[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 12, 2011, at 8:10 PM, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: The current successor wasn't even at the ashram when SBS died, He was studying with another guru. Smart man. It's never good to be attached. My point was simply that anything he had to say about MMY's involvement with whatever went on during/after SBS's death was based on hearsay. He wasn't there. In fact, I could make a case that a substantial portion of the rank and file monks AT the ashram accepted the will because without THEIR support, there never would have been a controversy. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
And while your at it, you should also try to get a copy of the recent interview with SBS's successor. sparaig: The current successor wasn't even at the ashram when SBS died, He was studying with another guru. Apparently SBS passed away in Calcutta and only three others were present at the time. SBS did not spend much time at Jyotirmath. According to what I've read, SBS was at Jyotirmath on only two occasions, for less than three weeks during the warm season. The only succussor to SBS is Swami Vasudevananda in the desciplic succession. Swami Svarupanand took another guru and Svarup was NOT mentioned in the will of SBS. Swami Svarupanand became the Shankaracharya in the early 1980s of the Dwarakapeeth. Soon afterwards, the Parishad and others asked him to choose to remain the Shankaracharya of only one of the peeths and give up the other. According to Vidyasankar Sundaresan, Swami Shantanand was succeeded by Swami Vasudevanand. Swami Vasudevanand is the sole remaining representative of the Guru Dev lineage... Jyotirmath Sankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century By Vidyasankar Sundaresan http://indology.info/papers/sundaresan/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
On Dec 11, 2011, at 2:53 AM, sparaig wrote: Well, you see, I think it is YOU who are missing MMY's nuances here. Certainly stress can have good and bad qualities (eustress and distress). However, anything that pulls one away from the quality of functioning of the nervous system where pure consciousness is always present, is stressful. That doesn't mean that it can't be fun, beneficial in its own way etc. only that it isn't pure consciousness. Of course, the point of the TM *program* is to alternate meditation, which approaches the state of pure consciousness, with regular activity, which is inherently stressful, so that eventually one can be in a state where pure consciousness is never lost. This doesn't mean that activity will cease to be stressful in the western sense, only that the nervous system has become strong enough to maintain pure consciousness, at least during relatively stressful activity. In a sense, you could say that all activity has become eustress- ish, though, of course, some activity is more inherently eustressful than other activity. I think you're missing what Mahesh was trying to say. He was obviously attempting to put the idea of the purification of the nadis into terms that westerners could understand, and at the same time give it a veneer of respectability by attempting to make it look scientific. Two things though: the two are not reconcilable as there is no (none, zero, zip) science on nadi-bindu-vayu and stress and secondly Mahesh had little experiential knowledge of these deeper and essential practices. This becomes manifestly obvious if you listen to the tapes where M. tried to muddle his way thru these descriptions of stress in the nadis - which are most likely ripped straight out of Arthur Avalon's books. But it's clear he doesn't have a clue to what he's talking about, but it does lend further credence to the fact that he was prompted by western students prior to his revelations. Since he was caught at Estes Park doing this and we have evidence up and through the Swiss period, we know his knowledge was not self knowledge, but gleaned from common translations of tantric texts. So anyone who puts any validity into his unstressing schtick is just fooling themselves.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
On Dec 11, 2011, at 3:04 AM, sparaig wrote: I like to cite my old friend Anoop Chandola, who is not only a Sanskrit/Hindu scholar, but has one very close family member who was part of the committee who selected SBS in the first place. Appeal to authority or argumentum ad verecundiam is a common logical fallacy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
Eh, as I said, I have a friend who is reasonably accomplished as a Vedic/Hindu scholar, who considers MMY to be the real deal. YMMV of course. Lawson --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 11, 2011, at 2:53 AM, sparaig wrote: Well, you see, I think it is YOU who are missing MMY's nuances here. Certainly stress can have good and bad qualities (eustress and distress). However, anything that pulls one away from the quality of functioning of the nervous system where pure consciousness is always present, is stressful. That doesn't mean that it can't be fun, beneficial in its own way etc. only that it isn't pure consciousness. Of course, the point of the TM *program* is to alternate meditation, which approaches the state of pure consciousness, with regular activity, which is inherently stressful, so that eventually one can be in a state where pure consciousness is never lost. This doesn't mean that activity will cease to be stressful in the western sense, only that the nervous system has become strong enough to maintain pure consciousness, at least during relatively stressful activity. In a sense, you could say that all activity has become eustress- ish, though, of course, some activity is more inherently eustressful than other activity. I think you're missing what Mahesh was trying to say. He was obviously attempting to put the idea of the purification of the nadis into terms that westerners could understand, and at the same time give it a veneer of respectability by attempting to make it look scientific. Two things though: the two are not reconcilable as there is no (none, zero, zip) science on nadi-bindu-vayu and stress and secondly Mahesh had little experiential knowledge of these deeper and essential practices. This becomes manifestly obvious if you listen to the tapes where M. tried to muddle his way thru these descriptions of stress in the nadis - which are most likely ripped straight out of Arthur Avalon's books. But it's clear he doesn't have a clue to what he's talking about, but it does lend further credence to the fact that he was prompted by western students prior to his revelations. Since he was caught at Estes Park doing this and we have evidence up and through the Swiss period, we know his knowledge was not self knowledge, but gleaned from common translations of tantric texts. So anyone who puts any validity into his unstressing schtick is just fooling themselves.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
No more so than claiming that Dana is the great authority because he's visited India a dozen or two times. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 11, 2011, at 3:04 AM, sparaig wrote: I like to cite my old friend Anoop Chandola, who is not only a Sanskrit/Hindu scholar, but has one very close family member who was part of the committee who selected SBS in the first place. Appeal to authority or argumentum ad verecundiam is a common logical fallacy.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
On Dec 12, 2011, at 10:25 AM, sparaig wrote: Eh, as I said, I have a friend who is reasonably accomplished as a Vedic/Hindu scholar, who considers MMY to be the real deal. YMMV of course. You should send him a copy of David Wants to Fly. :-) And while your at it, you should also try to get a copy of the recent interview with SBS's successor. He's very clear: the person who created the recent problems re: Jyotir Math and who sowed the seeds of dissension there were none other than Mahesh Varma. What it boils down to in your friends case is true believers will believe anything. They're not actually interested in scholarship, but only what supports their acquired illusions.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
Eh, as I said, I have a friend who is reasonably accomplished as a Vedic/Hindu scholar, who considers MMY to be the real deal. Vaj: And while your at it, you should also try to get a copy of the recent interview with SBS's successor... This would prove nothing because everyone knows that SBS's only successor is Swami Vasuvevananda, in direct line from SBS. Swami Svarupanad went over to another saint many years ago, and he has been told to reliquish all claims to the Jyotir Math. Obviously, the Swami Svarupanand is a caste monger just like all the rest of the Shanks in India. I wouldn't believe anything he says. Swami Shantanand was succeeded by Swami Vasudevanand, the current Shankaracarya of the North. According to Vidyasankar Sundaresan, Swami Vasudevanand is the sole remaining representative of the Guru Dev lineage... Jyotirmath Sankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century By Vidyasankar Sundaresan http://indology.info/papers/sundaresan/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 12, 2011, at 10:25 AM, sparaig wrote: Eh, as I said, I have a friend who is reasonably accomplished as a Vedic/Hindu scholar, who considers MMY to be the real deal. YMMV of course. You should send him a copy of David Wants to Fly. :-) And while your at it, you should also try to get a copy of the recent interview with SBS's successor. He's very clear: the person who created the recent problems re: Jyotir Math and who sowed the seeds of dissension there were none other than Mahesh Varma. The current successor wasn't even at the ashram when SBS died, He was studying with another guru. What it boils down to in your friends case is true believers will believe anything. They're not actually interested in scholarship, but only what supports their acquired illusions. Shrug. L.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
On Dec 12, 2011, at 8:10 PM, sparaig lengli...@cox.net wrote: The current successor wasn't even at the ashram when SBS died, He was studying with another guru. Smart man. It's never good to be attached.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Stress is the nonspecific response of the body to any demand, whether is is caused by, or results in, pleasant or unpleasant conditions. Stress as such, like temperature as such, is all-inclusive, embodying both the positive and the negative aspects of these concepts. -Hans Selye Stress is anything that distorts the normal, natural functioning of the nervous system. -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi IOW, anything that takes us away from the pure consciousness + waking/dreaming/sleeping status of cosmic consciousness is stress. The two definitions converge. L You, like Maharishi are ignoring the positive aspect of stress in Selye's work. Seeing it only as negitive, is a misconception in the full context of his understanding. It is a serious flaw in Maharishi's use of the term. He was using it superficially for marketing without regard to how Selye meant it. Maharishi was using it in the context of growth of consciousness to enlightenment; Selye was using it in the context of ordinary waking-state consciousness. Maharishi was linking it with a scientist to assume of the credibility for his own theories which were from a spiritual tradition while misusing the concepts through oversimplification. Not every scholar believes that, of course. Anti-TM people like to cite Dana Sawyer who deliberately sought out people who supported his eventual anti-TM stance, while deliberately ignoring those who supported MMY from the same tradition. I like to cite my old friend Anoop Chandola, who is not only a Sanskrit/Hindu scholar, but has one very close family member who was part of the committee who selected SBS in the first place. Google the two names and see which has more academic recognition in the arena of Hindu/asian culture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Sawyer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoop_Chandola Of course positive stress makes relative life more pleasant, but it also creates attachment. It also stimulates dendrite growth. The concept of positive stress for Seyle is much more significant and profound than this description. It is a powerful useful force in our life that the yogis seem to miss. Look at life in a movement facility and you will see the results of this misunderstanding. Don't know that that is the case, though of course, the reclusive lifestyle certainly emphasizes this. Insomuch as MMY lived as a recluse for a while, he too, emphasized it, though a radio interview from the late 60's quotes him as saying that had he known that one could become enlightened while being a householder, he probably would have married and had kids. Selye wasn't interested in dissolving attachment or in the ability to maintain transcendental consciousness throughout waking, sleeping, and dreaming. He was interested in the detrimental effects of stress on the body and also felt that some stress was necessary and desirable, which it may well be if you're considering only relative life and not growth of consciousness to enlightenment. Of course. But he was also trying to base his thoery on more than the authority Maharishi was using too and that is why it was desirable for Maharishi to hook his marketing star to. not to mention that the basic concept of stress and samskaras fit together quite well, on a superficial level, and the fact that the physiological correlates of pure consciousness and the physiological correlates of stress seem to be at opposite ends of neurological functioning, even as our scientific understanding of the two states has grown since Selye first spoke with MMY and later, when he wrote that essay that you quote. I can't believe you don't see how it fits with the concepts of attachment and karma, which are said to be created by both negative and positive experiences. You don't have to agree with that thesis to see that the use MMY was making of the stress concept was appropriate in that context. These are two different logical levels I don't think they are related and shouldn't have been combined. Whatever Maharishi was talking about from his spiritual tradition was only superficially perhaps analogously related to how Seyle presented his ideas. except that twas selye himself who gave MMY the idea, and the evidence for the idea has grown over teh decades since then. And marketing is your weasely denigrating term. It is a factual term for how it was used. I know I taught it misusing the concepts as I was instructed. It is your term weasely which is a distraction from me
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: Stress is the nonspecific response of the body to any demand, whether is is caused by, or results in, pleasant or unpleasant conditions. Stress as such, like temperature as such, is all-inclusive, embodying both the positive and the negative aspects of these concepts. -Hans Selye Stress is anything that distorts the normal, natural functioning of the nervous system. -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi IMO, for Maharishi stress seems to be anything that produces saMskaara-s (some scars in the nervous system, heh...). For him, normal, natural functioning of the nervous system seems to be like electricity in a superconductor: not causing any resistance to mental activity, or stuff. YS I 50 (please, find your favorite translation yourselves): taj-jaH saMskaaro 'nya-saMskaara-pratibandhii. (tat-;jaH saMskaaraH; anya-saMskaara-pratibandhii.) Word-for-word: that-born saMskaara [is] other-saMskaara-pratibandhii. I 51 tasyaapi nirodhe sarva-nirodhaan nirbiijaH samaadhiH. (tasya+api nirodhe sarva-nirodhaat; nirbiijaH samaadhiH.) Its also nirodha-in all-nirodha-from [follows] nirbiija-samaadhi. IOW, anything that takes us away from the pure consciousness + waking/dreaming/sleeping status of cosmic consciousness is stress. The two definitions converge. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Great discussion from both of you. It sent me out to re-read Hans Selyle again because I remembered how Maharishi ignored much of his theory on stress and was struck by how far apart their ideas really were. Here is Hans describing some of the misconceptions about how the term stress is used and it seems to nail the movement's view as a misconception or at least an oversimplification. I am not sure how Hans viewed his early association with the movement in the end. He may not be the best link as a support for TM theory. Here it is so you can judge for yourself if the TM use of the term has anything to do with how he is using it: http://www.icnr.com/articles/the-nature-of-stress.html What stress is not The word stress has been used so loosely, and so many confusing definitions of it have been formulated, that I think it will be best to start by clearly stating what it is not. Contrary to current popular or medical opinion: Stress is not nervous tension. Stress reactions do occur in lower animals and even in plants, which have no nervous system. The general manifestations of an alarm reaction can be induced by mechanically damaging a denervated limb. Indeed, stress can be produced under deep anesthesia in patients who are unconscious, and even in cell cultures grown outside the body. Stress is not an emergency discharge of hormones from the adrenal medulla. An adrenaline discharge is frequently seen in acute stress affecting the whole body, but it plays no conspicuous role in generalized inflammatory diseases (arthritis, tuberculosis) although they can also produce considerable stress. Nor does an adrenaline discharge play any role in local stress reactions, limited to directly injured regions of the body. Stress is not that which causes a secretion by the adrenal cortex of its hormones (the corticoids). ACTH, the adrenal-stimulating pituitary hormone, can discharge these hormones without producing any evidence of stress. Stress is not the nonspecific result of damage only. Normal and even pleasant activities - a game of tennis or a passionate kiss - can produce considerable stress without causing conspicuous damage. Stress Is not the deviation from homeostasis, the steady state of the body. Any specific biologic function, e.g., the perception of sound or light, the contraction of a muscle, eventually causes marked deviations from the normal resting state in the active organs. This is undoubtedly associated with some local demand for increased vital activity, but it can cause only local stress and even this does not necessarily parallel the intensity of the specific activity. Stress is not that which causes an alarm reaction. The stressor does that, not stress itself. Stress is not identical with the alarm reaction or with the G.A.S. as a whole. These are characterized by certain measurable organ changes which are caused by stress. Stress itself is not a nonspecific reaction. The pattern of the stress reaction is very specific: it affects certain organs (e.g., the adrenal, the thymus, the gastrointestinal tract) in a highly selective manner. Stress is not a reaction to a specific thing. The stress response can be produced by virtually any agent. Stress is not necessarily undesirable. It all depends on how you take it. The stress of failure, humiliation, or infection is detrimental; but that of exhilarating, creative,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: Stress is the nonspecific response of the body to any demand, whether is is caused by, or results in, pleasant or unpleasant conditions. Stress as such, like temperature as such, is all-inclusive, embodying both the positive and the negative aspects of these concepts. -Hans Selye Stress is anything that distorts the normal, natural functioning of the nervous system. -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi IMO, for Maharishi stress seems to be anything that produces saMskaara-s (some scars in the nervous system, heh...). For him, normal, natural functioning of the nervous system seems to be like electricity in a superconductor: not causing any resistance to mental activity, or stuff. YS I 50 (please, find your favorite translation yourselves): taj-jaH saMskaaro 'nya-saMskaara-pratibandhii. (tat-;jaH saMskaaraH; anya-saMskaara-pratibandhii.) Word-for-word: that-born saMskaara [is] other-saMskaara-pratibandhii. I 51 tasyaapi nirodhe sarva-nirodhaan nirbiijaH samaadhiH. (tasya+api nirodhe sarva-nirodhaat; nirbiijaH samaadhiH.) Its also nirodha-in all-nirodha-from [follows] nirbiija-samaadhi. IOW, anything that takes us away from the pure consciousness + waking/dreaming/sleeping status of cosmic consciousness is stress. The two definitions converge. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Great discussion from both of you. It sent me out to re-read Hans Selyle again because I remembered how Maharishi ignored much of his theory on stress and was struck by how far apart their ideas really were. Here is Hans describing some of the misconceptions about how the term stress is used and it seems to nail the movement's view as a misconception or at least an oversimplification. I am not sure how Hans viewed his early association with the movement in the end. He may not be the best link as a support for TM theory. Here it is so you can judge for yourself if the TM use of the term has anything to do with how he is using it: http://www.icnr.com/articles/the-nature-of-stress.html What stress is not The word stress has been used so loosely, and so many confusing definitions of it have been formulated, that I think it will be best to start by clearly stating what it is not. Contrary to current popular or medical opinion: Stress is not nervous tension. Stress reactions do occur in lower animals and even in plants, which have no nervous system. The general manifestations of an alarm reaction can be induced by mechanically damaging a denervated limb. Indeed, stress can be produced under deep anesthesia in patients who are unconscious, and even in cell cultures grown outside the body. Stress is not an emergency discharge of hormones from the adrenal medulla. An adrenaline discharge is frequently seen in acute stress affecting the whole body, but it plays no conspicuous role in generalized inflammatory diseases (arthritis, tuberculosis) although they can also produce considerable stress. Nor does an adrenaline discharge play any role in local stress reactions, limited to directly injured regions of the body. Stress is not that which causes a secretion by the adrenal cortex of its hormones (the corticoids). ACTH, the adrenal-stimulating pituitary hormone, can discharge these hormones without producing any evidence of stress. Stress is not the nonspecific result of damage only. Normal and even pleasant activities - a game of tennis or a passionate kiss - can produce considerable stress without causing conspicuous damage. Stress Is not the deviation from homeostasis, the steady state of the body. Any specific biologic function, e.g., the perception of sound or light, the contraction of a muscle, eventually causes marked deviations from the normal resting state in the active organs. This is undoubtedly associated with some local demand for increased vital activity, but it can cause only local stress and even this does not necessarily parallel the intensity of the specific activity. Stress is not that which causes an alarm reaction. The stressor does that, not stress itself. Stress is not identical with the alarm reaction or with the G.A.S. as a whole. These are characterized by certain measurable organ changes which are caused by stress. Stress itself is not a nonspecific reaction. The pattern of the stress reaction is very specific: it affects certain organs (e.g., the adrenal, the thymus, the gastrointestinal tract) in a highly selective manner. Stress is not a reaction to a specific thing. The stress response can be produced by virtually any agent. Stress is not necessarily undesirable. It all depends on how you take it. The stress of failure, humiliation, or infection is detrimental; but that of exhilarating, creative,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: Stress is the nonspecific response of the body to any demand, whether is is caused by, or results in, pleasant or unpleasant conditions. Stress as such, like temperature as such, is all-inclusive, embodying both the positive and the negative aspects of these concepts. -Hans Selye Stress is anything that distorts the normal, natural functioning of the nervous system. -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi IMO, for Maharishi stress seems to be anything that produces saMskaara-s (some scars in the nervous system, heh...). For him, normal, natural functioning of the nervous system seems to be like electricity in a superconductor: not causing any resistance to mental activity, or stuff. YS I 50 (please, find your favorite translation yourselves): taj-jaH saMskaaro 'nya-saMskaara-pratibandhii. (tat-;jaH saMskaaraH; anya-saMskaara-pratibandhii.) Word-for-word: that-born saMskaara [is] other-saMskaara-pratibandhii. I 51 tasyaapi nirodhe sarva-nirodhaan nirbiijaH samaadhiH. (tasya+api nirodhe sarva-nirodhaat; nirbiijaH samaadhiH.) Its also nirodha-in all-nirodha-from [follows] nirbiija-samaadhi. IOW, anything that takes us away from the pure consciousness + waking/dreaming/sleeping status of cosmic consciousness is stress. The two definitions converge. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Great discussion from both of you. It sent me out to re-read Hans Selyle again because I remembered how Maharishi ignored much of his theory on stress and was struck by how far apart their ideas really were. Here is Hans describing some of the misconceptions about how the term stress is used and it seems to nail the movement's view as a misconception or at least an oversimplification. I am not sure how Hans viewed his early association with the movement in the end. He may not be the best link as a support for TM theory. Here it is so you can judge for yourself if the TM use of the term has anything to do with how he is using it: http://www.icnr.com/articles/the-nature-of-stress.html What stress is not The word stress has been used so loosely, and so many confusing definitions of it have been formulated, that I think it will be best to start by clearly stating what it is not. Contrary to current popular or medical opinion: Stress is not nervous tension. Stress reactions do occur in lower animals and even in plants, which have no nervous system. The general manifestations of an alarm reaction can be induced by mechanically damaging a denervated limb. Indeed, stress can be produced under deep anesthesia in patients who are unconscious, and even in cell cultures grown outside the body. Stress is not an emergency discharge of hormones from the adrenal medulla. An adrenaline discharge is frequently seen in acute stress affecting the whole body, but it plays no conspicuous role in generalized inflammatory diseases (arthritis, tuberculosis) although they can also produce considerable stress. Nor does an adrenaline discharge play any role in local stress reactions, limited to directly injured regions of the body. Stress is not that which causes a secretion by the adrenal cortex of its hormones (the corticoids). ACTH, the adrenal-stimulating pituitary hormone, can discharge these hormones without producing any evidence of stress. Stress is not the nonspecific result of damage only. Normal and even pleasant activities - a game of tennis or a passionate kiss - can produce considerable stress without causing conspicuous damage. Stress Is not the deviation from homeostasis, the steady state of the body. Any specific biologic function, e.g., the perception of sound or light, the contraction of a muscle, eventually causes marked deviations from the normal resting state in the active organs. This is undoubtedly associated with some local demand for increased vital activity, but it can cause only local stress and even this does not necessarily parallel the intensity of the specific activity. Stress is not that which causes an alarm reaction. The stressor does that, not stress itself. Stress is not identical with the alarm reaction or with the G.A.S. as a whole. These are characterized by certain measurable organ changes which are caused by stress. Stress itself is not a nonspecific reaction. The pattern of the stress reaction is very specific: it affects certain organs (e.g., the adrenal, the thymus, the gastrointestinal tract) in a highly selective manner. Stress is not a reaction to a specific thing. The stress response can be produced by virtually any agent. Stress is not necessarily undesirable. It all depends on how you take it. The stress of failure, humiliation, or infection is detrimental; but that of exhilarating, creative,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: snip What hardcore TMers would prefer is that I still maintain the boilerplate spiels I learned to spew on TM, rather than be true to my own POV. They desperately want me to not speak from that new perspective, but continue to regurgitate the schtick they continue to roll over in their minds, as a source of comfortable illusion. Wrongaroonie. This is what Vaj wants folks to believe TMers would prefer, but he isn't telling the truth. In fact, what we've been saying all along is that we'd like Vaj to relate his new perspective to MMY's teaching so we can understand what his new perspective *is*. There should be no reason why he can't do that *and* remain true to his own POV--if he in fact were as familiar with what MMY taught as he claims. That he refuses to do it raises the suspicion that he doesn't know the TM lingo well enough to attempt straightforward comparisons between MMY's teaching and his new perspective. Indeed, the few times he's tried, he's gotten the TM part badly wrong. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that this is why he doesn't want to do it; his difficulty with the lingo and the teaching is too revealing of what appears to be his ignorance of TM. New perspectives are fine; we get plenty of 'em here. But if one is going to compare the old perspectives with them unfavorably, one needs to be able to articulate the old perspectives coherently--especially if one knows one's audience isn't familiar with the lingo of the new perspectives.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 9, 2011, at 7:56 PM, zarzari_786 wrote: For example, after Muktananda left Seelisberg, on the way out touching a few TMers, thereby giving them Shaktipath, so that they would follow him, is reported to have said: Everybody is talking about enlightenment there, but nobody knows what they are talking about. snip Very interesting. It would be nice to have a more direct quote of Muktananda. Is that possible? Has it survived? Not that I know of. I heard it at the time, but didn't write down the exact quote: Something like: there (in Seelisberg) everyone talks about enlightenment, but nobody knows what it is. [Foto]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
Stress is the nonspecific response of the body to any demand, whether is is caused by, or results in, pleasant or unpleasant conditions. Stress as such, like temperature as such, is all-inclusive, embodying both the positive and the negative aspects of these concepts. -Hans Selye Stress is anything that distorts the normal, natural functioning of the nervous system. -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi IOW, anything that takes us away from the pure consciousness + waking/dreaming/sleeping status of cosmic consciousness is stress. The two definitions converge. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Great discussion from both of you. It sent me out to re-read Hans Selyle again because I remembered how Maharishi ignored much of his theory on stress and was struck by how far apart their ideas really were. Here is Hans describing some of the misconceptions about how the term stress is used and it seems to nail the movement's view as a misconception or at least an oversimplification. I am not sure how Hans viewed his early association with the movement in the end. He may not be the best link as a support for TM theory. Here it is so you can judge for yourself if the TM use of the term has anything to do with how he is using it: http://www.icnr.com/articles/the-nature-of-stress.html What stress is not The word stress has been used so loosely, and so many confusing definitions of it have been formulated, that I think it will be best to start by clearly stating what it is not. Contrary to current popular or medical opinion: Stress is not nervous tension. Stress reactions do occur in lower animals and even in plants, which have no nervous system. The general manifestations of an alarm reaction can be induced by mechanically damaging a denervated limb. Indeed, stress can be produced under deep anesthesia in patients who are unconscious, and even in cell cultures grown outside the body. Stress is not an emergency discharge of hormones from the adrenal medulla. An adrenaline discharge is frequently seen in acute stress affecting the whole body, but it plays no conspicuous role in generalized inflammatory diseases (arthritis, tuberculosis) although they can also produce considerable stress. Nor does an adrenaline discharge play any role in local stress reactions, limited to directly injured regions of the body. Stress is not that which causes a secretion by the adrenal cortex of its hormones (the corticoids). ACTH, the adrenal-stimulating pituitary hormone, can discharge these hormones without producing any evidence of stress. Stress is not the nonspecific result of damage only. Normal and even pleasant activities - a game of tennis or a passionate kiss - can produce considerable stress without causing conspicuous damage. Stress Is not the deviation from homeostasis, the steady state of the body. Any specific biologic function, e.g., the perception of sound or light, the contraction of a muscle, eventually causes marked deviations from the normal resting state in the active organs. This is undoubtedly associated with some local demand for increased vital activity, but it can cause only local stress and even this does not necessarily parallel the intensity of the specific activity. Stress is not that which causes an alarm reaction. The stressor does that, not stress itself. Stress is not identical with the alarm reaction or with the G.A.S. as a whole. These are characterized by certain measurable organ changes which are caused by stress. Stress itself is not a nonspecific reaction. The pattern of the stress reaction is very specific: it affects certain organs (e.g., the adrenal, the thymus, the gastrointestinal tract) in a highly selective manner. Stress is not a reaction to a specific thing. The stress response can be produced by virtually any agent. Stress is not necessarily undesirable. It all depends on how you take it. The stress of failure, humiliation, or infection is detrimental; but that of exhilarating, creative, successful work is beneficial. The stress reaction, like energy consumption, may have good or bad effects. Stress cannot and should not be avoided. Everybody is always under some degree of stress. Even while quietly asleep our heart must continue to beat, our lungs to breathe, and even our brain works in the form of dreams. Stress can be avoided only by dying. The statement He is under stress is just as meaningless as He is running a temperature. What we actually refer to by means of such phrases is an excess of stress or of body temperature. If we consider these points, we may easily be led to conclude that stress cannot be defined, and that perhaps the concept itself is just not sufficiently clear to serve as the object of scientific study. Nevertheless, stress has a very clear, tangible form. Countless people have actually suffered
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: Stress is the nonspecific response of the body to any demand, whether is is caused by, or results in, pleasant or unpleasant conditions. Stress as such, like temperature as such, is all-inclusive, embodying both the positive and the negative aspects of these concepts. -Hans Selye Stress is anything that distorts the normal, natural functioning of the nervous system. -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi IOW, anything that takes us away from the pure consciousness + waking/dreaming/sleeping status of cosmic consciousness is stress. The two definitions converge. L You, like Maharishi are ignoring the positive aspect of stress in Selye's work. Seeing it only as negitive, is a misconception in the full context of his understanding. It is a serious flaw in Maharishi's use of the term. He was using it superficially for marketing without regard to how Selye meant it. You obviously see what you are missing here in this comparison, even within the quote you isolate, let alone in the more full context of understanding that you probably have read. That perplexes me. The concept is so much more interesting with its nuances than Maharishi's misconception to me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Great discussion from both of you. It sent me out to re-read Hans Selyle again because I remembered how Maharishi ignored much of his theory on stress and was struck by how far apart their ideas really were. Here is Hans describing some of the misconceptions about how the term stress is used and it seems to nail the movement's view as a misconception or at least an oversimplification. I am not sure how Hans viewed his early association with the movement in the end. He may not be the best link as a support for TM theory. Here it is so you can judge for yourself if the TM use of the term has anything to do with how he is using it: http://www.icnr.com/articles/the-nature-of-stress.html What stress is not The word stress has been used so loosely, and so many confusing definitions of it have been formulated, that I think it will be best to start by clearly stating what it is not. Contrary to current popular or medical opinion: Stress is not nervous tension. Stress reactions do occur in lower animals and even in plants, which have no nervous system. The general manifestations of an alarm reaction can be induced by mechanically damaging a denervated limb. Indeed, stress can be produced under deep anesthesia in patients who are unconscious, and even in cell cultures grown outside the body. Stress is not an emergency discharge of hormones from the adrenal medulla. An adrenaline discharge is frequently seen in acute stress affecting the whole body, but it plays no conspicuous role in generalized inflammatory diseases (arthritis, tuberculosis) although they can also produce considerable stress. Nor does an adrenaline discharge play any role in local stress reactions, limited to directly injured regions of the body. Stress is not that which causes a secretion by the adrenal cortex of its hormones (the corticoids). ACTH, the adrenal-stimulating pituitary hormone, can discharge these hormones without producing any evidence of stress. Stress is not the nonspecific result of damage only. Normal and even pleasant activities - a game of tennis or a passionate kiss - can produce considerable stress without causing conspicuous damage. Stress Is not the deviation from homeostasis, the steady state of the body. Any specific biologic function, e.g., the perception of sound or light, the contraction of a muscle, eventually causes marked deviations from the normal resting state in the active organs. This is undoubtedly associated with some local demand for increased vital activity, but it can cause only local stress and even this does not necessarily parallel the intensity of the specific activity. Stress is not that which causes an alarm reaction. The stressor does that, not stress itself. Stress is not identical with the alarm reaction or with the G.A.S. as a whole. These are characterized by certain measurable organ changes which are caused by stress. Stress itself is not a nonspecific reaction. The pattern of the stress reaction is very specific: it affects certain organs (e.g., the adrenal, the thymus, the gastrointestinal tract) in a highly selective manner. Stress is not a reaction to a specific thing. The stress response can be produced by virtually any agent. Stress is not necessarily undesirable. It all depends on how you take it. The stress of failure, humiliation, or infection is detrimental; but that of exhilarating, creative, successful work is beneficial. The stress reaction, like energy consumption, may have good or bad
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Stress is the nonspecific response of the body to any demand, whether is is caused by, or results in, pleasant or unpleasant conditions. Stress as such, like temperature as such, is all-inclusive, embodying both the positive and the negative aspects of these concepts. -Hans Selye Stress is anything that distorts the normal, natural functioning of the nervous system. -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi IOW, anything that takes us away from the pure consciousness + waking/dreaming/sleeping status of cosmic consciousness is stress. The two definitions converge. L You, like Maharishi are ignoring the positive aspect of stress in Selye's work. Seeing it only as negitive, is a misconception in the full context of his understanding. It is a serious flaw in Maharishi's use of the term. He was using it superficially for marketing without regard to how Selye meant it. Maharishi was using it in the context of growth of consciousness to enlightenment; Selye was using it in the context of ordinary waking-state consciousness. Of course positive stress makes relative life more pleasant, but it also creates attachment. Selye wasn't interested in dissolving attachment or in the ability to maintain transcendental consciousness throughout waking, sleeping, and dreaming. He was interested in the detrimental effects of stress on the body and also felt that some stress was necessary and desirable, which it may well be if you're considering only relative life and not growth of consciousness to enlightenment. I can't believe you don't see how it fits with the concepts of attachment and karma, which are said to be created by both negative and positive experiences. You don't have to agree with that thesis to see that the use MMY was making of the stress concept was appropriate in that context. And marketing is your weasely denigrating term. MMY was using it to make the nature and mechanics of consciousness comprehensible in his teaching to Westerners. You obviously see what you are missing here in this comparison, even within the quote you isolate, let alone in the more full context of understanding that you probably have read. That perplexes me. The concept is so much more interesting with its nuances than Maharishi's misconception to me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Stress is the nonspecific response of the body to any demand, whether is is caused by, or results in, pleasant or unpleasant conditions. Stress as such, like temperature as such, is all-inclusive, embodying both the positive and the negative aspects of these concepts. -Hans Selye Stress is anything that distorts the normal, natural functioning of the nervous system. -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi IOW, anything that takes us away from the pure consciousness + waking/dreaming/sleeping status of cosmic consciousness is stress. The two definitions converge. L You, like Maharishi are ignoring the positive aspect of stress in Selye's work. Seeing it only as negitive, is a misconception in the full context of his understanding. It is a serious flaw in Maharishi's use of the term. He was using it superficially for marketing without regard to how Selye meant it. Maharishi was using it in the context of growth of consciousness to enlightenment; Selye was using it in the context of ordinary waking-state consciousness. Maharishi was linking it with a scientist to assume of the credibility for his own theories which were from a spiritual tradition while misusing the concepts through oversimplification. Of course positive stress makes relative life more pleasant, but it also creates attachment. It also stimulates dendrite growth. The concept of positive stress for Seyle is much more significant and profound than this description. It is a powerful useful force in our life that the yogis seem to miss. Look at life in a movement facility and you will see the results of this misunderstanding. Selye wasn't interested in dissolving attachment or in the ability to maintain transcendental consciousness throughout waking, sleeping, and dreaming. He was interested in the detrimental effects of stress on the body and also felt that some stress was necessary and desirable, which it may well be if you're considering only relative life and not growth of consciousness to enlightenment. Of course. But he was also trying to base his thoery on more than the authority Maharishi was using too and that is why it was desirable for Maharishi to hook his marketing star to. I can't believe you don't see how it fits with the concepts of attachment and karma, which are said to be created by both negative and positive experiences. You don't have to agree with that thesis to see that the use MMY was making of the stress concept was appropriate in that context. These are two different logical levels I don't think they are related and shouldn't have been combined. Whatever Maharishi was talking about from his spiritual tradition was only superficially perhaps analogously related to how Seyle presented his ideas. And marketing is your weasely denigrating term. It is a factual term for how it was used. I know I taught it misusing the concepts as I was instructed. It is your term weasely which is a distraction from me pointing out Maharishi was misusing the connection with the term stress while ignoring the actual concepts Seyle was promoting. MMY was using it to make the nature and mechanics of consciousness comprehensible in his teaching to Westerners. Without regard to the integrity of the concepts themselves for his marketing scheme laid out in his SOB. And so you too have missed the fascinating subtly of Seyle's concepts. You don't care that they were misused and presented in a misleading way to promote TM. That is the TM way. You obviously see what you are missing here in this comparison, even within the quote you isolate, let alone in the more full context of understanding that you probably have read. That perplexes me. The concept is so much more interesting with its nuances than Maharishi's misconception to me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Stress is the nonspecific response of the body to any demand, whether is is caused by, or results in, pleasant or unpleasant conditions. Stress as such, like temperature as such, is all-inclusive, embodying both the positive and the negative aspects of these concepts. -Hans Selye Stress is anything that distorts the normal, natural functioning of the nervous system. -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi IOW, anything that takes us away from the pure consciousness + waking/dreaming/sleeping status of cosmic consciousness is stress. The two definitions converge. L You, like Maharishi are ignoring the positive aspect of stress in Selye's work. Seeing it only as negitive, is a misconception in the full context of his understanding. It is a serious flaw in Maharishi's use of the term. He was using it superficially for marketing without regard to how Selye meant it. Maharishi was using it in the context of growth of consciousness to enlightenment; Selye was using it in the context of ordinary waking-state consciousness. Maharishi was linking it with a scientist to assume of the credibility for his own theories which were from a spiritual tradition while misusing the concepts through oversimplification. Yeah, he wasn't misusing the concept, he was using it in a different context. Of course positive stress makes relative life more pleasant, but it also creates attachment. It also stimulates dendrite growth. The concept of positive stress for Seyle is much more significant and profound than this description. It is a powerful useful force in our life that the yogis seem to miss. The yogis see growth of consciousness as more important, and they see your powerful and useful forces as potentially attachment-generating. Look at life in a movement facility and you will see the results of this misunderstanding. Lame. Selye wasn't interested in dissolving attachment or in the ability to maintain transcendental consciousness throughout waking, sleeping, and dreaming. He was interested in the detrimental effects of stress on the body and also felt that some stress was necessary and desirable, which it may well be if you're considering only relative life and not growth of consciousness to enlightenment. Of course. But he was also trying to base his thoery on more than the authority Maharishi was using too and that is why it was desirable for Maharishi to hook his marketing star to. Teaching star, not marketing star. I can't believe you don't see how it fits with the concepts of attachment and karma, which are said to be created by both negative and positive experiences. You don't have to agree with that thesis to see that the use MMY was making of the stress concept was appropriate in that context. These are two different logical levels I don't think they are related and shouldn't have been combined. Whatever Maharishi was talking about from his spiritual tradition was only superficially perhaps analogously related to how Seyle presented his ideas. MMY took what he needed from Selye's much more complex approach. Dendrites and hormones and such simply weren't relevant. We don't know from a scientific perspective whether attachment and karma are real, obviously, but the main issue is whether MMY *misused* what he took from Selye conceptually, and the fact is, as Lawson said, that their two definitions converge. And marketing is your weasely denigrating term. It is a factual term for how it was used. I know I taught it misusing the concepts as I was instructed. It is your term weasely which is a distraction from me pointing out Maharishi was misusing the connection with the term stress while ignoring the actual concepts Seyle was promoting. MMY was using it to make the nature and mechanics of consciousness comprehensible in his teaching to Westerners. Without regard to the integrity of the concepts themselves for his marketing scheme laid out in his SOB. This from the dude who hotly denies he has any residual resentment where MMY is concerned. And so you too have missed the fascinating subtly of Seyle's concepts. (Subtlety.) I haven't made a study of them, no. It's not one of my areas of interest. You don't care that they were misused and presented in a misleading way to promote TM. To *teach* TM. And I don't think they were misused or used misleadingly, if what you quoted from Selye is representative of his work.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Stress is the nonspecific response of the body to any demand, whether is is caused by, or results in, pleasant or unpleasant conditions. Stress as such, like temperature as such, is all-inclusive, embodying both the positive and the negative aspects of these concepts. -Hans Selye Stress is anything that distorts the normal, natural functioning of the nervous system. -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi IOW, anything that takes us away from the pure consciousness + waking/dreaming/sleeping status of cosmic consciousness is stress. The two definitions converge. L You, like Maharishi are ignoring the positive aspect of stress in Selye's work. Seeing it only as negitive, is a misconception in the full context of his understanding. It is a serious flaw in Maharishi's use of the term. He was using it superficially for marketing without regard to how Selye meant it. You obviously see what you are missing here in this comparison, even within the quote you isolate, let alone in the more full context of understanding that you probably have read. That perplexes me. The concept is so much more interesting with its nuances than Maharishi's misconception to me. Well, you see, I think it is YOU who are missing MMY's nuances here. Certainly stress can have good and bad qualities (eustress and distress). However, anything that pulls one away from the quality of functioning of the nervous system where pure consciousness is always present, is stressful. That doesn't mean that it can't be fun, beneficial in its own way etc. only that it isn't pure consciousness. Of course, the point of the TM *program* is to alternate meditation, which approaches the state of pure consciousness, with regular activity, which is inherently stressful, so that eventually one can be in a state where pure consciousness is never lost. This doesn't mean that activity will cease to be stressful in the western sense, only that the nervous system has become strong enough to maintain pure consciousness, at least during relatively stressful activity. In a sense, you could say that all activity has become eustress-ish, though, of course, some activity is more inherently eustressful than other activity. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:04 AM, seventhray1 wrote: Oh, good. I'll just have to revise my experience so it conforms with your analysis. Actually we've all already been pre-programmed to believe in the stress release, unstressing, model is factually correct. Each time we transcend we're chipping away at those stresses in our nervous system. So I believe most of us who were indoctrinated into TM would chose as you did. Actually, the current theory of how TM works is that it sets up a situation in the thalamus that inhibits the thalamo-coritical feedback loops that scientists believe are what we experience as thoughts. This allows the brain to relax into a default mode of functioning where it is still alert, but literally not thinking about much of anything. The stronger the inhibition, the less thinking tha is done. Coincidentally, the default mode of functioning that results is where the front part of the brain and the back part of the brain are most easily able to communicate with each other. This is the exact opposite of stress, which tends to interfere with the communication between the front and back parts of the brain. Long-term practice of TM literally improves the ability of the brain to maintain this better-connected, opposite-of-stress mode of functioning, outside of meditation. BTW, this concept of meditation as anti-stress was Hans Selye's idea, presented to MMY many years ago. The fact is that the more we learn about stress and about the effects of TM (as opposed to, say, compassion meditation), the more evidence we have that TM is literally the exact opposite of stress on every measure, just as Hans Selye reported 40+ years ago. Thanks for examples of tecniques that utilize #1. But just to be clear, since you reverse the order in the first and second parts of your paragraph, I found TM to aid in a dissolving of the samskaras. I'm not getting the planting of sattwic seeds as it pertains to the practice of TM. Care to be more specific about that? The basic idea is that the mind is naturally unruly at the start, particularly because of the dominance of rajasic and tamsic thought patterns. If you take something sattvic, like a goddesses mantra and repeat it enough times this embrues the mindstream with sattvic qualities, making it easier for the mind to settle down. Except that TM practice doesn't necessarily involve thinking the mantra more than once in a given meditation period. Just how many repetitions are required?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 7, 2011, at 8:36 PM, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: Heh. MMY always portrayed himself as a reformer, so conservatives would naturally be incensed with what he said. Of course the real reason they were incensed was probably because he was destroying the purity of their tradition, while making the dubious claim to be restoring it. I've noticed that destroyers of traditions often present themselves as reformers. Seldom would they present themselves any other way, regardless. ANd in fact, MMY's point that I was in turn pointing out, is that one can spout rhetoric all day long, but if that rhetoric isn't based on internal states, then it is merely flowery words. Yes, I think you've touched on the essence of TM: flowery rhetoric and slick sales presentations based on relaxation states but sold as higher states of consciousness. That might be the case, of course, but the EEG pattern associated with TM's first higher state is more likely found in people who are self actualizing, such as world champion athletes, which implies that it is a natural state that occurs on a continuum. WHich certainly fits in with MMY's model that Cosmic Consciousness is merely the far end of the bell curve that measures functioning of the nervous system on the parameter of inefficiency due to stress. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Eh, people can quote MMY correctly all over the place and still be totally wrong. You see it all the time on this forum, and I read comments from currently active TM teachers that make me cringe, they are so wrong-headed. Just because someone has a different understanding does not mean they are wrong. They are right from their own level. Leaving a meeting with Maharishi there would often be 4-5 contradictory understandings amongst the 10-15 people present. Ofcourse I and my buddy were the only people in that meeting who got it right ! :-) I dare say that some of the most brilliant people in the Movement were not even around Maharishi a lot. Of course, but you constantly hear from people on this forum and elsewhere who equate success in TM to how well/how often they transcend. That contradicts explicit statements made by MMY on the topic. L
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
On Dec 9, 2011, at 10:29 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:04 AM, seventhray1 wrote: Oh, good. I'll just have to revise my experience so it conforms with your analysis. Actually we've all already been pre-programmed to believe in the stress release, unstressing, model is factually correct. Each time we transcend we're chipping away at those stresses in our nervous system. So I believe most of us who were indoctrinated into TM would chose as you did. Actually, the current theory of how TM works is that it sets up a situation in the thalamus that inhibits the thalamo-coritical feedback loops that scientists believe are what we experience as thoughts. This allows the brain to relax into a default mode of functioning where it is still alert, but literally not thinking about much of anything. The stronger the inhibition, the less thinking tha is done. Coincidentally, the default mode of functioning that results is where the front part of the brain and the back part of the brain are most easily able to communicate with each other. This is the exact opposite of stress, which tends to interfere with the communication between the front and back parts of the brain. The only problem with such theories is Lawson that TM is really only an elementary practice of mantra meditation. From the POV of the actual mantra tradition, the subtlest level of mantra in TM - the point where one still has some abstract feeling of the mantra before reaching what TMers believe is the transcendent - is 512 times more gross than the subtlest level of mantra reached before the mind is actually transcended - what is known as the unmana stage. In order to even access those levels of subtlety one needs to complete the piercing of the bindu (bindu-bhedana) and master further levels of practice. This level of subtlety simply does not exist in TM. So theories that are in effect based on iterations of the grossest levels of mind are not really, ultimately, of much value except to the indoctrinated TM crowd, and those they can still fool. As I've said many times, you need to transcend the transcendent (what's believed to be transcendent in TM) to even begin to approach the actual full transcendence of mind. Once that level is attained, then some interesting research could be done. However since the 'canon of awakening in TM' was effectively frozen with the death of MMY, that point will never be reached. It's also therefore a fact that all TM research can only ever be of minor interest to serious consciousness researchers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
Great discussion from both of you. It sent me out to re-read Hans Selyle again because I remembered how Maharishi ignored much of his theory on stress and was struck by how far apart their ideas really were. Here is Hans describing some of the misconceptions about how the term stress is used and it seems to nail the movement's view as a misconception or at least an oversimplification. I am not sure how Hans viewed his early association with the movement in the end. He may not be the best link as a support for TM theory. Here it is so you can judge for yourself if the TM use of the term has anything to do with how he is using it: http://www.icnr.com/articles/the-nature-of-stress.html What stress is not The word stress has been used so loosely, and so many confusing definitions of it have been formulated, that I think it will be best to start by clearly stating what it is not. Contrary to current popular or medical opinion: Stress is not nervous tension. Stress reactions do occur in lower animals and even in plants, which have no nervous system. The general manifestations of an alarm reaction can be induced by mechanically damaging a denervated limb. Indeed, stress can be produced under deep anesthesia in patients who are unconscious, and even in cell cultures grown outside the body. Stress is not an emergency discharge of hormones from the adrenal medulla. An adrenaline discharge is frequently seen in acute stress affecting the whole body, but it plays no conspicuous role in generalized inflammatory diseases (arthritis, tuberculosis) although they can also produce considerable stress. Nor does an adrenaline discharge play any role in local stress reactions, limited to directly injured regions of the body. Stress is not that which causes a secretion by the adrenal cortex of its hormones (the corticoids). ACTH, the adrenal-stimulating pituitary hormone, can discharge these hormones without producing any evidence of stress. Stress is not the nonspecific result of damage only. Normal and even pleasant activities - a game of tennis or a passionate kiss - can produce considerable stress without causing conspicuous damage. Stress Is not the deviation from homeostasis, the steady state of the body. Any specific biologic function, e.g., the perception of sound or light, the contraction of a muscle, eventually causes marked deviations from the normal resting state in the active organs. This is undoubtedly associated with some local demand for increased vital activity, but it can cause only local stress and even this does not necessarily parallel the intensity of the specific activity. Stress is not that which causes an alarm reaction. The stressor does that, not stress itself. Stress is not identical with the alarm reaction or with the G.A.S. as a whole. These are characterized by certain measurable organ changes which are caused by stress. Stress itself is not a nonspecific reaction. The pattern of the stress reaction is very specific: it affects certain organs (e.g., the adrenal, the thymus, the gastrointestinal tract) in a highly selective manner. Stress is not a reaction to a specific thing. The stress response can be produced by virtually any agent. Stress is not necessarily undesirable. It all depends on how you take it. The stress of failure, humiliation, or infection is detrimental; but that of exhilarating, creative, successful work is beneficial. The stress reaction, like energy consumption, may have good or bad effects. Stress cannot and should not be avoided. Everybody is always under some degree of stress. Even while quietly asleep our heart must continue to beat, our lungs to breathe, and even our brain works in the form of dreams. Stress can be avoided only by dying. The statement He is under stress is just as meaningless as He is running a temperature. What we actually refer to by means of such phrases is an excess of stress or of body temperature. If we consider these points, we may easily be led to conclude that stress cannot be defined, and that perhaps the concept itself is just not sufficiently clear to serve as the object of scientific study. Nevertheless, stress has a very clear, tangible form. Countless people have actually suffered or benefited from it. Stress is very real and concrete indeed, and is manifested in precisely measurable changes within the body. So before we proceed to a formal definition of the nature of stress, we will describe these manifestations. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 9, 2011, at 10:29 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:04 AM, seventhray1 wrote: Oh, good. I'll just have to revise my experience so it conforms with your analysis. Actually we've all already been pre-programmed to believe in the stress release, unstressing, model is factually correct. Each time we
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: I feel that all recent information relating to the TMO's dark side would be relevant, esp. material that relates to the traditional problems meditation can cause - and the hope for relief for people suffering. I don't think one need worry about Dana's ability to approach his subject thoroughly and dispassionately. By the way, for an interesting read, get Dana's biography of Aldous Huxley: http://www.amazon.com/Aldous-Huxley-Biography-Dana-Sawyer/dp/0824519876/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1 or http://amzn.to/vooVbb
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:04 AM, seventhray1 wrote: Oh, good. I'll just have to revise my experience so it conforms with your analysis. Actually we've all already been pre-programmed to believe in the stress release, unstressing, model is factually correct. Each time we transcend we're chipping away at those stresses in our nervous system. So I believe most of us who were indoctrinated into TM would chose as you did. Actually, the current theory of how TM works is that it sets up a situation in the thalamus that inhibits the thalamo-coritical feedback loops that scientists believe are what we experience as thoughts. This allows the brain to relax into a default mode of functioning where it is still alert, but literally not thinking about much of anything. The stronger the inhibition, the less thinking tha is done. Coincidentally, the default mode of functioning that results is where the front part of the brain and the back part of the brain are most easily able to communicate with each other. This is the exact opposite of stress, which tends to interfere with the communication between the front and back parts of the brain. Now, this I find interesting. Where did you hear this current theory of how TM works? The sense of the persnoality and doing part being on autopilot while one's awareness just is huge and uninvolved must have some definitive brain changes that mirror the shift. Is this theory from MUM scientists? Long-term practice of TM literally improves the ability of the brain to maintain this better-connected, opposite-of-stress mode of functioning, outside of meditation. BTW, this concept of meditation as anti-stress was Hans Selye's idea, presented to MMY many years ago. The fact is that the more we learn about stress and about the effects of TM (as opposed to, say, compassion meditation), the more evidence we have that TM is literally the exact opposite of stress on every measure, just as Hans Selye reported 40+ years ago. Thanks for examples of tecniques that utilize #1. But just to be clear, since you reverse the order in the first and second parts of your paragraph, I found TM to aid in a dissolving of the samskaras. I'm not getting the planting of sattwic seeds as it pertains to the practice of TM. Care to be more specific about that? The basic idea is that the mind is naturally unruly at the start, particularly because of the dominance of rajasic and tamsic thought patterns. If you take something sattvic, like a goddesses mantra and repeat it enough times this embrues the mindstream with sattvic qualities, making it easier for the mind to settle down. Except that TM practice doesn't necessarily involve thinking the mantra more than once in a given meditation period. Just how many repetitions are required?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
Hey Vaj, Just got sround to reading your post on this. I continue to amazed (I guess I shouldn't be at this point) about how egocentric you are. I mean there you are sitting in your ivory tower making your high and mighty statements about how much you know about transcending and everything else you talk about regarding buddhism, the hindu and shankaracharya tradition etc., and you really believe you know more about this stuff than Maharishi did. Listen, we all know that MMY was far from perfect, but yet he was respected and loved by some of the greatest saints of India including Lakshmanjoo, Ananda Moy MA and Muktananda and yet according to you he is a know nothing charlatan. Maybe you can explain why they all seemed to be very happy with him? Oh wait, I forgot ...you never deal with any criticism. You just disappear for a while until you can jump in again all high and mighty with your superior knowledge to enlighten us. OK, I'll just wait for more pearls of wisdom coming oour way from you --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 9, 2011, at 10:29 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:04 AM, seventhray1 wrote: Oh, good. I'll just have to revise my experience so it conforms with your analysis. Actually we've all already been pre-programmed to believe in the stress release, unstressing, model is factually correct. Each time we transcend we're chipping away at those stresses in our nervous system. So I believe most of us who were indoctrinated into TM would chose as you did. Actually, the current theory of how TM works is that it sets up a situation in the thalamus that inhibits the thalamo-coritical feedback loops that scientists believe are what we experience as thoughts. This allows the brain to relax into a default mode of functioning where it is still alert, but literally not thinking about much of anything. The stronger the inhibition, the less thinking tha is done. Coincidentally, the default mode of functioning that results is where the front part of the brain and the back part of the brain are most easily able to communicate with each other. This is the exact opposite of stress, which tends to interfere with the communication between the front and back parts of the brain. The only problem with such theories is Lawson that TM is really only an elementary practice of mantra meditation. From the POV of the actual mantra tradition, the subtlest level of mantra in TM - the point where one still has some abstract feeling of the mantra before reaching what TMers believe is the transcendent - is 512 times more gross than the subtlest level of mantra reached before the mind is actually transcended - what is known as the unmana stage. In order to even access those levels of subtlety one needs to complete the piercing of the bindu (bindu-bhedana) and master further levels of practice. This level of subtlety simply does not exist in TM. So theories that are in effect based on iterations of the grossest levels of mind are not really, ultimately, of much value except to the indoctrinated TM crowd, and those they can still fool. As I've said many times, you need to transcend the transcendent (what's believed to be transcendent in TM) to even begin to approach the actual full transcendence of mind. Once that level is attained, then some interesting research could be done. However since the 'canon of awakening in TM' was effectively frozen with the death of MMY, that point will never be reached. It's also therefore a fact that all TM research can only ever be of minor interest to serious consciousness researchers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: In order to even access those levels of subtlety one needs to complete the piercing of the bindu (bindu-bhedana) and master further levels of practice. Yes! You have to pierce the knots to really transcend.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardnelson108 richardnelson108@... wrote: Hey Vaj, Just got sround to reading your post on this. I continue to amazed (I guess I shouldn't be at this point) about how egocentric you are. I mean there you are sitting in your ivory tower making your high and mighty statements about how much you know about transcending and everything else you talk about regarding buddhism, the hindu and shankaracharya tradition etc., and you really believe you know more about this stuff than Maharishi did. I don't know about Vaj, what he thinks about Maharishi is not necessarily my opinion. Yet Maharishi himself called the transcendence in TM only 'hazy', not final, what Vaj is saying is just the same from a different perspective. It is also true, that TM, through the use of the mantra, is substituting negative with positive samskaras, something alluded to in the Yogasutras. Maharishi greatly simplified all the teachings. It's okay if you take it like that, but it's also okay for some others to try looking a little further, and see the whole thing in a larger context, alluding to the traditions from which he drew. Listen, we all know that MMY was far from perfect, but yet he was respected and loved by some of the greatest saints of India including Lakshmanjoo, Ananda Moy MA and Muktananda and yet according to you he is a know nothing charlatan. Again, I do not necessarily share Vaj's judgement of Maharishi, but in the vicinity of his disciples, usually these saints will make statements, that encourage the bhakti to the guru. There are other statements, Muktananda made, and other Gurus made, which are in fact more critical. So you can turn it either way, you will get a balance. Maybe you can explain why they all seemed to be very happy with him? Oh wait, I forgot ...you never deal with any criticism. You just disappear for a while until you can jump in again all high and mighty with your superior knowledge to enlighten us. OK, I'll just wait for more pearls of wisdom coming oour way from you --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 9, 2011, at 10:29 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:04 AM, seventhray1 wrote: Oh, good. I'll just have to revise my experience so it conforms with your analysis. Actually we've all already been pre-programmed to believe in the stress release, unstressing, model is factually correct. Each time we transcend we're chipping away at those stresses in our nervous system. So I believe most of us who were indoctrinated into TM would chose as you did. Actually, the current theory of how TM works is that it sets up a situation in the thalamus that inhibits the thalamo-coritical feedback loops that scientists believe are what we experience as thoughts. This allows the brain to relax into a default mode of functioning where it is still alert, but literally not thinking about much of anything. The stronger the inhibition, the less thinking tha is done. Coincidentally, the default mode of functioning that results is where the front part of the brain and the back part of the brain are most easily able to communicate with each other. This is the exact opposite of stress, which tends to interfere with the communication between the front and back parts of the brain. The only problem with such theories is Lawson that TM is really only an elementary practice of mantra meditation. From the POV of the actual mantra tradition, the subtlest level of mantra in TM - the point where one still has some abstract feeling of the mantra before reaching what TMers believe is the transcendent - is 512 times more gross than the subtlest level of mantra reached before the mind is actually transcended - what is known as the unmana stage. In order to even access those levels of subtlety one needs to complete the piercing of the bindu (bindu-bhedana) and master further levels of practice. This level of subtlety simply does not exist in TM. So theories that are in effect based on iterations of the grossest levels of mind are not really, ultimately, of much value except to the indoctrinated TM crowd, and those they can still fool. As I've said many times, you need to transcend the transcendent (what's believed to be transcendent in TM) to even begin to approach the actual full transcendence of mind. Once that level is attained, then some interesting research could be done. However since the 'canon of awakening in TM' was effectively frozen with the death of MMY, that point will never be reached. It's also therefore a fact that all TM research can only ever be of minor interest to serious consciousness researchers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 hanumandaz@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardnelson108 richardnelson108@ wrote: Hey Vaj, Just got sround to reading your post on this. I continue to amazed (I guess I shouldn't be at this point) about how egocentric you are. I mean there you are sitting in your ivory tower making your high and mighty statements about how much you know about transcending and everything else you talk about regarding buddhism, the hindu and shankaracharya tradition etc., and you really believe you know more about this stuff than Maharishi did. I don't know about Vaj, what he thinks about Maharishi is not necessarily my opinion. Yet Maharishi himself called the transcendence in TM only 'hazy', not final, what Vaj is saying is just the same from a different perspective. It is also true, that TM, through the use of the mantra, is substituting negative with positive samskaras, something alluded to in the Yogasutras. Maharishi greatly simplified all the teachings. It's okay if you take it like that, but it's also okay for some others to try looking a little further, and see the whole thing in a larger context, alluding to the traditions from which he drew. Listen, we all know that MMY was far from perfect, but yet he was respected and loved by some of the greatest saints of India including Lakshmanjoo, Ananda Moy MA and Muktananda and yet according to you he is a know nothing charlatan. Again, I do not necessarily share Vaj's judgement of Maharishi, but in the vicinity of his disciples, usually these saints will make statements, that encourage the bhakti to the guru. There are other statements, Muktananda made, and other Gurus made, which are in fact more critical. So you can turn it either way, you will get a balance. For example, after Muktananda left Seelisberg, on the way out touching a few TMers, thereby giving them Shaktipath, so that they would follow him, is reported to have said: Everybody is talking about enlightenment there, but nobody knows what they are talking about. Then you forgot to mention Krishnamurti or Osho. Bottomline is: whatever so called enlightened say is not always in agreement with each other, they say it for various reasons, and it cannot be used like Hollywood namedropping. That all enlightened agree with Maharishi and say how great he is, is only a sweet illusion for TB's Maybe you can explain why they all seemed to be very happy with him? Oh wait, I forgot ...you never deal with any criticism. You just disappear for a while until you can jump in again all high and mighty with your superior knowledge to enlighten us. OK, I'll just wait for more pearls of wisdom coming oour way from you --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 9, 2011, at 10:29 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:04 AM, seventhray1 wrote: Oh, good. I'll just have to revise my experience so it conforms with your analysis. Actually we've all already been pre-programmed to believe in the stress release, unstressing, model is factually correct. Each time we transcend we're chipping away at those stresses in our nervous system. So I believe most of us who were indoctrinated into TM would chose as you did. Actually, the current theory of how TM works is that it sets up a situation in the thalamus that inhibits the thalamo-coritical feedback loops that scientists believe are what we experience as thoughts. This allows the brain to relax into a default mode of functioning where it is still alert, but literally not thinking about much of anything. The stronger the inhibition, the less thinking tha is done. Coincidentally, the default mode of functioning that results is where the front part of the brain and the back part of the brain are most easily able to communicate with each other. This is the exact opposite of stress, which tends to interfere with the communication between the front and back parts of the brain. The only problem with such theories is Lawson that TM is really only an elementary practice of mantra meditation. From the POV of the actual mantra tradition, the subtlest level of mantra in TM - the point where one still has some abstract feeling of the mantra before reaching what TMers believe is the transcendent - is 512 times more gross than the subtlest level of mantra reached before the mind is actually transcended - what is known as the unmana stage. In order to even access those levels of subtlety one needs to complete the piercing of the bindu (bindu-bhedana) and master further levels of practice. This level of subtlety simply does not exist in TM.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: [...] Actually, the current theory of how TM works is that it sets up a situation in the thalamus that inhibits the thalamo-coritical feedback loops that scientists believe are what we experience as thoughts. This allows the brain to relax into a default mode of functioning where it is still alert, but literally not thinking about much of anything. The stronger the inhibition, the less thinking tha is done. Coincidentally, the default mode of functioning that results is where the front part of the brain and the back part of the brain are most easily able to communicate with each other. This is the exact opposite of stress, which tends to interfere with the communication between the front and back parts of the brain. Now, this I find interesting. Where did you hear this current theory of how TM works? The sense of the persnoality and doing part being on autopilot while one's awareness just is huge and uninvolved must have some definitive brain changes that mirror the shift. Is this theory from MUM scientists? http://www.totalbrain.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/neural-model.pdf starting at the end of page 312.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
This is what they call a Vaj recharge. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardnelson108 richardnelson108@... wrote: Hey Vaj, Just got sround to reading your post on this. I continue to amazed (I guess I shouldn't be at this point) about how egocentric you are. I mean there you are sitting in your ivory tower making your high and mighty statements about how much you know about transcending and everything else you talk about regarding buddhism, the hindu and shankaracharya tradition etc., and you really believe you know more about this stuff than Maharishi did. Listen, we all know that MMY was far from perfect, but yet he was respected and loved by some of the greatest saints of India including Lakshmanjoo, Ananda Moy MA and Muktananda and yet according to you he is a know nothing charlatan. Maybe you can explain why they all seemed to be very happy with him? Oh wait, I forgot ...you never deal with any criticism. You just disappear for a while until you can jump in again all high and mighty with your superior knowledge to enlighten us. OK, I'll just wait for more pearls of wisdom coming oour way from you --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 9, 2011, at 10:29 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:04 AM, seventhray1 wrote: Oh, good. I'll just have to revise my experience so it conforms with your analysis. Actually we've all already been pre-programmed to believe in the stress release, unstressing, model is factually correct. Each time we transcend we're chipping away at those stresses in our nervous system. So I believe most of us who were indoctrinated into TM would chose as you did. Actually, the current theory of how TM works is that it sets up a situation in the thalamus that inhibits the thalamo-coritical feedback loops that scientists believe are what we experience as thoughts. This allows the brain to relax into a default mode of functioning where it is still alert, but literally not thinking about much of anything. The stronger the inhibition, the less thinking tha is done. Coincidentally, the default mode of functioning that results is where the front part of the brain and the back part of the brain are most easily able to communicate with each other. This is the exact opposite of stress, which tends to interfere with the communication between the front and back parts of the brain. The only problem with such theories is Lawson that TM is really only an elementary practice of mantra meditation. From the POV of the actual mantra tradition, the subtlest level of mantra in TM - the point where one still has some abstract feeling of the mantra before reaching what TMers believe is the transcendent - is 512 times more gross than the subtlest level of mantra reached before the mind is actually transcended - what is known as the unmana stage. In order to even access those levels of subtlety one needs to complete the piercing of the bindu (bindu-bhedana) and master further levels of practice. This level of subtlety simply does not exist in TM. So theories that are in effect based on iterations of the grossest levels of mind are not really, ultimately, of much value except to the indoctrinated TM crowd, and those they can still fool. As I've said many times, you need to transcend the transcendent (what's believed to be transcendent in TM) to even begin to approach the actual full transcendence of mind. Once that level is attained, then some interesting research could be done. However since the 'canon of awakening in TM' was effectively frozen with the death of MMY, that point will never be reached. It's also therefore a fact that all TM research can only ever be of minor interest to serious consciousness researchers.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
On Dec 7, 2011, at 8:36 PM, sparaig lengli...@cox.net wrote: Heh. MMY always portrayed himself as a reformer, so conservatives would naturally be incensed with what he said. Of course the real reason they were incensed was probably because he was destroying the purity of their tradition, while making the dubious claim to be restoring it. I've noticed that destroyers of traditions often present themselves as reformers. ANd in fact, MMY's point that I was in turn pointing out, is that one can spout rhetoric all day long, but if that rhetoric isn't based on internal states, then it is merely flowery words. Yes, I think you've touched on the essence of TM: flowery rhetoric and slick sales presentations based on relaxation states but sold as higher states of consciousness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 5, 2011, at 11:46 PM, sparaig wrote: That might be, but of course, this doesn't say anything about the kids and prison inmates who learn TM en mass through the David Lynch FOundation. Well you'd have to do another study. But I doubt at this late date anyone independent would be interested, let alone be given access to datum. Other than the public school officials that are pushing for greater use of TM in their own school systems, you mean, who cite their OWN internally generated statistics to justify their enthusiasm? L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 6, 2011, at 1:09 AM, sparaig wrote: Because his comments are very much in line with a lot of TM teachers I have run into over the years. He regurgitates the Knowledge, but doesn't appear to get it. THe whole thing in the interview about how since a given guru was from the advaita traditionkthey should be welcomed at MUM, misses the whole point of TM. He's commenting from the broader base that the tradition TM comes from rather than merely relying on TM-speak or the blinders on view of a TB or a TM-TB. And trust me, that always scares TB's, they go into a frenzy. In this case it's clear that DS is very qualified to comment on the larger view of the tradition, esp. given his inside experience of TM instruction and practice. He's also one of the leading experts on the dandi sannyasis. Heh. MMY always portrayed himself as a reformer, so conservatives would naturally be incensed with what he said. ANd in fact, MMY's point that I was in turn pointing out, is that one can spout rhetoric all day long, but if that rhetoric isn't based on internal states, then it is merely flowery words. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: Eh, people can quote MMY correctly all over the place and still be totally wrong. You see it all the time on this forum, and I read comments from currently active TM teachers that make me cringe, they are so wrong-headed. Just because someone has a different understanding does not mean they are wrong. They are right from their own level. Leaving a meeting with Maharishi there would often be 4-5 contradictory understandings amongst the 10-15 people present. Ofcourse I and my buddy were the only people in that meeting who got it right ! :-) I dare say that some of the most brilliant people in the Movement were not even around Maharishi a lot.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
On Dec 5, 2011, at 11:44 PM, sparaig wrote: Isn't Mahesh supposed to be MMY's given first name? It's certainly strange for a scholar posing as a neutral party to refer to a person whom he has never met, but whom he has written formal words about, by his first name. If he's a decent scholar he knows that for the alias Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: Maharishi is a grandiose, self-proclaimed title. So then you end up with Mahesh Yogi. But we now know that he never had any training or ordination as a yogi! So that leaves Mahesh. It's also what SBS called him...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
On Dec 5, 2011, at 11:46 PM, sparaig wrote: That might be, but of course, this doesn't say anything about the kids and prison inmates who learn TM en mass through the David Lynch FOundation. Well you'd have to do another study. But I doubt at this late date anyone independent would be interested, let alone be given access to datum.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
On Dec 6, 2011, at 1:09 AM, sparaig wrote: Because his comments are very much in line with a lot of TM teachers I have run into over the years. He regurgitates the Knowledge, but doesn't appear to get it. THe whole thing in the interview about how since a given guru was from the advaita traditionkthey should be welcomed at MUM, misses the whole point of TM. He's commenting from the broader base that the tradition TM comes from rather than merely relying on TM-speak or the blinders on view of a TB or a TM-TB. And trust me, that always scares TB's, they go into a frenzy. In this case it's clear that DS is very qualified to comment on the larger view of the tradition, esp. given his inside experience of TM instruction and practice. He's also one of the leading experts on the dandi sannyasis.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 4, 2011, at 10:30 AM, feste37 wrote: But it was part of what you said. (See below. I've restored your words that you deleted.) Here's what I said: I regularly talk to people who will mention problems as simple as having to alter their life because they're afraid to go outside or in public. Do you really mean that TM causes people to be afraid to go outside? Let me clarify what I said, since you're not getting it. I regularly talk to people On a consistent basis I'm talking to persons who have problems (plural)... as simple as having to alter their life because they're afraid to go outside or in public. ...to give a singular example, some might develop agoraphobic-type issues. To give further examples, some might develop hypersensitivties about being around other people. There are a large number of variations like this, it's not just limited to being in public. Because that's what you said. If indeed there are any examples I suspect your reasoning goes like this: person has psychological problems; person also does TM, therefore the problems are caused by TM. But I doubt whether that is valid. I'm relying on their perceptions and the conclusions they're drawing, not my own. They often associate these issues with extensive rounding, or (more rarely) the TMSP. Just as an aside, I loved rounding, it was one of my favorite TM activities. I'm not sure if I had any negative side effects, it seemed to have a relatively positive effect for may (often sensations of mental bliss). I think it would be more accurate to say that in such instances, TM proved to be no help in addressing the problem. These all occurred after long rounding, etc., so that is what they're associating it with. I can accept that, because TM is not a cure-all, but I don't think it makes people (to use your example) afraid to go outside. Such allegations, it seems to me, are just part of your long vendetta against TM and the TM movement, in which anything will do, whether accurate or not. When you talk to people who've helped in the recovery of such persons, they can site hundreds, even thousands of such instances. I should also point out a similar trend I've seen in the last ten years is also among people coming from the many Hindu kundalini paths that have sprung up. they're having similar problems or even more severe problems. Suffice to say, many of these types of disorders are well known in Ayurvedic and Tibetan medical literature. And your saying that TM is the underlying cause of all these problems? That the individuals had no symptoms of any of this before the practice of TM? Do you have any empirical data? Any medical professional to back up what you are claiming? Is this population you are talking about live in a relatively isolated area? You use the word might develop but do you have any evidence that in fact TM is the cause? Who are these people who can cite thousands of instances of helping recovering meditators? Please reference Ayurvedic literature that talk about these disorders. Thanks. I am just asking for some clarification on your post.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Eh, people can quote MMY correctly all over the place and still be totally wrong. You see it all the time on this forum, and I read comments from currently active TM teachers that make me cringe, they are so wrong-headed. Just because someone has a different understanding does not mean they are wrong. They are right from their own level. Leaving a meeting with Maharishi there would often be 4-5 contradictory understandings amongst the 10-15 people present. Ofcourse I and my buddy were the only people in that meeting who got it right ! :-) I dare say that some of the most brilliant people in the Movement were not even around Maharishi a lot. Yep. You and i were, and quite enough to Know it by contrast. Jai Guru Dev, -Buck Experienced, conservative and old in meditation in Iowa
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
On Dec 4, 2011, at 9:49 PM, seventhray1 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: I think it's important to distinguish between meditation forms that help samskaras be dissolved and those that plant sattvic seeds in the mind to overwhelm the rajasic and tamasic weeds. One method is like planting many flowers in a garden so that they overwhelm the weeds to the point they're barely noticeable, the other is like dissolving the weeds at the roots so the garden's already present state can emerge. So which is which? Are you saying TM is more like one of these than the other. Both methods sound positive. From my experience, I would say TM was more like #2. But that was also coupled with a lot of introspection and work on my part to root out tendencies that were causing me problems. For me TM was more like a break in the action and a balm for mind and body. Sorry Ray, the correct answer was door number one.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 4, 2011, at 9:49 PM, seventhray1 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: I think it's important to distinguish between meditation forms that help samskaras be dissolved and those that plant sattvic seeds in the mind to overwhelm the rajasic and tamasic weeds. One method is like planting many flowers in a garden so that they overwhelm the weeds to the point they're barely noticeable, the other is like dissolving the weeds at the roots so the garden's already present state can emerge. So which is which? Are you saying TM is more like one of these than the other. Both methods sound positive. From my experience, I would say TM was more like #2. But that was also coupled with a lot of introspection and work on my part to root out tendencies that were causing me problems. For me TM was more like a break in the action and a balm for mind and body. Sorry Ray, the correct answer was door number one. Oh, good. I'll just have to revise my experience so it conforms with your analysis. Thanks for examples of tecniques that utilize #1. But just to be clear, since you reverse the order in the first and second parts of your paragraph, I found TM to aid in a dissolving of the samskaras. I'm not getting the planting of sattwic seeds as it pertains to the practice of TM. Care to be more specific about that?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:04 AM, seventhray1 wrote: Oh, good. I'll just have to revise my experience so it conforms with your analysis. Actually we've all already been pre-programmed to believe in the stress release, unstressing, model is factually correct. Each time we transcend we're chipping away at those stresses in our nervous system. So I believe most of us who were indoctrinated into TM would chose as you did. Thanks for examples of tecniques that utilize #1. But just to be clear, since you reverse the order in the first and second parts of your paragraph, I found TM to aid in a dissolving of the samskaras. I'm not getting the planting of sattwic seeds as it pertains to the practice of TM. Care to be more specific about that? The basic idea is that the mind is naturally unruly at the start, particularly because of the dominance of rajasic and tamsic thought patterns. If you take something sattvic, like a goddesses mantra and repeat it enough times this embrues the mindstream with sattvic qualities, making it easier for the mind to settle down.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
Ok, thanks for your reply. I'll have to think about that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:04 AM, seventhray1 wrote: Oh, good. I'll just have to revise my experience so it conforms with your analysis. Actually we've all already been pre-programmed to believe in the stress release, unstressing, model is factually correct. Each time we transcend we're chipping away at those stresses in our nervous system. So I believe most of us who were indoctrinated into TM would chose as you did. Thanks for examples of tecniques that utilize #1. But just to be clear, since you reverse the order in the first and second parts of your paragraph, I found TM to aid in a dissolving of the samskaras. I'm not getting the planting of sattwic seeds as it pertains to the practice of TM. Care to be more specific about that? The basic idea is that the mind is naturally unruly at the start, particularly because of the dominance of rajasic and tamsic thought patterns. If you take something sattvic, like a goddesses mantra and repeat it enough times this embrues the mindstream with sattvic qualities, making it easier for the mind to settle down.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: Ok, thanks for your reply. I'll have to think about that. The important thing to remember is that what you think is a TM-related experience is *never* a spontaneous experience; it's *always* the result of having been pre-programmed. (And that applies, miraculously, even if you've had the experience before you've been told what it's supposed to be.) You had it exactly right in your previous post: You need to revise your experience so it conforms to Vaj's analysis. His post-programming will enable you to know, finally, what you've *really* been experiencing all along. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:04 AM, seventhray1 wrote: Oh, good. I'll just have to revise my experience so it conforms with your analysis. Actually we've all already been pre-programmed to believe in the stress release, unstressing, model is factually correct. Each time we transcend we're chipping away at those stresses in our nervous system. So I believe most of us who were indoctrinated into TM would chose as you did. Thanks for examples of tecniques that utilize #1. But just to be clear, since you reverse the order in the first and second parts of your paragraph, I found TM to aid in a dissolving of the samskaras. I'm not getting the planting of sattwic seeds as it pertains to the practice of TM. Care to be more specific about that? The basic idea is that the mind is naturally unruly at the start, particularly because of the dominance of rajasic and tamsic thought patterns. If you take something sattvic, like a goddesses mantra and repeat it enough times this embrues the mindstream with sattvic qualities, making it easier for the mind to settle down.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: FWIW, Vaj has also deleted quite a few of the posts he's made about Robin in the past (made before Robin joined us; Alex might know when he deleted them). I can do a search of the web activity log, but all it will show is the time and date of the deletion and the post number. It doesn't show the subject line of the deleted post. The post number lets me look up the posting time of the posts before and after the deletion, and referencing the alternate web archive for posts made in that time slot might bring up the deleted post. But, it's really tedious work. http://alex.natel.net/misc/vaj_deleted.jpg Yeah, too much of a hassle to track down the exact posts that were deleted. What I'm wondering is whether a bunch were deleted when Robin first joined us--or perhaps after I'd suggested to Robin that he check out the discussions we'd had about him in the past. If so, and if the deleted post numbers fell in the time frame of specific past discussions about Robin, it might be worth the trouble to track down what the deleted posts said. But I wouldn't ask you to do that. What *is* interesting is the timing of Vaj's deletion of the photo. That happened only a few minutes after raunchy made her comparison of Vaj's photo with what she said were photos of the old church that was torn down. As it happens, I didn't think the bell tower in raunchy's photo was the same as the one in Vaj's photo; there were several distinct differences if you looked closely. A little later she posted a correction saying the photo she'd found was of the *new* church, for which a replica of the old bell tower had been built. If it wasn't an *exact* replica, that could account for the differences I saw between that bell tower and the one in Vaj's photo; Vaj's photo could have been of the old church. In any case, I'm wondering, would there have been any other ways to verify from Vaj's photo that it was--or was not-- actually taken in Fairfield? Maybe he didn't delete it as a result of raunchy's post. But the timing is curiously close. And why would he have deleted it so soon after having made such a big deal of it? What was in the photo that he suddenly decided he didn't want us to see after all?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
Perhaps it's this book? : Cosmic Capitalism, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and the Selling of Romanticism. (Albany: State University of New York Press, forthcoming, Fall 2009). Co-written with Cynthia Humes. authfriend: If that's it, it's a bit behind schedule, it seems. The SUNY Press Web site has no mention of it, even as forthcoming. Also, the title doesn't sound very positive. In fact, it sounds like this book may be another smear against MMY for 'selling' mantras and charging for TM instruction - don't really need any photos for that kind of book. Dana Sawyer has written a book on the TM Movement, and needs some photos. Please see below and let me know if you can help:
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
Oh, good. I'll just have to revise my experience so it conforms with your analysis. HA HA HA!! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 4, 2011, at 9:49 PM, seventhray1 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: I think it's important to distinguish between meditation forms that help samskaras be dissolved and those that plant sattvic seeds in the mind to overwhelm the rajasic and tamasic weeds. One method is like planting many flowers in a garden so that they overwhelm the weeds to the point they're barely noticeable, the other is like dissolving the weeds at the roots so the garden's already present state can emerge. So which is which? Are you saying TM is more like one of these than the other. Both methods sound positive. From my experience, I would say TM was more like #2. But that was also coupled with a lot of introspection and work on my part to root out tendencies that were causing me problems. For me TM was more like a break in the action and a balm for mind and body. Sorry Ray, the correct answer was door number one. Oh, good. I'll just have to revise my experience so it conforms with your analysis. Thanks for examples of tecniques that utilize #1. But just to be clear, since you reverse the order in the first and second parts of your paragraph, I found TM to aid in a dissolving of the samskaras. I'm not getting the planting of sattwic seeds as it pertains to the practice of TM. Care to be more specific about that?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
If I had to guess, he was asked to pull it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: FWIW, Vaj has also deleted quite a few of the posts he's made about Robin in the past (made before Robin joined us; Alex might know when he deleted them). I can do a search of the web activity log, but all it will show is the time and date of the deletion and the post number. It doesn't show the subject line of the deleted post. The post number lets me look up the posting time of the posts before and after the deletion, and referencing the alternate web archive for posts made in that time slot might bring up the deleted post. But, it's really tedious work. http://alex.natel.net/misc/vaj_deleted.jpg Yeah, too much of a hassle to track down the exact posts that were deleted. What I'm wondering is whether a bunch were deleted when Robin first joined us--or perhaps after I'd suggested to Robin that he check out the discussions we'd had about him in the past. If so, and if the deleted post numbers fell in the time frame of specific past discussions about Robin, it might be worth the trouble to track down what the deleted posts said. But I wouldn't ask you to do that. What *is* interesting is the timing of Vaj's deletion of the photo. That happened only a few minutes after raunchy made her comparison of Vaj's photo with what she said were photos of the old church that was torn down. As it happens, I didn't think the bell tower in raunchy's photo was the same as the one in Vaj's photo; there were several distinct differences if you looked closely. A little later she posted a correction saying the photo she'd found was of the *new* church, for which a replica of the old bell tower had been built. If it wasn't an *exact* replica, that could account for the differences I saw between that bell tower and the one in Vaj's photo; Vaj's photo could have been of the old church. In any case, I'm wondering, would there have been any other ways to verify from Vaj's photo that it was--or was not-- actually taken in Fairfield? Maybe he didn't delete it as a result of raunchy's post. But the timing is curiously close. And why would he have deleted it so soon after having made such a big deal of it? What was in the photo that he suddenly decided he didn't want us to see after all?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
You're practically throwing in the towel here VJ...When I read this, your language indicates that you are not putting yourself in the category of a certain type of person [who]...decides to pay and undergo TM initiation. So now, after all the challenges to your immediately suspect claim about having practiced and taught TM and the TMSP, you're like, f*ck it...I don't care if they know I never did that stuff... - wow. A case of the Holiday Blues or what? You're giving in, huh? OK, well glad you are past it. Now, see how much easier it is, having shed that lie? Yeah, you are just some family guy who gets his strokes being known as a Big Buddha Boy. Pretty harmless really, so, hell, proselytize all you want about your Path, and just let all of that nonsense about ,I did TM, wash away. Happy Holidays! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 4, 2011, at 2:14 PM, feste37 wrote: I am aware that more than a few TM meditators have hypersensitivities, but I'm not sure that is always a bad thing: they have their antennae up to detect anything that might be harmful and coming their way, so as best to avoid it (food sensitivities, for example). I have hypersensitivities of my own, but I don't think TM or the TMSP had any effect on them, one way or another. It's just part of the makeup of the personality. But that's just my experience. It's a psychological fact (from independent studies on TM) that a certain type of person self selects and decides to pay and undergo TM initiation - and that self selection all occurs from how that particular segment reacts to the intro lecture content. I guess the question then becomes what unique vulnerabilities does this group of humans have?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: If I had to guess, he was asked to pull it. Probably his seniors in the FBI didn't approove :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: FWIW, Vaj has also deleted quite a few of the posts he's made about Robin in the past (made before Robin joined us; Alex might know when he deleted them). I can do a search of the web activity log, but all it will show is the time and date of the deletion and the post number. It doesn't show the subject line of the deleted post. The post number lets me look up the posting time of the posts before and after the deletion, and referencing the alternate web archive for posts made in that time slot might bring up the deleted post. But, it's really tedious work. http://alex.natel.net/misc/vaj_deleted.jpg Yeah, too much of a hassle to track down the exact posts that were deleted. What I'm wondering is whether a bunch were deleted when Robin first joined us--or perhaps after I'd suggested to Robin that he check out the discussions we'd had about him in the past. If so, and if the deleted post numbers fell in the time frame of specific past discussions about Robin, it might be worth the trouble to track down what the deleted posts said. But I wouldn't ask you to do that. What *is* interesting is the timing of Vaj's deletion of the photo. That happened only a few minutes after raunchy made her comparison of Vaj's photo with what she said were photos of the old church that was torn down. As it happens, I didn't think the bell tower in raunchy's photo was the same as the one in Vaj's photo; there were several distinct differences if you looked closely. A little later she posted a correction saying the photo she'd found was of the *new* church, for which a replica of the old bell tower had been built. If it wasn't an *exact* replica, that could account for the differences I saw between that bell tower and the one in Vaj's photo; Vaj's photo could have been of the old church. In any case, I'm wondering, would there have been any other ways to verify from Vaj's photo that it was--or was not-- actually taken in Fairfield? Maybe he didn't delete it as a result of raunchy's post. But the timing is curiously close. And why would he have deleted it so soon after having made such a big deal of it? What was in the photo that he suddenly decided he didn't want us to see after all?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: If I had to guess, he was asked to pull it. Well, for anyone who saw the pic on the website, it's more than likely still in their browser cache. I was able to retrieve it from mine this morning. I don't see what the big deal is... it's a blurry Polaroid shot in poor condition. I didn't even think to save it when it was first posted because it's such a crummy pic.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
Well, I've thought about. Kind of like. Who cares. But I guess it's good to have a minder like Vaj, who wants to make sure you stay on the proper itinerary and don't stray into unholy areas. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: Ok, thanks for your reply. I'll have to think about that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:04 AM, seventhray1 wrote: Oh, good. I'll just have to revise my experience so it conforms with your analysis. Actually we've all already been pre-programmed to believe in the stress release, unstressing, model is factually correct. Each time we transcend we're chipping away at those stresses in our nervous system. So I believe most of us who were indoctrinated into TM would chose as you did. Thanks for examples of tecniques that utilize #1. But just to be clear, since you reverse the order in the first and second parts of your paragraph, I found TM to aid in a dissolving of the samskaras. I'm not getting the planting of sattwic seeds as it pertains to the practice of TM. Care to be more specific about that? The basic idea is that the mind is naturally unruly at the start, particularly because of the dominance of rajasic and tamsic thought patterns. If you take something sattvic, like a goddesses mantra and repeat it enough times this embrues the mindstream with sattvic qualities, making it easier for the mind to settle down.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
I saw it, and yeah it was hardly worth the effort. Big coup - heh, so maybe it was removed out of sheer embarrassment... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: If I had to guess, he was asked to pull it. Well, for anyone who saw the pic on the website, it's more than likely still in their browser cache. I was able to retrieve it from mine this morning. I don't see what the big deal is... it's a blurry Polaroid shot in poor condition. I didn't even think to save it when it was first posted because it's such a crummy pic.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of richardatrwilliamsdotus Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 8:34 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos shukra69: this is a desperate crazy person kind of drive-by slander on your part isn't it Vag? Vaj: I feel that all recent information relating to the TMO's dark side would be relevant, esp. material that relates to the traditional problems meditation can cause - and the hope for relief for people suffering... So, you need Dana Sawyer, who never even tried TM, to explain to you TM? You're supposed to be the spiritual teacher! You're thinking Dana Sawyer knows anything about the TM or the TMO? Go figure. Dana was a TM teacher, speaks fluent Hindi, has interviewed just about every significant yogi and swami in India, etc. I'd say he knows a thing or two about TM and the TMO. He never interviewed any of the people who supported Satchananda or Vasudevananda, IIRC. He said he had no interest i getting their side of the story, or words to that effect.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: snip [Nabby wrote:] What kind of book ? Haven't read it. Don't know the content. ...Yesterday an old friend asked me whether the rumor he heard was true, that I'm writing an anti-TMO book. It's not, but that rumor probably started because I've mentioned here that I know of a couple of books in the pipeline that the movement won't be too crazy about (Dana Sawyer's and Judith's).--Rick Archer, July 3, 2004 (Rick also said around the same time that he had read the first three or four chapters.) In any case, unless Dana has undergone a major change of mind, we know it's going to be negative in at least some respects, based on the quotes from Dana's emails to Rick on various aspects of the Guru Dev succession controversy that Rick has posted here; plus the fact that Dana refers to MMY in the emails as Mahesh, which is a pretty sure sign of a less-than-100 percent-positive perspective. Isn't Mahesh supposed to be MMY's given first name? It's certainly strange for a scholar posing as a neutral party to refer to a person whom he has never met, but whom he has written formal words about, by his first name. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 4, 2011, at 2:14 PM, feste37 wrote: I am aware that more than a few TM meditators have hypersensitivities, but I'm not sure that is always a bad thing: they have their antennae up to detect anything that might be harmful and coming their way, so as best to avoid it (food sensitivities, for example). I have hypersensitivities of my own, but I don't think TM or the TMSP had any effect on them, one way or another. It's just part of the makeup of the personality. But that's just my experience. It's a psychological fact (from independent studies on TM) that a certain type of person self selects and decides to pay and undergo TM initiation - and that self selection all occurs from how that particular segment reacts to the intro lecture content. I guess the question then becomes what unique vulnerabilities does this group of humans have? That might be, but of course, this doesn't say anything about the kids and prison inmates who learn TM en mass through the David Lynch FOundation. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardatrwilliamsdotus richard@ wrote: snip [Vaj wrote:] Prof. Sawyer was expelled from the TMO for daring to explore other meditation methods. From what I've read, Dana Sawyer is not a graduate of M.U.M., and his name does not appear on the TMO list of approved teachers or lecturers... authfriend: The names of teachers who have left the TMO generally do not appear on such lists. (Not sure Sawyer was a teacher, but that's irrelevant anyway.) Well, I would think someone has to be some sort of TMO insider, in order to write a good report on the 'TMO'. I'm in the middle of watching Rick's Batgap interview with Sawyer, and in connection with the issue of how to stay engaged when one is doing routine work, Sawyer just mentioned having to memorize the checking notes. So he was enough of an insider either to have been a TM teacher or to have taken checker training. One thing about that comment: I'm glad I hadn't heard that before I was memorizing the checking notes hmmm... I seem to recall that checking was often part of the TM checker's training, at least in the 1974ish timeframe... L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of richardatrwilliamsdotus Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 8:34 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos shukra69: this is a desperate crazy person kind of drive-by slander on your part isn't it Vag? Vaj: I feel that all recent information relating to the TMO's dark side would be relevant, esp. material that relates to the traditional problems meditation can cause - and the hope for relief for people suffering... So, you need Dana Sawyer, who never even tried TM, to explain to you TM? You're supposed to be the spiritual teacher! You're thinking Dana Sawyer knows anything about the TM or the TMO? Go figure. Dana was a TM teacher, speaks fluent Hindi, has interviewed just about every significant yogi and swami in India, etc. I'd say he knows a thing or two about TM and the TMO. He never interviewed any of the people who supported Satchananda or Vasudevananda, IIRC. He said he had no interest i getting their side of the story, or words to that effect. You don't recall correctly. See #294744, next-to-last paragraph, for Sawyer's comments about an interview with Vasudevananda supporters. As to Satchananda, not sure what you could be referring to; he wasn't a candidate to replace Guru Dev. Sawyer's never mentioned him in any of his emails about the succession controversy that Rick has posted here. In fact, according to Yahoo's Advanced Search, you're the only person on FFL ever to have mentioned Satchananda, and those mentions weren't in connection with the succession controversy either. For that matter, Sawyer's book may not have anything about the succession controversy anyway.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardatrwilliamsdotus richard@ wrote: snip [Vaj wrote:] Prof. Sawyer was expelled from the TMO for daring to explore other meditation methods. From what I've read, Dana Sawyer is not a graduate of M.U.M., and his name does not appear on the TMO list of approved teachers or lecturers... authfriend: The names of teachers who have left the TMO generally do not appear on such lists. (Not sure Sawyer was a teacher, but that's irrelevant anyway.) Well, I would think someone has to be some sort of TMO insider, in order to write a good report on the 'TMO'. I'm in the middle of watching Rick's Batgap interview with Sawyer, and in connection with the issue of how to stay engaged when one is doing routine work, Sawyer just mentioned having to memorize the checking notes. So he was enough of an insider either to have been a TM teacher or to have taken checker training. One thing about that comment: I'm glad I hadn't heard that before I was memorizing the checking notes hmmm... I seem to recall that checking was often part of the TM checker's training, at least in the 1974ish timeframe... Lawson, what are you talking about? Why do you think I mentioned the comment? Why do you think I said, So he was enough of an 'insider' either to have been a TM teacher or to have taken checker training? In any case, further on in the interview Sawyer talks about his experience teaching TM, and Rick has confirmed he was a teacher, so there really isn't anything to be disputed. Willytex was, as he frequently is, just wrong.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardatrwilliamsdotus richard@ wrote: snip [Vaj wrote:] Prof. Sawyer was expelled from the TMO for daring to explore other meditation methods. From what I've read, Dana Sawyer is not a graduate of M.U.M., and his name does not appear on the TMO list of approved teachers or lecturers... authfriend: The names of teachers who have left the TMO generally do not appear on such lists. (Not sure Sawyer was a teacher, but that's irrelevant anyway.) Well, I would think someone has to be some sort of TMO insider, in order to write a good report on the 'TMO'. I'm in the middle of watching Rick's Batgap interview with Sawyer, and in connection with the issue of how to stay engaged when one is doing routine work, Sawyer just mentioned having to memorize the checking notes. So he was enough of an insider either to have been a TM teacher or to have taken checker training. One thing about that comment: I'm glad I hadn't heard that before I was memorizing the checking notes hmmm... I seem to recall that checking was often part of the TM checker's training, at least in the 1974ish timeframe... Lawson, what are you talking about? Why do you think I mentioned the comment? Why do you think I said, So he was enough of an 'insider' either to have been a TM teacher or to have taken checker training? Because his comments are very much in line with a lot of TM teachers I have run into over the years. He regurgitates the Knowledge, but doesn't appear to get it. THe whole thing in the interview about how since a given guru was from the advaita traditionkthey should be welcomed at MUM, misses the whole point of TM. In any case, further on in the interview Sawyer talks about his experience teaching TM, and Rick has confirmed he was a teacher, so there really isn't anything to be disputed. Willytex was, as he frequently is, just wrong. Eh, people can quote MMY correctly all over the place and still be totally wrong. You see it all the time on this forum, and I read comments from currently active TM teachers that make me cringe, they are so wrong-headed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of richardatrwilliamsdotus Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 8:34 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos shukra69: this is a desperate crazy person kind of drive-by slander on your part isn't it Vag? Vaj: I feel that all recent information relating to the TMO's dark side would be relevant, esp. material that relates to the traditional problems meditation can cause - and the hope for relief for people suffering... So, you need Dana Sawyer, who never even tried TM, to explain to you TM? You're supposed to be the spiritual teacher! You're thinking Dana Sawyer knows anything about the TM or the TMO? Go figure. Dana was a TM teacher, speaks fluent Hindi, has interviewed just about every significant yogi and swami in India, etc. I'd say he knows a thing or two about TM and the TMO. He never interviewed any of the people who supported Satchananda or Vasudevananda, IIRC. He said he had no interest i getting their side of the story, or words to that effect. You don't recall correctly. See #294744, next-to-last paragraph, for Sawyer's comments about an interview with Vasudevananda supporters. As to Satchananda, not sure what you could be referring to; he wasn't a candidate to replace Guru Dev. Sawyer's never mentioned him in any of his emails about the succession controversy that Rick has posted here. In fact, according to Yahoo's Advanced Search, you're the only person on FFL ever to have mentioned Satchananda, and those mentions weren't in connection with the succession controversy either. For that matter, Sawyer's book may not have anything about the succession controversy anyway. I mean Swami Santananda Saraswati which I have always heard of as Shantananda but that may be my untrained ear. L.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
No Feste, that was not the point of what I was saying. But thanks for asking. :-) On Dec 3, 2011, at 10:52 PM, feste37 fest...@yahoo.com wrote: So you're saying that TM causes people to be afraid to go outside or to be in public? Gosh, I never knew that, and I was in the movement for decades! Thanks, Vaj! Useful information to have.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
shukra69: this is a desperate crazy person kind of drive-by slander on your part isn't it Vag? Vaj: I feel that all recent information relating to the TMO's dark side would be relevant, esp. material that relates to the traditional problems meditation can cause - and the hope for relief for people suffering... So, you need Dana Sawyer, who never even tried TM, to explain to you TM? You're supposed to be the spiritual teacher! You're thinking Dana Sawyer knows anything about the TM or the TMO? Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
On Dec 4, 2011, at 9:33 AM, richardatrwilliamsdotus wrote: So, you need Dana Sawyer, who never even tried TM, to explain to you TM? You're supposed to be the spiritual teacher! You're thinking Dana Sawyer knows anything about the TM or the TMO? Go figure. Prof. Sawyer was expelled from the TMO for daring to explore other meditation methods.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
But it was part of what you said. (See below. I've restored your words that you deleted.) Do you really mean that TM causes people to be afraid to go outside? Because that's what you said. If indeed there are any examples I suspect your reasoning goes like this: person has psychological problems; person also does TM, therefore the problems are caused by TM. But I doubt whether that is valid. I think it would be more accurate to say that in such instances, TM proved to be no help in addressing the problem. I can accept that, because TM is not a cure-all, but I don't think it makes people (to use your example) afraid to go outside. Such allegations, it seems to me, are just part of your long vendetta against TM and the TM movement, in which anything will do, whether accurate or not. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: No Feste, that was not the point of what I was saying. But thanks for asking. :-) On Dec 3, 2011, at 10:52 PM, feste37 feste37@... wrote: So you're saying that TM causes people to be afraid to go outside or to be in public? Gosh, I never knew that, and I was in the movement for decades! Thanks, Vaj! Useful information to have. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: I feel that all recent information relating to the TMO's dark side would be relevant, esp. material that relates to the traditional problems meditation can cause - and the hope for relief for people suffering. You might see the still on-going PR of the TMO as more evidence of the success of the org. But I cannot ignore that this same org has more psychosis, suicide and meditational disorders than any meditation org I'm aware of. I regularly talk to people who will mention problems as simple as having to alter their life because they're afraid to go outside or in public. My heart goes out to these folks. So if a book is coming out on the TMO, I would hope there'd be some room for outreach.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
So, you need Dana Sawyer, who never even tried TM, to explain to you TM? You're supposed to be the spiritual teacher! You're thinking Dana Sawyer knows anything about the TM or the TMO? Go figure. Vaj: Prof. Sawyer was expelled from the TMO for daring to explore other meditation methods. From what I've read, Dana Sawyer is not a graduate of M.U.M., and his name does not appear on the TMO list of approved teachers or lecturers. Sawyer apparently never met MMY or SBS and has had no contact with Raja Ram in Fairfield. He's never tried TM and he does not know where the TM bija mantras come from - apparently he's never even heard of the Sri Vidya cult that SBS was a member of. Go figure. Sri Vidya: http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/srividya.htm Subject: Scholar-Meditator disputes Willytex Author: Vaj Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: September 14, 2005 http://tinyurl.com/27mpa7j
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardatrwilliamsdotus richard@... wrote: So, you need Dana Sawyer, who never even tried TM, to explain to you TM? You're supposed to be the spiritual teacher! You're thinking Dana Sawyer knows anything about the TM or the TMO? Go figure. Vaj: Prof. Sawyer was expelled from the TMO for daring to explore other meditation methods. From what I've read, Dana Sawyer is not a graduate of M.U.M., and his name does not appear on the TMO list of approved teachers or lecturers The names of teachers who have left the TMO generally do not appear on such lists. (Not sure Sawyer was a teacher, but that's irrelevant anyway.) . Sawyer apparently never met MMY or SBS and has had no contact with Raja Ram in Fairfield. He's never tried TM Rick initiated Sawyer in the early '70s. Don't know how long he stayed with it before he split, but TM apparently got him started on both his spiritual and professional paths.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
Prof. Sawyer was expelled from the TMO for daring to explore other meditation methods. From what I've read, Dana Sawyer is not a graduate of M.U.M., and his name does not appear on the TMO list of approved teachers or lecturers... authfriend: The names of teachers who have left the TMO generally do not appear on such lists. (Not sure Sawyer was a teacher, but that's irrelevant anyway.) Well, I would think someone has to be some sort of TMO insider, in order to write a good report on the 'TMO'. Sawyer apparently never met MMY or SBS and has had no contact with Raja Ram in Fairfield. He's never tried TM Rick initiated Sawyer in the early '70s. Don't know how long he stayed with it before he split, but TM apparently got him started on both his spiritual and professional paths. Maybe so, but he's not claiming any TMO status now, or in the past or even admitting he once tried TM. Maybe Rick could clear this up. Did Dana Sawyer get expelled from the TMO? How, exactly, does one get 'expelled' from practicing a common form of yoga meditation? Dana Sawyer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Sawyer
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardatrwilliamsdotus richard@... wrote: snip [Vaj wrote:] Prof. Sawyer was expelled from the TMO for daring to explore other meditation methods. From what I've read, Dana Sawyer is not a graduate of M.U.M., and his name does not appear on the TMO list of approved teachers or lecturers... authfriend: The names of teachers who have left the TMO generally do not appear on such lists. (Not sure Sawyer was a teacher, but that's irrelevant anyway.) Well, I would think someone has to be some sort of TMO insider, in order to write a good report on the 'TMO'. I'm in the middle of watching Rick's Batgap interview with Sawyer, and in connection with the issue of how to stay engaged when one is doing routine work, Sawyer just mentioned having to memorize the checking notes. So he was enough of an insider either to have been a TM teacher or to have taken checker training. Sawyer apparently never met MMY or SBS and has had no contact with Raja Ram in Fairfield. He's never tried TM Rick initiated Sawyer in the early '70s. Don't know how long he stayed with it before he split, but TM apparently got him started on both his spiritual and professional paths. Maybe so, but he's not claiming any TMO status now, or in the past or even admitting he once tried TM. See above. Obviously he used to practice TM, since Rick initiated him, and that's how Rick introduced him at the beginning of the Batgap interview. So far the discussion hasn't focused on TM, but it's come up several times. You need to watch the interview before you make any more dumb comments about Sawyer. Maybe Rick could clear this up. Did Dana Sawyer get expelled from the TMO? How, exactly, does one get 'expelled' from practicing a common form of yoga meditation? Expelled is Vaj's formulation. If Sawyer was a TM teacher, and he branched out into other forms of practice, he wouldn't have been allowed to teach under TM auspices or represent the TMO, as you know. Dana Sawyer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Sawyer http://batgap.com/dana-sawyer/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
On Dec 4, 2011, at 10:30 AM, feste37 wrote: But it was part of what you said. (See below. I've restored your words that you deleted.) Here's what I said: I regularly talk to people who will mention problems as simple as having to alter their life because they're afraid to go outside or in public. Do you really mean that TM causes people to be afraid to go outside? Let me clarify what I said, since you're not getting it. I regularly talk to people On a consistent basis I'm talking to persons who have problems (plural)... as simple as having to alter their life because they're afraid to go outside or in public. ...to give a singular example, some might develop agoraphobic-type issues. To give further examples, some might develop hypersensitivties about being around other people. There are a large number of variations like this, it's not just limited to being in public. Because that's what you said. If indeed there are any examples I suspect your reasoning goes like this: person has psychological problems; person also does TM, therefore the problems are caused by TM. But I doubt whether that is valid. I'm relying on their perceptions and the conclusions they're drawing, not my own. They often associate these issues with extensive rounding, or (more rarely) the TMSP. Just as an aside, I loved rounding, it was one of my favorite TM activities. I'm not sure if I had any negative side effects, it seemed to have a relatively positive effect for may (often sensations of mental bliss). I think it would be more accurate to say that in such instances, TM proved to be no help in addressing the problem. These all occurred after long rounding, etc., so that is what they're associating it with. I can accept that, because TM is not a cure-all, but I don't think it makes people (to use your example) afraid to go outside. Such allegations, it seems to me, are just part of your long vendetta against TM and the TM movement, in which anything will do, whether accurate or not. When you talk to people who've helped in the recovery of such persons, they can site hundreds, even thousands of such instances. I should also point out a similar trend I've seen in the last ten years is also among people coming from the many Hindu kundalini paths that have sprung up. they're having similar problems or even more severe problems. Suffice to say, many of these types of disorders are well known in Ayurvedic and Tibetan medical literature.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
Well, that's interesting. I never liked rounding so did as little of it as possible. I can imagine that if people are cooped up all day doing that then they might get a bit reclusive for a while and find it difficult to get back into a more integrated lifestyle, but I would have thought such feelings would be very short-term. Anything more serious, I would doubt were caused by long rounding, although the people may well be sincere in thinking that. I suspect there must be some other underlying issues in such cases that have nothing to do with TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 4, 2011, at 10:30 AM, feste37 wrote: But it was part of what you said. (See below. I've restored your words that you deleted.) Here's what I said: I regularly talk to people who will mention problems as simple as having to alter their life because they're afraid to go outside or in public. Do you really mean that TM causes people to be afraid to go outside? Let me clarify what I said, since you're not getting it. I regularly talk to people On a consistent basis I'm talking to persons who have problems (plural)... as simple as having to alter their life because they're afraid to go outside or in public. ...to give a singular example, some might develop agoraphobic-type issues. To give further examples, some might develop hypersensitivties about being around other people. There are a large number of variations like this, it's not just limited to being in public. Because that's what you said. If indeed there are any examples I suspect your reasoning goes like this: person has psychological problems; person also does TM, therefore the problems are caused by TM. But I doubt whether that is valid. I'm relying on their perceptions and the conclusions they're drawing, not my own. They often associate these issues with extensive rounding, or (more rarely) the TMSP. Just as an aside, I loved rounding, it was one of my favorite TM activities. I'm not sure if I had any negative side effects, it seemed to have a relatively positive effect for may (often sensations of mental bliss). I think it would be more accurate to say that in such instances, TM proved to be no help in addressing the problem. These all occurred after long rounding, etc., so that is what they're associating it with. I can accept that, because TM is not a cure-all, but I don't think it makes people (to use your example) afraid to go outside. Such allegations, it seems to me, are just part of your long vendetta against TM and the TM movement, in which anything will do, whether accurate or not. When you talk to people who've helped in the recovery of such persons, they can site hundreds, even thousands of such instances. I should also point out a similar trend I've seen in the last ten years is also among people coming from the many Hindu kundalini paths that have sprung up. they're having similar problems or even more severe problems. Suffice to say, many of these types of disorders are well known in Ayurvedic and Tibetan medical literature.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
On Dec 4, 2011, at 1:42 PM, feste37 wrote: Well, that's interesting. I never liked rounding so did as little of it as possible. I can imagine that if people are cooped up all day doing that then they might get a bit reclusive for a while and find it difficult to get back into a more integrated lifestyle, but I would have thought such feelings would be very short-term. Anything more serious, I would doubt were caused by long rounding, although the people may well be sincere in thinking that. I suspect there must be some other underlying issues in such cases that have nothing to do with TM. I believe there is a cause effect relationship in this case, just having observed the weird hypersensitivities in various rounders or hardcore sidhas. I think it's important to distinguish between meditation forms that help samskaras be dissolved and those that plant sattvic seeds in the mind to overwhelm the rajasic and tamasic weeds. One method is like planting many flowers in a garden so that they overwhelm the weeds to the point they're barely noticeable, the other is like dissolving the weeds at the roots so the garden's already present state can emerge.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
I know nothing about meditation forms other than TM, which was the only one that ever interested me, so I am unable to comment on your analogy. I am aware that more than a few TM meditators have hypersensitivities, but I'm not sure that is always a bad thing: they have their antennae up to detect anything that might be harmful and coming their way, so as best to avoid it (food sensitivities, for example). I have hypersensitivities of my own, but I don't think TM or the TMSP had any effect on them, one way or another. It's just part of the makeup of the personality. But that's just my experience. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 4, 2011, at 1:42 PM, feste37 wrote: Well, that's interesting. I never liked rounding so did as little of it as possible. I can imagine that if people are cooped up all day doing that then they might get a bit reclusive for a while and find it difficult to get back into a more integrated lifestyle, but I would have thought such feelings would be very short-term. Anything more serious, I would doubt were caused by long rounding, although the people may well be sincere in thinking that. I suspect there must be some other underlying issues in such cases that have nothing to do with TM. I believe there is a cause effect relationship in this case, just having observed the weird hypersensitivities in various rounders or hardcore sidhas. I think it's important to distinguish between meditation forms that help samskaras be dissolved and those that plant sattvic seeds in the mind to overwhelm the rajasic and tamasic weeds. One method is like planting many flowers in a garden so that they overwhelm the weeds to the point they're barely noticeable, the other is like dissolving the weeds at the roots so the garden's already present state can emerge.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
Feste, even-though Vaj is a big liar he is right on some of the symptoms. During my kundalini descension I suffered from symptoms that resemble panic attacks. During 2 weeks in 2006 it result in massive agoraphobia for me. Of course I was blessed enough that existence guided me and I never had to rely on crooks like Vaj or big pharma. I healed and integrated the energy naturally. So quite possible that several people who trigger Kundalini through TM had these symptoms, but they have no faith and trust in the process or Guru to complete it. Psychosis is another state that helped my body, mind, ego to go through the Kundalini ascension phase. Again I can envision the possibility of people stuck in this state for a whole lifetime because they trusted crooks like Vaj and the big pharma. I have written about this in the past. I can talk more if you are interested. On Dec 4, 2011, at 11:14 AM, feste37 fest...@yahoo.com wrote: I know nothing about meditation forms other than TM, which was the only one that ever interested me, so I am unable to comment on your analogy. I am aware that more than a few TM meditators have hypersensitivities, but I'm not sure that is always a bad thing: they have their antennae up to detect anything that might be harmful and coming their way, so as best to avoid it (food sensitivities, for example). I have hypersensitivities of my own, but I don't think TM or the TMSP had any effect on them, one way or another. It's just part of the makeup of the personality. But that's just my experience. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 4, 2011, at 1:42 PM, feste37 wrote: Well, that's interesting. I never liked rounding so did as little of it as possible. I can imagine that if people are cooped up all day doing that then they might get a bit reclusive for a while and find it difficult to get back into a more integrated lifestyle, but I would have thought such feelings would be very short-term. Anything more serious, I would doubt were caused by long rounding, although the people may well be sincere in thinking that. I suspect there must be some other underlying issues in such cases that have nothing to do with TM. I believe there is a cause effect relationship in this case, just having observed the weird hypersensitivities in various rounders or hardcore sidhas. I think it's important to distinguish between meditation forms that help samskaras be dissolved and those that plant sattvic seeds in the mind to overwhelm the rajasic and tamasic weeds. One method is like planting many flowers in a garden so that they overwhelm the weeds to the point they're barely noticeable, the other is like dissolving the weeds at the roots so the garden's already present state can emerge.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 1:44 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@... wrote: Dana Sawyer has written a book on the TM Movement, and needs some photos. Please see below and let me know if you can help: I'd love to have photos of any and all important events and personalities, and you know those as well as I do. For instance: Swami Brahmananda MMY with Guru Dev MMY with Charlie Lutes (or Lutes separate) MMY with the Beatles MMY with Jerry Jarvis (or Jerry separate) Big European TTCs, like La Antilla and Majorca MMY on Merv Keith Wallace, first prez of MIU Headquarters in Switzerland National headquarters in LA photos of regional coordinators Domes at MIU Lillian Rosen? Bullah Smith? People practicing the flying sutra These are some ideas that come readily to mind. Let me know what you can get, Dana What kind of book ? Haven't read it. Don't know the content.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of richardatrwilliamsdotus Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 8:34 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos shukra69: this is a desperate crazy person kind of drive-by slander on your part isn't it Vag? Vaj: I feel that all recent information relating to the TMO's dark side would be relevant, esp. material that relates to the traditional problems meditation can cause - and the hope for relief for people suffering... So, you need Dana Sawyer, who never even tried TM, to explain to you TM? You're supposed to be the spiritual teacher! You're thinking Dana Sawyer knows anything about the TM or the TMO? Go figure. Dana was a TM teacher, speaks fluent Hindi, has interviewed just about every significant yogi and swami in India, etc. I'd say he knows a thing or two about TM and the TMO.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
But you have never done TM or the TM Sidhi program and yet you are seem completely lost in your head, very spacey and ungrounded, sometime hostile, often awkward, and usually arrogant, so how do you explain that?? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 4, 2011, at 10:30 AM, feste37 wrote: But it was part of what you said. (See below. I've restored your words that you deleted.) Here's what I said: I regularly talk to people who will mention problems as simple as having to alter their life because they're afraid to go outside or in public. Do you really mean that TM causes people to be afraid to go outside? Let me clarify what I said, since you're not getting it. I regularly talk to people On a consistent basis I'm talking to persons who have problems (plural)... as simple as having to alter their life because they're afraid to go outside or in public. ...to give a singular example, some might develop agoraphobic-type issues. To give further examples, some might develop hypersensitivties about being around other people. There are a large number of variations like this, it's not just limited to being in public. Because that's what you said. If indeed there are any examples I suspect your reasoning goes like this: person has psychological problems; person also does TM, therefore the problems are caused by TM. But I doubt whether that is valid. I'm relying on their perceptions and the conclusions they're drawing, not my own. They often associate these issues with extensive rounding, or (more rarely) the TMSP. Just as an aside, I loved rounding, it was one of my favorite TM activities. I'm not sure if I had any negative side effects, it seemed to have a relatively positive effect for may (often sensations of mental bliss). I think it would be more accurate to say that in such instances, TM proved to be no help in addressing the problem. These all occurred after long rounding, etc., so that is what they're associating it with. I can accept that, because TM is not a cure-all, but I don't think it makes people (to use your example) afraid to go outside. Such allegations, it seems to me, are just part of your long vendetta against TM and the TM movement, in which anything will do, whether accurate or not. When you talk to people who've helped in the recovery of such persons, they can site hundreds, even thousands of such instances. I should also point out a similar trend I've seen in the last ten years is also among people coming from the many Hindu kundalini paths that have sprung up. they're having similar problems or even more severe problems. Suffice to say, many of these types of disorders are well known in Ayurvedic and Tibetan medical literature.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
I find this interesting but am not convinced by the idea (hardly a psychological fact) that those who start TM constitute a certain type of person, since such a huge variety of people have learned TM over the years. I think the self-selection idea could be better applied to the TM campus community here in Fairfield, since that is certainly a self-selected group from among the many thousands of people who have learned TM, and they may well have some traits in common that would make your question, What unique vulnerabilities does this group of humans have? a valid and an interesting one. But I think it would have to be balanced by a more positive question: What unique strengths, including gifts, talents, and spiritual vision does this group of humans have? Then we might be able to reach a more fair-minded conclusion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 4, 2011, at 2:14 PM, feste37 wrote: I am aware that more than a few TM meditators have hypersensitivities, but I'm not sure that is always a bad thing: they have their antennae up to detect anything that might be harmful and coming their way, so as best to avoid it (food sensitivities, for example). I have hypersensitivities of my own, but I don't think TM or the TMSP had any effect on them, one way or another. It's just part of the makeup of the personality. But that's just my experience. It's a psychological fact (from independent studies on TM) that a certain type of person self selects and decides to pay and undergo TM initiation - and that self selection all occurs from how that particular segment reacts to the intro lecture content. I guess the question then becomes what unique vulnerabilities does this group of humans have?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: snip [Nabby wrote:] What kind of book ? Haven't read it. Don't know the content. ...Yesterday an old friend asked me whether the rumor he heard was true, that I'm writing an anti-TMO book. It's not, but that rumor probably started because I've mentioned here that I know of a couple of books in the pipeline that the movement won't be too crazy about (Dana Sawyer's and Judith's).--Rick Archer, July 3, 2004 (Rick also said around the same time that he had read the first three or four chapters.) In any case, unless Dana has undergone a major change of mind, we know it's going to be negative in at least some respects, based on the quotes from Dana's emails to Rick on various aspects of the Guru Dev succession controversy that Rick has posted here; plus the fact that Dana refers to MMY in the emails as Mahesh, which is a pretty sure sign of a less-than-100 percent-positive perspective.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
On Dec 4, 2011, at 5:50 PM, feste37 wrote: I find this interesting but am not convinced by the idea (hardly a psychological fact) that those who start TM constitute a certain type of person, since such a huge variety of people have learned TM over the years. That's true. You could easily argue, it's just a sample from one stretch a time. The broader number of samples, the better. It would be interesting to see how well it would replicated, for example, if there was a sudden Oprah wave that would be a perfect oppurtunity. I think the self-selection idea could be better applied to the TM campus community here in Fairfield, since that is certainly a self-selected group from among the many thousands of people who have learned TM, and they may well have some traits in common that would make your question, What unique vulnerabilities does this group of humans have? a valid and an interesting one. But I think it would have to be balanced by a more positive question: What unique strengths, including gifts, talents, and spiritual vision does this group of humans have? Then we might be able to reach a more fair-minded conclusion. One of the problems with sampling TMers in questionaire formats of any kind is how much have they been already biased by research they've been shown or indoctrinated in? And unfortunately the answer with someone who is so deep into the TM worldview as to be enrolled in a TM university culture is hugely biased. In fact a lot of those people may have become involved because of research they were shown. Because of this fact, I'm afraid most if not all subjects would not be neutral or naive to the questions. Of course the opposite side of the coin is that disreputable researchers, understanding the lack of naiveté and because of the their ability to cherry-pick certain true believers, they can skew almost any research in their favor. Plus if you have a group like 1000-headed Purusha or MD as a PR mechanism, you can flood the web nowadays with so much counter-information and disinformation that modern consumers gobble it right up.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: Perhaps it's this book? : Cosmic Capitalism, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and the Selling of Romanticism. (Albany: State University of New York Press, forthcoming, Fall 2009). Co-written with Cynthia Humes. If that's it, it's a bit behind schedule, it seems. The SUNY Press Web site has no mention of it, even as forthcoming. On Dec 3, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Dana Sawyer has written a book on the TM Movement, and needs some photos. Please see below and let me know if you can help:
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: I find this interesting but am not convinced by the idea (hardly a psychological fact) that those who start TM constitute a certain type of person, since such a huge variety of people have learned TM over the years. Not to mention that many of them have dropped out over the years. In any case, it's meaningless--because it's a truism-- to say the group of those who start TM has been found by research to be self-selected. How could it possibly be otherwise? Same with any other group whose members voluntarily adopt a particular program. It would only be meaningful if there were a finding that the group self-selects *for* some specific characteristics. It's pretty reasonable to assume that the group is self- selected for those who have an interest in self- development, since that's what TM is for. But of course many, many different types of people have an interest in self-development (and a desire for self-improvement is generally considered a positive, healthy characteristic). There's no basis to assume such a group has unique vulnerabilities. That's just typical Vaj bullshit. I think the self-selection idea could be better applied to the TM campus community here in Fairfield, since that is certainly a self-selected group from among the many thousands of people who have learned TM, and they may well have some traits in common that would make your question, What unique vulnerabilities does this group of humans have? a valid and an interesting one. But I think it would have to be balanced by a more positive question: What unique strengths, including gifts, talents, and spiritual vision does this group of humans have? Then we might be able to reach a more fair-minded conclusion. Exactly. Well put. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 4, 2011, at 2:14 PM, feste37 wrote: I am aware that more than a few TM meditators have hypersensitivities, but I'm not sure that is always a bad thing: they have their antennae up to detect anything that might be harmful and coming their way, so as best to avoid it (food sensitivities, for example). I have hypersensitivities of my own, but I don't think TM or the TMSP had any effect on them, one way or another. It's just part of the makeup of the personality. But that's just my experience. It's a psychological fact (from independent studies on TM) that a certain type of person self selects and decides to pay and undergo TM initiation - and that self selection all occurs from how that particular segment reacts to the intro lecture content. I guess the question then becomes what unique vulnerabilities does this group of humans have?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Sal Sunshine Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 12:58 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Dana Sawyer needs photos On Dec 3, 2011, at 12:28 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Dana Sawyer has written a book on the TM Movement, and needs some photos. Please see below and let me know if you can help: [Sal wrote:] How about the one of Robin and friends that Vaj just posted? :) [Rick wrote:] Link to that? According to Alex, Vaj deleted it the morning after the evening the upload was announced on FFL, only hours, at most, after he had made a post advertising it and describing it (#297025): Here's a picture I took outside of a church in FF with my old SX-70 Polaroid, 1st gen. I forget what it was but I believe it is some sort of pronouncement that HH Robin Carlsen is holding in the picture, while Saint Gemma II looks on concerned about the actions we're about to undertake, probably marching onto the MIU campus or some such activity. Since his psychotic break kundalini psychosis episode TM-style enlightenment in Switzerland his sattvic countenance was often protected from the rajasic rays of the sun by a sacred umbrella. Notice the nervous and tense vibe in the seminar students. This was a common vibe in the World Teacher Seminar because if you weren't about to do something quasi-illegal - marching onto private campuses, disrupting public lectures, etc. there was always the chance that you could be declared demonic if Robin and the seminar couldn't groove to your darshan (while standing in front of an audience, being drilled at a microphone, in a basement somewhere). Interesting that he'd delete it shortly after pointing out the things we should notice in it, no? And he's never commented on or even acknowledged that he deleted it, even after Alex posted that that's what he'd done. Vaj was still talking about the photo *after* he'd deleted it. In one post that afternoon he suggested Robin had been holding the painting of SBS, but as you'll notice above, that morning he'd said it was some sort of pronouncement. As I recall the photo, what Robin was holding didn't appear to be the painting of SBS. Perhaps that's one reason Vaj deleted the photo? FWIW, Vaj has also deleted quite a few of the posts he's made about Robin in the past (made before Robin joined us; Alex might know when he deleted them). There are still traces of those posts in other people's responses that quote Vaj's posts. Wonder why he'd do that? What is it he said that he didn't want anybody to see?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: FWIW, Vaj has also deleted quite a few of the posts he's made about Robin in the past (made before Robin joined us; Alex might know when he deleted them). I can do a search of the web activity log, but all it will show is the time and date of the deletion and the post number. It doesn't show the subject line of the deleted post. The post number lets me look up the posting time of the posts before and after the deletion, and referencing the alternate web archive for posts made in that time slot might bring up the deleted post. But, it's really tedious work. http://alex.natel.net/misc/vaj_deleted.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 4, 2011, at 1:42 PM, feste37 wrote: Well, that's interesting. I never liked rounding so did as little of it as possible. I can imagine that if people are cooped up all day doing that then they might get a bit reclusive for a while and find it difficult to get back into a more integrated lifestyle, but I would have thought such feelings would be very short-term. This was exactly my experience. Any discomfort, (and there was some) was indeed short term. Anything more serious, I would doubt were caused by long rounding, although the people may well be sincere in thinking that. I suspect there must be some other underlying issues in such cases that have nothing to do with TM. I believe there is a cause effect relationship in this case, just having observed the weird hypersensitivities in various rounders or hardcore sidhas. I think it's important to distinguish between meditation forms that help samskaras be dissolved and those that plant sattvic seeds in the mind to overwhelm the rajasic and tamasic weeds. One method is like planting many flowers in a garden so that they overwhelm the weeds to the point they're barely noticeable, the other is like dissolving the weeds at the roots so the garden's already present state can emerge.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: I think it's important to distinguish between meditation forms that help samskaras be dissolved and those that plant sattvic seeds in the mind to overwhelm the rajasic and tamasic weeds. One method is like planting many flowers in a garden so that they overwhelm the weeds to the point they're barely noticeable, the other is like dissolving the weeds at the roots so the garden's already present state can emerge. So which is which? Are you saying TM is more like one of these than the other. Both methods sound positive. From my experience, I would say TM was more like #2. But that was also coupled with a lot of introspection and work on my part to root out tendencies that were causing me problems. For me TM was more like a break in the action and a balm for mind and body.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: Dana Sawyer has written a book on the TM Movement, and needs some photos. Please see below and let me know if you can help: I'd love to have photos of any and all important events and personalities, and you know those as well as I do. For instance: Swami Brahmananda MMY with Guru Dev MMY with Charlie Lutes (or Lutes separate) MMY with the Beatles MMY with Jerry Jarvis (or Jerry separate) Big European TTCs, like La Antilla and Majorca MMY on Merv Keith Wallace, first prez of MIU Headquarters in Switzerland National headquarters in LA photos of regional coordinators Domes at MIU Lillian Rosen? Bullah Smith? People practicing the flying sutra These are some ideas that come readily to mind. Let me know what you can get, Dana What kind of book ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
this is a desperate crazy person kind of drive-by slander on your part isn't it Vag? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: Rick, do you know if he's seen David Wants to Fly or read Kundalini Vidya (deals with the style of psychic damage often seen in sidhas and the methodology of dark gurus)? On Dec 3, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Dana Sawyer has written a book on the TM Movement, and needs some photos. Please see below and let me know if you can help: I'd love to have photos of any and all important events and personalities, and you know those as well as I do. For instance: Swami Brahmananda MMY with Guru Dev MMY with Charlie Lutes (or Lutes separate) MMY with the Beatles MMY with Jerry Jarvis (or Jerry separate) Big European TTCs, like La Antilla and Majorca MMY on Merv Keith Wallace, first prez of MIU Headquarters in Switzerland National headquarters in LA photos of regional coordinators Domes at MIU Lillian Rosen? Bullah Smith? People practicing the flying sutra These are some ideas that come readily to mind. Let me know what you can get, Dana
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
I feel that all recent information relating to the TMO's dark side would be relevant, esp. material that relates to the traditional problems meditation can cause - and the hope for relief for people suffering. You might see the still on-going PR of the TMO as more evidence of the success of the org. But I cannot ignore that this same org has more psychosis, suicide and meditational disorders than any meditation org I'm aware of. I regularly talk to people who will mention problems as simple as having to alter their life because they're afraid to go outside or in public. My heart goes out to these folks. So if a book is coming out on the TMO, I would hope there'd be some room for outreach. On Dec 3, 2011, at 9:11 PM, shukra69 shukr...@yahoo.ca wrote: this is a desperate crazy person kind of drive-by slander on your part isn't it Vag?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
this is all more pure rumor-mongering and innuendo on your part, the only dark side here is your own willingness to engage in that sort of slander. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: I feel that all recent information relating to the TMO's dark side would be relevant, esp. material that relates to the traditional problems meditation can cause - and the hope for relief for people suffering. You might see the still on-going PR of the TMO as more evidence of the success of the org. But I cannot ignore that this same org has more psychosis, suicide and meditational disorders than any meditation org I'm aware of. I regularly talk to people who will mention problems as simple as having to alter their life because they're afraid to go outside or in public. My heart goes out to these folks. So if a book is coming out on the TMO, I would hope there'd be some room for outreach. On Dec 3, 2011, at 9:11 PM, shukra69 shukra69@... wrote: this is a desperate crazy person kind of drive-by slander on your part isn't it Vag?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 shukra69@... wrote: this is a desperate crazy person kind of drive-by slander on your part isn't it Vag? Duh! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id%C3%A9e_fixe_(psychology) What's odd about this post of Vaj's is that he's very well aware that Dana Sawyer is a long-time critic of the TMO and MMY and doesn't really need any suggestions for negative research material. Well, not *odd*, given that we're so used to Vaj not being straightforward. Point being, his motivation is not to help Sawyer out, it's to try to upset TMers who don't know who Sawyer is. What a thoroughly crappy human being. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: Rick, do you know if he's seen David Wants to Fly or read Kundalini Vidya (deals with the style of psychic damage often seen in sidhas and the methodology of dark gurus)? On Dec 3, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Dana Sawyer has written a book on the TM Movement, and needs some photos. Please see below and let me know if you can help: I'd love to have photos of any and all important events and personalities, and you know those as well as I do. For instance: Swami Brahmananda MMY with Guru Dev MMY with Charlie Lutes (or Lutes separate) MMY with the Beatles MMY with Jerry Jarvis (or Jerry separate) Big European TTCs, like La Antilla and Majorca MMY on Merv Keith Wallace, first prez of MIU Headquarters in Switzerland National headquarters in LA photos of regional coordinators Domes at MIU Lillian Rosen? Bullah Smith? People practicing the flying sutra These are some ideas that come readily to mind. Let me know what you can get, Dana
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
So you're saying that TM causes people to be afraid to go outside or to be in public? Gosh, I never knew that, and I was in the movement for decades! Thanks, Vaj! Useful information to have. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: I feel that all recent information relating to the TMO's dark side would be relevant, esp. material that relates to the traditional problems meditation can cause - and the hope for relief for people suffering. You might see the still on-going PR of the TMO as more evidence of the success of the org. But I cannot ignore that this same org has more psychosis, suicide and meditational disorders than any meditation org I'm aware of. I regularly talk to people who will mention problems as simple as having to alter their life because they're afraid to go outside or in public. My heart goes out to these folks. So if a book is coming out on the TMO, I would hope there'd be some room for outreach. On Dec 3, 2011, at 9:11 PM, shukra69 shukra69@... wrote: this is a desperate crazy person kind of drive-by slander on your part isn't it Vag?
