it interesting enough for you to stick around! Both you and Judy are big resources here (among others) for thinking things out in detail. I certainly agree. I find Ruth's one of the clearest and most interesting voices this forum has seen in years. In a very real way, I think it's *us* who benefit from her sticking around and joining in these discussions, not the other way around. Ditto on that one. Thanks Ruth for sharing your honesty, objectivity and clarity!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
On Feb 12, 2008, at 7:04 AM, hugheshugo wrote: I'm so glad you chose my mantra to illustrate that, I've often wondered where it came from. Trouble is, according to MMY if you know the meaning of the mantra it won't work, I'll let you know later if that's the case ;-) I think this whole siddhi/intention debate has been interesting but for one obvious oversite; the sidhis, at least as taught by MMY do absolutely doodley squat. And that is my experience from ten years practice and fifteen years observation. Sure, they deepen the trance state but as for getting the desired results I've never seen it. Any evidence to the contrary greatly appreciated. Well, I'd stick to what Tat Wala Baba's successor said. It's also interesting how different texts will sometimes hide the explanation of mantra in symbol, thus they rely on oral instructions to explain. The mantra shreeng is another good example of this. For example the Triput Stotra: recite the first of thy golden Bija Bakam placed on Vahni accompanied by Trimurti combined with Sasanka, you attain all prosperity. Huh? It's almost completely unintelligible--until the symbolism is explained: Bakam, means crane actually is twilight language for the letter Sa. Vahni or fire is synonymous with the letter Ra, Trimurti means the letter I (ee) and Sasanka or the Moon is candra-bindu, the terminator of the mantra (-ng). Together these make the bija shreeng. There are esoteric references hidden here as well which a good teacher would explain: another inner level.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis and Judy, very interesting exchange. My plan was to leave this place when I had my thoughts straightened out, but exchanges like this have enticed me to hang around. As I have no experience with Vedic texts, this is helpful. I accept the Arabian Nights challenge to try to keep it interesting enough for you to stick around! Both you and Judy are big resources here (among others) for thinking things out in detail. I certainly agree. I find Ruth's one of the clearest and most interesting voices this forum has seen in years. In a very real way, I think it's *us* who benefit from her sticking around and joining in these discussions, not the other way around.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I still like my idea that sounds whose effects are known refers to *all* the bija mantras as a whole, i.e., they all have good effects, whereas words like mike and so on would have little if any effect. This is the heart of this for me. Why do we assume that effortlessly meditating with different sounds has a different effect at all? I can speak only from my own experience, but shortly after I learned TM, I experimented using Jesus as my mantra, with disappointing results. While I do not dispute Judy's personal, subjective experience, I might suggest that it could have easily have been caused by preprogramming. She had been told -- and told emphatically, as if it were Truth -- that the TM mantras were unique and caused uniquely beneficial effects. Having been told that HAD to have affected any experiment she later performed. All I can present as an alternative is my own experience teaching forms of meditation OTHER than TM. I taught classes to hundreds of people, NEVER using a puja or any other tradition form of initiation. When the meditation involved a mantra (not all of the techniques did), the mantras were NOT the TM mantras, and were simply spoken aloud to a group of people in a large room, who then proceeded to meditate using them. Their experiences with the meditation were easily as deep and as clear and as subjectively beneficial as ANY of the experiences of my own students during the time I taught TM. I don't think there is ANYTHING special or partic- ularly beneficial or unique about either the TM mantras or the way they are used. And that's based on having practiced more than one technique of meditation, and on having taught more than one technique of meditation. I'm not trying to sell anything, or claim that any approach or any tech- nique is better. I'm only presenting my exper- iences, just as Judy did.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 11, 2008, at 11:46 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: The siddhis sutras aren't mantras; they're *intentions* expressed verbally. The semantic meanings are crucial. They're for a whole different purpose; you aren't using them to transcend. Apples and kiwi fruit. I'm not so sure about the semantic meaning since the connection between the intention and its result is often kind of obscure. I have never heard Maharishi make that claim. It is the name for relationship at the subtlest level that seems to interest him and that is why we don't need Sanskrit according to him, right? Yet when Tat Walla Baba's successor was asked about the siddhis, he said there were a couple things wrong with the TMSP. One was they needed to be done in Sanskrit and two in any given day, you did them all, not just a subset (not to mention the inner techniques that go along with the various siddhi formulae). Of course given that he lived in a cave, it's kind of a given that you need to be completely unattached. And meaning is vitally important, the idea of meaningless sounds is quite simply, a lie. One of my favorite mantra dictionaries is the Mantrarthabhidanam from the Varada Tantra. It's first verse quotes Shiva, directly communicating to his counterpart, Parameshsvari: Sri Shiva said: Listen Oh Parameshsvari! Now I shall describe to you the meaning of Mantras. In the absence of any knowledge of which no one can get siddhi, even with a million sadhanas. Pretty clear, huh! What makes it so special is the clarity with which it describes the TM mantras. For example, another level of the TM mantra Shreeng is Sa (the first letter) indicates Mahalakshmi, Repha (the guttural whirring of the R-sound) indicates dAna (giving, imparting, paying back); ee (I) indicates Tushti, satisfaction and contentment, the Nada indicates Para, the transcendent--that which is beyond; and the Bindu indicates the destroyer of discomforts and uneasiness. Thus shreeng is the Bija or Seed for the worship of Lakshmi. -The mantrarthabhidanam I'm so glad you chose my mantra to illustrate that, I've often wondered where it came from. Trouble is, according to MMY if you know the meaning of the mantra it won't work, I'll let you know later if that's the case ;-) I think this whole siddhi/intention debate has been interesting but for one obvious oversite; the sidhis, at least as taught by MMY do absolutely doodley squat. And that is my experience from ten years practice and fifteen years observation. Sure, they deepen the trance state but as for getting the desired results I've never seen it. Any evidence to the contrary greatly appreciated.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
On Feb 11, 2008, at 11:46 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: The siddhis sutras aren't mantras; they're *intentions* expressed verbally. The semantic meanings are crucial. They're for a whole different purpose; you aren't using them to transcend. Apples and kiwi fruit. I'm not so sure about the semantic meaning since the connection between the intention and its result is often kind of obscure. I have never heard Maharishi make that claim. It is the name for relationship at the subtlest level that seems to interest him and that is why we don't need Sanskrit according to him, right? Yet when Tat Walla Baba's successor was asked about the siddhis, he said there were a couple things wrong with the TMSP. One was they needed to be done in Sanskrit and two in any given day, you did them all, not just a subset (not to mention the inner techniques that go along with the various siddhi formulae). Of course given that he lived in a cave, it's kind of a given that you need to be completely unattached. And meaning is vitally important, the idea of meaningless sounds is quite simply, a lie. One of my favorite mantra dictionaries is the Mantrarthabhidanam from the Varada Tantra. It's first verse quotes Shiva, directly communicating to his counterpart, Parameshsvari: Sri Shiva said: Listen Oh Parameshsvari! Now I shall describe to you the meaning of Mantras. In the absence of any knowledge of which no one can get siddhi, even with a million sadhanas. Pretty clear, huh! What makes it so special is the clarity with which it describes the TM mantras. For example, another level of the TM mantra Shreeng is Sa (the first letter) indicates Mahalakshmi, Repha (the guttural whirring of the R-sound) indicates dAna (giving, imparting, paying back); ee (I) indicates Tushti, satisfaction and contentment, the Nada indicates Para, the transcendent--that which is beyond; and the Bindu indicates the destroyer of discomforts and uneasiness. Thus shreeng is the Bija or Seed for the worship of Lakshmi. -The mantrarthabhidanam
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short list of my grievances with the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When you think of it the sidhis introduce a bunch of new sounds that aren't in the Vedic tradition to the subtlest levels, English isn't in the tradition. If what he claimed was true the sidhis use would be an unknown, untraditional vibration entertained at the subtlest part of the mind. It kind of throws a wrench in the whole claim doesn't it? Excellent point, Curtis.
