[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: Well at least ONE reader here knew what I was writing about. My bad. It never occurred to me that the word heroics could be used to refer to the soap opera events you had just described. I thought you were referring to something else from the annals of Robin lore, something you assumed I knew about.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: Well at least ONE reader here knew what I was writing about. My bad. It never occurred to me that the word heroics could be used to refer to the soap opera events you had just described. I thought you were referring to something else from the annals of Robin lore, something you assumed I knew about. I also apologize for trying to riff on your reply real time in a noisy cafe after a couple of Belgian beers with high alcoholic content. In retrospect, I guess all I was really trying to accomplish was to find out why you (or anyone) were so taken by Robin, either back in the day or more recently, on FFL. Your occasional descriptions of him as noble confound me because I never saw that in the things he wrote here, back when I was still trying to read them. To me it was pretty much all stuck-in-one's-head intellectual egobabble, with generous helpings of abuse and over-emotionalism served up on the side. The only feeling I've ever gotten from you as to what attracted you to him in the first place was that he represented some kind of adventure for you. I guess that's as close as I'm ever going to get to understanding what you saw/see in him, so I'll leave it at that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: Well at least ONE reader here knew what I was writing about. My bad. It never occurred to me that the word heroics could be used to refer to the soap opera events you had just described. I thought you were referring to something else from the annals of Robin lore, something you assumed I knew about. Nice try, Barry...no cigar.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: Well at least ONE reader here knew what I was writing about. My bad. It never occurred to me that the word heroics could be used to refer to the soap opera events you had just described. I thought you were referring to something else from the annals of Robin lore, something you assumed I knew about. I also apologize for trying to riff on your reply real time in a noisy cafe after a couple of Belgian beers with high alcoholic content. In retrospect, I guess all I was really trying to accomplish was to find out why you (or anyone) were so taken by Robin, either back in the day or more recently, on FFL. Your occasional descriptions of him as noble confound me because I never saw that in the things he wrote here, back when I was still trying to read them. To me it was pretty much all stuck-in-one's-head intellectual egobabble, with generous helpings of abuse and over-emotionalism served up on the side. The only feeling I've ever gotten from you as to what attracted you to him in the first place was that he represented some kind of adventure for you. I guess that's as close as I'm ever going to get to understanding what you saw/see in him, so I'll leave it at that. Move along folks, nothing to see. It was just the beer fog talkn'.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ Move along folks, nothing to see. It was just the beer fog talkn'. Drinking beer at 10 am could be potentially dangerous in the long run Turq. Useful adress here: http://www.aa-europe.net/countries/amsterdam.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: Well at least ONE reader here knew what I was writing about. My bad. It never occurred to me that the word heroics could be used to refer to the soap opera events you had just described. I thought you were referring to something else from the annals of Robin lore, something you assumed I knew about. I also apologize for trying to riff on your reply real time in a noisy cafe after a couple of Belgian beers with high alcoholic content. In retrospect, I guess all I was really trying to accomplish was to find out why you (or anyone) were so taken by Robin, either back in the day or more recently, on FFL. Actually, no. All Barry was trying to do was confirm his bias that Ann was moodmaking to color her memories of Robin to make herself feel noble. Even after she explained nobility isn't in the picture he accuses her of lying, I've told you and others here, I don't believe a word you say. I believe only what you do. That's not beer-fog talkn' folks. That's Barry's confirmation bias and his inability to have empathy for another human being. If anyone has any doubts about this, or as Emily says, Barry doesn't *hear* others' well, particularly if they challenge his viewpoint or correct any assumption he's made about them, read Judy's comments about it: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/308250 Your occasional descriptions of him as noble confound me because I never saw that in the things he wrote here, back when I was still trying to read them. To me it was pretty much all stuck-in-one's-head intellectual egobabble, with generous helpings of abuse and over-emotionalism served up on the side. The only feeling I've ever gotten from you as to what attracted you to him in the first place was that he represented some kind of adventure for you. I guess that's as close as I'm ever going to get to understanding what you saw/see in him, so I'll leave it at that. Confirmation bias sure has its limitations, doesn't it?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
Raunchy, I have to acknowledge your kind post. Sometimes you just want to give up on certain things, like trying to make unreasonable people find reason. So, that is what I am going to do. That was my last shot at that. At least now I know who is not either willing or able to open their minds let alone any other vital body part, like a heart, to someone. At least I can check that one off my list. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: Well at least ONE reader here knew what I was writing about. Granted, she is smart, analytical, reasonable, meticulous and insightful. But surely the average FFL'er could understand most of what I said. Of course, I also realize most are not interested in this subject of mine but I was hoping Barry could at least grok half of it. After all, I was rapping on about it for him. (sigh) Hi Ann. I usually read Judy's post because she doesn't miss much about anything that I might find interesting, otherwise I might have missed your rap with Barry and his failure to understand a word of anything you said and still less about you as a human being. I don't have a do not read list. I have a usually read list Judy, Em, Ann, Lawson. Everyone else I glance at the topic and writer to see if I want to chime in. What Barry fails to understand about you is your ability to reflect honestly upon and express your feelings and motivations so clearly, warts and all. I admire your courage and passion to seize the moment. These are qualities I value in a friendship. My God! I would have given anything to have seen you storm the big house, grab your best friend and throw his things into your horse trailer. What a gal! If ever I'm in trouble, I'd want you on my side. Anyway, you gave it your best shot with Barry, but pearls before swine... as they say. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Earlier this morning I made a post in which I asked at the end why anybody would consider anything Barry says these days to be worthwhile. He's thoughtfully followed up with another batch of even better examples of his utter inanity: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: snip So there was an element of sentimentality, because in the end the whole thing didn't quite pan out with regard to MMY or even Robin's enlightenment... Not to mention in terms of reality. :-) Oh, reality. Such a subjective and impossible-to-absolutely-define concept. I don't actually see it as that difficult to define. Reality is that which, after you die and cease to exist as an egoic entity, persists. Is Barry suggesting he has died and ceased to exist as an egoic entity? It would appear so, since he asserts above that Robin's goals didn't pan out in terms of reality. With all due respect, Ann, what this sounds like to me is a bunch of moodmaking on *your* part, to color your memories such that *you* feel noble. Interesting that it comes across like this because this is not what I am about. I *get* that. Why I am commenting is that you're coming across as if that *was* what you were about. Correction: This is how Barry perceives Ann to be coming across. And that perception is not subject to any modification. First of all, what Robin did or did not do during my time around him doesn't reflect the slightest on me, what I was hoping for or what I believed. He was pretty much guiding the ship and we were all tossed about, including him. So you abdicate all responsibility for walking up the plank and boarding that ship? Just asking. Nobility is the least of it. I didn't give a dang about his enlightenment, the movement, TM or any of the other spiritual trappings. I thought he was a wonderful shit disturbing rebel with interesting ideas, he was attractive, smart and there was never a dull moment around him (if you don't count the chanting and manifestations). Cool. This is the most real I have yet heard you speak about your time with Robin on this forum. That's what I have been after. IOW, Barry didn't read all the other posts in which she's said the same thing. snip I told you, nobility isn't in the picture, way too over the top for me. And, as I think I've told you and others here, I don't believe a word you say. I believe only what you do. As has been pointed out to Barry before, there is no doing on this forum, only saying. The distinction he attempts to make is just an excuse for calling people liars,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
Emily Reyn: Geez, I almost missed this exchange. Very interesting and Ann, I thought you were pretty clear. What's not clear, Emily, is which part of the thread are you commenting on? If you would just snip out the parts you're NOT commenting on, and then post a reply to what you ARE commenting on, would be really helpful. That way, other respondents would be able to follow alnog the conversation better and post their reply. Or, is this just another general Barry-bash? If so, then just key in at the top: It's all about Barry. Thanks. Judy and Barry get this because they are professionals who work with text formatting every day, but this is a mess!  You are also an excellent writer and a joy to read, btw.  After reading this, I am reminded that Barry doesn't *hear* others' well, particularly if they challenge his viewpoint or correct any assumption he's made about them.  From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 7:39 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model  Well at least ONE reader here knew what I was writing about. Granted, she is smart, analytical, reasonable, meticulous and insightful. But surely the average FFL'er could understand most of what I said. Of course, I also realize most are not interested in this subject of mine but I was hoping Barry could at least grok half of it. After all, I was rapping on about it for him. (sigh) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Earlier this morning I made a post in which I asked at the end why anybody would consider anything Barry says these days to be worthwhile. He's thoughtfully followed up with another batch of even better examples of his utter inanity: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: snip So there was an element of sentimentality, because in the end the whole thing didn't quite pan out with regard to MMY or even Robin's enlightenment... Not to mention in terms of reality. :-) Oh, reality. Such a subjective and impossible-to-absolutely-define concept. I don't actually see it as that difficult to define. Reality is that which, after you die and cease to exist as an egoic entity, persists. Is Barry suggesting he has died and ceased to exist as an egoic entity? It would appear so, since he asserts above that Robin's goals didn't pan out in terms of reality. With all due respect, Ann, what this sounds like to me is a bunch of moodmaking on *your* part, to color your memories such that *you* feel noble. Interesting that it comes across like this because this is not what I am about. I *get* that. Why I am commenting is that you're coming across as if that *was* what you were about. Correction: This is how Barry perceives Ann to be coming across. And that perception is not subject to any modification. First of all, what Robin did or did not do during my time around him doesn't reflect the slightest on me, what I was hoping for or what I believed. He was pretty much guiding the ship and we were all tossed about, including him. So you abdicate all responsibility for walking up the plank and boarding that ship? Just asking. Nobility is the least of it. I didn't give a dang about his enlightenment, the movement, TM or any of the other spiritual trappings. I thought he was a wonderful shit disturbing rebel with interesting ideas, he was attractive, smart and there was never a dull moment around him (if you don't count the chanting and manifestations). Cool. This is the most real I have yet heard you speak about your time with Robin on this forum. That's what I have been after. IOW, Barry didn't read all the other posts in which she's said the same thing. snip I told you, nobility isn't in the picture, way too over the top for me. And, as I think I've told you and others here, I don't believe a word you say. I believe only what you do. As has been pointed out to Barry before, there is no doing on this forum, only saying. The distinction he attempts to make is just an excuse for calling people liars, as he does Ann above. snip Now come the really interesting parts of Barry's response: You forget or maybe never read that post but I was the whistleblower at the end, In my personal experience, the whistleblowers from cults are among the *most attached* former members of those cults. They tend to persist in their attachments decades after the True Believers have moved on. ...the one who outed the whole thing to the city
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
awoelflebater: Raunchy, I have to acknowledge your kind post. Sometimes you just want to give up on certain things, like trying to make unreasonable people find reason. So, that is what I am going to do. That was my last shot at that. At least now I know who is not either willing or able to open their minds let alone any other vital body part, like a heart, to someone. At least I can check that one off my list. So, it's all about Barry. Lazy 'top-posters'! Go figure. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: Well at least ONE reader here knew what I was writing about. Granted, she is smart, analytical, reasonable, meticulous and insightful. But surely the average FFL'er could understand most of what I said. Of course, I also realize most are not interested in this subject of mine but I was hoping Barry could at least grok half of it. After all, I was rapping on about it for him. (sigh) Hi Ann. I usually read Judy's post because she doesn't miss much about anything that I might find interesting, otherwise I might have missed your rap with Barry and his failure to understand a word of anything you said and still less about you as a human being. I don't have a do not read list. I have a usually read list Judy, Em, Ann, Lawson. Everyone else I glance at the topic and writer to see if I want to chime in. What Barry fails to understand about you is your ability to reflect honestly upon and express your feelings and motivations so clearly, warts and all. I admire your courage and passion to seize the moment. These are qualities I value in a friendship. My God! I would have given anything to have seen you storm the big house, grab your best friend and throw his things into your horse trailer. What a gal! If ever I'm in trouble, I'd want you on my side. Anyway, you gave it your best shot with Barry, but pearls before swine... as they say. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Earlier this morning I made a post in which I asked at the end why anybody would consider anything Barry says these days to be worthwhile. He's thoughtfully followed up with another batch of even better examples of his utter inanity: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: snip So there was an element of sentimentality, because in the end the whole thing didn't quite pan out with regard to MMY or even Robin's enlightenment... Not to mention in terms of reality. :-) Oh, reality. Such a subjective and impossible-to-absolutely-define concept. I don't actually see it as that difficult to define. Reality is that which, after you die and cease to exist as an egoic entity, persists. Is Barry suggesting he has died and ceased to exist as an egoic entity? It would appear so, since he asserts above that Robin's goals didn't pan out in terms of reality. With all due respect, Ann, what this sounds like to me is a bunch of moodmaking on *your* part, to color your memories such that *you* feel noble. Interesting that it comes across like this because this is not what I am about. I *get* that. Why I am commenting is that you're coming across as if that *was* what you were about. Correction: This is how Barry perceives Ann to be coming across. And that perception is not subject to any modification. First of all, what Robin did or did not do during my time around him doesn't reflect the slightest on me, what I was hoping for or what I believed. He was pretty much guiding the ship and we were all tossed about, including him. So you abdicate all responsibility for walking up the plank and boarding that ship? Just asking. Nobility is the least of it. I didn't give a dang about his enlightenment, the movement, TM or any of the other spiritual trappings. I thought he was a wonderful shit disturbing rebel with interesting ideas, he was attractive, smart and there was never a dull moment around him (if you don't count the chanting and manifestations). Cool. This is the most real I have yet heard you speak about your time with Robin on this forum. That's what I have been after. IOW, Barry didn't read all the other posts in which she's said the same thing. snip I told you, nobility isn't in the picture, way too over the top for me. And, as I think I've told you and others here, I don't believe a word you say. I believe only what you do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: Raunchy, I have to acknowledge your kind post. Just in case you failed to notice, Ann, it wasn't a kind post, it was a pile on Barry post. :-) Sometimes you just want to give up on certain things, like trying to make unreasonable people find reason. So, that is what I am going to do. That was my last shot at that. You'll be the first here to manage that, if you pull it off. Most just continue to cyberstalk for years. Goodbye and good luck.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams richard@... wrote: awoelflebater: Raunchy, I have to acknowledge your kind post. Sometimes you just want to give up on certain things, like trying to make unreasonable people find reason. So, that is what I am going to do. That was my last shot at that. At least now I know who is not either willing or able to open their minds let alone any other vital body part, like a heart, to someone. At least I can check that one off my list. So, it's all about Barry. Lazy 'top-posters'! Go figure. No Richard, it's all about me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: Well at least ONE reader here knew what I was writing about. Granted, she is smart, analytical, reasonable, meticulous and insightful. But surely the average FFL'er could understand most of what I said. Of course, I also realize most are not interested in this subject of mine but I was hoping Barry could at least grok half of it. After all, I was rapping on about it for him. (sigh) Hi Ann. I usually read Judy's post because she doesn't miss much about anything that I might find interesting, otherwise I might have missed your rap with Barry and his failure to understand a word of anything you said and still less about you as a human being. I don't have a do not read list. I have a usually read list Judy, Em, Ann, Lawson. Everyone else I glance at the topic and writer to see if I want to chime in. What Barry fails to understand about you is your ability to reflect honestly upon and express your feelings and motivations so clearly, warts and all. I admire your courage and passion to seize the moment. These are qualities I value in a friendship. My God! I would have given anything to have seen you storm the big house, grab your best friend and throw his things into your horse trailer. What a gal! If ever I'm in trouble, I'd want you on my side. Anyway, you gave it your best shot with Barry, but pearls before swine... as they say. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Earlier this morning I made a post in which I asked at the end why anybody would consider anything Barry says these days to be worthwhile. He's thoughtfully followed up with another batch of even better examples of his utter inanity: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: snip So there was an element of sentimentality, because in the end the whole thing didn't quite pan out with regard to MMY or even Robin's enlightenment... Not to mention in terms of reality. :-) Oh, reality. Such a subjective and impossible-to-absolutely-define concept. I don't actually see it as that difficult to define. Reality is that which, after you die and cease to exist as an egoic entity, persists. Is Barry suggesting he has died and ceased to exist as an egoic entity? It would appear so, since he asserts above that Robin's goals didn't pan out in terms of reality. With all due respect, Ann, what this sounds like to me is a bunch of moodmaking on *your* part, to color your memories such that *you* feel noble. Interesting that it comes across like this because this is not what I am about. I *get* that. Why I am commenting is that you're coming across as if that *was* what you were about. Correction: This is how Barry perceives Ann to be coming across. And that perception is not subject to any modification. First of all, what Robin did or did not do during my time around him doesn't reflect the slightest on me, what I was hoping for or what I believed. He was pretty much guiding the ship and we were all tossed about, including him. So you abdicate all responsibility for walking up the plank and boarding that ship? Just asking. Nobility is the least of it. I didn't give a dang about his enlightenment, the movement, TM or any of the other spiritual trappings. I thought he was a wonderful shit disturbing rebel with interesting ideas, he was attractive, smart and there was never a dull moment around him (if you don't count the chanting and manifestations). Cool. This is the most real I have yet heard you speak about your time with Robin on this forum. That's what I have been after. IOW, Barry didn't read all the other posts in which she's said the same thing. snip I told you, nobility isn't in the picture, way too over the top for me. And, as I
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
Emily, just ignore this. Your post was fine. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams richard@... wrote: Emily Reyn: Geez, I almost missed this exchange. Very interesting and Ann, I thought you were pretty clear. What's not clear, Emily, is which part of the thread are you commenting on? If you would just snip out the parts you're NOT commenting on, and then post a reply to what you ARE commenting on, would be really helpful. That way, other respondents would be able to follow alnog the conversation better and post their reply. Or, is this just another general Barry-bash? If so, then just key in at the top: It's all about Barry. Thanks. Judy and Barry get this because they are professionals who work with text formatting every day, but this is a mess!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
authfriend: Emily, just ignore this. Your post was fine. Thanks for snipping, now it's clear who and what is being commented on. But, what's with the lazy 'top-posting'? Geez, I almost missed this exchange. Very interesting and Ann, I thought you were pretty clear. What's not clear, Emily, is which part of the thread are you commenting on? If you would just snip out the parts you're NOT commenting on, and then post a reply to what you ARE commenting on, would be really helpful. That way, other respondents would be able to follow alnog the conversation better and post their reply. Or, is this just another general Barry-bash? If so, then just key in at the top: It's all about Barry. Thanks. Judy and Barry get this because they are professionals who work with text formatting every day, but this is a mess!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: Well at least ONE reader here knew what I was writing about. My bad. It never occurred to me that the word heroics could be used to refer to the soap opera events you had just described. She put the term in scare quotes, so obviously she didn't think it was an appropriate term either: And I don't feel noble about any of the 'heroics' at the end if that is what you're thinking. She used it because Barry was accusing her of trying to paint *herself* as noble: ...decades later you're still trying to 'ennoble' it and make it sound different... On the other hand, to describe her whistle-blowing as soap opera events is extraordinarily shallow and uncompassionate. This was very serious, life-altering, devastating business for the folks involved. And let's not forget how many times Barry has presented himself as a real stand-up guy for having occasionally opposed the rigidity of the TMO. I thought you were referring to something else from the annals of Robin lore, something you assumed I knew about. I also apologize for trying to riff on your reply real time in a noisy cafe after a couple of Belgian beers with high alcoholic content. In retrospect, I guess all I was really trying to accomplish was to find out why you (or anyone) were so taken by Robin, either back in the day or more recently, on FFL. Your occasional descriptions of him as noble confound me Occasional = once only, in this very exchange with Barry: I thought it was rather noble actually, his desire to uphold what he felt was the best of who MMY was and what the Movement could have stood for. That's it, just that once. And she made it clear in her followup that even this, as far as she was concerned, wasn't very significant. because I never saw that in the things he wrote here, She didn't use the term to describe what he wrote here. back when I was still trying to read them. To me it was pretty much all stuck-in-one's-head intellectual egobabble, with generous helpings of abuse and over-emotionalism served up on the side. Of course, he never abused anybody who hadn't abused him first. And to those who believe having, let alone expressing, emotions is evidence of unevolved attachment, any size helping of emotion will appear excessive. The only feeling I've ever gotten from you as to what attracted you to him in the first place was that he represented some kind of adventure for you. I guess that's as close as I'm ever going to get to understanding what you saw/see in him, so I'll leave it at that. She's said a lot more than that about what attracted her. Since Barry claims he wants to know why [Ann] (or anyone) were so taken by Robin, either 'back in the day' or more recently, on FFL, I'll take a stab at explaining why I was so taken with Robin on FFL. (Of course Barry will refrain from reading what follows; so much for his desire to know the why in question.) I wasn't around back in the day, but I think it was pretty damned noble for Robin to have had the determination and courage to spend 25 years by himself doing his best to figure out why he had made such a horrendous mess of things and to root out the flaws that he perceived in himself that had made him see himself in such a deluded light, to the detriment of his followers. I believe him when he says it was agonizing. How could it not have been? It also took tremendous courage for him to emerge from that process to face people who knew of his history-- the very people who were most likely to see him in a negative light--and to give them a no-excuses account of himself. That aside, although at first I wasn't willing to plow through all of what Barry characterizes as egobabble, after awhile I began to find much more than just that in his posts and ended up reading every word of what he wrote here, much of it more than once. I told him back in December that as a former cult leader who used to be in Unity Consciousness, to the folks at FFL he was a perplexing critter. He responded, in part: I am aware that some of my posts are provocative, ironic, and even in a certain sense abstruse: so I am bound to lose a fewmaybe more than a fewreaders. After all, there are the Alexes as well as the Barrys of this world; and with Alex I am an acquired taste that he knows he will never have. With Barry, well, you know in what consists his aversion to my posts. There is a difference. What concerns me in posting at FFL, Judy, is to meet every challenge head-on; and to test out my philosophy, my understanding, my experience as I go to express myself. I am here for self-metatherapeutic reasons. I am not here to make FFL readers believe in what I believe in But the way I write is a kind of performance, and I am going to
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
Sorry Richard, I was commenting on the post overall, not specifically. Not a Barry bash - just an opinion :) I have noticed that on many occasions, snipping certain paragraphs or phrases out often changes the original context and then any subsequent comments on that snip may evolve into a completely different conversation than what was originally posted. Hence all the posts with the same subject line that actually represent several different conversations - it can be kinda cool. Many angles and POVs emerge that way. OTOH, sometimes it creates great confusion and misunderstanding of what the original poster actually said. Does this reply come across poorly? I'm replying from Yahoo email. Do I need to start hitting the enter/return button every 45 words or so? I'm not sure that is going to happen. From: Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 6:38 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model Emily Reyn: Geez, I almost missed this exchange. Very interesting and Ann, I thought you were pretty clear. What's not clear, Emily, is which part of the thread are you commenting on? If you would just snip out the parts you're NOT commenting on, and then post a reply to what you ARE commenting on, would be really helpful. That way, other respondents would be able to follow alnog the conversation better and post their reply. Or, is this just another general Barry-bash? If so, then just key in at the top: It's all about Barry. Thanks. Judy and Barry get this because they are professionals who work with text formatting every day, but this is a mess!  You are also an excellent writer and a joy to read, btw.  After reading this, I am reminded that Barry doesn't *hear* others' well, particularly if they challenge his viewpoint or correct any assumption he's made about them.  From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 7:39 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model  Well at least ONE reader here knew what I was writing about. Granted, she is smart, analytical, reasonable, meticulous and insightful. But surely the average FFL'er could understand most of what I said. Of course, I also realize most are not interested in this subject of mine but I was hoping Barry could at least grok half of it. After all, I was rapping on about it for him. (sigh) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Earlier this morning I made a post in which I asked at the end why anybody would consider anything Barry says these days to be worthwhile. He's thoughtfully followed up with another batch of even better examples of his utter inanity: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: snip So there was an element of sentimentality, because in the end the whole thing didn't quite pan out with regard to MMY or even Robin's enlightenment... Not to mention in terms of reality. :-) Oh, reality. Such a subjective and impossible-to-absolutely-define concept. I don't actually see it as that difficult to define. Reality is that which, after you die and cease to exist as an egoic entity, persists. Is Barry suggesting he has died and ceased to exist as an egoic entity? It would appear so, since he asserts above that Robin's goals didn't pan out in terms of reality. With all due respect, Ann, what this sounds like to me is a bunch of moodmaking on *your* part, to color your memories such that *you* feel noble. Interesting that it comes across like this because this is not what I am about. I *get* that. Why I am commenting is that you're coming across as if that *was* what you were about. Correction: This is how Barry perceives Ann to be coming across. And that perception is not subject to any modification. First of all, what Robin did or did not do during my time around him doesn't reflect the slightest on me, what I was hoping for or what I believed. He was pretty much guiding the ship and we were all tossed about, including him. So you abdicate all responsibility for walking up the plank and boarding that ship? Just asking. Nobility is the least of it. I didn't give a dang about his enlightenment, the movement, TM or any of the other spiritual trappings. I thought he was a wonderful shit disturbing rebel with interesting ideas, he was attractive, smart and there was never a dull moment around him (if you don't count the chanting and manifestations). Cool
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
Richard, when I decided to comment point by point, I will use a different color. But, bear in mind, what I say is not *that* important and often I comment off-the-cuff, so to speak, which doesn't require much effort or time. Remember, I don't have a serious background in meditation under any paradigm and I am so old, that even if I dedicated myself to any particular lineage, technique, or religious practice, or spiritual by the time I achieve expert status, I will likely be dead. I don't speak with authority about much... But, I am fascinated by what you slightly older farts contribute, in that your lives took very different paths then mine, and I was raised to respect my elders, so I try to listen up and enjoy, as time allows :) From: Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 9:35 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model authfriend: Emily, just ignore this. Your post was fine. Thanks for snipping, now it's clear who and what is being commented on. But, what's with the lazy 'top-posting'? Geez, I almost missed this exchange. Very interesting and Ann, I thought you were pretty clear. What's not clear, Emily, is which part of the thread are you commenting on? If you would just snip out the parts you're NOT commenting on, and then post a reply to what you ARE commenting on, would be really helpful. That way, other respondents would be able to follow alnog the conversation better and post their reply. Or, is this just another general Barry-bash? If so, then just key in at the top: It's all about Barry. Thanks. Judy and Barry get this because they are professionals who work with text formatting every day, but this is a mess!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
And, then there are the grammar issues that surface when I am stressed, tired, or in need of food. I'm heading out for some meditative swimming. From: Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 4:09 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model Richard, when I decided to comment point by point, I will use a different color. But, bear in mind, what I say is not *that* important and often I comment off-the-cuff, so to speak, which doesn't require much effort or time. Remember, I don't have a serious background in meditation under any paradigm and I am so old, that even if I dedicated myself to any particular lineage, technique, or religious practice, or spiritual by the time I achieve expert status, I will likely be dead. I don't speak with authority about much... But, I am fascinated by what you slightly older farts contribute, in that your lives took very different paths then mine, and I was raised to respect my elders, so I try to listen up and enjoy, as time allows :) From: Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 9:35 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model authfriend: Emily, just ignore this. Your post was fine. Thanks for snipping, now it's clear who and what is being commented on. But, what's with the lazy 'top-posting'? Geez, I almost missed this exchange. Very interesting and Ann, I thought you were pretty clear. What's not clear, Emily, is which part of the thread are you commenting on? If you would just snip out the parts you're NOT commenting on, and then post a reply to what you ARE commenting on, would be really helpful. That way, other respondents would be able to follow alnog the conversation better and post their reply. Or, is this just another general Barry-bash? If so, then just key in at the top: It's all about Barry. Thanks. Judy and Barry get this because they are professionals who work with text formatting every day, but this is a mess!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iamyukta iamyukta@ wrote: I do not understand the term mood maker?? Could you please define this for me. In most cases a mood-maker is someone who invents moods and and the mix it up with real experiences of substance. Like when a Buddhists says he's 20 minutes without thoughts but is unable to describe the experience. That's classical mood-making. Er, I would expect that someone was 20 minutes (or one minute or 1 second) without thought to be unable to describe the experience. So would I. The Turq has repeatedly made such claims and has been repeatedly challenged to give a report of his experiences but refuses to do so. One therefore draws the conclusion that he never had such experiences, that it's just more bragging. How do YOIU describe 20 minutes without thoughts? I have infact described such experiences as a newbie here several years ago. But I was drowned in so much sarcasm, cynicism and vile attacks from the Buddhist's here that I promised never again. Well, if you really did try to describe 20 minutes of transcending, I'd be pretty sarcastic too. For one thing, how did you know it was 20 minutes? L. Such an experience has nothing to do with 20 minutes or an hour. The 20 minutes without thoughts at will was claimed by the Turq, not me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Apr 10, 2012, at 11:46 AM, awoelflebater wrote: Ah, but I think you confuse moodmaker with someone who could appear egotistical, even a megalomaniac. I was tapping into his obvious use of drama and the need to be both director and actor. Draaahma-maker = Moodmaker. No, they both have makeron the end but they are not equating for me. And I am not sure he created drama, I think he tapped into where life could be dramatic if you stirred the pot enough. I believe his sentimentality was actually sincerity, as misguided about the movement as it may or may not have been. I thought it was rather noble actually, his desire to uphold what he felt was the best of who MMY was and what the Movement could have stood for. So there was an element of sentimentality, because in the end the whole thing didn't quite pan out with regard to MMY or even Robin's enlightenment... Not to mention in terms of reality. :-) ...but his heart was in the right place.You have to admit he did believe in what he was doing and some of that was not to rip things apart with regard to TM but to produce a truer version of it. Not really what I would call a moodmaker. More like a misguided warrior. With all due respect, Ann, what this sounds like to me is a bunch of moodmaking on *your* part, to color your memories such that *you* feel noble. Another interpretation of the events you are creating a mood about is that you were just sucked into the psychic field of a charismatic narcissist, and now decades later you're still trying to ennoble it and make it sound different, so that you don't have to deal with the strong possibility that all that happened was that you had so little discrimination at the time that you were perfect fodder for a cult. I am certainly willing to look at that interpretation of my time with Rama. But I've never seen you deal with that possible interpretation of Robin. It's as if you're still trying to impress him (assuming that he's lurking), and still hoping for the same pat on the back from him that you lived for at the time. It's your near inability to see any other side of him *but* the noble side that makes me think you're mood-making. Still. All these years later. Did you see *nothing* mood-makey about Robin's brief performance here on FFL? I ask because I saw little else, and find it difficult to believe that someone as supposedly intelligent as yourself saw none of it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
This from the guy who gets all hot and bothered when someone who was never around MMY dares make a comment about him. Even though they've seen many hours of MMY videotapes, but Barry has never seen so much as a minute of video of Robin's seminars and wasn't even at MIU when Robin was doing his thing there. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: snip With all due respect, Ann, what this sounds like to me is a bunch of moodmaking on *your* part, to color your memories such that *you* feel noble. Another interpretation of the events you are creating a mood about is that you were just sucked into the psychic field of a charismatic narcissist, and now decades later you're still trying to ennoble it and make it sound different, so that you don't have to deal with the strong possibility that all that happened was that you had so little discrimination at the time that you were perfect fodder for a cult. You'd think from what Barry writes that he'd actually been there along with Ann, and that therefore his interpretation of the events in question was at least as valid as hers, wouldn't you? It's your near inability to see any other side of him *but* the noble side that makes me think you're mood-making. Still. All these years later. Such as when she said Robin appeared to be a misguided, egotistical megalomaniac? Did you see *nothing* mood-makey about Robin's brief performance here on FFL? I ask because I saw little else, and find it difficult to believe that someone as supposedly intelligent as yourself saw none of it. And from this, you would hardly expect that Barry had proclaimed loudly over and over that he didn't read Robin's posts, would you? Tell me again why anybody here thinks Barry has anything worthwhile to say. Nothing I pointed out above occurred to him even for a second when he was writing his post. He actually thought he was making insightful observations.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
With all due respect, Ann, what this sounds like to me is a bunch of moodmaking on *your* part, to color your memories such that *you* feel noble. authfriend: Tell me again why anybody here thinks Barry has anything worthwhile to say. I've gave up on Barry, as far as factual information, years ago. My doubts began when he claimed to have read over 200 books on the 'Cathars', but not a single book on the Gnostics! Sometimes Barry doesn't even make any sense. Then, recently Barry got all mixed up on the arguments he made opposing 'determinism', thinking I guess, that meant 'predestination', not realizing that in supporting 'free-will', he thus set up an argument against 'karma', which he loudly proclaimed in another post! Nothing I pointed out above occurred to him even for a second when he was writing his post. He actually thought he was making insightful observations. Go figure!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
Hi Barry! I'll try and answer some of your queries because I think there are some interesting and valid ones here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Apr 10, 2012, at 11:46 AM, awoelflebater wrote: Ah, but I think you confuse moodmaker with someone who could appear egotistical, even a megalomaniac. I was tapping into his obvious use of drama and the need to be both director and actor. Draaahma-maker = Moodmaker. No, they both have makeron the end but they are not equating for me. And I am not sure he created drama, I think he tapped into where life could be dramatic if you stirred the pot enough. I believe his sentimentality was actually sincerity, as misguided about the movement as it may or may not have been. I thought it was rather noble actually, his desire to uphold what he felt was the best of who MMY was and what the Movement could have stood for. So there was an element of sentimentality, because in the end the whole thing didn't quite pan out with regard to MMY or even Robin's enlightenment... Not to mention in terms of reality. :-) Oh, reality. Such a subjective and impossible-to-absolutely-define concept. Many philosophers with far greater minds than yours or mine have given it a shot and as far as I am concerned the verdict hasn't appeared yet. For every individual reality is different. If you have an ultimate definition for what it is in any one moment let me know. All I could possibly speak about is what is reality for me. ...but his heart was in the right place.You have to admit he did believe in what he was doing and some of that was not to rip things apart with regard to TM but to produce a truer version of it. Not really what I would call a moodmaker. More like a misguided warrior. With all due respect, Ann, what this sounds like to me is a bunch of moodmaking on *your* part, to color your memories such that *you* feel noble. Interesting that it comes across like this because this is not what I am about. First of all, what Robin did or did not do during my time around him doesn't reflect the slightest on me, what I was hoping for or what I believed. He was pretty much guiding the ship and we were all tossed about, including him. Nobility is the least of it. I didn't give a dang about his enlightenment, the movement, TM or any of the other spiritual trappings. I thought he was a wonderful shit disturbing rebel with interesting ideas, he was attractive, smart and there was never a dull moment around him (if you don't count the chanting and manifestations). I was kind of an oddball in the group in this way. I never believed he was going to get me to enlightenment, I could barely sit long enough to meditate let alone devote myself to becoming a TM teacher or following other gurus, I had way more important things to do and there was no cause for me - this was just a really cool adventure. Part of the problem Barry, is that you don't know me at all. That is not your fault. How could you? Your comments sometimes entertain me because when you speak about me it is like I am reading about somebody else. I kind of wish we could spend a week together, you would be surprised, I don't resemble who you describe here, trust me on this. To me nobility is an old fashioned term that doesn't apply to anything in this world except perhaps a highly schooled horse performing effortlessly at Grand Prix. I certainly has nothing to do with my life or how I would ever classify myself. Another interpretation of the events you are creating a mood about is that you were just sucked into the psychic field of a charismatic narcissist, I was definitely attracted to this charismatic narcissist alright - on lots of levels. and now decades later you're still trying to ennoble it and make it sound different, so that you don't have to deal with the strong possibility that all that happened was that you had so little discrimination at the time that you were perfect fodder for a cult. I told you, nobility isn't in the picture, way too over the top for me. Anyone who knows me knows I am the last thing from perfect fodder for a cult. You're just going to have to trust me on this one too. You forget or maybe never read that post but I was the whistleblower at the end, the one who outed the whole thing to the city of Victoria via the city paper in a 5 part series that ran over 5 weeks, I was used as a source for Masters students researching cult phenomena, I was interviewed on national radio (CBC). I ended up getting some of the followers fired from their jobs because of their involvement with Robin, I personally stormed the big house and grabbed my best friend, throwing his things into my horse trailer. I sent scathing letters to the group and Robin, I
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: Hi Barry! I'll try and answer some of your queries because I think there are some interesting and valid ones here. Thank you. I will impart to you the corresponding respect of replying to your replies in real time, as I first read them. Be warned. :-) This makes it more fun for me. YMMV. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Apr 10, 2012, at 11:46 AM, awoelflebater wrote: Ah, but I think you confuse moodmaker with someone who could appear egotistical, even a megalomaniac. I was tapping into his obvious use of drama and the need to be both director and actor. Draaahma-maker = Moodmaker. No, they both have makeron the end but they are not equating for me. And I am not sure he created drama, I think he tapped into where life could be dramatic if you stirred the pot enough. I believe his sentimentality was actually sincerity, as misguided about the movement as it may or may not have been. I thought it was rather noble actually, his desire to uphold what he felt was the best of who MMY was and what the Movement could have stood for. So there was an element of sentimentality, because in the end the whole thing didn't quite pan out with regard to MMY or even Robin's enlightenment... Not to mention in terms of reality. :-) Oh, reality. Such a subjective and impossible-to-absolutely-define concept. I don't actually see it as that difficult to define. Reality is that which, after you die and cease to exist as an egoic entity, persists. Do you disagree? :-) Many philosophers with far greater minds than yours or mine have given it a shot and as far as I am concerned the verdict hasn't appeared yet. For every individual reality is different. If you have an ultimate definition for what it is in any one moment let me know. All I could possibly speak about is what is reality for me. ...but his heart was in the right place.You have to admit he did believe in what he was doing and some of that was not to rip things apart with regard to TM but to produce a truer version of it. Not really what I would call a moodmaker. More like a misguided warrior. With all due respect, Ann, what this sounds like to me is a bunch of moodmaking on *your* part, to color your memories such that *you* feel noble. Interesting that it comes across like this because this is not what I am about. I *get* that. Why I am commenting is that you're coming across as if that *was* what you were about. First of all, what Robin did or did not do during my time around him doesn't reflect the slightest on me, what I was hoping for or what I believed. He was pretty much guiding the ship and we were all tossed about, including him. So you abdicate all responsibility for walking up the plank and boarding that ship? Just asking. Nobility is the least of it. I didn't give a dang about his enlightenment, the movement, TM or any of the other spiritual trappings. I thought he was a wonderful shit disturbing rebel with interesting ideas, he was attractive, smart and there was never a dull moment around him (if you don't count the chanting and manifestations). Cool. This is the most real I have yet heard you speak about your time with Robin on this forum. That's what I have been after. I can identify. Really. The times I spent hanging with the weirdass Rama guy back in his early days were COOL. I wouldn't trade them for *anything*. On the other hand, I wouldn't repeat them for anything. :-) I was kind of an oddball in the group in this way. I never believed he was going to get me to enlightenment, I could barely sit long enough to meditate let alone devote myself to becoming a TM teacher or following other gurus, I had way more important things to do and there was no cause for me - this was just a really cool adventure. And adventure is preferable to the same olde same olde daily grind. I get it. Part of the problem Barry, is that you don't know me at all. That is not your fault. How could you? Your comments sometimes entertain me because when you speak about me it is like I am reading about somebody else. And you don't perceive that as a gift? :-) I kind of wish we could spend a week together, you would be surprised, I don't resemble who you describe here, trust me on this. No. I really can't. You have so far given me no reason to do so. I am seeking to rectify this. To me nobility is an old fashioned term that doesn't apply to anything in this world except perhaps a highly schooled horse performing effortlessly at Grand Prix. I certainly has nothing to do with my life or how I would ever classify
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
Earlier this morning I made a post in which I asked at the end why anybody would consider anything Barry says these days to be worthwhile. He's thoughtfully followed up with another batch of even better examples of his utter inanity: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: snip So there was an element of sentimentality, because in the end the whole thing didn't quite pan out with regard to MMY or even Robin's enlightenment... Not to mention in terms of reality. :-) Oh, reality. Such a subjective and impossible-to-absolutely-define concept. I don't actually see it as that difficult to define. Reality is that which, after you die and cease to exist as an egoic entity, persists. Is Barry suggesting he has died and ceased to exist as an egoic entity? It would appear so, since he asserts above that Robin's goals didn't pan out in terms of reality. With all due respect, Ann, what this sounds like to me is a bunch of moodmaking on *your* part, to color your memories such that *you* feel noble. Interesting that it comes across like this because this is not what I am about. I *get* that. Why I am commenting is that you're coming across as if that *was* what you were about. Correction: This is how Barry perceives Ann to be coming across. And that perception is not subject to any modification. First of all, what Robin did or did not do during my time around him doesn't reflect the slightest on me, what I was hoping for or what I believed. He was pretty much guiding the ship and we were all tossed about, including him. So you abdicate all responsibility for walking up the plank and boarding that ship? Just asking. Nobility is the least of it. I didn't give a dang about his enlightenment, the movement, TM or any of the other spiritual trappings. I thought he was a wonderful shit disturbing rebel with interesting ideas, he was attractive, smart and there was never a dull moment around him (if you don't count the chanting and manifestations). Cool. This is the most real I have yet heard you speak about your time with Robin on this forum. That's what I have been after. IOW, Barry didn't read all the other posts in which she's said the same thing. snip I told you, nobility isn't in the picture, way too over the top for me. And, as I think I've told you and others here, I don't believe a word you say. I believe only what you do. As has been pointed out to Barry before, there is no doing on this forum, only saying. The distinction he attempts to make is just an excuse for calling people liars, as he does Ann above. snip Now come the really interesting parts of Barry's response: You forget or maybe never read that post but I was the whistleblower at the end, In my personal experience, the whistleblowers from cults are among the *most attached* former members of those cults. They tend to persist in their attachments decades after the True Believers have moved on. ...the one who outed the whole thing to the city of Victoria via the city paper in a 5 part series that ran over 5 weeks, I was used as a source for Masters students researching cult phenomena, I was interviewed on national radio (CBC). I ended up getting some of the followers fired from their jobs because of their involvement with Robin... See above. ...I personally stormed the big house and grabbed my best friend, throwing his things into my horse trailer. I sent scathing letters to the group and Robin, I showed up at a seminar to tell them how crazy it had all gotten. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. And all of this is supposed to convince me that you didn't go more than a little bunny boiler on Robin? :-) Attachment is attachment. How it is expressed is irrelevant. When it was over, it was over. No sentimentality there but no regrets either. And I don't feel noble about any of the heroics at the end if that is what you're thinking. I have no earthly idea what you are talking about. Really. Is that amazing? She just finished describing the heroics, and Barry has no idea what she's referring to. What did you imagine? That it -- whatever it was -- was all glorious, and deserving of the term heroics? And that everyone here would just know what you were referring to? Just asking. Anybody who has read her post with any attention would know exactly what she was referring to, since she just got done describing it in some detail. Actually, I feel really bad it had to come to that,,, What? We have no idea what you're talking about. Really. That was part of *your* experience, not ours. In my estimation, no one on this forum has any idea what you are talking about. I suspect all of us on this forum who actually read her post with any attention know
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: Earlier this morning I made a post in which I asked at the end why anybody would consider anything Barry says these days to be worthwhile. He's thoughtfully followed up with another batch of even better examples of his utter inanity: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: snip So there was an element of sentimentality, because in the end the whole thing didn't quite pan out with regard to MMY or even Robin's enlightenment... Not to mention in terms of reality. :-) Oh, reality. Such a subjective and impossible-to-absolutely-define concept. I don't actually see it as that difficult to define. Reality is that which, after you die and cease to exist as an egoic entity, persists. Is Barry suggesting he has died and ceased to exist as an egoic entity? It would appear so, since he asserts above that Robin's goals didn't pan out in terms of reality. With all due respect, Ann, what this sounds like to me is a bunch of moodmaking on *your* part, to color your memories such that *you* feel noble. Interesting that it comes across like this because this is not what I am about. I *get* that. Why I am commenting is that you're coming across as if that *was* what you were about. Correction: This is how Barry perceives Ann to be coming across. And that perception is not subject to any modification. First of all, what Robin did or did not do during my time around him doesn't reflect the slightest on me, what I was hoping for or what I believed. He was pretty much guiding the ship and we were all tossed about, including him. So you abdicate all responsibility for walking up the plank and boarding that ship? Just asking. Nobility is the least of it. I didn't give a dang about his enlightenment, the movement, TM or any of the other spiritual trappings. I thought he was a wonderful shit disturbing rebel with interesting ideas, he was attractive, smart and there was never a dull moment around him (if you don't count the chanting and manifestations). Cool. This is the most real I have yet heard you speak about your time with Robin on this forum. That's what I have been after. IOW, Barry didn't read all the other posts in which she's said the same thing. snip I told you, nobility isn't in the picture, way too over the top for me. And, as I think I've told you and others here, I don't believe a word you say. I believe only what you do. As has been pointed out to Barry before, there is no doing on this forum, only saying. The distinction he attempts to make is just an excuse for calling people liars, as he does Ann above. snip Now come the really interesting parts of Barry's response: You forget or maybe never read that post but I was the whistleblower at the end, In my personal experience, the whistleblowers from cults are among the *most attached* former members of those cults. They tend to persist in their attachments decades after the True Believers have moved on. ...the one who outed the whole thing to the city of Victoria via the city paper in a 5 part series that ran over 5 weeks, I was used as a source for Masters students researching cult phenomena, I was interviewed on national radio (CBC). I ended up getting some of the followers fired from their jobs because of their involvement with Robin... See above. ...I personally stormed the big house and grabbed my best friend, throwing his things into my horse trailer. I sent scathing letters to the group and Robin, I showed up at a seminar to tell them how crazy it had all gotten. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. And all of this is supposed to convince me that you didn't go more than a little bunny boiler on Robin? :-) Attachment is attachment. How it is expressed is irrelevant. When it was over, it was over. No sentimentality there but no regrets either. And I don't feel noble about any of the heroics at the end if that is what you're thinking. I have no earthly idea what you are talking about. Really. Is that amazing? She just finished describing the heroics, and Barry has no idea what she's referring to. What did you imagine? That it -- whatever it was -- was all glorious, and deserving of the term heroics? And that everyone here would just know what you were referring to? Just asking. Anybody who has read her post with any attention would know exactly what she was referring to, since she just got done describing it in some detail. Actually, I feel really bad it had to come to that,,, What? We have no idea what you're talking about. Really. That was part of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
Well at least ONE reader here knew what I was writing about. Granted, she is smart, analytical, reasonable, meticulous and insightful. But surely the average FFL'er could understand most of what I said. Of course, I also realize most are not interested in this subject of mine but I was hoping Barry could at least grok half of it. After all, I was rapping on about it for him. (sigh) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: Earlier this morning I made a post in which I asked at the end why anybody would consider anything Barry says these days to be worthwhile. He's thoughtfully followed up with another batch of even better examples of his utter inanity: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: snip So there was an element of sentimentality, because in the end the whole thing didn't quite pan out with regard to MMY or even Robin's enlightenment... Not to mention in terms of reality. :-) Oh, reality. Such a subjective and impossible-to-absolutely-define concept. I don't actually see it as that difficult to define. Reality is that which, after you die and cease to exist as an egoic entity, persists. Is Barry suggesting he has died and ceased to exist as an egoic entity? It would appear so, since he asserts above that Robin's goals didn't pan out in terms of reality. With all due respect, Ann, what this sounds like to me is a bunch of moodmaking on *your* part, to color your memories such that *you* feel noble. Interesting that it comes across like this because this is not what I am about. I *get* that. Why I am commenting is that you're coming across as if that *was* what you were about. Correction: This is how Barry perceives Ann to be coming across. And that perception is not subject to any modification. First of all, what Robin did or did not do during my time around him doesn't reflect the slightest on me, what I was hoping for or what I believed. He was pretty much guiding the ship and we were all tossed about, including him. So you abdicate all responsibility for walking up the plank and boarding that ship? Just asking. Nobility is the least of it. I didn't give a dang about his enlightenment, the movement, TM or any of the other spiritual trappings. I thought he was a wonderful shit disturbing rebel with interesting ideas, he was attractive, smart and there was never a dull moment around him (if you don't count the chanting and manifestations). Cool. This is the most real I have yet heard you speak about your time with Robin on this forum. That's what I have been after. IOW, Barry didn't read all the other posts in which she's said the same thing. snip I told you, nobility isn't in the picture, way too over the top for me. And, as I think I've told you and others here, I don't believe a word you say. I believe only what you do. As has been pointed out to Barry before, there is no doing on this forum, only saying. The distinction he attempts to make is just an excuse for calling people liars, as he does Ann above. snip Now come the really interesting parts of Barry's response: You forget or maybe never read that post but I was the whistleblower at the end, In my personal experience, the whistleblowers from cults are among the *most attached* former members of those cults. They tend to persist in their attachments decades after the True Believers have moved on. ...the one who outed the whole thing to the city of Victoria via the city paper in a 5 part series that ran over 5 weeks, I was used as a source for Masters students researching cult phenomena, I was interviewed on national radio (CBC). I ended up getting some of the followers fired from their jobs because of their involvement with Robin... See above. ...I personally stormed the big house and grabbed my best friend, throwing his things into my horse trailer. I sent scathing letters to the group and Robin, I showed up at a seminar to tell them how crazy it had all gotten. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. And all of this is supposed to convince me that you didn't go more than a little bunny boiler on Robin? :-) Attachment is attachment. How it is expressed is irrelevant. When it was over, it was over. No sentimentality there but no regrets either. And I don't feel noble about any of the heroics at the end if that is what you're thinking. I have no earthly idea what you are talking about. Really. Is that amazing? She just finished describing the heroics, and Barry has no idea what she's referring to. What did you imagine? That it -- whatever it was -- was all glorious, and deserving of the term
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: Well at least ONE reader here knew what I was writing about. Granted, she is smart, analytical, reasonable, meticulous and insightful. But surely the average FFL'er could understand most of what I said. Of course, I also realize most are not interested in this subject of mine but I was hoping Barry could at least grok half of it. After all, I was rapping on about it for him. (sigh) Hi Ann. I usually read Judy's post because she doesn't miss much about anything that I might find interesting, otherwise I might have missed your rap with Barry and his failure to understand a word of anything you said and still less about you as a human being. I don't have a do not read list. I have a usually read list Judy, Em, Ann, Lawson. Everyone else I glance at the topic and writer to see if I want to chime in. What Barry fails to understand about you is your ability to reflect honestly upon and express your feelings and motivations so clearly, warts and all. I admire your courage and passion to seize the moment. These are qualities I value in a friendship. My God! I would have given anything to have seen you storm the big house, grab your best friend and throw his things into your horse trailer. What a gal! If ever I'm in trouble, I'd want you on my side. Anyway, you gave it your best shot with Barry, but pearls before swine... as they say. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Earlier this morning I made a post in which I asked at the end why anybody would consider anything Barry says these days to be worthwhile. He's thoughtfully followed up with another batch of even better examples of his utter inanity: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: snip So there was an element of sentimentality, because in the end the whole thing didn't quite pan out with regard to MMY or even Robin's enlightenment... Not to mention in terms of reality. :-) Oh, reality. Such a subjective and impossible-to-absolutely-define concept. I don't actually see it as that difficult to define. Reality is that which, after you die and cease to exist as an egoic entity, persists. Is Barry suggesting he has died and ceased to exist as an egoic entity? It would appear so, since he asserts above that Robin's goals didn't pan out in terms of reality. With all due respect, Ann, what this sounds like to me is a bunch of moodmaking on *your* part, to color your memories such that *you* feel noble. Interesting that it comes across like this because this is not what I am about. I *get* that. Why I am commenting is that you're coming across as if that *was* what you were about. Correction: This is how Barry perceives Ann to be coming across. And that perception is not subject to any modification. First of all, what Robin did or did not do during my time around him doesn't reflect the slightest on me, what I was hoping for or what I believed. He was pretty much guiding the ship and we were all tossed about, including him. So you abdicate all responsibility for walking up the plank and boarding that ship? Just asking. Nobility is the least of it. I didn't give a dang about his enlightenment, the movement, TM or any of the other spiritual trappings. I thought he was a wonderful shit disturbing rebel with interesting ideas, he was attractive, smart and there was never a dull moment around him (if you don't count the chanting and manifestations). Cool. This is the most real I have yet heard you speak about your time with Robin on this forum. That's what I have been after. IOW, Barry didn't read all the other posts in which she's said the same thing. snip I told you, nobility isn't in the picture, way too over the top for me. And, as I think I've told you and others here, I don't believe a word you say. I believe only what you do. As has been pointed out to Barry before, there is no doing on this forum, only saying. The distinction he attempts to make is just an excuse for calling people liars, as he does Ann above. snip Now come the really interesting parts of Barry's response: You forget or maybe never read that post but I was the whistleblower at the end, In my personal experience, the whistleblowers from cults are among the *most attached* former members of those cults. They tend to persist in their attachments decades after the True Believers have moved on. ...the one who outed the whole thing to the city of Victoria via the city paper in a 5 part series that ran over 5 weeks, I was used as a source for
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
Geez, I almost missed this exchange. Very interesting and Ann, I thought you were pretty clear. You are also an excellent writer and a joy to read, btw. After reading this, I am reminded that Barry doesn't *hear* others' well, particularly if they challenge his viewpoint or correct any assumption he's made about them. From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 7:39 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model Well at least ONE reader here knew what I was writing about. Granted, she is smart, analytical, reasonable, meticulous and insightful. But surely the average FFL'er could understand most of what I said. Of course, I also realize most are not interested in this subject of mine but I was hoping Barry could at least grok half of it. After all, I was rapping on about it for him. (sigh) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: Earlier this morning I made a post in which I asked at the end why anybody would consider anything Barry says these days to be worthwhile. He's thoughtfully followed up with another batch of even better examples of his utter inanity: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: snip So there was an element of sentimentality, because in the end the whole thing didn't quite pan out with regard to MMY or even Robin's enlightenment... Not to mention in terms of reality. :-) Oh, reality. Such a subjective and impossible-to-absolutely-define concept. I don't actually see it as that difficult to define. Reality is that which, after you die and cease to exist as an egoic entity, persists. Is Barry suggesting he has died and ceased to exist as an egoic entity? It would appear so, since he asserts above that Robin's goals didn't pan out in terms of reality. With all due respect, Ann, what this sounds like to me is a bunch of moodmaking on *your* part, to color your memories such that *you* feel noble. Interesting that it comes across like this because this is not what I am about. I *get* that. Why I am commenting is that you're coming across as if that *was* what you were about. Correction: This is how Barry perceives Ann to be coming across. And that perception is not subject to any modification. First of all, what Robin did or did not do during my time around him doesn't reflect the slightest on me, what I was hoping for or what I believed. He was pretty much guiding the ship and we were all tossed about, including him. So you abdicate all responsibility for walking up the plank and boarding that ship? Just asking. Nobility is the least of it. I didn't give a dang about his enlightenment, the movement, TM or any of the other spiritual trappings. I thought he was a wonderful shit disturbing rebel with interesting ideas, he was attractive, smart and there was never a dull moment around him (if you don't count the chanting and manifestations). Cool. This is the most real I have yet heard you speak about your time with Robin on this forum. That's what I have been after. IOW, Barry didn't read all the other posts in which she's said the same thing. snip I told you, nobility isn't in the picture, way too over the top for me. And, as I think I've told you and others here, I don't believe a word you say. I believe only what you do. As has been pointed out to Barry before, there is no doing on this forum, only saying. The distinction he attempts to make is just an excuse for calling people liars, as he does Ann above. snip Now come the really interesting parts of Barry's response: You forget or maybe never read that post but I was the whistleblower at the end, In my personal experience, the whistleblowers from cults are among the *most attached* former members of those cults. They tend to persist in their attachments decades after the True Believers have moved on. ...the one who outed the whole thing to the city of Victoria via the city paper in a 5 part series that ran over 5 weeks, I was used as a source for Masters students researching cult phenomena, I was interviewed on national radio (CBC). I ended up getting some of the followers fired from their jobs because of their involvement with Robin... See above. ...I personally stormed the big house and grabbed my best friend, throwing his things into my horse trailer. I sent scathing letters to the group and Robin, I showed up at a seminar to tell them how crazy it had all gotten. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. And all of this is supposed to convince me that you didn't go more
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iamyukta iamyukta@ wrote: I do not understand the term mood maker?? Could you please define this for me. In most cases a mood-maker is someone who invents moods and and the mix it up with real experiences of substance. Like when a Buddhists says he's 20 minutes without thoughts but is unable to describe the experience. That's classical mood-making. Er, I would expect that someone was 20 minutes (or one minute or 1 second) without thought to be unable to describe the experience. How do YOIU describe 20 minutes without thoughts?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
On Apr 9, 2012, at 3:46 PM, iamyukta wrote: I do not understand the term mood maker?? Could you please define this for me. My dictionary has a little engraving of Robin Woodsworth Carlsen in it, if that helps. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
On Apr 10, 2012, at 5:08 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iamyukta iamyukta@ wrote: I do not understand the term mood maker?? Could you please define this for me. In most cases a mood-maker is someone who invents moods and and the mix it up with real experiences of substance. Like when a Buddhists says he's 20 minutes without thoughts but is unable to describe the experience. That's classical mood-making. Er, I would expect that someone was 20 minutes (or one minute or 1 second) without thought to be unable to describe the experience. How do YOIU describe 20 minutes without thoughts? Since it takes about 3 hours to really settle down, I doubt there'd be much worth commenting on at 20 minutes. But if one is an expert at the practice of samadhi and attains it, it's first marker is a dramatic shift in the nervous system often experienced along with a brief sense of numbness at the top of the head. After this, mental and physical pliancy (flexibility) - cheerfulness and a lightness of the body arises. There's the feeling one could meditate for as long as one wants, at whatever level of subtlety and that actually becomes a possibility. Physical and mental bliss arise as well and are at first a little overwhelming, but that rapture quickly fades, like a plane passing through the eyewall of the hurricane. With the final achievement of samadhi one leaves the world of meditative objects (mantras, various mental objects, etc.). Only the aspects of the sheer awareness, clarity, and joy of the mind appear, without the intrusion of any sense objects. Any thoughts that arise are not sustained, nor do they proliferate; rather they vanish of their own accord, like bubbles emerging from water. One has no sense of one’s own body, and it seems as if one’s mind has become indivisible with space. While remaining in this absence of appearances, even though it is still not possible for a single moment of consciousness to observe itself, one moment of consciousness may recall the experience of the immediately preceding moment of consciousness, which, in turn, may recall its immediately preceding moment—each moment having no other appearances or objects arising to it. Thus, due to the homogeneity of this mental continuum, with each moment of consciousness recalling the previous moment of consciousness, the experiential effect is that of consciousness apprehending itself. The defining characteristics of consciousness recollectively perceived in that state are first a sense of clarity, or implicit luminosity capable of manifesting as all manner of appearances, and secondly the quality of cognizance, or the event of knowing. Upon attaining samadhi, by focusing the attention on the sheer clarity and the sheer cognizance of experience, one attends to the defining characteristics of consciousness alone, as opposed to the qualities of other objects of consciousness. That's one description of how it might be described.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
Vaj, I think you could have picked a much better example of a mood maker, for goodness sake, Barry is more of a bliss ninny than Robin ever was. Robin was the renegade, the upstart the guy who was the very antithesis of that. You should remember, you'd get your ass kicked for mooning around in some bliss ninny state around him. It was all about what was happening right now, in that moment. No syrupy layers on top, no sugar coating. You do remember all that don't you? I still have the battle scars to show for it. I'll show you mine if you show me yours. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 9, 2012, at 3:46 PM, iamyukta wrote: I do not understand the term mood maker?? Could you please define this for me. My dictionary has a little engraving of Robin Woodsworth Carlsen in it, if that helps. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
On Apr 10, 2012, at 9:50 AM, awoelflebater wrote: Vaj, I think you could have picked a much better example of a mood maker, for goodness sake, Barry is more of a bliss ninny than Robin ever was. Robin was the renegade, the upstart the guy who was the very antithesis of that. You should remember, you'd get your ass kicked for mooning around in some bliss ninny state around him. It was all about what was happening right now, in that moment. No syrupy layers on top, no sugar coating. You do remember all that don't you? I still have the battle scars to show for it. I'll show you mine if you show me yours. I see your point, but non-World Teacher Seminarians who were convinced to come to a seminar often experienced RWC as a moodmaker and I think I understand where they're coming from. Let's face it, how many people have: - their own stage? - the starring role in that stage production? - their stage performances all videotaped? - Robin, by the Grace of God, will you manifest fill in mood/bhava of your choice-type events, daily or weekly? (the ride in Indra's chariot being a personal fave) - wore silk underwear to protect them from tamasic vibes? - claimed all-embracing unity but hated to touch people? - saw demons in people - and then put on a performance art act to remove them? - eschewed sentimentality, but was a rather sentimental initiator and storyteller?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
Thank you for the informationit was helpful.. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iamyukta iamyukta@ wrote: I do not understand the term mood maker?? Could you please define this for me. In most cases a mood-maker is someone who invents moods and and the mix it up with real experiences of substance. Like when a Buddhists says he's 20 minutes without thoughts but is unable to describe the experience. That's classical mood-making.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iamyukta iamyukta@ wrote: I do not understand the term mood maker?? Could you please define this for me. In most cases a mood-maker is someone who invents moods and and the mix it up with real experiences of substance. Like when a Buddhists says he's 20 minutes without thoughts but is unable to describe the experience. That's classical mood-making. Er, I would expect that someone was 20 minutes (or one minute or 1 second) without thought to be unable to describe the experience. So would I. The Turq has repeatedly made such claims and has been repeatedly challenged to give a report of his experiences but refuses to do so. One therefore draws the conclusion that he never had such experiences, that it's just more bragging. How do YOIU describe 20 minutes without thoughts? I have infact described such experiences as a newbie here several years ago. But I was drowned in so much sarcasm, cynicism and vile attacks from the Buddhist's here that I promised never again.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
So, it should not be taken as a compliment?? And one should consider the source?? I am not sure how i should take being referred as this by my teacher. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: A mood maker is someone who tries to behave like, or feel like, or otherwise be like an enlightened person simply because they think enlightenment is cool. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iamyukta iamyukta@ wrote: I do not understand the term mood maker?? Could you please define this for me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: [...] Esp. since, as I've stated several times before, I actually had a very good and clear experience with TM. What the HELL is a very good and clear experience with TM? The worst mood-makers say that kind of stuff. MMY very clearly said that one could have muddy experiences for one's entire meditation career and not experience transcending clearly until the very last meditation when the last stress is released and CC becomes permanent. The test of TM's effectiveness is found outside TM, not during. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
One short troll, just thrown out for fun way at the bottom of a longer post about other topics, and Nabby is still obsessing about it 18 days later. :-) Can you stop your thoughts at will and go into thoughtless samadhi for ten to twenty minutes at a time? If so, you have attained what would be considered the stage of talented beginner in many traditions. If not... well... I may have missed something, but I don't believe that Sir Nabs has ever answered the original question. All he seems to have done is demonstrate that the question pushed his buttons, big-time. In how many posts has he obsessed over this throwaway line now? Nabby now claims (at the bottom of this post) that he has not only experienced this (the ability to go into thought- less samadhi at will for 10-20 minutes at a time), but that he has described what it was like for him to do so previously on this forum. He won't tell us where, or when, or under which of his many, many posting IDs here he said this stuff, so that we could look it up and see for ourselves the response to his descrip- tion he describes above, and how he was so mercilessly pounced upon by evil Buddhists. C'mon Nabby. *Everybody* here loves a good gang fight. Share the links with us so that we can watch you getting beat up by big, bad Buddhists. I have no memory of such an event. I'm thinkin' that I'm not alone here in that regard. If you do, and are still holding onto that memory in the form of a grudge...all these years later, I'm doubting your claim to be able to stop thought at will even more than I did before. Just sayin'. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iamyukta iamyukta@ wrote: I do not understand the term mood maker?? Could you please define this for me. In most cases a mood-maker is someone who invents moods and and the mix it up with real experiences of substance. Like when a Buddhists says he's 20 minutes without thoughts but is unable to describe the experience. That's classical mood-making. Er, I would expect that someone was 20 minutes (or one minute or 1 second) without thought to be unable to describe the experience. So would I. The Turq has repeatedly made such claims and has been repeatedly challenged to give a report of his experiences but refuses to do so. One therefore draws the conclusion that he never had such experiences, that it's just more bragging. How do YOIU describe 20 minutes without thoughts? I have infact described such experiences as a newbie here several years ago. But I was drowned in so much sarcasm, cynicism and vile attacks from the Buddhist's here that I promised never again.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 10, 2012, at 9:50 AM, awoelflebater wrote: Vaj, I think you could have picked a much better example of a mood maker, for goodness sake, Barry is more of a bliss ninny than Robin ever was. Robin was the renegade, the upstart the guy who was the very antithesis of that. You should remember, you'd get your ass kicked for mooning around in some bliss ninny state around him. It was all about what was happening right now, in that moment. No syrupy layers on top, no sugar coating. You do remember all that don't you? I still have the battle scars to show for it. I'll show you mine if you show me yours. I see your point, but non-World Teacher Seminarians who were convinced to come to a seminar often experienced RWC as a moodmaker and I think I understand where they're coming from. Let's face it, how many people have: - their own stage? - the starring role in that stage production? - their stage performances all videotaped? - Robin, by the Grace of God, will you manifest fill in mood/bhava of your choice-type events, daily or weekly? (the ride in Indra's chariot being a personal fave) - wore silk underwear to protect them from tamasic vibes? - claimed all-embracing unity but hated to touch people? - saw demons in people - and then put on a performance art act to remove them? - eschewed sentimentality, but was a rather sentimental initiator and storyteller? Ah, but I think you confuse moodmaker with someone who could appear egotistical, even a megalomaniac. I believe his sentimentality was actually sincerity, as misguided about the movement as it may or may not have been. I thought it was rather noble actually, his desire to uphold what he felt was the best of who MMY was and what the Movement could have stood for. So there was an element of sentimentality, because in the end the whole thing didn't quite pan out with regard to MMY or even Robin's enlightenment but his heart was in the right place.You have to admit he did believe in what he was doing and some of that was not to rip things apart with regard to TM but to produce a truer version of it. Not really what I would call a moodmaker. More like a misguided warrior.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Can you stop your thoughts at will and go into thoughtless samadhi for ten to twenty minutes at a time? If so, you have attained what would be considered the stage of talented beginner in many traditions. If not... well... I may have missed something, but I don't believe that Sir Nabs has ever answered the original question. That's not the original question, as you know well. It was a way for you to slip away the real original question of how do you experience 20 minutes without thoughts ? Instead of answering a simply question you tried to sidetrack the discussion you so feverently wanted to avoid by asking a counter-question. All he seems to have done is demonstrate that the question pushed his buttons, big-time. No, it triggerred my curiosity. Could it really be that this beer-gulping egomaniac in Amsterdam actually had such experiences ? I didn't rule that out entierly, knowing quite a few freaks with interesting experiences myself, until later when it became obvious that the Turq wanted to avoid answering the question at all costs. In how many posts has he obsessed over this throwaway line now? Quite a few for the simple reason it is interesting that someone who claims to have 20 minutes without thoughts refuses to describe the experience. Which again goes a long way in confirming that the two Buddhists on this forum are liers. Nabby now claims (at the bottom of this post) that he has not only experienced this (the ability to go into thought- less samadhi at will for 10-20 minutes at a time), but that he has described what it was like for him to do so previously on this forum. He won't tell us where, or when, or under which of his many, many posting IDs here he said this stuff, Oh, you must know more than I do. Many, many posting IDs here ? Well that's news to me, I think my ID always had Nablusoss of some sort and are max 2 during the years if I remember correctly. And again, since you seem to have trouble reading; unlike you, I have never claimed the ability to go into thought-less samadhi AT WILL for 10-20 minutes at a time. You did that. Someone with such foolish desires is definitely not practising TM. so that we could look it up and see for ourselves the response to his descrip- tion he describes above, and how he was so mercilessly pounced upon by evil Buddhists. C'mon Nabby. *Everybody* here loves a good gang fight. Share the links with us so that we can watch you getting beat up by big, bad Buddhists. I have no memory of such an event. I'm thinkin' that I'm not alone here in that regard. If you do, and are still holding onto that memory in the form of a grudge...all these years later, I'm doubting your claim to be able to stop thought at will even more than I did before. Just sayin'. The ability to stop thoughts at will is the still unsubstanciated claim of the Turq, not me. I've never made such a silly claim. 20 minutes of transcendence is something else. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iamyukta iamyukta@ wrote: I do not understand the term mood maker?? Could you please define this for me. In most cases a mood-maker is someone who invents moods and and the mix it up with real experiences of substance. Like when a Buddhists says he's 20 minutes without thoughts but is unable to describe the experience. That's classical mood-making. Er, I would expect that someone was 20 minutes (or one minute or 1 second) without thought to be unable to describe the experience. So would I. The Turq has repeatedly made such claims and has been repeatedly challenged to give a report of his experiences but refuses to do so. One therefore draws the conclusion that he never had such experiences, that it's just more bragging. How do YOIU describe 20 minutes without thoughts? I have infact described such experiences as a newbie here several years ago. But I was drowned in so much sarcasm, cynicism and vile attacks from the Buddhist's here that I promised never again.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
On Apr 10, 2012, at 11:46 AM, awoelflebater wrote: Ah, but I think you confuse moodmaker with someone who could appear egotistical, even a megalomaniac. I was tapping into his obvious use of drama and the need to be both director and actor. Draaahma-maker = Moodmaker. I believe his sentimentality was actually sincerity, as misguided about the movement as it may or may not have been. I thought it was rather noble actually, his desire to uphold what he felt was the best of who MMY was and what the Movement could have stood for. So there was an element of sentimentality, because in the end the whole thing didn't quite pan out with regard to MMY or even Robin's enlightenment but his heart was in the right place.You have to admit he did believe in what he was doing and some of that was not to rip things apart with regard to TM but to produce a truer version of it. Not really what I would call a moodmaker. More like a misguided warrior. The one item that would be impossible for me to remove is his use of manifestations. In these cases, he's clearly either inducing a mood on the audience. I suspect a lot of that hinged on the suggestibility of the audience, which was probably quite high.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Can you stop your thoughts at will and go into thoughtless samadhi for ten to twenty minutes at a time? If so, you have attained what would be considered the stage of talented beginner in many traditions. If not... well... I may have missed something, but I don't believe that Sir Nabs has ever answered the original question. That's not the original question, as you know well. With all due respect, Nabs, it was. Otherwise, what would you have had to base your followup question -- asking me to describe it -- on? snip Nabby now claims (at the bottom of this post) that he has not only experienced this (the ability to go into thought- less samadhi at will for 10-20 minutes at a time), but that he has described what it was like for him to do so previously on this forum. He won't tell us where, or when, or under which of his many, many posting IDs here he said this stuff, Oh, you must know more than I do. Many, many posting IDs here ? Well that's news to me, I think my ID always had Nablusoss of some sort and are max 2 during the years if I remember correctly. You don't. Have you forgotten 'lupidus108'? And all of the many variants of 'nablus' you created because you couldn't remember what numbers you affixed after it the previous time, and thus created a new ID? I won't follow in someone's footsteps here and call you a liar outright, just a mindless TM dweeb who probably couldn't remember last week, much less 2006. :-) And again, since you seem to have trouble reading; unlike you, I have never claimed the ability to go into thought- less samadhi AT WILL for 10-20 minutes at a time. What is it that you are claiming was pounced upon so savagely by Buddhists, then? A quick scan of your earliest posts as 'lupidus108' reveals nothing even remotely like you describing what it is like to experience 20 minutes of thoughtlessness, *much less* anyone giving you shit about it. Methinks that you might just have to be a bit more specific if you want even your got yer back buddies here to support you on this one. I mean, one would think you'd be *happy* to point us to the posts in which the big, bad, evil Buddhists gave you such a hard time for describing the indescribable.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
Vaj,. Really nice description below of how it has come for some spiritual folks here. Thanks. That is quite a valid description, included like in the second nite of TM 3-day checking in learning TM and also the culminating practice of patanjali too. This is where it has gone for a lot of people in Fairfield. Is also a lot of what Master John Douglas brings in his practices that a lot of the TM movement does now. Like as a melding of effortless transcending wakeful mindfulness meditation beyond mantra. This is really an excellent description regardless of where it came from. Maharishi always fundamentally felt that people should practice for a lot longer than 20 minutes twice a day. TM twice a day was an accommodation to placate householders and busy-businessmen with their obligations . The Raja's program is actually a more ideal program towards cultivation of spiritual depth or like the Invincible America course schedule. Practices with discipline and time taken to get the experience. Certainly there's a lot of depth to spiritual silence. Best Regards, -Buck in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: How do YOIU describe 20 minutes without thoughts? Since it takes about 3 hours to really settle down, I doubt there'd be much worth commenting on at 20 minutes. But if one is an expert at the practice of samadhi and attains it, it's first marker is a dramatic shift in the nervous system often experienced along with a brief sense of numbness at the top of the head. After this, mental and physical pliancy (flexibility) - cheerfulness and a lightness of the body arises. There's the feeling one could meditate for as long as one wants, at whatever level of subtlety and that actually becomes a possibility. Physical and mental bliss arise as well and are at first a little overwhelming, but that rapture quickly fades, like a plane passing through the eyewall of the hurricane. With the final achievement of samadhi one leaves the world of meditative objects (mantras, various mental objects, etc.). Only the aspects of the sheer awareness, clarity, and joy of the mind appear, without the intrusion of any sense objects. Any thoughts that arise are not sustained, nor do they proliferate; rather they vanish of their own accord, like bubbles emerging from water. One has no sense of one's own body, and it seems as if one's mind has become indivisible with space. While remaining in this absence of appearances, even though it is still not possible for a single moment of consciousness to observe itself, one moment of consciousness may recall the experience of the immediately preceding moment of consciousness, which, in turn, may recall its immediately preceding momenteach moment having no other appearances or objects arising to it. Thus, due to the homogeneity of this mental continuum, with each moment of consciousness recalling the previous moment of consciousness, the experiential effect is that of consciousness apprehending itself. The defining characteristics of consciousness recollectively perceived in that state are first a sense of clarity, or implicit luminosity capable of manifesting as all manner of appearances, and secondly the quality of cognizance, or the event of knowing. Upon attaining samadhi, by focusing the attention on the sheer clarity and the sheer cognizance of experience, one attends to the defining characteristics of consciousness alone, as opposed to the qualities of other objects of consciousness. That's one description of how it might be described.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iamyukta iamyukta@ wrote: I do not understand the term mood maker?? Could you please define this for me. In most cases a mood-maker is someone who invents moods and and the mix it up with real experiences of substance. Like when a Buddhists says he's 20 minutes without thoughts but is unable to describe the experience. That's classical mood-making. Er, I would expect that someone was 20 minutes (or one minute or 1 second) without thought to be unable to describe the experience. So would I. The Turq has repeatedly made such claims and has been repeatedly challenged to give a report of his experiences but refuses to do so. One therefore draws the conclusion that he never had such experiences, that it's just more bragging. How do YOIU describe 20 minutes without thoughts? I have infact described such experiences as a newbie here several years ago. But I was drowned in so much sarcasm, cynicism and vile attacks from the Buddhist's here that I promised never again. Well, if you really did try to describe 20 minutes of transcending, I'd be pretty sarcastic too. For one thing, how did you know it was 20 minutes? L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 10, 2012, at 11:46 AM, awoelflebater wrote: Ah, but I think you confuse moodmaker with someone who could appear egotistical, even a megalomaniac. I was tapping into his obvious use of drama and the need to be both director and actor. Draaahma-maker = Moodmaker. No, they both have makeron the end but they are not equating for me. And I am not sure he created drama, I think he tapped into where life could be dramatic if you stirred the pot enough. I believe his sentimentality was actually sincerity, as misguided about the movement as it may or may not have been. I thought it was rather noble actually, his desire to uphold what he felt was the best of who MMY was and what the Movement could have stood for. So there was an element of sentimentality, because in the end the whole thing didn't quite pan out with regard to MMY or even Robin's enlightenment but his heart was in the right place.You have to admit he did believe in what he was doing and some of that was not to rip things apart with regard to TM but to produce a truer version of it. Not really what I would call a moodmaker. More like a misguided warrior. The one item that would be impossible for me to remove is his use of manifestations. In these cases, he's clearly either inducing a mood on the audience. I suspect a lot of that hinged on the suggestibility of the audience, which was probably quite high. Funny, because I always hated those manifestations. They neither created a mood for me or were believable. My least favourite was the chanting and the manifestations were next to that on the rating scale. I loved the discussions, the things that were more relevant to my 'here and now'. Confrontations were always fascinating, among other things. But I just can't relate to the mood making angle. But each to his own.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Apr 10, 2012, at 11:46 AM, awoelflebater wrote: Ah, but I think you confuse moodmaker with someone who could appear egotistical, even a megalomaniac. I was tapping into his obvious use of drama and the need to be both director and actor. Draaahma-maker = Moodmaker. No, they both have makeron the end but they are not equating for me. They aren't the same thing at all in the TM context, FWIW. And I am not sure he created drama, I think he tapped into where life could be dramatic if you stirred the pot enough. I believe his sentimentality was actually sincerity, as misguided about the movement as it may or may not have been. I thought it was rather noble actually, his desire to uphold what he felt was the best of who MMY was and what the Movement could have stood for. So there was an element of sentimentality, because in the end the whole thing didn't quite pan out with regard to MMY or even Robin's enlightenment but his heart was in the right place.You have to admit he did believe in what he was doing and some of that was not to rip things apart with regard to TM but to produce a truer version of it. Not really what I would call a moodmaker. More like a misguided warrior. The one item that would be impossible for me to remove is his use of manifestations. In these cases, he's clearly either inducing a mood on the audience. I suspect a lot of that hinged on the suggestibility of the audience, which was probably quite high. Funny, because I always hated those manifestations. They neither created a mood for me or were believable. My least favourite was the chanting and the manifestations were next to that on the rating scale. I loved the discussions, the things that were more relevant to my 'here and now'. Confrontations were always fascinating, among other things. But I just can't relate to the mood making angle. But each to his own.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
I do not understand the term mood maker?? Could you please define this for me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: [...] Esp. since, as I've stated several times before, I actually had a very good and clear experience with TM. What the HELL is a very good and clear experience with TM? The worst mood-makers say that kind of stuff. MMY very clearly said that one could have muddy experiences for one's entire meditation career and not experience transcending clearly until the very last meditation when the last stress is released and CC becomes permanent. The test of TM's effectiveness is found outside TM, not during. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iamyukta iamyukta@... wrote: I do not understand the term mood maker?? Could you please define this for me. In most cases a mood-maker is someone who invents moods and and the mix it up with real experiences of substance. Like when a Buddhists says he's 20 minutes without thoughts but is unable to describe the experience. That's classical mood-making.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
A mood maker is someone who tries to behave like, or feel like, or otherwise be like an enlightened person simply because they think enlightenment is cool. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iamyukta iamyukta@... wrote: I do not understand the term mood maker?? Could you please define this for me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: [...] Esp. since, as I've stated several times before, I actually had a very good and clear experience with TM. What the HELL is a very good and clear experience with TM? The worst mood-makers say that kind of stuff. MMY very clearly said that one could have muddy experiences for one's entire meditation career and not experience transcending clearly until the very last meditation when the last stress is released and CC becomes permanent. The test of TM's effectiveness is found outside TM, not during. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: Except introducing the mantra is to happen after 30 seconds IF the mantra doesn't appear on its own, spontaneously. Sheesh. Get checked, folks. Couldn't have said it better myself :-) Pay attention this time.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
On Apr 14, 2011, at 1:05 AM, sparaig wrote: Okay, nice clear explanation, although one that I don't think would matter to 99 out of 100 people. But a real distinction nonetheless. Yea, I think discursive is a nice word for it. Except introducing the mantra is to happen after 30 seconds IF the mantra doesn't appear on its own, spontaneously. Sheesh. Get checked, folks. Pay attention this time. Exactly. IOW, it's a subtle but important distinction for TMers who know how to meditate properly. It's an important distinction because you realize that there are some people who will simply never have the mantra appear on it's own! Others will have intention to sit, close the eyes and pick the mantra up a very subtle, abstract level right off and fall in the groove. If they've repeated it enough, that groove will become automatic, spontaneous, sahaja.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
On Apr 14, 2011, at 1:11 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 11, 2011, at 9:11 PM, Yifu wrote: Right! Looks to me that Vaj hates TM, for one reason or another. (re: somebody else's comment that he doesn't hate it). Whoa dude, huge non sequitur. The post was about Maharishi Ayurveda and disreputable yogis telling the dying they could save their lives, when really, they could not. Got agenda? EVerything I have heard suggests that MMY believed that things would turn out differently than they did. A Believer whose beliefs weren't confirmed by reality. How rare. How horrible. When people die because of it, out of touch with reality rather than established in reality makes a huge difference. Esp. when many assume you're the latter...any you're actually the former.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 14, 2011, at 1:05 AM, sparaig wrote: Okay, nice clear explanation, although one that I don't think would matter to 99 out of 100 people. But a real distinction nonetheless. Yea, I think discursive is a nice word for it. Except introducing the mantra is to happen after 30 seconds IF the mantra doesn't appear on its own, spontaneously. Sheesh. Get checked, folks. Pay attention this time. Exactly. IOW, it's a subtle but important distinction for TMers who know how to meditate properly. It's an important distinction because you realize that there are some people who will simply never have the mantra appear on it's own! Others will have intention to sit, close the eyes and pick the mantra up a very subtle, abstract level right off and fall in the groove. If they've repeated it enough, that groove will become automatic, spontaneous, sahaja. Actually, since the old saying, which everyone I've ever met agrees with, is that it is impossible NOT to think about pink elephants if you have been instructed to not think about pink elephants, I suspect people just aren't thinking things through... Given that it is impossible to NOT think about something when you are told not to think about it, how can you assert that people won't spontaneously think the mantra at some point if they have deliberately put themselves into a situation where thinking the mantra is at last some of the time is a given? Its certainly possible that they don't understand what it means to think the mantra during TM practice, but as MMY points out, the thought OF the mantra is still the mantra. If you set yourself up to be thinking the mantra, then you already ARE on some level (as judy points out). Or, to put it differently, the first thing that pops in your mind when asked the question do you remember the person you met yesterday? is the answer to that question. It doesn't matter what you remember or even if you DO remember, the fact that the question is there means there is some kind of answer. Likewise, deliberately sitting with eyes closed in order to start thinking the mantra, IS thinking the mantra. It might be that you don't recognize your thoughts at this point as such and feel a need use some effort to introduce the mantra, but that only means that you are expecting the mantra to be of a certain quality of thought. There's nothing wrong with that, and in fact, we all do that, I am sure. Even so, whatever level of effort you find yourself using is always more than is needed. The nice thing about TM is that it is self-correcting. While TM practice is pretty much effortless, even at the most effortful, the nervous system changes over time to make the requirement of effort even less, if that is possible. As long as one understands that effort is not needed, then whatever happens is perfectly good. Any attempt to make things less effortful isn't worth the effort. Any attempting make things MORE effortful is also not worth the effort. Making some distinction between the mantra appearing on its own or not appearing on its own is counterproductive. I mean, why does the mantra appear in the first place? Or... just who is it who is thinking that mantra, anyway? Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 14, 2011, at 1:11 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Apr 11, 2011, at 9:11 PM, Yifu wrote: Right! Looks to me that Vaj hates TM, for one reason or another. (re: somebody else's comment that he doesn't hate it). Whoa dude, huge non sequitur. The post was about Maharishi Ayurveda and disreputable yogis telling the dying they could save their lives, when really, they could not. Got agenda? EVerything I have heard suggests that MMY believed that things would turn out differently than they did. A Believer whose beliefs weren't confirmed by reality. How rare. How horrible. When people die because of it, out of touch with reality rather than established in reality makes a huge difference. Esp. when many assume you're the latter...any you're actually the former. /me shrugs. But that's different then implying that someone is a disreputable yogi because they believe what their cultural/religious tradition (or what their own interpretation is) and were wrong. Lawson
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
On Apr 14, 2011, at 9:07 AM, sparaig wrote: When people die because of it, out of touch with reality rather than established in reality makes a huge difference. Esp. when many assume you're the latter...any you're actually the former. /me shrugs. But that's different then implying that someone is a disreputable yogi because they believe what their cultural/ religious tradition (or what their own interpretation is) and were wrong. Hmmm. You believe I was making that claim? Seems odd, given his personal physician and the Vaidyas--who were from the same cultural and religious tradition--told him these people were terminal. I'd suspect, as did M's personal physician, that M was a megalomaniac. He didn't take advice from others simply because his ego was so damn big. Seems to me merely a common trend in Asuriac gurus like Mahesh.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 14, 2011, at 9:07 AM, sparaig wrote: When people die because of it, out of touch with reality rather than established in reality makes a huge difference. Esp. when many assume you're the latter...any you're actually the former. /me shrugs. But that's different then implying that someone is a disreputable yogi because they believe what their cultural/ religious tradition (or what their own interpretation is) and were wrong. Hmmm. You believe I was making that claim? Seems odd, given his personal physician and the Vaidyas--who were from the same cultural and religious tradition--told him these people were terminal. I'd suspect, as did M's personal physician, that M was a megalomaniac. He didn't take advice from others simply because his ego was so damn big. Seems to me merely a common trend in Asuriac gurus like Mahesh. Does it really surprise you that MMY was more of a true believer than most? L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 14, 2011, at 9:07 AM, sparaig wrote: When people die because of it, out of touch with reality rather than established in reality makes a huge difference. Esp. when many assume you're the latter...any you're actually the former. /me shrugs. But that's different then implying that someone is a disreputable yogi because they believe what their cultural/ religious tradition (or what their own interpretation is) and were wrong. Hmmm. You believe I was making that claim? Seems odd, given his personal physician and the Vaidyas--who were from the same cultural and religious tradition--told him these people were terminal. I'd suspect, as did M's personal physician, that M was a megalomaniac. He didn't take advice from others simply because his ego was so damn big. Seems to me merely a common trend in Asuriac gurus like Mahesh. Does it really surprise you that MMY was more of a true believer than most? L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: Multi-year obsession for truth always beats multi-year obsession for falsity, deception and slander. You go girl!!! Well put Ravi ! :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 12, 2011, at 4:06 PM, turquoiseb wrote: The fascinating thing is that none of this strikes her as in the least obsessive, and as a multi-year, ongoing, compulsive attempt to get someone who just coincident- ally happens to be a TM critic. Apparently Judy missed the part in her instruction which says we always start with half a minute of silence. No wonder she's so messed up! She starts the mantra from the discursive level. I thought so. ;-) Vaj: Care to elaborate, expand, or explain what you mean when you refer to the discursive level?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
On Apr 13, 2011, at 1:07 PM, azgrey wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 12, 2011, at 4:06 PM, turquoiseb wrote: The fascinating thing is that none of this strikes her as in the least obsessive, and as a multi-year, ongoing, compulsive attempt to get someone who just coincident- ally happens to be a TM critic. Apparently Judy missed the part in her instruction which says we always start with half a minute of silence. No wonder she's so messed up! She starts the mantra from the discursive level. I thought so. ;-) Vaj: Care to elaborate, expand, or explain what you mean when you refer to the discursive level? Introducing the mantra, 'as if any other thought', rather than allowing the mantra to spontaneously (sahaja) begin on it's own. One involves discursive thought and a slight amount of effort, the other is spontaneous and emerges from silence: like a bubble from the bottom of the ocean, or froth from waves.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 13, 2011, at 1:07 PM, azgrey wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Apr 12, 2011, at 4:06 PM, turquoiseb wrote: The fascinating thing is that none of this strikes her as in the least obsessive, and as a multi-year, ongoing, compulsive attempt to get someone who just coincident- ally happens to be a TM critic. Apparently Judy missed the part in her instruction which says we always start with half a minute of silence. No wonder she's so messed up! She starts the mantra from the discursive level. I thought so. ;-) Vaj: Care to elaborate, expand, or explain what you mean when you refer to the discursive level? Introducing the mantra, 'as if any other thought', rather than allowing the mantra to spontaneously (sahaja) begin on it's own. One involves discursive thought and a slight amount of effort, the other is spontaneous and emerges from silence: like a bubble from the bottom of the ocean, or froth from waves. The always in General Point F is *only* for dunderheads who say they have not meditated regularly. It doesn't say always anywhere else in the checking notes. In checking you don't say always start to a person who meditates regularly or for whom the mantra comes spontaneously. In TM there's no trying to introduce the mantra as if any other thought. If the person is already experiencing effortless meditation, or if the mantra comes, there's no introducing anything. The purpose of checking is to give the experience of right meditation. For this, it is necessary to give the experience of the right start. To give the right start, first the meditator experiences how he thinks Then indicate to him that thinking is a process that is effortless in that quietness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
Vaj: Care to elaborate, expand, or explain what you mean when you refer to the discursive level? Introducing the mantra, 'as if any other thought', rather than allowing the mantra to spontaneously (sahaja) begin on it's own. One involves discursive thought and a slight amount of effort, the other is spontaneous and emerges from silence: like a bubble from the bottom of the ocean, or froth from waves. Okay, nice clear explanation, although one that I don't think would matter to 99 out of 100 people. But a real distinction nonetheless. Yea, I think discursive is a nice word for it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: Vaj: Care to elaborate, expand, or explain what you mean when you refer to the discursive level? Introducing the mantra, 'as if any other thought', rather than allowing the mantra to spontaneously (sahaja) begin on it's own. One involves discursive thought and a slight amount of effort, the other is spontaneous and emerges from silence: like a bubble from the bottom of the ocean, or froth from waves. Okay, nice clear explanation, although one that I don't think would matter to 99 out of 100 people. But a real distinction nonetheless. Yea, I think discursive is a nice word for it. Except introducing the mantra is to happen after 30 seconds IF the mantra doesn't appear on its own, spontaneously. Sheesh. Get checked, folks. Pay attention this time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
Ignoring the work of David Lynch and company... We all do this: ignore facts that might counter our assessment of reality in order to see the reality we would prefer rather than the reality that IS. Of course, no-one can claim that I am not guilty of this as well. Lawson --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: Right! Looks to me that Vaj hates TM, for one reason or another. (re: somebody else's comment that he doesn't hate it). Why?, possibly, out of jealousy. I doubt that. I still do TM, but really, what's to be jealous of about TM or the TMO? Lot's of nasty stuff coming out about MMY and the org - and much poor quality research. An organization in which the average age is continuing to rise since few new people learn. Excellent point. At this point one would have to be pretty fuckin' out of it to be proud of being an On The Program TMer. :-) snip I think Vaj genuinely believes that TM, MMY and the siddhis are not legit in the sense that the tradition from which MMY came does not honor MMY, there is no understanding of how to help someone grow if they encounter some difficulties, and he thinks the whole technique is suspect. He seems to feel that TM can produce some significant problems for many people - and it may be having people close to him seriously injured while doing TM that is motivating him. I agree with your assessment of Vaj and what he seems to believe, and I agree with many of the points themselves. I think I'm less anxious to convince TMers that they've been taken to the cleaners than he is, but that's because I realize the futility of trying to change minds that can't be changed because over time they've become too rigid and too attached *to* change. If there's a theme that I try to challenge in the TMO and in the modern-day hangers-on to a dying movement, it's what's going on right now on this forum -- Pile on the TM critic. Having claimed only a few posts ago that she does *not* choreograph systematic group demonization of TM critics, Judy is doing exactly that. This particular get Vaj fest is all on her. She started it, and now she's trying to perpetuate it. I don't feel any need to defend or stand up for Vaj because he's a big boy and can take care of himself. But I do feel the need to point out the feeding frenzy and who is leading it. And I do feel the need to point out that she has been doing this with TM critics or a regular basis for seventeen years. It's just what Judy Stein DOES. That she can deny it is beyond belief.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 11, 2011, at 9:11 PM, Yifu wrote: Right! Looks to me that Vaj hates TM, for one reason or another. (re: somebody else's comment that he doesn't hate it). Whoa dude, huge non sequitur. The post was about Maharishi Ayurveda and disreputable yogis telling the dying they could save their lives, when really, they could not. Got agenda? EVerything I have heard suggests that MMY believed that things would turn out differently than they did. A Believer whose beliefs weren't confirmed by reality. How rare. How horrible. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: The TMO and MMY have of course fostered the idea that an enlightened man makes no mistakes, but that is because in enlightenment nothing is perceived as a mistake. Everything is just as it is, and death from stupid medical decisions is one of the things that is. My own take is that mistakes in this case refers to things that take you away from the state of enlightenment. Since, by definition, CC is a permanent state, this is really tautological since NOTHING (allegedly) can take you out of the state. On a more practical level, I hope that as one grows towards higher states beyond CC (assuming that CC and higher states are anything remotely like what is advertised) that the naive reading of enlightened man makes no mistakes becomes more and more in-line with behavior of actual enlightened people. Someone who is fully in Unity, able to perform all sidhis, etc, etc, might well resemble this ideal mistakeless person. Others, not-so-much. BTW, I do NOT believe that MMY was fully in Unity, though perhaps he was at least somewhat in CC. Even MMY's chosen successor has hinted that MMY is with the angels rather than in a state of perfect no return. Of course, this may just be because Abu-Nader was raised a Christian and dealt with MMY's death using rhetoric and symbolism from his childhood religion rather than towing the TM line about MMY's purported perfection. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: [...] Esp. since, as I've stated several times before, I actually had a very good and clear experience with TM. What the HELL is a very good and clear experience with TM? The worst mood-makers say that kind of stuff. MMY very clearly said that one could have muddy experiences for one's entire meditation career and not experience transcending clearly until the very last meditation when the last stress is released and CC becomes permanent. The test of TM's effectiveness is found outside TM, not during. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
:-), Thanks for the laughs - all of them are bald?..LOL.. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: Scene: Away up north and east, in the New England panhandle, somewhere in Kobatsu Malone Country, a family is sitting down to dinner. They are buddhists. All of them are bald. The dinner is tofurkey: Vaj Sr.: Now dammit son, you were ten minutes late today for your Allow-No-Other-Religion-Other-Than-The-True-Religion mindfulness studies. Here we go again slacker! Vaj Jr: But dad, it was...yeah the narakas, I understand...no, I don't want to go there... but it was a long time ago, and I didn't even learn TM...dad!! Vaj Sr: You are gonna walk that eight fold path son, or so help me Avalokokitevara...! Vaj Mom: Honey...visualize non-violence, whirled peas, remember your breathing... Vaj Jr: OK...ok...Look, I promise tomorrow, no one, I mean no one is gettin' anything on me - I'm gunna rip that MMY a new one, him an' his posse!! Vaj Sr.: That's my bodhi! Vaj Mom: That's funny, I thought MMY was...? oh nevermind. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: snip He keeps low on the radar since. Indians need to be extra careful if they're still in India or have family there. More of the same crap, only worse, because he's made it so nonspecific you can't call him on it or ask for documentation. What he wants you to *infer* is that the doctor is afraid he or his family will be hurt or killed by evil TMO forces in retaliation. How is this not the tactic of a hater?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: His family were offended by the introduction of TM into the world by a Mc-Guru not fitting into their model. Well, I will say that he seems really dialed in to this authenticity thing.He just doesn't come off the documentation tack. My thinking is that he rebelled as a youth and sought out his own path, but eventually came back to the family business. I kind of envision the Vajs' in a wood paneled library with leather arm chairs sipping cognac in crystal snifters discussing the lineage of their particular line of teachers. Good times! Family business huh?..LOL..at least he seems to have temporarily stopped his daily discourses on his Parama Vakra Gita.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: Right! Looks to me that Vaj hates TM, for one reason or another. (re: somebody else's comment that he doesn't hate it). Why?, possibly, out of jealousy. I doubt that. I still do TM, but really, what's to be jealous of about TM or the TMO? Lot's of nasty stuff coming out about MMY and the org - and much poor quality research. An organization in which the average age is continuing to rise since few new people learn. Excellent point. At this point one would have to be pretty fuckin' out of it to be proud of being an On The Program TMer. :-) snip I think Vaj genuinely believes that TM, MMY and the siddhis are not legit in the sense that the tradition from which MMY came does not honor MMY, there is no understanding of how to help someone grow if they encounter some difficulties, and he thinks the whole technique is suspect. He seems to feel that TM can produce some significant problems for many people - and it may be having people close to him seriously injured while doing TM that is motivating him. I agree with your assessment of Vaj and what he seems to believe, and I agree with many of the points themselves. I think I'm less anxious to convince TMers that they've been taken to the cleaners than he is, but that's because I realize the futility of trying to change minds that can't be changed because over time they've become too rigid and too attached *to* change. If there's a theme that I try to challenge in the TMO and in the modern-day hangers-on to a dying movement, it's what's going on right now on this forum -- Pile on the TM critic. Having claimed only a few posts ago that she does *not* choreograph systematic group demonization of TM critics, Judy is doing exactly that. This particular get Vaj fest is all on her. She started it, and now she's trying to perpetuate it. I don't feel any need to defend or stand up for Vaj because he's a big boy and can take care of himself. But I do feel the need to point out the feeding frenzy and who is leading it. And I do feel the need to point out that she has been doing this with TM critics or a regular basis for seventeen years. It's just what Judy Stein DOES. That she can deny it is beyond belief.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 11, 2011, at 6:20 PM, wayback71 wrote: Can you say which personal physician? Or the names of anyone who followed this advice and lost a loved one? I don't disbelieve you on this, just wondered who we are talking about. If you want to know the doc, contact me off list. He keeps low on the radar since. Indians need to be extra careful if they're still in India or have family there. I have to say I really admire the way you have constantly, even amongst much opposition with such a beautiful, loving and dedicated way, continually endeavored yourself to the task of removing the stubborn decadent age-old boundaries between truth and falsity, sincerity and deception. The magic you weave is just amazing !!! You are an inspiration to anyone who ever wants to slander others. No longer will the crooked and crafty suffer in ignominy. Tricksters, fraudsters, double dealing duplicitous deceptive dishonest crooks rejoice and bow down to the Vaj Guru, the proponent of the Parama Vakra Gita.(Mighty twisted scripture). Bravo !!! Hats off !!! Continue the good work !!! Aah..the tears of joy...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
I have to say I really admire the way you have constantly, even amongst much opposition with such a beautiful, loving and dedicated way, continually endeavored yourself to the task of removing the stubborn decadent age-old boundaries between truth and falsity, sincerity and deception. The magic you weave is just amazing !!! You are an inspiration to anyone who ever wants to slander others. No longer will the crooked and crafty suffer in ignominy. Tricksters, fraudsters, double dealing duplicitous deceptive dishonest crooks rejoice and bow down to the Vaj Guru, the proponent of the Parama Vakra Gita.(Mighty twisted scripture). Bravo !!! Hats off !!! Continue the good work !!! Aah..the tears of joy... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 11, 2011, at 6:20 PM, wayback71 wrote: Can you say which personal physician? Or the names of anyone who followed this advice and lost a loved one? I don't disbelieve you on this, just wondered who we are talking about. If you want to know the doc, contact me off list. He keeps low on the radar since. Indians need to be extra careful if they're still in India or have family there.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: If you want to know the doc, contact me off list. He keeps low on the radar since. Indians need to be extra careful if they're still in India or have family there. From The Idiots Guide To Being A Confidante: Your secret's safe with me doctor. I'll only tell one person at a time!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
On Apr 11, 2011, at 9:11 PM, Yifu wrote: Right! Looks to me that Vaj hates TM, for one reason or another. (re: somebody else's comment that he doesn't hate it). Whoa dude, huge non sequitur. The post was about Maharishi Ayurveda and disreputable yogis telling the dying they could save their lives, when really, they could not. Got agenda?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
On Apr 12, 2011, at 12:17 AM, seventhray1 wrote: Well, I will say that he seems really dialed in to this authenticity thing. And what authenticity thing is that? That he came from a legit line of the Shank of the North? Guru Dev instructed him in yoga and devised TM in the Bat Cave? He just doesn't come off the documentation tack. My thinking is that he rebelled as a youth and sought out his own path, but eventually came back to the family business. I kind of envision the Vajs' in a wood paneled library with leather arm chairs sipping cognac in crystal snifters discussing the lineage of their particular line of teachers. Good times! I just love history. The history of the TM movement is particularly interesting. I just don't take fawning students with much seriousness, let alone the ones still handing out the cyanide punch. Most haven't done any independent verification, so don't add much to the true history. That the actual history is/was truly bizarre, certainly isn't my fault.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
On Apr 11, 2011, at 11:31 PM, wayback71 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote: Right! Looks to me that Vaj hates TM, for one reason or another. (re: somebody else's comment that he doesn't hate it). Why?, possibly, out of jealousy. I doubt that. I still do TM, but really, what's to be jealous of about TM or the TMO? Esp. since, as I've stated several times before, I actually had a very good and clear experience with TM. Lot's of nasty stuff coming out about MMY and the org - and much poor quality research. An organization in which the average age is continuing to rise since few new people learn. Many more people are interested in Buddhism and various mindfulness techniques these days - it is much more mainstream than TM and has many really together scientists and therapists advocating for it, and doing so while speaking plain old English without TM like jargon. They teach mindfulness in hospitals nationwide. True. I think Vaj genuinely believes that TM, MMY and the siddhis are not legit in the sense that the tradition from which MMY came does not honor MMY, there is no understanding of how to help someone grow if they encounter some difficulties, and he thinks the whole technique is suspect. He seems to feel that TM can produce some significant problems for many people - and it may be having people close to him seriously injured while doing TM that is motivating him. Of course, part and parcel of that is if you have TM diksha and enjoy TM, without side effects and use good common sense, it's probably best to stick with your TM. However, some of what he objects to in TMO is the same crap that you find in just about any spiritual organization, including Buddhism. It's the nature of the beast and of human nature. Power, sex, money, groupies, needing to convince others of your way, idealizing the teacher and putting your own common sense on hold, etc etc. And he sometimes compares TM with Buddhism when the comparison can't be made - since he holds up Buddhism as the template and then points out where TM doesn't measure up. I try to compare TM to my own experiences with Shank order gurus and lines, rather than across ways of seeing--but sometimes the inevitable side-by-side comparison is helpful, esp. re: meditation science.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
Vaj, you fault just about everything regarding TMO from the git go. But, another perspective might be that there was a generation of people that had a seeker mentality. In many cases this seeking was misdirected. Someone came along and said, hey consider this technique. Many took him up on his offer, and in many, cases their lives got on a more productive track. Now you come along and want to nullify this result by saying the technique and the teacher didn't have the right bonifides? I am not sure if many care about that. In fact, it has a strong elitist tone. You will say, that right from the outset he misrepresented himself and his tradition. You have presented evidence that you feel supports that position. Likely some of it is accurate, and some open to differneces of opinion. There is no doubt that in my mind that in many ways the movement got off track. But you would seem to negate much of the positive because you feel his lineage and documentation are not in proper order. Do I have this right? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 12, 2011, at 12:17 AM, seventhray1 wrote: Well, I will say that he seems really dialed in to this authenticity thing. And what authenticity thing is that? That he came from a legit line of the Shank of the North? Guru Dev instructed him in yoga and devised TM in the Bat Cave? He just doesn't come off the documentation tack. My thinking is that he rebelled as a youth and sought out his own path, but eventually came back to the family business. I kind of envision the Vajs' in a wood paneled library with leather arm chairs sipping cognac in crystal snifters discussing the lineage of their particular line of teachers. Good times! I just love history. The history of the TM movement is particularly interesting. I just don't take fawning students with much seriousness, let alone the ones still handing out the cyanide punch. Most haven't done any independent verification, so don't add much to the true history. That the actual history is/was truly bizarre, certainly isn't my fault.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
On Apr 12, 2011, at 8:23 AM, seventhray1 wrote: Vaj, you fault just about everything regarding TMO from the git go. But, another perspective might be that there was a generation of people that had a seeker mentality. In many cases this seeking was misdirected. Someone came along and said, hey consider this technique. Many took him up on his offer, and in many, cases their lives got on a more productive track. Now you come along and want to nullify this result by saying the technique and the teacher didn't have the right bonifides? I am not sure if many care about that. In fact, it has a strong elitist tone. You will say, that right from the outset he misrepresented himself and his tradition. You have presented evidence that you feel supports that position. Likely some of it is accurate, and some open to differneces of opinion. There is no doubt that in my mind that in many ways the movement got off track. But you would seem to negate much of the positive because you feel his lineage and documentation are not in proper order. Do I have this right? No. But it's a common reaction. I think there's a lot you're forgetting. You don't think saying His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi came from the Himalayas with a technique for the modern world from His Divinity Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, Jagadguru and Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math doesn't sound elitist (never mind that it's not true)? I always like Rick's insight from Amma--not because it came from Amma--but because it jives with my own experience: take the gems from the shit and leave the shit behind. But at the same time, why bother handing someone a platter of shit and ask them to sort it out, when you could have simply handed them a pile of gems in the first place?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: snip If there's a theme that I try to challenge in the TMO and in the modern-day hangers-on to a dying movement, it's what's going on right now on this forum -- Pile on the TM critic. Having claimed only a few posts ago that she does *not* choreograph systematic group demonization of TM critics, Judy is doing exactly that. Right, Bar. Hope you noticed, Sal is one of my goons now. I directed her to make the first negative comments on Vaj's practicing medicine without a license MMY-bashing. (Had to do it via telepathy because she doesn't read my posts.) Eager to please me, she actually followed up with *three more* posts dissing Vaj. I'm so proud of her. I even got her to tell Vaj he was losing it! Now, *that's* choreography. You could learn a thing or three from me; your attempts to choreograph systematic group demonization of TM supporters don't seem to be doing so well. belly laugh
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: right...not the TMO, I believe he hates TM because it works. His family is a group of elitists with preconceived but ill-founded notions of authenticity who (like the Son); were offended by the introduction of TM into the world by a Mc-Guru not fitting into their model. One of the fascinating things about Vaj's jihad against TM is that whenever he's discussed the actual instructions for practicing the technique, he's gotten them wildly wrong. He hasn't done that in a while, perhaps because the last time he tried, three TM teachers (Peter, raunchy, and the do.rk) told him flatly that he didn't know what he was talking about (echoed by moi, a trained but not certified checker). raunchy, as I recall, was flabbergasted when I informed her that Vaj claimed to have been a TM *teacher* when he pretty clearly didn't know how TM was practiced. He's also said some extremely dubious things about how the TM-Sidhis were practiced. And then there was his (inadvertent?) comment recently about how fortunate he was that information about MMY's alleged lack of authenticity always seemed to be instantly available to him when he asked--even though it appears he wasn't fortunate enough (despite his parents' view of MMY) to think to ask before he'd spent years and $$$ doing TM, TTC, and the TM-Sidhis. All of which leads one to wonder about his actual TM background. He doesn't have one. His and Barry's hate of everything pertaining to TM and the TMO is because it actually works and challenges conventional wisdom. While their Buddhism remains, for the most part, in the books.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
Hi Ravi, yeah it was fun to set the scene and play all the parts mentally to get the voices right. I have been enjoying your stuff too. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: :-), Thanks for the laughs - all of them are bald?..LOL.. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Scene: Away up north and east, in the New England panhandle, somewhere in Kobatsu Malone Country, a family is sitting down to dinner. They are buddhists. All of them are bald. The dinner is tofurkey: Vaj Sr.: Now dammit son, you were ten minutes late today for your Allow-No-Other-Religion-Other-Than-The-True-Religion mindfulness studies. Here we go again slacker! Vaj Jr: But dad, it was...yeah the narakas, I understand...no, I don't want to go there... but it was a long time ago, and I didn't even learn TM...dad!! Vaj Sr: You are gonna walk that eight fold path son, or so help me Avalokokitevara...! Vaj Mom: Honey...visualize non-violence, whirled peas, remember your breathing... Vaj Jr: OK...ok...Look, I promise tomorrow, no one, I mean no one is gettin' anything on me - I'm gunna rip that MMY a new one, him an' his posse!! Vaj Sr.: That's my bodhi! Vaj Mom: That's funny, I thought MMY was...? oh nevermind. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: snip He keeps low on the radar since. Indians need to be extra careful if they're still in India or have family there. More of the same crap, only worse, because he's made it so nonspecific you can't call him on it or ask for documentation. What he wants you to *infer* is that the doctor is afraid he or his family will be hurt or killed by evil TMO forces in retaliation. How is this not the tactic of a hater?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: right...not the TMO, I believe he hates TM because it works. His family is a group of elitists with preconceived but ill-founded notions of authenticity who (like the Son); were offended by the introduction of TM into the world by a Mc-Guru not fitting into their model. One of the fascinating things about Vaj's jihad against TM is that whenever he's discussed the actual instructions for practicing the technique, he's gotten them wildly wrong. He hasn't done that in a while, perhaps because the last time he tried, three TM teachers (Peter, raunchy, and the do.rk) told him flatly that he didn't know what he was talking about (echoed by moi, a trained but not certified checker). You have made this allegation several times in the past. Can you please provide me with some message #'s so that I may look them up and decide for myself the veracity of his claims. Using raunchy as a source doesn't quite cut the mustard for me. I have read Vaj's postings that he has practiced TM and became an Initiator. I am also aware he has not publicly stated which TTC he attended. There are possibly several valid reasons for not revealing that. Thank you in advance. It would clear up some confusion. raunchy, as I recall, was flabbergasted when I informed her that Vaj claimed to have been a TM *teacher* when he pretty clearly didn't know how TM was practiced. He's also said some extremely dubious things about how the TM-Sidhis were practiced. And then there was his (inadvertent?) comment recently about how fortunate he was that information about MMY's alleged lack of authenticity always seemed to be instantly available to him when he asked--even though it appears he wasn't fortunate enough (despite his parents' view of MMY) to think to ask before he'd spent years and $$$ doing TM, TTC, and the TM-Sidhis. All of which leads one to wonder about his actual TM background. But that's the way life is from generation to generation, and why nobody has been successful at predicting the future. Events turn out to be radically different than what people expect; with all of the molds broken and progress made by the radical, creative pioneers. http://www.startlingart.com/Viewer.asp?ImageSource=fine_artFileName=The_Reality_of_Nothing snip
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
Vaj's question: why not go right to the gems, avoiding the crap. That's the whole crux of the matter, isn't it? In order to discern, one must actually do the Coke/Pepsi taste test, not prematurely judge one or the other on the basis of supposed authenticity. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 12, 2011, at 8:23 AM, seventhray1 wrote: Vaj, you fault just about everything regarding TMO from the git go. But, another perspective might be that there was a generation of people that had a seeker mentality. In many cases this seeking was misdirected. Someone came along and said, hey consider this technique. Many took him up on his offer, and in many, cases their lives got on a more productive track. Now you come along and want to nullify this result by saying the technique and the teacher didn't have the right bonifides? I am not sure if many care about that. In fact, it has a strong elitist tone. You will say, that right from the outset he misrepresented himself and his tradition. You have presented evidence that you feel supports that position. Likely some of it is accurate, and some open to differneces of opinion. There is no doubt that in my mind that in many ways the movement got off track. But you would seem to negate much of the positive because you feel his lineage and documentation are not in proper order. Do I have this right? No. But it's a common reaction. I think there's a lot you're forgetting. You don't think saying His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi came from the Himalayas with a technique for the modern world from His Divinity Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, Jagadguru and Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math doesn't sound elitist (never mind that it's not true)? I always like Rick's insight from Amma--not because it came from Amma--but because it jives with my own experience: take the gems from the shit and leave the shit behind. But at the same time, why bother handing someone a platter of shit and ask them to sort it out, when you could have simply handed them a pile of gems in the first place?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip One of the fascinating things about Vaj's jihad against TM is that whenever he's discussed the actual instructions for practicing the technique, he's gotten them wildly wrong. He hasn't done that in a while, perhaps because the last time he tried, three TM teachers (Peter, raunchy, and the do.rk) told him flatly that he didn't know what he was talking about (echoed by moi, a trained but not certified checker). You have made this allegation several times in the past. Can you please provide me with some message #'s so that I may look them up and decide for myself the veracity of his claims. Happy to. The big discussion, in August 2009, began with this post from Vaj: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/226302 In that discussion, these are the posts from raunchy, BillyG, and the do.rk disputing Vaj's description of the instructions for TM: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/226335 (raunchy) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/226341 (BillyG) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/226350 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/226359 (the do.rk) (I'd forgotten BillyG--he makes *four* teachers who disputed Vaj. I can't find Peter's post, but it's in there somewhere. My analysis is in there too.) The discussion was revived by Vaj in December 2010, here (starting with my response, which quotes him; you can track back to his post if you want to make sure I didn't quote him out of context): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/263765 And a relevant follow-up from me: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/263767 I erred, BTW, in my earlier post when I said the teachers had come down on him the *last* time he brought up the instructions for TM. It was the time before that, in 2009, but as you'll see the issues were identical. I believe there were a couple of similar disputes even earlier, back on alt.m.t. And there have been others who have expressed doubt about Vaj's status as a TMer/teacher as well, in other threads. Using raunchy as a source doesn't quite cut the mustard for me. That's unfortunate, and rather perplexing given the concurrence of the other three teachers. I have read Vaj's postings that he has practiced TM and became an Initiator. I am also aware he has not publicly stated which TTC he attended. There are possibly several valid reasons for not revealing that. Sure, that in and of itself may or may not be significant in this context. But getting the instructions for practice wrong tends to put some weight on the significant side of his refusal to say which TTC he went to. Thank you in advance. It would clear up some confusion. You're welcome. Thank you for asking. It would be a good thing, IMHO, to get this cleared up, if possible.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
The fascinating thing is that none of this strikes her as in the least obsessive, and as a multi-year, ongoing, compulsive attempt to get someone who just coincident- ally happens to be a TM critic. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip One of the fascinating things about Vaj's jihad against TM is that whenever he's discussed the actual instructions for practicing the technique, he's gotten them wildly wrong. He hasn't done that in a while, perhaps because the last time he tried, three TM teachers (Peter, raunchy, and the do.rk) told him flatly that he didn't know what he was talking about (echoed by moi, a trained but not certified checker). You have made this allegation several times in the past. Can you please provide me with some message #'s so that I may look them up and decide for myself the veracity of his claims. Happy to. The big discussion, in August 2009, began with this post from Vaj: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/226302 In that discussion, these are the posts from raunchy, BillyG, and the do.rk disputing Vaj's description of the instructions for TM: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/226335 (raunchy) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/226341 (BillyG) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/226350 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/226359 (the do.rk) (I'd forgotten BillyG--he makes *four* teachers who disputed Vaj. I can't find Peter's post, but it's in there somewhere. My analysis is in there too.) The discussion was revived by Vaj in December 2010, here (starting with my response, which quotes him; you can track back to his post if you want to make sure I didn't quote him out of context): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/263765 And a relevant follow-up from me: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/263767 I erred, BTW, in my earlier post when I said the teachers had come down on him the *last* time he brought up the instructions for TM. It was the time before that, in 2009, but as you'll see the issues were identical. I believe there were a couple of similar disputes even earlier, back on alt.m.t. And there have been others who have expressed doubt about Vaj's status as a TMer/teacher as well, in other threads. Using raunchy as a source doesn't quite cut the mustard for me. That's unfortunate, and rather perplexing given the concurrence of the other three teachers. I have read Vaj's postings that he has practiced TM and became an Initiator. I am also aware he has not publicly stated which TTC he attended. There are possibly several valid reasons for not revealing that. Sure, that in and of itself may or may not be significant in this context. But getting the instructions for practice wrong tends to put some weight on the significant side of his refusal to say which TTC he went to. Thank you in advance. It would clear up some confusion. You're welcome. Thank you for asking. It would be a good thing, IMHO, to get this cleared up, if possible.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
Multi-year obsession for truth always beats multi-year obsession for falsity, deception and slander. You go girl!!! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: The fascinating thing is that none of this strikes her as in the least obsessive, and as a multi-year, ongoing, compulsive attempt to get someone who just coincident- ally happens to be a TM critic. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip One of the fascinating things about Vaj's jihad against TM is that whenever he's discussed the actual instructions for practicing the technique, he's gotten them wildly wrong. He hasn't done that in a while, perhaps because the last time he tried, three TM teachers (Peter, raunchy, and the do.rk) told him flatly that he didn't know what he was talking about (echoed by moi, a trained but not certified checker). You have made this allegation several times in the past. Can you please provide me with some message #'s so that I may look them up and decide for myself the veracity of his claims. Happy to. The big discussion, in August 2009, began with this post from Vaj: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/226302 In that discussion, these are the posts from raunchy, BillyG, and the do.rk disputing Vaj's description of the instructions for TM: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/226335 (raunchy) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/226341 (BillyG) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/226350 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/226359 (the do.rk) (I'd forgotten BillyG--he makes *four* teachers who disputed Vaj. I can't find Peter's post, but it's in there somewhere. My analysis is in there too.) The discussion was revived by Vaj in December 2010, here (starting with my response, which quotes him; you can track back to his post if you want to make sure I didn't quote him out of context): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/263765 And a relevant follow-up from me: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/263767 I erred, BTW, in my earlier post when I said the teachers had come down on him the *last* time he brought up the instructions for TM. It was the time before that, in 2009, but as you'll see the issues were identical. I believe there were a couple of similar disputes even earlier, back on alt.m.t. And there have been others who have expressed doubt about Vaj's status as a TMer/teacher as well, in other threads. Using raunchy as a source doesn't quite cut the mustard for me. That's unfortunate, and rather perplexing given the concurrence of the other three teachers. I have read Vaj's postings that he has practiced TM and became an Initiator. I am also aware he has not publicly stated which TTC he attended. There are possibly several valid reasons for not revealing that. Sure, that in and of itself may or may not be significant in this context. But getting the instructions for practice wrong tends to put some weight on the significant side of his refusal to say which TTC he went to. Thank you in advance. It would clear up some confusion. You're welcome. Thank you for asking. It would be a good thing, IMHO, to get this cleared up, if possible.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
Is it possible to donate posts for this charitable cause?? I don't mind donating 20 posts every week to Judy. Keep getting 'em Judy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: Multi-year obsession for truth always beats multi-year obsession for falsity, deception and slander. You go girl!!! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: The fascinating thing is that none of this strikes her as in the least obsessive, and as a multi-year, ongoing, compulsive attempt to get someone who just coincident- ally happens to be a TM critic. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip One of the fascinating things about Vaj's jihad against TM is that whenever he's discussed the actual instructions for practicing the technique, he's gotten them wildly wrong. He hasn't done that in a while, perhaps because the last time he tried, three TM teachers (Peter, raunchy, and the do.rk) told him flatly that he didn't know what he was talking about (echoed by moi, a trained but not certified checker). You have made this allegation several times in the past. Can you please provide me with some message #'s so that I may look them up and decide for myself the veracity of his claims. Happy to. The big discussion, in August 2009, began with this post from Vaj: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/226302 In that discussion, these are the posts from raunchy, BillyG, and the do.rk disputing Vaj's description of the instructions for TM: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/226335 (raunchy) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/226341 (BillyG) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/226350 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/226359 (the do.rk) (I'd forgotten BillyG--he makes *four* teachers who disputed Vaj. I can't find Peter's post, but it's in there somewhere. My analysis is in there too.) The discussion was revived by Vaj in December 2010, here (starting with my response, which quotes him; you can track back to his post if you want to make sure I didn't quote him out of context): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/263765 And a relevant follow-up from me: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/263767 I erred, BTW, in my earlier post when I said the teachers had come down on him the *last* time he brought up the instructions for TM. It was the time before that, in 2009, but as you'll see the issues were identical. I believe there were a couple of similar disputes even earlier, back on alt.m.t. And there have been others who have expressed doubt about Vaj's status as a TMer/teacher as well, in other threads. Using raunchy as a source doesn't quite cut the mustard for me. That's unfortunate, and rather perplexing given the concurrence of the other three teachers. I have read Vaj's postings that he has practiced TM and became an Initiator. I am also aware he has not publicly stated which TTC he attended. There are possibly several valid reasons for not revealing that. Sure, that in and of itself may or may not be significant in this context. But getting the instructions for practice wrong tends to put some weight on the significant side of his refusal to say which TTC he went to. Thank you in advance. It would clear up some confusion. You're welcome. Thank you for asking. It would be a good thing, IMHO, to get this cleared up, if possible.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
On Apr 12, 2011, at 4:06 PM, turquoiseb wrote: The fascinating thing is that none of this strikes her as in the least obsessive, and as a multi-year, ongoing, compulsive attempt to get someone who just coincident- ally happens to be a TM critic. Apparently Judy missed the part in her instruction which says we always start with half a minute of silence. No wonder she's so messed up! She starts the mantra from the discursive level. I thought so. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
So, you're fascinated by Judy's posts! turquoiseb: The fascinating thing is that none of this strikes her as in the least obsessive, and as a multi-year, ongoing, compulsive attempt to get someone who just coincident- ally happens to be a TM critic. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip One of the fascinating things about Vaj's jihad against TM is that whenever he's discussed the actual instructions for practicing the technique, he's gotten them wildly wrong. He hasn't done that in a while, perhaps because the last time he tried, three TM teachers (Peter, raunchy, and the do.rk) told him flatly that he didn't know what he was talking about (echoed by moi, a trained but not certified checker). You have made this allegation several times in the past. Can you please provide me with some message #'s so that I may look them up and decide for myself the veracity of his claims. Happy to. The big discussion, in August 2009, began with this post from Vaj: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/226302 In that discussion, these are the posts from raunchy, BillyG, and the do.rk disputing Vaj's description of the instructions for TM: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/226335 (raunchy) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/226341 (BillyG) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/226350 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/226359 (the do.rk) (I'd forgotten BillyG--he makes *four* teachers who disputed Vaj. I can't find Peter's post, but it's in there somewhere. My analysis is in there too.) The discussion was revived by Vaj in December 2010, here (starting with my response, which quotes him; you can track back to his post if you want to make sure I didn't quote him out of context): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/263765 And a relevant follow-up from me: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/263767 I erred, BTW, in my earlier post when I said the teachers had come down on him the *last* time he brought up the instructions for TM. It was the time before that, in 2009, but as you'll see the issues were identical. I believe there were a couple of similar disputes even earlier, back on alt.m.t. And there have been others who have expressed doubt about Vaj's status as a TMer/teacher as well, in other threads. Using raunchy as a source doesn't quite cut the mustard for me. That's unfortunate, and rather perplexing given the concurrence of the other three teachers. I have read Vaj's postings that he has practiced TM and became an Initiator. I am also aware he has not publicly stated which TTC he attended. There are possibly several valid reasons for not revealing that. Sure, that in and of itself may or may not be significant in this context. But getting the instructions for practice wrong tends to put some weight on the significant side of his refusal to say which TTC he went to. Thank you in advance. It would clear up some confusion. You're welcome. Thank you for asking. It would be a good thing, IMHO, to get this cleared up, if possible.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote: Steveji - Just to let you know I was just joking on the god hater part. I don't know if God is a non-negotiable tenant for me, I was mostly anti-God most of my life. For me the most satisfying answers come from text like Yoga Vasishtha and Tripura Rahasya - that the concept of a dream explains it most and that the existence is just a long, sustained dream of the creator. So how can I, the dream object of this creator truly understand the nature and agents through which the creator is sustaining this dream like existence. So I am at the same place as you are, the only thing that can be done for now is to realize the dream like quality of this existence and to just be joyous and playful while being in the dream and enjoy the ride with a childlike wonder !!! So the question of trying to understand or philosophize about while being in his or her dream seems to be a fruitless activity. Jesus, I mean Krishna, I mean Ambika Ravi. High five brother! I have vastly underestimated you. Thank you, may be with your endorsement Rick can finally rest with ease..LOL..not that I give a damn, I tricked him the first time around and thats good enough for me..:-). Have to thank Barry in fact for making sure my video is still online. I don't feel that seeing our beautiful creation and life itself as illusion or a dream is productive. Being productive is something I have struggled with a lot. And after my experiences in fact I got depressed a coupld of times because I was not sure what I wanted to do - I even wanted to become a homeless mendicant..:-). It took me some time to slowly integrate and balance and come to my senses. Luckily I had and have the guidance of my Guru Ammachi who's guiding me to actually put it into practice - she's created situations where I do seva (service) at the ashram and she sent me people along where I was forced to develop empathy even though I knew that they were just so identified with their misery, but since I was miserable myself in the past it was easy to picture myself in their shoes. I do a good job of entertaining everyone with my playful humor no doubt pissing off a lot of serious mature, responsible people who think spirituality is a very very serious business and others who can't believe I can be joyful after my painful divorce and not being around my kids; some especially Indians shocked at my carefree behavior after believing the story of my ex on how I abandoned her and the kids. Tripura Rahasya (Chapter 3 to 10) has a beautiful story to illustrate how you could still view the existence as dream like and still be productive. The story of how Princess Hemalekha, a jivan mukta (realized while living) transforms her husband the Prince and how the whole city then eventually became jivan muktas themselves. It ends with : The whole state was thus composed only of sages and philosophers, be they men or women; servant boys or servant-maids, dramatic actors or fashionable folk; artisans or laborers; ministers or harlots. They nevertheless acted in their professions in harmony with creation. They never cared to recapitulate the past or speculate on the future with a view to gain pleasure or avoid pain, but acted for the time being (in the present moment), laughing, rejoicing, crying or shouting like drunkards, thus dissipating all their latent tendencies. This is where I feel the caste system was so misunderstood but was so helpful in the past, people understood their samskaras (innate tendencies), people never married out of the caste, because only an intellectual (Brahmin) could be born to an intellectual set of parents - all the rules were laid down and it was just so easy for everyone to act according to their dharma(right action) which made it easy for people to attain liberation and not to be confronted with the dreaded question how could they be productive. As you can see the question wouldn't even arise. I'm not advocating to going to the past, but you can see how the caste system was based on dharma and identify the samskaras. Obviously with the advent of Kali Yuga all the rules have changes. People have lost the importance of samskaras and dharma. That's why I get mad and react the way I do when I see people here condemning the Bhagavad Gita as one of the dangerous books in the history of mankind - sorry but they don't get it. It might not be entirely applicable to Kali Yuga but it offers interesting insights, certainly there's no reason to condemn it. But I catch the humility with which you express our human condition and I dig it. I think any genuine experience should make one more humble. And love and compassion are important values to inculcate so one doesn't turn cold and heartless to human plight. That is why I keep repeating to people that Ammachi's whole purpose is to develop the heart
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote: On Apr 10, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Vaj wrote: On Apr 10, 2011, at 3:49 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: You and I both have evidence that this is the case from a very reliable source Judy. I can't say more than that, but come on! or as having blood on his hands, It means guilty. It is a dramatic way of saying he was guilty of something. In my case, it specifically refers to the fact that he was directly responsible for encouraging people to take an ayurvedic approach to life threatening diseases, and then these same people died because of that enlightened advice. Vaj, do you really believe this makes MMY guilty of something? What, specifically? Giving dumb advice? Were these people forcibly kept from seeing doctors? Or was it their choice on what advice to take or not take? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that some crappy-looking concoction made from cow dung (amongst other things) probably won't cure any life-threatening illnesses. Or any other kind. I took one look at that junk and said, Forget it. The people who took such advice were still responsible for their own decisions. Even in general, he characterized western medicine as poison, probably affecting many indirectly via general advice. Similarly with TM and TMSP where numerous folks have committed suicide, suffered psychosis or even where entire courses appear to have had psychotic breaks. Some ex-Sidhas have Tourettes like damage and symptoms to this day. Well, presumably nothing is keeping them from seeking medical help (if they haven't). And from what little I know, many of the people on THP or MD are well-off enough to have their own insurance. I personally think the TMO should have a group policy, but they knew the score when they signed up. Sal Thank you Sally, you are right that one can't just leave their discrimination aside. Some people are ever so eager to let someone take charge of lives and to avoid accountability of their actions. They also don't seem to understand the role and significance of a spiritual Guru and the need to separate the inner and outer lives. I myself am not in favor of Western medicine but I do recognize instances where I do see its usefulness and will not hesitate to use it. Also my misgivings about Western medicine doesn't translate into condemning others if they do. I'm glad you are questioning the cult mindset of these individuals.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote: So the question of trying to understand or philosophize about while being in his or her dream seems to be a fruitless activity. Well said. Thank you, as you can see I sat and contemplated on your post for a while - it was not an easy question to answer by the way..:-). I was tempted to not reply at all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: That was for me a good example of child like wonder, you could see the intellectual scientist wanting to help the innocent villagers who themselves don't see any need for being helped. That strikes me as funny. Someone cramming their world view down another cultures throat for their own good. Reminds me of some of the things in that Joe Bageant article a couple days ago. I really enjoyed that.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
On Apr 10, 2011, at 10:28 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote: In my case, it specifically refers to the fact that he was directly responsible for encouraging people to take an ayurvedic approach to life threatening diseases, and then these same people died because of that enlightened advice. Vaj, do you really believe this makes MMY guilty of something? What, specifically? Giving dumb advice? - Giving medical advice without a license, resulting in death. And then sometimes collecting the money owed from these failed, overpriced Ayurvedic interventions from the deceased greaving families. - psychological and neurological damage from over-meditation and unregulated meditation practice. This has been talked of repeatedly and in considerable detail here before: from Saraswati yogins who've diagnosed Sidhas with terrible meditational diseases (yes, there are classes of meditational disorders) and the Merv wave which resulted in a huge influx of whigged out TMers to psychiatric hospitals (e.g. New York City), are just two examples that come to mind. Were these people forcibly kept from seeing doctors? Or was it their choice on what advice to take or not take? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that some crappy-looking concoction made from cow dung (amongst other things) probably won't cure any life-threatening illnesses. Or any other kind. I took one look at that junk and said, Forget it. The people who took such advice were still responsible for their own decisions. He was looked at as a wise, all-knowing, enlightened figure. Little did people know that once the giggling once slipped off the stage, he was screwing young students and switched into a gruff businessman. It was all an act. Nor did many know he wasn't the enlightened figure he presented himself as. He was not authorized by his own teacher (quite the opposite) and his own teachings are different from those taught by his teacher. Indeed M's teachings are often in direct conflict with Swami Brahmananda's teachings. The TM puja is actually derived from a scholar/student of Guru Dev's poetry, which SBS told Mahesh to destroy. He did not, but instead repurposed it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
Damn this guy must have been powerful. I think it's fair to say he made one hell of an impression on you. And you were from a family of yogis. How do you make that wrong turn? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 10, 2011, at 10:28 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote: In my case, it specifically refers to the fact that he was directly responsible for encouraging people to take an ayurvedic approach to life threatening diseases, and then these same people died because of that enlightened advice. Vaj, do you really believe this makes MMY guilty of something? What, specifically? Giving dumb advice? - Giving medical advice without a license, resulting in death. And then sometimes collecting the money owed from these failed, overpriced Ayurvedic interventions from the deceased greaving families. - psychological and neurological damage from over-meditation and unregulated meditation practice. This has been talked of repeatedly and in considerable detail here before: from Saraswati yogins who've diagnosed Sidhas with terrible meditational diseases (yes, there are classes of meditational disorders) and the Merv wave which resulted in a huge influx of whigged out TMers to psychiatric hospitals (e.g. New York City), are just two examples that come to mind. Were these people forcibly kept from seeing doctors? Or was it their choice on what advice to take or not take? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that some crappy-looking concoction made from cow dung (amongst other things) probably won't cure any life-threatening illnesses. Or any other kind. I took one look at that junk and said, Forget it. The people who took such advice were still responsible for their own decisions. He was looked at as a wise, all-knowing, enlightened figure. Little did people know that once the giggling once slipped off the stage, he was screwing young students and switched into a gruff businessman. It was all an act. Nor did many know he wasn't the enlightened figure he presented himself as. He was not authorized by his own teacher (quite the opposite) and his own teachings are different from those taught by his teacher. Indeed M's teachings are often in direct conflict with Swami Brahmananda's teachings. The TM puja is actually derived from a scholar/student of Guru Dev's poetry, which SBS told Mahesh to destroy. He did not, but instead repurposed it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
On Apr 11, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Vaj wrote: - Giving medical advice without a license, resulting in death. And then sometimes collecting the money owed from these failed, overpriced Ayurvedic interventions from the deceased greaving families. Also the Maharishi's drug company, MAPI, sells numerous medicines containing poisons. Some containing lead are actually still marketed and sold to pregnant women in India. At least one pregnant woman was poisoned in Iowa that we know of.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
On Apr 11, 2011, at 8:44 AM, seventhray1 wrote: Damn this guy must have been powerful. I think it's fair to say he made one hell of an impression on you. And you were from a family of yogis. How do you make that wrong turn? Not listening to their advice. They saw him for who he was. He certainly did put on one hell of an act! It was superficially impressive. But I've actually been very, very fortunate to meet some real good people. We live in an age where most commercial gurus are phonies. It's the norm. And really, historically, yogis have had a rather shady history. They're consistently portrayed as bad guys in Bollywood movies to this day...for a reason.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote: On Apr 10, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Vaj wrote: On Apr 10, 2011, at 3:49 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: You and I both have evidence that this is the case from a very reliable source Judy. I can't say more than that, but come on! or as having blood on his hands, It means guilty. It is a dramatic way of saying he was guilty of something. In my case, it specifically refers to the fact that he was directly responsible for encouraging people to take an ayurvedic approach to life threatening diseases, and then these same people died because of that enlightened advice. Vaj, do you really believe this makes MMY guilty of something? What, specifically? Giving dumb advice? Were these people forcibly kept from seeing doctors? Or was it their choice on what advice to take or not take? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that some crappy-looking concoction made from cow dung (amongst other things) probably won't cure any life-threatening illnesses. Or any other kind. I took one look at that junk and said, Forget it. The people who took such advice were still responsible for their own decisions. Even in general, he characterized western medicine as poison, probably affecting many indirectly via general advice. Similarly with TM and TMSP where numerous folks have committed suicide, suffered psychosis or even where entire courses appear to have had psychotic breaks. Some ex-Sidhas have Tourettes like damage and symptoms to this day. Well, presumably nothing is keeping them from seeking medical help (if they haven't). And from what little I know, many of the people on THP or MD are well-off enough to have their own insurance. I personally think the TMO should have a group policy, but they knew the score when they signed up. Sal Far too down-to-earth and sensible Sal.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
Whew, glad you dodged that bullet Vaj! Too bad for the rest of us poor bastards, eh? our minds twisted by the dark yogi, idas and pingalas choked and deviating, soaring and plunging on the manic depressive roller coaster of a deflected rising - oh help us Vaj, help us!! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Apr 11, 2011, at 8:44 AM, seventhray1 wrote: Damn this guy must have been powerful. I think it's fair to say he made one hell of an impression on you. And you were from a family of yogis. How do you make that wrong turn? Not listening to their advice. They saw him for who he was. He certainly did put on one hell of an act! It was superficially impressive. But I've actually been very, very fortunate to meet some real good people. We live in an age where most commercial gurus are phonies. It's the norm. And really, historically, yogis have had a rather shady history. They're consistently portrayed as bad guys in Bollywood movies to this day...for a reason.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: Damn this guy must have been powerful. I think it's fair to say he made one hell of an impression on you. And you were from a family of yogis. How do you make that wrong turn? And a scientist to boot remember! I've expressed my curiosity about that, but have not been rewarded for my trouble. I suppose it's one of those if I tell you I'll have to kill you kind of things. Buddhist scientist perhaps? Post-modern scientist perhaps? Not that it matters of course. Hey, anyone watch the Masters finish? You don't see much discussion of sport hereabouts. Why is that? Never mind Zen and the art of archery that final nine holes had lots of spiritual/consciousness challenges for the participants. Tiger battling his demons(grumpily but successfully); Poor old Mcilroy loosing it big time; The newbie young dude getting in the zone down the final four to win. Magnificent! How can anyone do that kind of thing without being some sort of master of consciousness? And yet... All that self-knowledge that's required, the self-control, the discipline, the heightened intuition, the 'equanimity in success and failure' (Mcilroy's going to need that!) - what does all that development of consciousness deliver? Any enlightenment? Alas the sport of Golf, and, it has to be said, pro golfers as a breed, have this association with the naff, the dull, the boring and the shallow. Actually that seems hardly fair of two of my personal favourites - the cigar-chomping Jimenez and the rather portly Angel Cabrera (El Pato - The Duck). Nevertheless it's fair to say that golfers are considered more boring than your average athlete. So, why doesn't the extraordinary mental and physical discipline of Golf, at least comparable to the practice of most of the great yogis here on FFL and elsewhere, why doesn't that practice produce more enlightenment? I saw an explanation on these lines: the biggest reason that today's golfers are boring is that golf has always attracted people who can tolerate quiet and solitude and are detail-oriented and perfectionistic. To be really good at golf, it helps to have total control of your emotions, or just have no emotions at all. It's just the way the game is, and the really good players who win tournaments will tend to be the ones who are kind of boring to talk to. Would SBS have been a good golfer? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Apr 10, 2011, at 10:28 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote: In my case, it specifically refers to the fact that he was directly responsible for encouraging people to take an ayurvedic approach to life threatening diseases, and then these same people died because of that enlightened advice. Vaj, do you really believe this makes MMY guilty of something? What, specifically? Giving dumb advice? - Giving medical advice without a license, resulting in death. And then sometimes collecting the money owed from these failed, overpriced Ayurvedic interventions from the deceased greaving families. - psychological and neurological damage from over-meditation and unregulated meditation practice. This has been talked of repeatedly and in considerable detail here before: from Saraswati yogins who've diagnosed Sidhas with terrible meditational diseases (yes, there are classes of meditational disorders) and the Merv wave which resulted in a huge influx of whigged out TMers to psychiatric hospitals (e.g. New York City), are just two examples that come to mind. Were these people forcibly kept from seeing doctors? Or was it their choice on what advice to take or not take? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that some crappy-looking concoction made from cow dung (amongst other things) probably won't cure any life-threatening illnesses. Or any other kind. I took one look at that junk and said, Forget it. The people who took such advice were still responsible for their own decisions. He was looked at as a wise, all-knowing, enlightened figure. Little did people know that once the giggling once slipped off the stage, he was screwing young students and switched into a gruff businessman. It was all an act. Nor did many know he wasn't the enlightened figure he presented himself as. He was not authorized by his own teacher (quite the opposite) and his own teachings are different from those taught by his teacher. Indeed M's teachings are often in direct conflict with Swami Brahmananda's teachings. The TM puja is actually derived from a scholar/student of Guru Dev's poetry, which SBS told Mahesh to destroy. He did not, but instead repurposed it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TMO using the economic psychology model
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I think one's ability to evaluate behavior is pretty much the same whether it's evaluating posting behavior or live behavior. If one isn't very good at the former, one isn't likely to be very good at the latter either. We are going down the rabbit hole on this one but I have a way out for us both. I will give specific examples below. But the largest point is that you are making a big deal about not trusting my impressions of Maharishi. Actually it was a minor point as far as I was concerned, just a consequence of my amazement at how inadequate your analyses of Barry's and Vaj's posts seemed to me. You took great umbrage, which resulted in its becoming a much bigger deal than it should have. I realize how little this matters. My issues with Maharishi don't have to do with things I saw or experienced (darshon or tantrums) but *how he treated people* and what he promoted as beliefs which I think are wrong. [my emphasis] It's not totally clear to me what distinction you're making here, or what it has to do with what we've been talking about. But to bring it back to *my* main point, your evaluation of Barry's and Vaj's posts: one of the major things you left out was *how they treat people*, specifically the TMers here, in those posts. snip But somehow you seemed to think you had a way of knowing that I had never given any of them any credibility. You are losing me here. I accept the correction that my brush was too broad because I have only shared a few personal experiences of Maharishi here, darshon and his temper tantrums that I can recall. Everything else is just my opinion of his actions that we both have access to. Yes, I'm talking about any and all of your impressions/opinions. So since you started this whole line of thinking, I would like to know specifically what I have said about my experience of Maharishi or my impressions of him that my lack of applying the term TM hater to Vaj and Barry causes you to doubt? Oh, gee, Curtis, it's your impressions of his behavior in general, and that was just a side point anyway. snip I suspect on reflection that you probably accepted my glowing descriptions of darshon. We have to get more specific here. No, some of your negative ones as well. (See the quote at the end from an earlier discussion for an example.) snip Oh yes the real point. You are making a case that name calling which paints people in a one dimensional way is justified and I am appealing for a more nuanced view of people here beyond the labels. But that more nuanced view of the two people whose posts you profiled somehow managed to omit the characteristics that have led Doug to use the term TM haters in the first place. So again you are championing the idea that name calling is a positive step in communications here. I am not. As I've said, I don't think it *is* name calling. And I'm not saying it's a positive step, simply that it isn't the abusive approach you're portraying it as. I mean, it's as if you were trying to defend Charlie Sheen from the charge that he was a nutcase by citing his acting ability. We are obviously focusing on different aspects of their posts Yes indeed. But remember what I said was not that you were wrong in your descriptions of what you were focusing on, but rather that you were *leaving out* a whole lot. and they relate very differently to me than they do to you. Right. Charlie Sheen probably relates very differently to journalists interviewing him about his latest film than he does to his wife. But the journalist writing a profile of Sheen would be fully justified in asserting that Sheen is a lovely, cooperative guy, a real gentleman and a fine actor, and leaving it at that. Nobody could complain about that, right? snip Yes of course. I am not blaming you for bringing them in but am noticing that we get our worst posts in discussing them. At least I find them the least satisfying. Probably because there seems to be very little middle ground with you about them and vice versa BTW. I don't take pleasure in looking at either of you through the other's eyes, I prefer my own. See above about Charlie Sheen, the journalists, and his wife. (Or girlfriend; I'm not sure which it was he threatened with a knife.) snip And when the verbal expression of that belief is heavily freighted with viciousness and vengefulness- We are not going to see eye to eye with these terms, sorry. How could we when you don't see the behavior I'm describing?? You fastidiously refrain from reading those posts, as you've pointed out many times. Even more so when those expressions frequently involve dishonesty, which suggests the emotional response is so intense and extreme that being straightforward just isn't
