[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're welcome - it was a real pleasure to listen to that intently. I actually got the recording from a colleague- you might be interested in his commentary as well: I trust you received the audio file... Please let me know when you think a transcription can be completed; Maharishi's words should be disseminated by us as widely as possible in print. Also, it will be fine for the audio file to be distributed as widely as Initiators feel appropriate. It is important that Maharishi's own teaching about body-death in enlightenment is not reduced to a mere `death-dependent-heaven' concept. Maharishi taught that that concept was based in ignorance. His teaching is Heaven on Earth- not die-and-go-to- heaven. As one can see from the comments posted on the Maharishi Open University/Maharishi Channel website (my copy below), the hopeful successors of Maharishi, within mere hours of His body-death, already have begun to misrepresent what Maharishi taught about body-death in enlightenment. ** This ignores how ignorant the world is. The problem is, when you see a nation of utter fools like the U.S. for instance, which re-elected a brain-damaged bellicose clown as national leader, you have to ask, what could fools possibly understand about the death of an enlightened one? And the answer is that they couldn't, of course, so TMO leaders, in saluting MMY, use the word heaven because of the impossibility of saying anything usefully meaningful in a press release to the world about the true nature of enlightenment. Maharishi always said We teach knowledge of the infinite [TM], not infinite knowledge. It would be cruel to ignorant people to try to tell them anything more than what they need to begin to break away from their ignorant unhappiness. When I had a job that required a Dept of Defense security clearance, the concept of need to know was impressed on me, and the ignorant only need to know a little at first in order to improve their lives. TMers who have stuck with the practice for years and attended residence courses, etc., are going to be familiar with the idea that Cosmic Consciousness does not involve going to heaven, but even if they didn't, what difference would it make? Expansion of awareness through TM and some little study of Vedic knowledge eventually clears away everything that needs to be cleared away, without trying to smash the movement on the hard rocks of ignorance that dominate the world today. Bob Brigante http://geocities.com/bbrigante (From the Maharishi Open University/Maharishi Channel website, 5 February'08): Heaven is applauding and welcoming His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. A special message by His Majesty Maharaja Nader Raam Announcing the departure Of our most eternally beloved His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi to heaven. The special broadcast Including the message, Guru Puja and chanting Will continue repeatedly until further notice. Jai Guru Dev Ironically, in the recording of Maharishi's comments that I have distributed to you today, when asked specifically about death after cosmic consciousness, His opening statement about an enlightened person is, He doesn't go... It is such an unfortunate misunderstanding of Maharishi's teaching that H.M.Tony Nader asserts Maharishi's departure...to heaven..., that H.M. has Heaven...welcoming... Maharishi. Let us hope that H.M. recovers some memory of Maharishi's teaching during his `special broadcast', and that confusing ideas about Maharishi departing to heaven do not gain currency. Their lack of understanding of where (and what) Maharishi actually is has thrown our colleagues into grief; I know they mean well. That notwithstanding, we cannot take responsibility for ignorance, and I feel it incumbent on me today to remind the world of Maharishi's own teaching about what happened to Him today. As Maharishi states in the recording, ...nothing new happens... no new merger; no new experience. The continuity of unbounded heaven- consciousness is untouched by body death; the omnipresent consciousness cannot go anywhere- it is already everywhere. Help me spread the proper thinking. Love and Jai Guru Deva --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Well I see putting the tapes online did some good! Thanks whoever took the time to do that service. On Feb 7, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Rick Archer wrote: A recorded lecture by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi August 1970, Humboldt State College, California Student: Today in our discussion group we were discussing levels of consciousness and this rose (sic) a couple of questions. The first one is, at what level of consciousness is it unnecessary for an individual to incarnate again.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:11 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: snip Maybe he really wasn't a yogi. Is that a possibility here? Yes! Be interesting to hear a definition of yogi from both of you. CC type attainment as a minimum--the slightly dualistic turiyatita--beyond the forth being what I'd refer to in a TM- style context. But there are non-dual and other yogis as well, so it is good to specify what style of yogi you mean when you make some sort of declaration. It's not a monolithic thing. I'm always glad to specify if people are sensitive enough to even ask. Most aren't. and those that know the truth about this sort of thing aren't either. Go home pretender. This notion that you have of their being a never ending path of signs and symbols and sciences and levels of accomplishment is all designed to mollify the fear of complete dissolution, of your own death. Nothing more. All who talk in these terms seek to keep those listening in bondage, keep them seeking outward for what is each of our spontaneous and wholly owned birthright, that of eternal freedom. Some of the trappings of these rituals of Maya are beautiful, but that doesn't make them liberating. There are just two kinds of existence, 1) bound and segregated, and 2) free and integrated. To make a fundamentalist science as you do of all of these gradations and other things keeps the mind busy so that it can believe in something other than its own naturally available annihilation. Just more fear and idiocy dancing with Maya. Everything Jim says here boils down to, I know the truth, and you don't. As far as I know, *that* is Narcissistic Personality Disorder, in a nutshell. With a dash of being not terribly smart or original thrown in. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Although I am sure this will be hard to relate to for some... I got a lot of peace from the article in the Skeptical Inquirer in 89 or 90 that compared these personality traits [Narcissistic Personality Disorder] with popular gurus. I think it's a valid way to see many of the teachers in today's spiritual world, and possibly in the whole history of spirituality. It's not the most *flattering* way to see them, and so of course the True Believers are going to react to the non-flattering-ness of it and not be able to see how *accurate* the description of NPD is when applied to most spiritual teachers. But I think it's a *very* valuable way of looking at things. I know this seemed horrible to people who may view him as a real messiah... For what it's worth, Curtis, I see all real Messiahs as suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder as well. The fact that they became more famous than other people who suffered from the same fantasies doesn't mean that they're not fantasies. ...but for me it gave me some insight for compassion for Maharishi. It helped me understand how he operated the way he did, and even the odd feeling he would give off when I interacted with him. It explained how he could use and discard people as he unfolded his mission. I don't see this as a putdown. It is an alternate explanation to the idea that he proposed that he was the most important human in history. And a far more realistic one. :-) The reaction of most of the world to news of the death of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is, Who? Why would someone believe such a thing about themselves? I think we're seeing it here on this group. There are quite a few people here whose way of reacting to grief at the loss of their teacher is to GET INTO ARGUMENTS. Why? So they can declare themselves right about something, and try to assert themselves as more right than someone else, and get other people to focus on them. It's how they have consistently reacted for years here. What I'm suggesting is that this tendency was learned from their teacher, Maharishi. Everything always came down to *him* as the ultimate authority, *him* as the person who knows the truth. How could a bunch of students, having seen this in their teacher for over 40 years, not pick up on the trait themselves? Either he was or he was not, but it requires an explanation. At least it did for me. For me as well. So for me he remains a fascinating guy with or without this disorder. As, for me, does Rama, Dr. Frederick Lenz, another spiritual teacher whom I would class as being a *classic* example of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The whole role of the guru as proposed by many if not most spiritual traditions, IMO, has been a process of putting Narcissistic Personality Disorder up on a pedestal and glorifying it, as if it were a good thing. One piece of evidence I submit that perhaps he was mislead about the power of his teaching are the closest people to him that he left behind, presumably his most advanced pupils. Indeed. There is not a single person among them who is going to be remembered by history in five years, much less 100. I think we have a pretty good idea that his optimism about his programs exceeded his results. Or is that just me being negative on King Tony and Bevan? I don't think so. Of course, that could just be *me* being negative. :-) I've been around the spiritual smorgasbord a bit, and have looked at and interacted with a LOT of different spiritual trips. I would have to say that the *primary* characteristic of a TMer (as opposed to seekers in other traditions) is that tendency to believe and announce, We know the truth and no one else does. This is a trait you do NOT find in other trad- itions as much as you find it in members of the TMO. And I think it's related to Narcissistic Personality Disorder. *That* set of personality traits describes very accurately how Maharishi related to the world and to his students for forty years. *That* set of personality traits describes how many of the students themselves have come to act. *That* set of traits is IMO the legacy of the TMO, almost more than the TM technique. Just my opinion...
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The DSM-IV elements of narcissistic PD are at least five of the following: 1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance 2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love 3. believes that he or she is special and unique 4. requires excessive admiration 5. has a sense of entitlement 6. is interpersonally exploitative 7. lacks empathy 8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her 9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes Exactly. Thanks for posting this, Ruth. I think that people (if you consider Judy 'people') are reacting to the term 'Disorder.' It's a descrip- tion of a known set of behaviors and beliefs, grouped into a convenient category for describing a certain type of human being. IMO Maharishi Mahesh Yogi fits ALL of the criteria above to a T. IMO so does the other teacher I studied with for a long time, Rama, Dr. Frederick Lenz and a host of other popular gurus and teachers in the modern world. Now of course, just because you believe you are special, doesn't mean you aren't special. Exactly again. The people who think like this *might* be right. It's just that most of the time they aren't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
curtisdeltablues wrote: I got a lot of peace from the article in the Skeptical Inquirer in 89 or 90 that compared these personality traits with popular gurus... It explained how he could use and discard people as he unfolded his mission. I don't see this as a putdown. One piece of evidence I submit that perhaps he was mislead about the power of his teaching are the closest people to him that he left behind, presumably his most advanced pupils. I think we have a pretty good idea that his optimism about his programs exceeded his results. Or is that just me being negative on King Tony and Bevan? King Tony always struck me as not really wanting the king job, put playing along, just to keep M happy out of reverence. Which means he might give up the crown soon, now that he can. But its Bevan im more worried about. Bevan's whole life has been as Maharishi's defender, kind of like a cosmic body guard. But with M gone, Bevan might just unravel and go bonkers. i hope im wrong, hope he can hang tough! i have had my own issues with Bevan, but i dont wish him ill.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:34 PM, sandiego108 wrote: No, better yet, continue to lose yourself in your layers and signs and Ways and Views...that's the ticket. Arduously discover a glimpse, a painful elicited glimmer of the one true self, no wait, The One True Self Of Compassion--- Hilarious!!! You crack me up Vaj Rant... Every thing is a symbol: learn, love and live! Enjoy your own mandala. No self or Self necessary! What crap. Useless information.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:30 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:04 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:12 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: snip I've spoken to a number of psychologist and psychiatrist friends on this one. Most point to Narcissistic Personality Disorder ROTFL!! Judy, do tell! What was your DSM IV guess??? I don't make DSM-IV guesses. Neither do responsible psychologists or psychiatrists make them about people they haven't at least interacted with. For deceased persons? Yes they do. And you've spoken to all these psychologist and psychiatrist friends to get their diagnosis of MMY just since Tuesday afternoon, right? Of course not. It was over time Dear Editor. So it *wasn't* for a deceased person. You're getting rattled again, Vaj, as you always do when someone calls you on one of your more ludicrous pronouncements. Observe Vaj's explanation of the circumstances under which professionals supposedly make such a diagnosis: Keep in mind, death (irregardless of whether or not it's seen as significant) is like a final stamp on a bank account or administrators account. The stamp has fallen. Based on the evidence between Mahesh Srivistava Varma's creation and death we can (and will) look at evidence for a certain personality type (or pathos). But now he informs us it *wasn't* the falling of the stamp that enabled his friends to make this diagnosis. snip Plus which, any professional who would trust *you* to give an accurate enough account of MMY to do a long-distance diagnosis is incompetent anyway. Vaj's furious backpedaling notwithstanding, the applies whatever the situation. Professionals do sometimes attempt speculative diagnoses of historical figures years after they die when they have spent considerable time studying the records. *Responsible* professionals don't come up with such diagnoses on a dime the day after a person with whom they have no familiarity has died, on the basis of a single person's account (least of all someone as unreliable as to facts and as highly biased as you). And of course, another Judy's Golem --a strawman and monstrous distortion with no resemblance whatsoever to my intentions. chortle See above. Of course, my purported straw man was based precisely on what Vaj had said. Vaj is the classic ego nerd who read a book somewhere and thinks he knows more than all the saints.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:57 PM, do.rflex wrote: Regarding early TMO pundits and teachers: 'they certainly weren't no Acharyas'. :-) Brahmachari Satyanand, whom I referred to, had spent many years with Guru Dev as a disciple. After Guru Dev's 'death' he later went on to assist Maharishi spreading Transcendental Meditation, as I understand it, until he died himself. I attended a course he conducted at Lake Arrowhead in the early 70s and spoke with him individually and privately at least three times, one of which was to receive an advanced technique. I say this mainly to indicate that Satyanand was directly involved with Guru Dev and Maharishi both. IME it's not a guarantee that these people are completely and holistically trained in these sciences. I really, honestly, see most of them as naive. Fact is, you haven't seen Guru Dev or Brahmachari Satyanand at all. But I do have lineal transmission of Samaya Sri Vidya directly from his line (Guru Dev's). So I base my View on his same transmission. And I do know that transmission. (So can anyone). What the hell is same transmission? Satyanand? Only stories. Some flattering. Some less so. An acharya? No. You're playing your name games there, fella. The only thing you have is book learning and opinion, no experience. Brahmanand Saraswati? Emphatically YES. And a yogi with ram (fire) siddhi (at very least). You wouldn't really know. Your information is only because you've 'heard' about them. I knew Satyanand and I experience Swami Brahmananda Saraswati practically daily. I also spent a considerable amount of time with Maharishi, including TTC which he conducted himself. Again, you wouldn't know.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: [...] But soon after, while I was very morose, sorrow, sad, entire world was empty for me and I did not understand what to do without Guru Dev, just a half a minute or two seconds after, a flash came and it appeared to me that Guru Dev was scolding me; What a fool you are! You have been with me for all these many months and years, and you heard my discourses too. Is it a moment of feeling sorry? Why should you be sorry today? And you think that I am gone, where am I gone? Till now whenever you wanted to meet me, you had, you had to come to the place where I was, and today when I have attained nirvana, I am everywhere, I am omnipresent. Where have I gone? Very foolish for you to mourn on this occasion. I am with you, here, there, everywhere. Why should you be sorry? And the moment this flash came, my face became very brilliant, I became very cheerful. And when I raised my head, my friends who were standing there, very anxious and held in suspense, they were upset to see my brilliant and cheerful face. And then they said, What has happened to you? I said, No you can't understand, nothing has happened to me, I am alright, now let me go back to the ashram and make the necessary arrangements. Where does it say that Guudev actually spoke to him? ...and it appeared to me that Guru Dev was scolding me; Apparently you didn't read the monologue. Schizophrenics hear voices and think its someone talking to them. Satyanand wasn't schizophrenic, Lawson. Did you ever meet him? Non-schizophrenics recall the attitude and put it into words or simply remember the sound of the person saying the words, but don't say Gurudev spoke these words to me after he died. Apparently you didn't read the monologue. Instead, they say and it appeared to me that Guru Dev was scolding me. Likewise, MMY received direct inspiration from Gurudev to do something but didn't say Gurudev appeared in a vision and told me to do this. You really haven't clearly defined direct inspiration from Gurudev And you didn't really answer the question, Lawson. In my view, the reason you didn't is because you don't want to consider any possibility beyond that the drop becomes the ocean the end. I have experienced Guru Dev visually and telepathically myself. Once I 'heard' him repeating something which I'd never heard before, I believe it was in Sanskrit - as if an initiation or such. I know other TM teachers who have had similar experiences. I'm not schizophrenic and neither were they. And what we experience[d] isn't merely 'inspiration' from memories.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 10:06 AM, do.rflex wrote: Scientology? ...or what? What qualifies you to determine and/or to be a final arbiter of the validity of the saints, especially ones you've never met or 'experienced'? No interest in scientology or being a final arbiter. I've trained and practiced in both Hindu and Buddhist mantrayana lines, including practices for death and dying. So how does that qualify you to give any legitimate definition to Maharishi, Brahmachari Satyanand or Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, or for that matter, Transcendental Meditation? You have ZERO direct experience with any of those persons or the TM. What do you have more than second hand information in that regard?
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
This post raises a critical point and I'm quite sure it's been hashed over many times before, so bear with me. I am reminded of something that my favourite remote viewer guy, Ingo Swann has said. He lamented that of the many impressions and images that a viewer will see in their career the one thing they all come away with after the event is the sad knowledge that until the day they have CONFIRMATION from some source, they have ZERO way of KNOWING what exactly they SAW. He was clear about this. The person cannot ascertain on their own whether their so called 'perception' was a product of their imagination, ego, mind, who knows what else? A clear vision of something, in the end, means only something on one level to the perceiver. What it is in the ultimate realms of truth is quite something else. This takes me to the other point. Prophets in any religion will always say that they have received information from a higher source and that you had just better trust them on this. There is, after all, no other way other than FAITH to figure out if the words of the prophet are true, except for one thing. In the Old Testatment many prophets appear. One of the strictest criteria for whether we are supposed to 'believe' them is that for at least some of their prophecies, some of them have to come 'true' in their lifetime. Some words of some of them were for far off events, such as the words of Daniel and others. In other words, if they said that the Lord had said such and such as a prophecy, then the test was in the results. That was one criteria. So, if someone says that they had the experience of contact with Guru Dev or any other entity/intelligence, be it human or non-human, by what measure should we apply to ascertain whether the claim has any value? If we too do not have the same experience and can verify it on some level, then the claim is just taken at face value and you either believe it or not. If someone, say, for example my remote viewers, say that they had contact with an alien being, then unless we can verify it, we should just take it with a grain of salt. Maybe a lot of salt. The same criteria applies to anyone who has an expererience that is out of the ordinary day to day. How do we test the claims? Belief systems, religious systems are almost all set up this way. People line up to believe and if the right guy comes along with horns of light, well you know, people are impressed. The difference between the charlatans and the real mccoy is not always easy to measure. When the prophet Elijah challenged the priests of Baal to a duel, he won the day because of a supernatural event that convinced everyone on the spot that he had God's phone number in his back pocket and the priests of Baal were phoney. I'll leave off for now. Regards, Fred [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 9:35 AM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 9:01 AM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 6:39 AM, do.rflex wrote: What the hell is same transmission? Transmission is just a translation of the Sanskrit word agama (Agama) --a transmission of the same teaching, in the same practice line as Guru Dev, from one of his students. Doesn't guarantee its legitimacy. Satyanand? Only stories. Some flattering. Some less so. An acharya? No. You're playing your name games there, fella. The only thing you have is book learning and opinion, no experience. Actually I have more experience than book reading! Which is? 40 years. 40 years of what? Spiritual practice and for about 25 of that, training as well. Scientology? ...or what? What qualifies you to determine and/or to be a final arbiter of the validity of the saints, especially ones you've never met or 'experienced'?
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Brahmanand Saraswati? Emphatically YES. And a yogi with ram (fire) siddhi (at very least). You wouldn't really know. Your information is only because you've 'heard' about them. I knew Satyanand and I experience Swami Brahmananda Saraswati practically daily. Not to argue but to reinforce my point in post #163860, John, aren't you assuming that your subject experience of Brahmananda Saraswati trumps anything that Vaj could possibly say, or that anyone else on *Earth* could possibly say? It's your experience; therefore it is true. Thank you for providing such a perfect example of that tenth criterion of Narcissistic Personality Disorder that I was talking about. Actually, you've got the context of what they're arguing about wrong, because you're more interested in dumping on John and preaching your standard sermons than in understanding what they're saying. ( For the record...what you experience COULD be true. I don't know. My only point is that you don't either. You only assume it's true because it's *your* subjective experience. That is almost the classic definition of narcissism. ) Uh, no, it isn't. But it's kind of fun to go back and look at Barry's rants about how important it is to trust your own experience. For example: There are a few people here on FFL who have had such subjective experiences, whether it be of odd phenomena or their own subjective exper- iences of higher states of consciousness. I like dealing with them *because* I can identify with the changes that their subjective experiences and learning to trust them have put them through. And even funnier: You'll notice that most of the people who *have* had interesting experiences of higher states of consciousness or of extraordinary phenomena rarely, if ever, talk about them any more. Jim's about the only one who dares to brave the boring, terrified turd-throwers any more. Rory's silent, Tom's mainly silent, and a few people have left altogether. The bottom line, as I see it, is that the wimps have WON, *especially* after the migration of a couple of compulsive-poster wimps from alt.m.t. Those two, together with anon_couscous and a few others who don't even have the balls to use their own names here, have made Fairfield Life a distinctly UNFRIENDLY environment in which to talk about one's own spiritual experiences. One of the compulsive-poster wimps from alt.m.t Barry was referring to just happened to be do.rflex (John), the guy he's now dumping on because John trusts his experience of Guru Dev. Ironically, compulsive-poster wimp from alt.m.t describes Barry to a T.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 6:39 AM, do.rflex wrote: What the hell is same transmission? Transmission is just a translation of the Sanskrit word agama (Agama) --a transmission of the same teaching, in the same practice line as Guru Dev, from one of his students. Doesn't guarantee its legitimacy. Satyanand? Only stories. Some flattering. Some less so. An acharya? No. You're playing your name games there, fella. The only thing you have is book learning and opinion, no experience. Actually I have more experience than book reading! Which is?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 8, 2008, at 7:33 AM, do.rflex wrote: I have experienced Guru Dev visually and telepathically myself. Once I 'heard' him repeating something which I'd never heard before, I believe it was in Sanskrit - as if an initiation or such. I know other TM teachers who have had similar experiences. I'm not schizophrenic and neither were they. And what we experience[d] isn't merely 'inspiration' from memories. Unstressing. Return to the mantra.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 11:13 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: I think that John has bought into the propaganda spread by Nabby and others that you have never practiced TM or been a TM teacher. His phrasing above seems to imply that. If I'm not mistaken, neither is true. Like many of us here, you both learned TM and spent some time on the front lines as a TM teacher before moving on to other studies, including some that involved working with teachers in the *real* Shankaracharya lineage. Oh, ok thanks. I'll just ignore his post then like Nabby's! Life's too short. Caught with his pants down the complainer runs. LOL!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 8, 2008, at 11:52 AM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 11:13 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: I think that John has bought into the propaganda spread by Nabby and others that you have never practiced TM or been a TM teacher. His phrasing above seems to imply that. If I'm not mistaken, neither is true. Like many of us here, you both learned TM and spent some time on the front lines as a TM teacher before moving on to other studies, including some that involved working with teachers in the *real* Shankaracharya lineage. Oh, ok thanks. I'll just ignore his post then like Nabby's! Life's too short. Caught with his pants down the complainer runs. LOL! Actually I'm still here, just not into playing games with naive assholes!
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: The DSM-IV elements of narcissistic PD are at least five of the following: 1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance 2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love 3. believes that he or she is special and unique 4. requires excessive admiration 5. has a sense of entitlement 6. is interpersonally exploitative 7. lacks empathy 8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her 9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes Exactly. Thanks for posting this, Ruth. I think that people (if you consider Judy 'people') are reacting to the term 'Disorder.' Basically, that's true. It's dicey to try to pin a disorder label on people who are highly unusual. It's a descrip- tion of a known set of behaviors and beliefs, grouped into a convenient category for describing a certain type of human being. Note that the certain type of human being is that of people who entered therapy because they were having problems coping with ordinary life. Moreover, the DSM-IV criteria for various disorders were determined on the basis of the diagnoses of many therapy patients over time, rather than the reverse. The criteria don't exist in a vacuum; they aren't sets of rules for diagnosing patients that have always existed. With regard to narcissistic personality disorder, for example, this is the appropriate statement: Of those people who have entered therapy and been diagnosed with the disorder at the time of the publication of DSM-IV (or for however many editions of DSM these criteria have been listed), most have shown at least five of the listed characteristics. That does *not* mean that everyone who shows at least five of the characteristics has narcissistic personality disorder, especially if they have never felt the need to seek therapy, and *especially* on the basis of the judgment of nonprofessionals. It *does* mean that if a professional determines that a patient in therapy has at least five of the characteristics, a diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder should be considered. For people who have never sought therapy, and in the judgment of nonprofessionals, it's no more than idle speculation. And as Ruth points out: Now of course, just because you believe you are special, doesn't mean you aren't special. Exactly again. The people who think like this *might* be right. It's just that most of the time they aren't. Aren't right? Barry knows The Truth about who is special and who isn't?? When he just got done saying: 10. has difficulty knowing the difference between 'this is the truth' and 'this is how I see it.' To me, that's probably THE most defining aspect of narcissism -- the *assumption* that how one sees things *equals* how things really are. Amazing.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 8, 2008, at 8:37 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think that it's PERSONAL that Maharishi or any other NPD spiritual teacher doesn't treat their students with respect. My feeling is that they barely even notice that the students are even THERE. Very perceptive, Barry. While I never did take it personally, I didn't give up nor devote nearly as much (timewise or any other way) as many others. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 8, 2008, at 9:35 AM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 9:01 AM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 6:39 AM, do.rflex wrote: What the hell is same transmission? Transmission is just a translation of the Sanskrit word agama (Agama) --a transmission of the same teaching, in the same practice line as Guru Dev, from one of his students. Doesn't guarantee its legitimacy. Satyanand? Only stories. Some flattering. Some less so. An acharya? No. You're playing your name games there, fella. The only thing you have is book learning and opinion, no experience. Actually I have more experience than book reading! Which is? 40 years. 40 years of what? Spiritual practice and for about 25 of that, training as well.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 3:29 AM, george_deforest wrote: curtisdeltablues wrote: I got a lot of peace from the article in the Skeptical Inquirer in 89 or 90 that compared these personality traits with popular gurus... It explained how he could use and discard people as he unfolded his mission. I don't see this as a putdown. Curtis, this is the main thing that has bothered me about MMY and the TMO--how could he (they) do that? How could they take the good will and good intentions of so many really nice people and treat them like that? I think I may spend a long time pondering that question. I look forward to any revelations along the way. I can only pass along one of the things that I found comforting and releasing about looking at such actions by spiritual teachers in terms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. They really aren't *concerned* with how other people may feel about being treated one way or another because in a very real sense there ARE no other people in their world. The NPD per- sonalities lack empathy; they're locked inside themselves (or themSelves, if you feel that they really are enlightened), and these other people around them really have no reality at all. The only thing that DOES have any reality is the stuff going on inside the head of the NPD personality. So it's really not as if they're dissing these people and their good intentions and their many contributions, financial-wise and trust-wise and devotion-wise or any other kind of -wise. The NPD personalities just don't FEEL these other people, AT ALL. They barely ever *exist* for the person whose life embodies Narcissistic Personality Disorder...these other people are little more than gnats flit- ting around them. Gnats come and they go; the only thing that is important to the NPD person- ality is their mission, the way they see themselves (or themSelves). I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think that it's PERSONAL that Maharishi or any other NPD spiritual teacher doesn't treat their students with respect. My feeling is that they barely even notice that the students are even THERE.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 8, 2008, at 9:01 AM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 6:39 AM, do.rflex wrote: What the hell is same transmission? Transmission is just a translation of the Sanskrit word agama (Agama) --a transmission of the same teaching, in the same practice line as Guru Dev, from one of his students. Doesn't guarantee its legitimacy. Satyanand? Only stories. Some flattering. Some less so. An acharya? No. You're playing your name games there, fella. The only thing you have is book learning and opinion, no experience. Actually I have more experience than book reading! Which is? 40 years.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:25 PM, sandiego108 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:11 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: snip Maybe he really wasn't a yogi. Is that a possibility here? Yes! Be interesting to hear a definition of yogi from both of you. CC type attainment as a minimum--the slightly dualistic turiyatita--beyond the forth being what I'd refer to in a TM- style context. But there are non-dual and other yogis as well, so it is good to specify what style of yogi you mean when you make some sort of declaration. It's not a monolithic thing. I'm always glad to specify if people are sensitive enough to even ask. Most aren't. and those that know the truth about this sort of thing aren't either. Go home pretender. This notion that you have of their being a never ending path of signs and symbols and sciences and levels of accomplishment is all designed to mollify the fear of complete dissolution, of your own death. Nothing more. All who talk in these terms seek to keep those listening in bondage, keep them seeking outward for what is each of our spontaneous and wholly owned birthright, that of eternal freedom. Some of the trappings of these rituals of Maya are beautiful, but that doesn't make them liberating. There are just two kinds of existence, 1) bound and segregated, and 2) free and integrated. To make a fundamentalist science as you do of all of these gradations and other things keeps the mind busy so that it can believe in something other than its own naturally available annihilation. Just more fear and idiocy dancing with Maya. Uh, thanks, Jim. I'll make sure I tell all the sages I meet. I doubt you've ever met one.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 8, 2008, at 11:13 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: I think that John has bought into the propaganda spread by Nabby and others that you have never practiced TM or been a TM teacher. His phrasing above seems to imply that. If I'm not mistaken, neither is true. Like many of us here, you both learned TM and spent some time on the front lines as a TM teacher before moving on to other studies, including some that involved working with teachers in the *real* Shankaracharya lineage. Oh, ok thanks. I'll just ignore his post then like Nabby's! Life's too short.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ignoring Judy's Gotta Get Barry episode, and dealing with the real issue at hand: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: One of the compulsive-poster wimps from alt.m.t Barry was referring to just happened to be do.rflex (John), the guy he's now dumping on because John trusts his experience of Guru Dev. I have NO PROBLEM with John trusting his subjective experience of Guru Dev. I have NO PROBLEM with him talking about it. I think it's *important* to learn to trust, to some extent, one's subjective experiences in life. Declaring them truth is another thing entirely. But he didn't. As I pointed out, you missed the context completely because you were so eager to dump on him and preach your standard sermon.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
Curtis, this is the main thing that has bothered me about MMY and the TMO--how could he (they) do that? How could they take the good will and good intentions of so many really nice people and treat them like that? You aren't the only one! And think of how puzzling this behavior must be for those closest to him that got unceremoniously dumped.Keeping Jerry Jarvis out of the history of the movement book and exiling him was pretty far out there IMO. But as a TB I didn't give it much thought. The inconsistencies become problems only once you have revoked Maharishi's enlightened-guys-can-do-anything pass. That is where information about how some people process their world so differently helps me. It allows me to reconcile that Maharishi may have been sincere, but was functioning from a different play book and set of ethical standards. It is sort of like opposite world to the TB's view of him as a magical person. But his uniqueness stays intact. Speculation using this model is similar to how people speculate that Maharishi was living in a higher state of consciousness that includes definitive knowledge about what happens to human consciousness when we die. We are all just guessing from outside with the tools we have. Remember when we read the Sociopath Next Door? That gave me much more compassion and understanding about exploitive people. I think the narcissist definition is a better match, but both give an insight that we need to know that some people are functioning fundamentally differently. And within that there can be a lot of gradations of good and bad in their life. Just because Maharishi might have had a narcissistic personality disorder doesn't invalidate whatever good he did accomplish or his own sincerity in accomplishing it. It's just means he is not a good guy to hand your PIN number to, or... like... your whole life! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 3:29 AM, george_deforest wrote: curtisdeltablues wrote: I got a lot of peace from the article in the Skeptical Inquirer in 89 or 90 that compared these personality traits with popular gurus... It explained how he could use and discard people as he unfolded his mission. I don't see this as a putdown. Curtis, this is the main thing that has bothered me about MMY and the TMO--how could he (they) do that? How could they take the good will and good intentions of so many really nice people and treat them like that? I think I may spend a long time pondering that question. I look forward to any revelations along the way. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 11:52 AM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 11:13 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: I think that John has bought into the propaganda spread by Nabby and others that you have never practiced TM or been a TM teacher. His phrasing above seems to imply that. If I'm not mistaken, neither is true. Like many of us here, you both learned TM and spent some time on the front lines as a TM teacher before moving on to other studies, including some that involved working with teachers in the *real* Shankaracharya lineage. Oh, ok thanks. I'll just ignore his post then like Nabby's! Life's too short. Caught with his pants down the complainer runs. LOL! Actually I'm still here, just not into playing games with naive assholes! Calling me a naive asshole is not a substitute for any relevant credentials you need to have to justify the legitimacy of your 'opinions' about those who've been mentioned or the TM itself. And it isn't playing games to expect you to give solid reasons for anyone to believe what you say.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 8, 2008, at 10:06 AM, do.rflex wrote: Scientology? ...or what? What qualifies you to determine and/or to be a final arbiter of the validity of the saints, especially ones you've never met or 'experienced'? No interest in scientology or being a final arbiter. I've trained and practiced in both Hindu and Buddhist mantrayana lines, including practices for death and dying.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
Caught with his pants down the complainer runs. LOL! Oh yeah!!! Caught with his pants down the complainer runs. LOL! I don't trust TM because I don't trust MMY. I feel that there is some weird stuff going on with him on the inner planes that is maybe evil. Read more: Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental From: John Manning Date: Wed, Nov 14 2001 6:32 pm Subject: Re: Well John, no reply? http://tinyurl.com/yvde5b
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 8, 2008, at 10:52 AM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 10:06 AM, do.rflex wrote: Scientology? ...or what? What qualifies you to determine and/or to be a final arbiter of the validity of the saints, especially ones you've never met or 'experienced'? No interest in scientology or being a final arbiter. I've trained and practiced in both Hindu and Buddhist mantrayana lines, including practices for death and dying. So how does that qualify you to give any legitimate definition to Maharishi, Brahmachari Satyanand or Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, or for that matter, Transcendental Meditation? You have ZERO direct experience with any of those persons or the TM. What do you have more than second hand information in that regard? Not sure what you mean by this legitimate definition of Mahesh, etc. is that I'm supposed to be giving or have given. I'm a trained yogi and therefore I can and do express my opinion from that POV and the direct first-hand experience of many different forms of meditation, not just TM.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 11:52 AM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 11:13 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: I think that John has bought into the propaganda spread by Nabby and others that you have never practiced TM or been a TM teacher. His phrasing above seems to imply that. If I'm not mistaken, neither is true. Like many of us here, you both learned TM and spent some time on the front lines as a TM teacher before moving on to other studies, including some that involved working with teachers in the *real* Shankaracharya lineage. Oh, ok thanks. I'll just ignore his post then like Nabby's! Life's too short. Caught with his pants down the complainer runs. LOL! Actually I'm still here, just not into playing games with naive assholes! Apart from resorting to insults, why do you find it beyond yourself to state clearly and specifically what your 'experience' really is with Transcendental Meditation and/or Maharishi? If you're going to continue to criticize TM, you should at least go further than mere personal opinion or stating second hand information from other detractors. Otherwise what you say is just about as valuable to others as my aunt Betsy's opinion on her favorite color of socks.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Brahmanand Saraswati? Emphatically YES. And a yogi with ram (fire) siddhi (at very least). You wouldn't really know. Your information is only because you've 'heard' about them. I knew Satyanand and I experience Swami Brahmananda Saraswati practically daily. Not to argue but to reinforce my point in post #163860, John, aren't you assuming that your subject experience of Brahmananda Saraswati trumps anything that Vaj could possibly say, or that anyone else on *Earth* could possibly say? It's your experience; therefore it is true. Thank you for providing such a perfect example of that tenth criterion of Narcissistic Personality Disorder that I was talking about. ( For the record...what you experience COULD be true. I don't know. My only point is that you don't either. You only assume it's true because it's *your* subjective experience. That is almost the classic definition of narcissism. )
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:18 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Remember when we read the Sociopath Next Door? That gave me much more compassion and understanding about exploitive people. I think the narcissist definition is a better match, but both give an insight that we need to know that some people are functioning fundamentally differently. And within that there can be a lot of gradations of good and bad in their life. Just because Maharishi might have had a narcissistic personality disorder doesn't invalidate whatever good he did accomplish or his own sincerity in accomplishing it. It's just means he is not a good guy to hand your PIN number to, or... like... your whole life! Agreed, Curtis! That was quite a book. Gives insights not only about MMY but others also. Just about the whole nature of exploitation. IMO it's a must-read. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, george_deforest [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: curtisdeltablues wrote: I got a lot of peace from the article in the Skeptical Inquirer in 89 or 90 that compared these personality traits with popular gurus... It explained how he could use and discard people as he unfolded his mission. I don't see this as a putdown. One piece of evidence I submit that perhaps he was mislead about the power of his teaching are the closest people to him that he left behind, presumably his most advanced pupils. I think we have a pretty good idea that his optimism about his programs exceeded his results. Or is that just me being negative on King Tony and Bevan? King Tony always struck me as not really wanting the king job, put playing along, just to keep M happy out of reverence. Which means he might give up the crown soon, now that he can. But its Bevan im more worried about. Bevan's whole life has been as Maharishi's defender, kind of like a cosmic body guard. But with M gone, Bevan might just unravel and go bonkers. i hope im wrong, hope he can hang tough! i have had my own issues with Bevan, but i dont wish him ill. I think Hagelin looks likes he's going to snap at any moment, that 'lecture' he gives by rote is getting thinner and thinner. I think he needs some new material! :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Brahmanand Saraswati? Emphatically YES. And a yogi with ram (fire) siddhi (at very least). You wouldn't really know. Your information is only because you've 'heard' about them. I knew Satyanand and I experience Swami Brahmananda Saraswati practically daily. Not to argue but to reinforce my point in post #163860, John, aren't you assuming that your subject experience of Brahmananda Saraswati trumps anything that Vaj could possibly say, or that anyone else on *Earth* could possibly say? It's your experience; therefore it is true. Thank you for providing such a perfect example of that tenth criterion of Narcissistic Personality Disorder that I was talking about. ( For the record...what you experience COULD be true. I don't know. My only point is that you don't either. You only assume it's true because it's *your* subjective experience. That is almost the classic definition of narcissism. ) There are at least seven other people I know [have known] directly who have had similar experiences of Guru Dev. None of them possess[ed] the qualities of your label.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i have had my own issues with Bevan, Boys, or girls
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 8, 2008, at 6:39 AM, do.rflex wrote: What the hell is same transmission? Transmission is just a translation of the Sanskrit word agama (Agama) --a transmission of the same teaching, in the same practice line as Guru Dev, from one of his students. Satyanand? Only stories. Some flattering. Some less so. An acharya? No. You're playing your name games there, fella. The only thing you have is book learning and opinion, no experience. Actually I have more experience than book reading!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 9:32 PM, authfriend wrote: Let's recap: Responsible professionals do not diagnose people they haven't interacted with on the basis of one person's description. And any professional who thought s/he would get an accurate, objective account of MMY from Vaj is incompetent. --It wasn't on the basis of one persons description. --It wasn't a diagnosis, it was merely an opinion. --the persons giving the opinions are responsible professionals. But nice try!
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 10:52 AM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 10:06 AM, do.rflex wrote: Scientology? ...or what? What qualifies you to determine and/or to be a final arbiter of the validity of the saints, especially ones you've never met or 'experienced'? No interest in scientology or being a final arbiter. I've trained and practiced in both Hindu and Buddhist mantrayana lines, including practices for death and dying. So how does that qualify you to give any legitimate definition to Maharishi, Brahmachari Satyanand or Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, or for that matter, Transcendental Meditation? You have ZERO direct experience with any of those persons or the TM. What do you have more than second hand information in that regard? Not sure what you mean by this legitimate definition of Mahesh, etc. is that I'm supposed to be giving or have given. I'm a trained yogi and therefore I can and do express my opinion from that POV and the direct first-hand experience of many different forms of meditation, not just TM. Vaj, I think that John has bought into the propaganda spread by Nabby and others that you have never practiced TM or been a TM teacher. His phrasing above seems to imply that. If I'm not mistaken, neither is true. Like many of us here, you both learned TM and spent some time on the front lines as a TM teacher before moving on to other studies, including some that involved working with teachers in the *real* Shankaracharya lineage.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 10:52 AM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 10:06 AM, do.rflex wrote: Scientology? ...or what? What qualifies you to determine and/or to be a final arbiter of the validity of the saints, especially ones you've never met or 'experienced'? No interest in scientology or being a final arbiter. I've trained and practiced in both Hindu and Buddhist mantrayana lines, including practices for death and dying. So how does that qualify you to give any legitimate definition to Maharishi, Brahmachari Satyanand or Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, or for that matter, Transcendental Meditation? You have ZERO direct experience with any of those persons or the TM. What do you have more than second hand information in that regard? Not sure what you mean by this legitimate definition of Mahesh, etc. is that I'm supposed to be giving or have given. I'm a trained yogi and therefore I can and do express my opinion from that POV So we can state plainly that your comments about Maharishi, Brahmachari Satyanand and Swami Brahmananda Saraswati are just your opinions. You belong to a huge crowd of perhaps tens of millions who may have heard of one or two of them and who have, I'm quite sure, almost as many 'opinions' - the much larger remaining numbers of humanity likely never having ever heard of them at all. and the direct first-hand experience of many different forms of meditation, not just TM. Just exactly what IS your experience with TM?
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 9:01 AM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 6:39 AM, do.rflex wrote: What the hell is same transmission? Transmission is just a translation of the Sanskrit word agama (Agama) --a transmission of the same teaching, in the same practice line as Guru Dev, from one of his students. Doesn't guarantee its legitimacy. Satyanand? Only stories. Some flattering. Some less so. An acharya? No. You're playing your name games there, fella. The only thing you have is book learning and opinion, no experience. Actually I have more experience than book reading! Which is? 40 years. 40 years of what?
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
Ignoring Judy's Gotta Get Barry episode, and dealing with the real issue at hand: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the compulsive-poster wimps from alt.m.t Barry was referring to just happened to be do.rflex (John), the guy he's now dumping on because John trusts his experience of Guru Dev. I have NO PROBLEM with John trusting his subjective experience of Guru Dev. I have NO PROBLEM with him talking about it. I think it's *important* to learn to trust, to some extent, one's subjective experiences in life. Declaring them truth is another thing entirely. I trust my subjective experiences completely. But I would never declare them valid for any- one EXCEPT myself, and I would never call them truth. They're ONLY my subjective experiences. I honestly don't get the feeling that's the way John regards his subjective experience of Guru Dev. I *know* that it's not how Jim and Rory regard their subjective experiences. One can fully trust one's subjective experiences without regarding them as some kind of cosmic truth, let alone something that trumps any- one else's notion of truth.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 8, 2008, at 3:29 AM, george_deforest wrote: curtisdeltablues wrote: I got a lot of peace from the article in the Skeptical Inquirer in 89 or 90 that compared these personality traits with popular gurus... It explained how he could use and discard people as he unfolded his mission. I don't see this as a putdown. Curtis, this is the main thing that has bothered me about MMY and the TMO--how could he (they) do that? How could they take the good will and good intentions of so many really nice people and treat them like that? I think I may spend a long time pondering that question. I look forward to any revelations along the way. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Brahmanand Saraswati? Emphatically YES. And a yogi with ram (fire) siddhi (at very least). You wouldn't really know. Your information is only because you've 'heard' about them. I knew Satyanand and I experience Swami Brahmananda Saraswati practically daily. Not to argue but to reinforce my point in post #163860, John, aren't you assuming that your subject experience of Brahmananda Saraswati trumps anything that Vaj could possibly say, or that anyone else on *Earth* could possibly say? It's your experience; therefore it is true. Thank you for providing such a perfect example of that tenth criterion of Narcissistic Personality Disorder that I was talking about. Actually, you've got the context of what they're arguing about wrong, because you're more interested in dumping on John and preaching your standard sermons than in understanding what they're saying. ( For the record...what you experience COULD be true. I don't know. My only point is that you don't either. You only assume it's true because it's *your* subjective experience. That is almost the classic definition of narcissism. ) Uh, no, it isn't. But it's kind of fun to go back and look at Barry's rants about how important it is to trust your own experience. For example: There are a few people here on FFL who have had such subjective experiences, whether it be of odd phenomena or their own subjective exper- iences of higher states of consciousness. I like dealing with them *because* I can identify with the changes that their subjective experiences and learning to trust them have put them through. And even funnier: You'll notice that most of the people who *have* had interesting experiences of higher states of consciousness or of extraordinary phenomena rarely, if ever, talk about them any more. Jim's about the only one who dares to brave the boring, terrified turd-throwers any more. Rory's silent, Tom's mainly silent, and a few people have left altogether. The bottom line, as I see it, is that the wimps have WON, *especially* after the migration of a couple of compulsive-poster wimps from alt.m.t. Those two, together with anon_couscous and a few others who don't even have the balls to use their own names here, have made Fairfield Life a distinctly UNFRIENDLY environment in which to talk about one's own spiritual experiences. One of the compulsive-poster wimps from alt.m.t Barry was referring to just happened to be do.rflex (John), the guy he's now dumping on because John trusts his experience of Guru Dev.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip I got a lot of peace from the article in the Skeptical Inquirer in 89 or 90 that compared these personality traits [Narcissistic Personality Disorder] with popular gurus. I think it's a valid way to see many of the teachers in today's spiritual world, and possibly in the whole history of spirituality. It's not the most *flattering* way to see them, and so of course the True Believers are going to react to the non-flattering-ness of it and not be able to see how *accurate* the description of NPD is when applied to most spiritual teachers. To reiterate: the *characteristics* may apply (in the layperson's view), but this by no means is sufficient to conclude that the teacher has narcissistic personality disorder. It means only that he or she may share some characteristics with those who have been in therapy and have been diagnosed by professionals as having narcissistic personality disorder. And again, it's a disorder because the people who have been diagnosed with it *were having trouble coping with ordinary life*, to the point that they felt they needed professional assistance. snip I think we're seeing it here on this group. There are quite a few people here whose way of reacting to grief at the loss of their teacher is to GET INTO ARGUMENTS. Gee, Barry, I thought you said you weren't experiencing any grief. Why? So they can declare themselves right about something, and try to assert themselves as more right than someone else, and get other people to focus on them. It's how they have consistently reacted for years here. Well, I guess one is free to diagnose *oneself* as having narcissistic personality disorder. It seems a little strange to do so in third person, however. What I'm suggesting is that this tendency was learned from their teacher, Maharishi. Everything always came down to *him* as the ultimate authority, *him* as the person who knows the truth. How could a bunch of students, having seen this in their teacher for over 40 years, not pick up on the trait themselves? It's *amazing* how many people in the population at large must be suffering from narcissistic personality disorder when you look at it this way. snip The whole role of the guru as proposed by many if not most spiritual traditions, IMO, has been a process of putting Narcissistic Personality Disorder up on a pedestal and glorifying it, as if it were a good thing. Or, Another Way of Seeing Things: To *be* a leader, spiritual or otherwise, requires one to have at least some of the personality characteristics that are also found in people with narcissistic personality disorder. If they didn't have these characteristics, they wouldn't be leaders in the first place.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And think of how puzzling this behavior must be for those closest to him that got unceremoniously dumped.Keeping Jerry Jarvis out of the history of the movement book and exiling him was pretty far out there IMO. Somehow, I don't imagine Jerry being very puzzled. Jerry had a cool ride. Nothing lasts forever. Anyone can make every shot a power shot. It doesn't always have to be on center court.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 5:46 PM, Michael wrote: You're welcome - it was a real pleasure to listen to that intently. I actually got the recording from a colleague- you might be interested in his commentary as well: Thank you so much (I am very interested) and I'm glad people have the courage to share these old teachings and keep the record straight. An honest love for maintaining real purity. I do hope those who have any such relevant tapes for the sharing will again contact me as I'd be honored to host them at high-speed download for several months. Thanks again. What a wonderful gesture and kindness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
You're welcome - it was a real pleasure to listen to that intently. I actually got the recording from a colleague- you might be interested in his commentary as well: I trust you received the audio file... Please let me know when you think a transcription can be completed; Maharishi's words should be disseminated by us as widely as possible in print. Also, it will be fine for the audio file to be distributed as widely as Initiators feel appropriate. It is important that Maharishi's own teaching about body-death in enlightenment is not reduced to a mere `death-dependent-heaven' concept. Maharishi taught that that concept was based in ignorance. His teaching is Heaven on Earth- not die-and-go-to-heaven. As one can see from the comments posted on the Maharishi Open University/Maharishi Channel website (my copy below), the hopeful successors of Maharishi, within mere hours of His body-death, already have begun to misrepresent what Maharishi taught about body-death in enlightenment. (From the Maharishi Open University/Maharishi Channel website, 5 February'08): Heaven is applauding and welcoming His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. A special message by His Majesty Maharaja Nader Raam Announcing the departure Of our most eternally beloved His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi to heaven. The special broadcast Including the message, Guru Puja and chanting Will continue repeatedly until further notice. Jai Guru Dev Ironically, in the recording of Maharishi's comments that I have distributed to you today, when asked specifically about death after cosmic consciousness, His opening statement about an enlightened person is, He doesn't go... It is such an unfortunate misunderstanding of Maharishi's teaching that H.M.Tony Nader asserts Maharishi's departure...to heaven..., that H.M. has Heaven...welcoming... Maharishi. Let us hope that H.M. recovers some memory of Maharishi's teaching during his `special broadcast', and that confusing ideas about Maharishi departing to heaven do not gain currency. Their lack of understanding of where (and what) Maharishi actually is has thrown our colleagues into grief; I know they mean well. That notwithstanding, we cannot take responsibility for ignorance, and I feel it incumbent on me today to remind the world of Maharishi's own teaching about what happened to Him today. As Maharishi states in the recording, ...nothing new happens... no new merger; no new experience. The continuity of unbounded heaven-consciousness is untouched by body death; the omnipresent consciousness cannot go anywhere- it is already everywhere. Help me spread the proper thinking. Love and Jai Guru Deva --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well I see putting the tapes online did some good! Thanks whoever took the time to do that service. On Feb 7, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Rick Archer wrote: A recorded lecture by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi August 1970, Humboldt State College, California Student: Today in our discussion group we were discussing levels of consciousness and this rose (sic) a couple of questions. The first one is, at what level of consciousness is it unnecessary for an individual to incarnate again. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: At the level of consciousness where the development of the self is full. And that is (...)
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
I can recall watching that lecture as if it was yesterday. Saw it many times. Gives me the shivers now to re-read those words. Fred [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A recorded lecture by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi August 1970, Humboldt State College, California Student: Today in our discussion group we were discussing levels of consciousness and this rose (sic) a couple of questions. The first one is, at what level of consciousness is it unnecessary for an individual to incarnate again. snip for brevity... That's nice theory and nicely put, but it hardly *fully* addresses the issue, remember, even Christ Re-incarnated as an avatara, what the hell do you think an avatar is anyway: Once again MMY doesn't answer the question regarding Kundalini and Chakras, which the student was eager to hear, MMY was merely testy with him in the end. So, once again, where's the beef!! If MMY had merely said, yes he can Re-incarnate IF it's the will of God, but since all of *his* desires are 'roasted' there is no possibility for *him* to come back, he would have done justice to the question, IMO. From Wiki below: In Hindu philosophy, an avatar (also spelled as avatara) (Sanskrit: #2309;#2357;#2340;#2366;#2352;, avat#257;ra), most commonly refers to the incarnation (bodily manifestation) of a divine being (deva), or the Supreme Being (God) onto planet Earth. The Sanskrit word avat#257;ra- literally means descent (avatarati) and usually implies a deliberate descent into lower realms of existence for special purposes.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 6:29 PM, BillyG. wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A recorded lecture by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi August 1970, Humboldt State College, California Student: Today in our discussion group we were discussing levels of consciousness and this rose (sic) a couple of questions. The first one is, at what level of consciousness is it unnecessary for an individual to incarnate again. snip for brevity... That's nice theory and nicely put, but it hardly *fully* addresses the issue, remember, even Christ Re-incarnated as an avatara, what the hell do you think an avatar is anyway: Once again MMY doesn't answer the question regarding Kundalini and Chakras, which the student was eager to hear, MMY was merely testy with him in the end. Maybe he really wasn't a yogi. Is that a possibility here?
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--Thanks, excellent! These teachings differ from Buddhism. Various Lamas, Rinpoches, and other Buddhist Teachers state that after the big E (and then physical death); such persons are free to do as they please as far as going someplace is concerned: perhaps in a myriad of times and places with transformation bodies. Or,not. In any event, the entity (body) is not locked into a nihilistic fate as MMY seems to suggest. Also, I don't believe he adequately answered the question. The querant was asking about the existence of a relative body, not whether it goes anyplace. If such a relative body or bodies exist after E, (as indicated by the Dalai Lama), there are many further opportunities in regard to helping entities on the Path. The existence of a relative body after E doesn't imply that the person is in a lesser state of evolution than one who simply is Cosmic and has no relative body for the purpose of helping others. Basically, MMY is parrotting the teachings of Shankara on the subject. Buddhism is more inclusive of infinite possibilities. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A recorded lecture by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi August 1970, Humboldt State College, California Student: Today in our discussion group we were discussing levels of consciousness and this rose (sic) a couple of questions. The first one is, at what level of consciousness is it unnecessary for an individual to incarnate again. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: At the level of consciousness where the development of the self is full. And that is S: (interrupting) Is this Cosmic Consciousness then? MMY: Right. S: I see. And at this point if the person leaves the body or dies if you want to call it that and goes on to wherever he goes, does he have his individuality? And if he does can he incarnate again? MMY: He doesn't go. S: I don't understand. MMY: Cosmic Consciousness is a state where the small `s' has become big `S'. Self. And Self - big `S' Self means unboundedness. Unboundedness. Eternity. When the status of the individual has expanded to unboundedness, that is his status and that is he. Hmm? When the status is unbounded, he is beyond time and space. He's all over. Once he is all over, where he can go? Hmm? S: He's individual, but yet he's unbounded everywhere? MMY: This is what the small self becoming big Self means. In our meditation that unbounded awareness, that awareness, it has already expanded to eternity, to infinity. Infinite is the boundary of the individual consciousness, huh? On the level of consciousness. On the level of the body he is so many feet long and so many feet wide. Individual. But his awareness is so much unbounded. When the individual is so much unbounded, and the body ceases to function, then what will happen to that unbounded awareness? Nothing can happen to It. Hmm? That It is `I' capital. It. Unboundedness. And therefore, it doesn't leave the body and doesn't go anywhere, because being everywhere it cannot leave a place and go to another place. It cannot leave one time, go to other time. So the unboundedness is free from the boundaries of time and space. And that is why a man living Cosmic Consciousness does not go somewhere. His body goes from manifested state to unmanifested state. The body goes, he doesn't go. S: Thank you. Could you speak a little bit on chakras and kundalini? MMY: (interrupting) Now, now, now, now, now. I'll speak more on this, hmmm? To make it little bit more clear. What is happening (a group enters the lecture hall) Oh, come on. The poets enter the room now. Come on, come on. I am having a poetic flight. (laughter) Now how does CC grow? How does one grow in CC? We have known it is the growth of the nervous system. Growth means transformation. Purification of the nervous system. Modification of the nervous system. Due to which that pure consciousness becomes permanent. One example will clarify this situation. Green water in a glass, green water in a glass. Now the sun is shining everywhere and the glass is in the sun. The reflection is green. This is like the small `s' self- when the nervous system is not purified, it is green. The water is green, it's not very clear. Nervous system is clouded with all kinds of impurities. Now that green water has green reflection. The sun, sun shining evenly everywhere is not green. It's neither green nor red or no colour. It's colourless. If we modify water, green water being modified, green becoming less and less, hmm? That means the reflector of the sun is being modified, resulting in the modification of the reflection. The water becoming less and less green, the reflection is becoming less and less green. Less and less green means more
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maharishi's answer doesn't clearly account for, as an example, Satyanand's stated experience of hearing Guru Dev's voice *after* Guru Dev's body had ceased to function. Nor does it account for my own current experiences of Guru Dev, visually and telepathically. [Unless of course, one claims that Guru Dev hadn't attained Cosmic Consciousness.] Interestingly, I remember that exchange at Humboldt, as I waited on every word. And I shared the frustration I sensed in the person that asked that question as Maharishi did not clarify it satisfactorily. A recorded lecture by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi August 1970, Humboldt State College, California Student: Today in our discussion group we were discussing levels of consciousness and this rose (sic) a couple of questions. The first one is, at what level of consciousness is it unnecessary for an individual to incarnate again. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: At the level of consciousness where the development of the self is full. And that is S: (interrupting) Is this Cosmic Consciousness then? MMY: Right. S: I see. And at this point if the person leaves the body or dies if you want to call it that and goes on to wherever he goes, does he have his individuality? And if he does can he incarnate again? MMY: He doesn't go. S: I don't understand. MMY: Cosmic Consciousness is a state where the small `s' has become big `S'. Self. And Self - big `S' Self means unboundedness. Unboundedness. Eternity. When the status of the individual has expanded to unboundedness, that is his status and that is he. Hmm? When the status is unbounded, he is beyond time and space. He's all over. Once he is all over, where he can go? Hmm? S: He's individual, but yet he's unbounded everywhere? MMY: This is what the small self becoming big Self means. In our meditation that unbounded awareness, that awareness, it has already expanded to eternity, to infinity. Infinite is the boundary of the individual consciousness, huh? On the level of consciousness. On the level of the body he is so many feet long and so many feet wide. Individual. But his awareness is so much unbounded. When the individual is so much unbounded, and the body ceases to function, then what will happen to that unbounded awareness? Nothing can happen to It. Hmm? That It is `I' capital. It. Unboundedness. And therefore, it doesn't leave the body and doesn't go anywhere, because being everywhere it cannot leave a place and go to another place. It cannot leave one time, go to other time. So the unboundedness is free from the boundaries of time and space. And that is why a man living Cosmic Consciousness does not go somewhere. His body goes from manifested state to unmanifested state. The body goes, he doesn't go. S: Thank you. Could you speak a little bit on chakras and kundalini? MMY: (interrupting) Now, now, now, now, now. I'll speak more on this, hmmm? To make it little bit more clear. What is happening (a group enters the lecture hall) Oh, come on. The poets enter the room now. Come on, come on. I am having a poetic flight. (laughter) Now how does CC grow? How does one grow in CC? We have known it is the growth of the nervous system. Growth means transformation. Purification of the nervous system. Modification of the nervous system. Due to which that pure consciousness becomes permanent. One example will clarify this situation. Green water in a glass, green water in a glass. Now the sun is shining everywhere and the glass is in the sun. The reflection is green. This is like the small `s' self- when the nervous system is not purified, it is green. The water is green, it's not very clear. Nervous system is clouded with all kinds of impurities. Now that green water has green reflection. The sun, sun shining evenly everywhere is not green. It's neither green nor red or no colour. It's colourless. If we modify water, green water being modified, green becoming less and less, hmm? That means the reflector of the sun is being modified, resulting in the modification of the reflection. The water becoming less and less green, the reflection is becoming less and less green. Less and less green means more and more towards the nature of the sun. Less and less green reflection means more and more becoming like the sun. At a point, at one particular moment, the water is no more green. Completely pure. Still, the water could continue to be modified. This modification could continue `til the reflection has gained the quality of the sun around it. The reflection has become the omnipresent sun. It has gained the quality of the sun around it. This is like Cosmic Consciousness. The reflection then is a reflection. It has its structure
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --Thanks, excellent! These teachings differ from Buddhism. Various Lamas, Rinpoches, and other Buddhist Teachers state that after the big E (and then physical death); such persons are free to do as they please as far as going someplace is concerned: perhaps in a myriad of times and places with transformation bodies. Or,not. In any event, the entity (body) is not locked into a nihilistic fate as MMY seems to suggest. Also, I don't believe he adequately answered the question. Who returns? Who pleases? and... who they? 'Nuff said.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 6:29 PM, BillyG. wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: A recorded lecture by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi August 1970, Humboldt State College, California Student: Today in our discussion group we were discussing levels of consciousness and this rose (sic) a couple of questions. The first one is, at what level of consciousness is it unnecessary for an individual to incarnate again. snip for brevity... That's nice theory and nicely put, but it hardly *fully* addresses the issue, remember, even Christ Re-incarnated as an avatara, what the hell do you think an avatar is anyway: Once again MMY doesn't answer the question regarding Kundalini and Chakras, which the student was eager to hear, MMY was merely testy with him in the end. Maybe he really wasn't a yogi. Is that a possibility here? Yes! I think MMY had a Messiah complex and wanted to save the world from itself,(not a bad idea) but was only able to muster a few dozen 'cling ons' to further his 'dreams'. Had he stayed with his original principles like, for the forest to be green, etc..., he may have accomplished more
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor matrixmonitor@ wrote: --Thanks, excellent! These teachings differ from Buddhism. Various Lamas, Rinpoches, and other Buddhist Teachers state that after the big E (and then physical death); such persons are free to do as they please as far as going someplace is concerned: perhaps in a myriad of times and places with transformation bodies. Or,not. In any event, the entity (body) is not locked into a nihilistic fate as MMY seems to suggest. Also, I don't believe he adequately answered the question. Who returns? Who pleases? and... who they? 'Nuff said. Lawson, how do you account for, as an example, Satyanand's stated experience of hearing Guru Dev's voice *after* Guru Dev's body had ceased to function? GURU DEV'S NIRVANA - Satyanand at Guru Dev's parting Rishikesh, India Brahmachari 'Swami' Satyanand speaking c 1967 about Guru Dev's 'nirvana': When in 1953 Guru Dev left this mortal frame and attained nirvana I was at Benares, another place of pilgrimage for Hindus, and at that moment I was staying in the ashram of Guru Dev. Everybody knew that I am very attached to Guru Dev and devoted to Guru Dev, and then news came to Benares that Guru Dev has attained nirvana. I was sitting somewhere with a group of my friends and the news was relayed there. When my friends heard that Guru Dev was no more they were very anxious about me and when they conveyed that news, they were rather alert to appraise whatever reaction is and what happened, I simply, when I heard that news I became very sad, very sorry and I just kept my head on the table before me. And all of them were very anxious what will become of me. But soon after, while I was very morose, sorrow, sad, entire world was empty for me and I did not understand what to do without Guru Dev, just a half a minute or two seconds after, a flash came and it appeared to me that Guru Dev was scolding me; What a fool you are! You have been with me for all these many months and years, and you heard my discourses too. Is it a moment of feeling sorry? Why should you be sorry today? And you think that I am gone, where am I gone? Till now whenever you wanted to meet me, you had, you had to come to the place where I was, and today when I have attained nirvana, I am everywhere, I am omnipresent. Where have I gone? Very foolish for you to mourn on this occasion. I am with you, here, there, everywhere. Why should you be sorry? And the moment this flash came, my face became very brilliant, I became very cheerful. And when I raised my head, my friends who were standing there, very anxious and held in suspense, they were upset to see my brilliant and cheerful face. And then they said, What has happened to you? I said, No you can't understand, nothing has happened to me, I am alright, now let me go back to the ashram and make the necessary arrangements.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 6:38 PM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maharishi's answer doesn't clearly account for, as an example, Satyanand's stated experience of hearing Guru Dev's voice *after* Guru Dev's body had ceased to function. Nor does it account for my own current experiences of Guru Dev, visually and telepathically. [Unless of course, one claims that Guru Dev hadn't attained Cosmic Consciousness.] Interestingly, I remember that exchange at Humboldt, as I waited on every word. And I shared the frustration I sensed in the person that asked that question as Maharishi did not clarify it satisfactorily. At the time of Humboldt there was one widely disseminated translation of the Sat-Chakra-Nirupana (and other kundalini texts) translated by the incredible Arthur Avalon (pseud.) as The Serpent Power. In a slightly earlier era it would have been (probably) banned as pornography -- but in the early sixties and even fifties -- people were innovating. It became a classic. And so a lot of people had a lot of questions certain others weren't expecting--and likely did not know. People immediately got stuck on this idea of seven chakras. Lucky seven. It largely was imprinted from the collective dissemination of this book. The Samaya Sri Chakrins said nine but really there is no such limitation. All numbers are sacred. Different transmissions describe different illusory formulations. As one of my teachers said (paraphrasing) 'if you try to reconcile all the different chakra and elements systems you'll ultimately gain no benefit but you may go insane.' Regarding early TMO pundits and teachers: 'they certainly weren't no Acharyas'. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 6:53 PM, BillyG. wrote: Yes! I think MMY had a Messiah complex and wanted to save the world from itself,(not a bad idea) but was only able to muster a few dozen 'cling ons' to further his 'dreams'. Had he stayed with his original principles like, for the forest to be green, etc..., he may have accomplished more I've spoken to a number of psychologist and psychiatrist friends on this one. Most point to Narcissistic Personality Disorder but I guess the new name should be Vedic Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I won't go so far as to suggest Maharishi Vedic Narcissistic Personality Disorder. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: snip Maybe he really wasn't a yogi. Is that a possibility here? Yes! Be interesting to hear a definition of yogi from both of you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 6:53 PM, BillyG. wrote: Yes! I think MMY had a Messiah complex and wanted to save the world from itself,(not a bad idea) but was only able to muster a few dozen 'cling ons' to further his 'dreams'. Had he stayed with his original principles like, for the forest to be green, etc..., he may have accomplished more I've spoken to a number of psychologist and psychiatrist friends on this one. Most point to Narcissistic Personality Disorder ROTFL!!
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: snip Maybe he really wasn't a yogi. Is that a possibility here? Yes! Be interesting to hear a definition of yogi from both of you. Yes MMY was a Yogi, like you or I can be a Yogi or in your case a Yogini, but the context vaj was using it in suggested to me he meant a 'Yogi' who had achieved 'Yoga', or Union, yes MMY was a Yogi, hopes this clears it up for you...:-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:11 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: snip Maybe he really wasn't a yogi. Is that a possibility here? Yes! Be interesting to hear a definition of yogi from both of you. CC type attainment as a minimum--the slightly dualistic turiyatita--beyond the forth being what I'd refer to in a TM-style context. But there are non-dual and other yogis as well, so it is good to specify what style of yogi you mean when you make some sort of declaration. It's not a monolithic thing. I'm always glad to specify if people are sensitive enough to even ask. Most aren't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 6:38 PM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Maharishi's answer doesn't clearly account for, as an example, Satyanand's stated experience of hearing Guru Dev's voice *after* Guru Dev's body had ceased to function. Nor does it account for my own current experiences of Guru Dev, visually and telepathically. [Unless of course, one claims that Guru Dev hadn't attained Cosmic Consciousness.] Interestingly, I remember that exchange at Humboldt, as I waited on every word. And I shared the frustration I sensed in the person that asked that question as Maharishi did not clarify it satisfactorily. [snip] Regarding early TMO pundits and teachers: 'they certainly weren't no Acharyas'. :-) Brahmachari Satyanand, whom I referred to, had spent many years with Guru Dev as a disciple. After Guru Dev's 'death' he later went on to assist Maharishi spreading Transcendental Meditation, as I understand it, until he died himself. I attended a course he conducted at Lake Arrowhead in the early 70s and spoke with him individually and privately at least three times, one of which was to receive an advanced technique. I say this mainly to indicate that Satyanand was directly involved with Guru Dev and Maharishi both.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:26 PM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 6:38 PM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Maharishi's answer doesn't clearly account for, as an example, Satyanand's stated experience of hearing Guru Dev's voice *after* Guru Dev's body had ceased to function. Nor does it account for my own current experiences of Guru Dev, visually and telepathically. [Unless of course, one claims that Guru Dev hadn't attained Cosmic Consciousness.] Interestingly, I remember that exchange at Humboldt, as I waited on every word. And I shared the frustration I sensed in the person that asked that question as Maharishi did not clarify it satisfactorily. [snip] Regarding early TMO pundits and teachers: 'they certainly weren't no Acharyas'. :-) Brahmachari Satyanand, whom I referred to, had spent many years with Guru Dev as a disciple. After Guru Dev's 'death' he later went on to assist Maharishi spreading Transcendental Meditation, as I understand it, until he died himself. I attended a course he conducted at Lake Arrowhead in the early 70s and spoke with him individually and privately at least three times, one of which was to receive an advanced technique. I say this mainly to indicate that Satyanand was directly involved with Guru Dev and Maharishi both. IME it's not a guarantee that these people are completely and holistically trained in these sciences. I really, honestly, see most of them as naive. Some are able to replace education with direct (inner) experience, but this is exceedingly rare in this era. You can also hang or pay to hang with those who do know directly the inner and outer worlds. It seems to me that Mahesh Yogi was someone who hung or paid to hang with some really very cool folks. From there he built his web.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
Here's another, more important, thing we agree on.
- Original Message
From: authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2008 6:12:38 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Vaj vajranatha@ ... wrote:
On Feb 7, 2008, at 6:53 PM, BillyG. wrote:
Yes! I think MMY had a Messiah complex and wanted to save the
world from itself,(not a bad idea) but was only able to muster
a few dozen 'cling ons' to further his 'dreams'. Had he stayed
with his original principles like, for the forest to be green,
etc..., he may have accomplished more
I've spoken to a number of psychologist and psychiatrist
friends on this one.
Most point to Narcissistic Personality Disorder
ROTFL!!
!--
#ygrp-mkp{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;}
#ygrp-mkp hr{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#ygrp-mkp #hd{
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0px;}
#ygrp-mkp #ads{
margin-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad{
padding:0 0;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad a{
color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
--
!--
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
font-family:Arial;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
--
!--
#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;white-space:nowrap;}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:uppercase;}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;margin:2px 0;}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-right:.5em;}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-vital a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color:#999;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{
padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #nc{
background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad{
padding:8px 0;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-size:100%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
margin:0;}
o{font-size:0;}
.MsoNormal{
margin:0 0 0 0;}
#ygrp-text tt{
font-size:120%;}
blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
.replbq{margin:4;}
--
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:26 PM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 6:38 PM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Maharishi's answer doesn't clearly account for, as an example, Satyanand's stated experience of hearing Guru Dev's voice *after* Guru Dev's body had ceased to function. Nor does it account for my own current experiences of Guru Dev, visually and telepathically. [Unless of course, one claims that Guru Dev hadn't attained Cosmic Consciousness.] Interestingly, I remember that exchange at Humboldt, as I waited on every word. And I shared the frustration I sensed in the person that asked that question as Maharishi did not clarify it satisfactorily. [snip] Regarding early TMO pundits and teachers: 'they certainly weren't no Acharyas'. :-) Brahmachari Satyanand, whom I referred to, had spent many years with Guru Dev as a disciple. After Guru Dev's 'death' he later went on to assist Maharishi spreading Transcendental Meditation, as I understand it, until he died himself. I attended a course he conducted at Lake Arrowhead in the early 70s and spoke with him individually and privately at least three times, one of which was to receive an advanced technique. I say this mainly to indicate that Satyanand was directly involved with Guru Dev and Maharishi both. IME it's not a guarantee that these people are completely and holistically trained in these sciences. I really, honestly, see most of them as naive. Fact is, you haven't seen Guru Dev or Brahmachari Satyanand at all.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:12 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 6:53 PM, BillyG. wrote: Yes! I think MMY had a Messiah complex and wanted to save the world from itself,(not a bad idea) but was only able to muster a few dozen 'cling ons' to further his 'dreams'. Had he stayed with his original principles like, for the forest to be green, etc..., he may have accomplished more I've spoken to a number of psychologist and psychiatrist friends on this one. Most point to Narcissistic Personality Disorder ROTFL!! Judy, do tell! What was your DSM IV guess???
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:12 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: snip I've spoken to a number of psychologist and psychiatrist friends on this one. Most point to Narcissistic Personality Disorder ROTFL!! Judy, do tell! What was your DSM IV guess??? I don't make DSM-IV guesses. Neither do responsible psychologists or psychiatrists make them about people they haven't at least interacted with.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:57 PM, do.rflex wrote: Regarding early TMO pundits and teachers: 'they certainly weren't no Acharyas'. :-) Brahmachari Satyanand, whom I referred to, had spent many years with Guru Dev as a disciple. After Guru Dev's 'death' he later went on to assist Maharishi spreading Transcendental Meditation, as I understand it, until he died himself. I attended a course he conducted at Lake Arrowhead in the early 70s and spoke with him individually and privately at least three times, one of which was to receive an advanced technique. I say this mainly to indicate that Satyanand was directly involved with Guru Dev and Maharishi both. IME it's not a guarantee that these people are completely and holistically trained in these sciences. I really, honestly, see most of them as naive. Fact is, you haven't seen Guru Dev or Brahmachari Satyanand at all. But I do have lineal transmission of Samaya Sri Vidya directly from his line (Guru Dev's). So I base my View on his same transmission. And I do know that transmission. (So can anyone). Satyanand? Only stories. Some flattering. Some less so. An acharya? No. Brahmanand Saraswati? Emphatically YES. And a yogi with ram (fire) siddhi (at very least).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:04 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:12 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: snip I've spoken to a number of psychologist and psychiatrist friends on this one. Most point to Narcissistic Personality Disorder ROTFL!! Judy, do tell! What was your DSM IV guess??? I don't make DSM-IV guesses. Neither do responsible psychologists or psychiatrists make them about people they haven't at least interacted with. For deceased persons? Yes they do. Keep in mind, death (irregardless of whether or not it's seen as significant) is like a final stamp on a bank account or administrators account. The stamp has fallen. Based on the evidence between Mahesh Srivistava Varma's creation and death we can (and will) look at evidence for a certain personality type (or pathos). The administrators account has been stamped final my dear. Wake up. Please!
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:11 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: snip Maybe he really wasn't a yogi. Is that a possibility here? Yes! Be interesting to hear a definition of yogi from both of you. CC type attainment as a minimum--the slightly dualistic turiyatita--beyond the forth being what I'd refer to in a TM- style context. But there are non-dual and other yogis as well, so it is good to specify what style of yogi you mean when you make some sort of declaration. It's not a monolithic thing. I'm always glad to specify if people are sensitive enough to even ask. Most aren't. and those that know the truth about this sort of thing aren't either. Go home pretender. This notion that you have of their being a never ending path of signs and symbols and sciences and levels of accomplishment is all designed to mollify the fear of complete dissolution, of your own death. Nothing more. All who talk in these terms seek to keep those listening in bondage, keep them seeking outward for what is each of our spontaneous and wholly owned birthright, that of eternal freedom. Some of the trappings of these rituals of Maya are beautiful, but that doesn't make them liberating. There are just two kinds of existence, 1) bound and segregated, and 2) free and integrated. To make a fundamentalist science as you do of all of these gradations and other things keeps the mind busy so that it can believe in something other than its own naturally available annihilation. Just more fear and idiocy dancing with Maya.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:25 PM, sandiego108 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:11 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: snip Maybe he really wasn't a yogi. Is that a possibility here? Yes! Be interesting to hear a definition of yogi from both of you. CC type attainment as a minimum--the slightly dualistic turiyatita--beyond the forth being what I'd refer to in a TM- style context. But there are non-dual and other yogis as well, so it is good to specify what style of yogi you mean when you make some sort of declaration. It's not a monolithic thing. I'm always glad to specify if people are sensitive enough to even ask. Most aren't. and those that know the truth about this sort of thing aren't either. Go home pretender. This notion that you have of their being a never ending path of signs and symbols and sciences and levels of accomplishment is all designed to mollify the fear of complete dissolution, of your own death. Nothing more. All who talk in these terms seek to keep those listening in bondage, keep them seeking outward for what is each of our spontaneous and wholly owned birthright, that of eternal freedom. Some of the trappings of these rituals of Maya are beautiful, but that doesn't make them liberating. There are just two kinds of existence, 1) bound and segregated, and 2) free and integrated. To make a fundamentalist science as you do of all of these gradations and other things keeps the mind busy so that it can believe in something other than its own naturally available annihilation. Just more fear and idiocy dancing with Maya. Uh, thanks, Jim. I'll make sure I tell all the sages I meet.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:04 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:12 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: snip I've spoken to a number of psychologist and psychiatrist friends on this one. Most point to Narcissistic Personality Disorder ROTFL!! Judy, do tell! What was your DSM IV guess??? I don't make DSM-IV guesses. Neither do responsible psychologists or psychiatrists make them about people they haven't at least interacted with. For deceased persons? Yes they do. And you've spoken to all these psychologist and psychiatrist friends to get their diagnosis of MMY just since Tuesday afternoon, right? Keep in mind, death (irregardless of whether or not it's seen as significant) is like a final stamp on a bank account or administrators account. The stamp has fallen. Based on the evidence between Mahesh Srivistava Varma's creation and death we can (and will) look at evidence for a certain personality type (or pathos). I'm sorry, but that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this forum, and that's saying something. Like, MMY might undergo some massive personality change in the last weeks of his life, so we better wait until the day he actually croaks before we diagnose him. Please. Plus which, any professional who would trust *you* to give an accurate enough account of MMY to do a long-distance diagnosis is incompetent anyway. Professionals do sometimes attempt speculative diagnoses of historical figures years after they die when they have spent considerable time studying the records. *Responsible* professionals don't come up with such diagnoses on a dime the day after a person with whom they have no familiarity has died, on the basis of a single person's account (least of all someone as unreliable as to facts and as highly biased as you).
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
Although I am sure this will be hard to relate to for some... I got a lot of peace from the article in the Skeptical Inquirer in 89 or 90 that compared these personality traits with popular gurus. I know this seemed horrible to people who may view him as a real messiah, but for me it gave me some insight for compassion for Maharishi. It helped me understand how he operated the way he did, and even the odd feeling he would give off when I interacted with him. It explained how he could use and discard people as he unfolded his mission. I don't see this as a putdown. It is an alternate explanation to the idea that he proposed that he was the most important human in history. Why would someone believe such a thing about themselves? Either he was or he was not, but it requires an explanation. At least it did for me. So for me he remains a fascinating guy with or without this disorder. One piece of evidence I submit that perhaps he was mislead about the power of his teaching are the closest people to him that he left behind, presumably his most advanced pupils. I think we have a pretty good idea that his optimism about his programs exceeded his results. Or is that just me being negative on King Tony and Bevan? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:04 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:12 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: snip I've spoken to a number of psychologist and psychiatrist friends on this one. Most point to Narcissistic Personality Disorder ROTFL!! Judy, do tell! What was your DSM IV guess??? I don't make DSM-IV guesses. Neither do responsible psychologists or psychiatrists make them about people they haven't at least interacted with. For deceased persons? Yes they do. Keep in mind, death (irregardless of whether or not it's seen as significant) is like a final stamp on a bank account or administrators account. The stamp has fallen. Based on the evidence between Mahesh Srivistava Varma's creation and death we can (and will) look at evidence for a certain personality type (or pathos). The administrators account has been stamped final my dear. Wake up. Please!
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:25 PM, sandiego108 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:11 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: snip Maybe he really wasn't a yogi. Is that a possibility here? Yes! Be interesting to hear a definition of yogi from both of you. CC type attainment as a minimum--the slightly dualistic turiyatita--beyond the forth being what I'd refer to in a TM- style context. But there are non-dual and other yogis as well, so it is good to specify what style of yogi you mean when you make some sort of declaration. It's not a monolithic thing. I'm always glad to specify if people are sensitive enough to even ask. Most aren't. and those that know the truth about this sort of thing aren't either. Go home pretender. This notion that you have of their being a never ending path of signs and symbols and sciences and levels of accomplishment is all designed to mollify the fear of complete dissolution, of your own death. Nothing more. All who talk in these terms seek to keep those listening in bondage, keep them seeking outward for what is each of our spontaneous and wholly owned birthright, that of eternal freedom. Some of the trappings of these rituals of Maya are beautiful, but that doesn't make them liberating. There are just two kinds of existence, 1) bound and segregated, and 2) free and integrated. To make a fundamentalist science as you do of all of these gradations and other things keeps the mind busy so that it can believe in something other than its own naturally available annihilation. Just more fear and idiocy dancing with Maya. Uh, thanks, Jim. I'll make sure I tell all the sages I meet. No, better yet, continue to lose yourself in your layers and signs and Ways and Views...that's the ticket. Arduously discover a glimpse, a painful elicited glimmer of the one true self, no wait, The One True Self Of Compassion--- Hilarious!!! You crack me up Vaj Rant...
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:04 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:12 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: snip I've spoken to a number of psychologist and psychiatrist friends on this one. Most point to Narcissistic Personality Disorder ROTFL!! Judy, do tell! What was your DSM IV guess??? I don't make DSM-IV guesses. Neither do responsible psychologists or psychiatrists make them about people they haven't at least interacted with. For deceased persons? Yes they do. Keep in mind, death (irregardless of whether or not it's seen as significant) is like a final stamp on a bank account or administrators account. The stamp has fallen. Based on the evidence between Mahesh Srivistava Varma's creation and death we can (and will) look at evidence for a certain personality type (or pathos). The administrators account has been stamped final my dear. Wake up. Please! Piss away, my little besotted monkey! psss!!
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip *Responsible* professionals don't come up with such diagnoses on a dime the day after a person with whom they have no familiarity has died, *Particularly* not a person from a completely different culture and background who is obviously a very unusual character to begin with. Not to mention a person about whose early life virtually nothing is known.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:33 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Although I am sure this will be hard to relate to for some... I got a lot of peace from the article in the Skeptical Inquirer in 89 or 90 that compared these personality traits with popular gurus. I know this seemed horrible to people who may view him as a real messiah, but for me it gave me some insight for compassion for Maharishi. It helped me understand how he operated the way he did, and even the odd feeling he would give off when I interacted with him. It explained how he could use and discard people as he unfolded his mission. I don't see this as a putdown. It is an alternate explanation to the idea that he proposed that he was the most important human in history. Why would someone believe such a thing about themselves? Either he was or he was not, but it requires an explanation. At least it did for me. So for me he remains a fascinating guy with or without this disorder. One piece of evidence I submit that perhaps he was mislead about the power of his teaching are the closest people to him that he left behind, presumably his most advanced pupils. I think we have a pretty good idea that his optimism about his programs exceeded his results. Or is that just me being negative on King Tony and Bevan? Well they are separate people entirely, interpreting a teachers teachings. I get a really sattvic vibe off of king Tony and Bevan always was a kind of archetypal Jupiterian to me--and of course there are good and bad connotations of Jupiter.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:30 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:04 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:12 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: snip I've spoken to a number of psychologist and psychiatrist friends on this one. Most point to Narcissistic Personality Disorder ROTFL!! Judy, do tell! What was your DSM IV guess??? I don't make DSM-IV guesses. Neither do responsible psychologists or psychiatrists make them about people they haven't at least interacted with. For deceased persons? Yes they do. And you've spoken to all these psychologist and psychiatrist friends to get their diagnosis of MMY just since Tuesday afternoon, right? Of course not. It was over time Dear Editor. Keep in mind, death (irregardless of whether or not it's seen as significant) is like a final stamp on a bank account or administrators account. The stamp has fallen. Based on the evidence between Mahesh Srivistava Varma's creation and death we can (and will) look at evidence for a certain personality type (or pathos). I'm sorry, but that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this forum, and that's saying something. Like, MMY might undergo some massive personality change in the last weeks of his life, so we better wait until the day he actually croaks before we diagnose him. Please. Plus which, any professional who would trust *you* to give an accurate enough account of MMY to do a long-distance diagnosis is incompetent anyway. Professionals do sometimes attempt speculative diagnoses of historical figures years after they die when they have spent considerable time studying the records. *Responsible* professionals don't come up with such diagnoses on a dime the day after a person with whom they have no familiarity has died, on the basis of a single person's account (least of all someone as unreliable as to facts and as highly biased as you). And of course, another Judy's Golem --a strawman and monstrous distortion with no resemblance whatsoever to my intentions. Burn strawman burn! Get a new schtick already!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:34 PM, sandiego108 wrote: No, better yet, continue to lose yourself in your layers and signs and Ways and Views...that's the ticket. Arduously discover a glimpse, a painful elicited glimmer of the one true self, no wait, The One True Self Of Compassion--- Hilarious!!! You crack me up Vaj Rant... Every thing is a symbol: learn, love and live! Enjoy your own mandala. No self or Self necessary!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:38 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip *Responsible* professionals don't come up with such diagnoses on a dime the day after a person with whom they have no familiarity has died, *Particularly* not a person from a completely different culture and background who is obviously a very unusual character to begin with. Not to mention a person about whose early life virtually nothing is known. An interesting point Dear Editor. One can have many guesses on someone's early life and never be sure of what transpired. Can you guess 'my guess' of Mahesh's early (unrecorded or commented) life? What's yours?
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:30 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:04 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:12 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: snip I've spoken to a number of psychologist and psychiatrist friends on this one. Most point to Narcissistic Personality Disorder ROTFL!! Judy, do tell! What was your DSM IV guess??? I don't make DSM-IV guesses. Neither do responsible psychologists or psychiatrists make them about people they haven't at least interacted with. For deceased persons? Yes they do. And you've spoken to all these psychologist and psychiatrist friends to get their diagnosis of MMY just since Tuesday afternoon, right? Of course not. It was over time Dear Editor. So it *wasn't* for a deceased person. You're getting rattled again, Vaj, as you always do when someone calls you on one of your more ludicrous pronouncements. Observe Vaj's explanation of the circumstances under which professionals supposedly make such a diagnosis: Keep in mind, death (irregardless of whether or not it's seen as significant) is like a final stamp on a bank account or administrators account. The stamp has fallen. Based on the evidence between Mahesh Srivistava Varma's creation and death we can (and will) look at evidence for a certain personality type (or pathos). But now he informs us it *wasn't* the falling of the stamp that enabled his friends to make this diagnosis. snip Plus which, any professional who would trust *you* to give an accurate enough account of MMY to do a long-distance diagnosis is incompetent anyway. Vaj's furious backpedaling notwithstanding, the applies whatever the situation. Professionals do sometimes attempt speculative diagnoses of historical figures years after they die when they have spent considerable time studying the records. *Responsible* professionals don't come up with such diagnoses on a dime the day after a person with whom they have no familiarity has died, on the basis of a single person's account (least of all someone as unreliable as to facts and as highly biased as you). And of course, another Judy's Golem --a strawman and monstrous distortion with no resemblance whatsoever to my intentions. chortle See above. Of course, my purported straw man was based precisely on what Vaj had said.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:58 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:38 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip *Responsible* professionals don't come up with such diagnoses on a dime the day after a person with whom they have no familiarity has died, *Particularly* not a person from a completely different culture and background who is obviously a very unusual character to begin with. Not to mention a person about whose early life virtually nothing is known. An interesting point Dear Editor. One can have many guesses on someone's early life and never be sure of what transpired. Can you guess 'my guess' of Mahesh's early (unrecorded or commented) life? What's yours? As Shemp would say, Vaj, stop digging. As Shemp might say to you: START
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:57 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: snip What was your DSM IV guess??? I don't make DSM-IV guesses. Neither do responsible psychologists or psychiatrists make them about people they haven't at least interacted with. For deceased persons? Yes they do. And you've spoken to all these psychologist and psychiatrist friends to get their diagnosis of MMY just since Tuesday afternoon, right? Of course not. It was over time Dear Editor. So it *wasn't* for a deceased person. You're getting rattled again, Vaj, as you always do when someone calls you on one of your more ludicrous pronouncements. LOL. Dead persons have had their life-examples used as examples of their personality types, post-vivo, it's a simple fact. Stop trying to distort my intention Judy. And if contradicting himself doesn't work, the next step is double-talk. Let's recap: Responsible professionals do not diagnose people they haven't interacted with on the basis of one person's description. And any professional who thought s/he would get an accurate, objective account of MMY from Vaj is incompetent.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:57 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:30 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:04 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:12 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: snip I've spoken to a number of psychologist and psychiatrist friends on this one. Most point to Narcissistic Personality Disorder ROTFL!! Judy, do tell! What was your DSM IV guess??? I don't make DSM-IV guesses. Neither do responsible psychologists or psychiatrists make them about people they haven't at least interacted with. For deceased persons? Yes they do. And you've spoken to all these psychologist and psychiatrist friends to get their diagnosis of MMY just since Tuesday afternoon, right? Of course not. It was over time Dear Editor. So it *wasn't* for a deceased person. You're getting rattled again, Vaj, as you always do when someone calls you on one of your more ludicrous pronouncements. LOL. Dead persons have had their life-examples used as examples of their personality types, post-vivo, it's a simple fact. Stop trying to distort my intention Judy. Observe Vaj's explanation of the circumstances under which professionals supposedly make such a diagnosis: Keep in mind, death (irregardless of whether or not it's seen as significant) is like a final stamp on a bank account or administrators account. The stamp has fallen. Based on the evidence between Mahesh Srivistava Varma's creation and death we can (and will) look at evidence for a certain personality type (or pathos). But now he informs us it *wasn't* the falling of the stamp that enabled his friends to make this diagnosis. Not at all. The data sample has a beginning and an end. That data sample has ended. snip Plus which, any professional who would trust *you* to give an accurate enough account of MMY to do a long-distance diagnosis is incompetent anyway. Vaj's furious backpedaling notwithstanding, the applies whatever the situation. Professionals do sometimes attempt speculative diagnoses of historical figures years after they die when they have spent considerable time studying the records. *Responsible* professionals don't come up with such diagnoses on a dime the day after a person with whom they have no familiarity has died, on the basis of a single person's account (least of all someone as unreliable as to facts and as highly biased as you). And of course, another Judy's Golem --a strawman and monstrous distortion with no resemblance whatsoever to my intentions. chortle See above. Of course, my purported straw man was based precisely on what Vaj had said. Yeah...uh huh...
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:38 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip *Responsible* professionals don't come up with such diagnoses on a dime the day after a person with whom they have no familiarity has died, *Particularly* not a person from a completely different culture and background who is obviously a very unusual character to begin with. Not to mention a person about whose early life virtually nothing is known. An interesting point Dear Editor. One can have many guesses on someone's early life and never be sure of what transpired. Can you guess 'my guess' of Mahesh's early (unrecorded or commented) life? What's yours? As Shemp would say, Vaj, stop digging.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
The DSM-IV elements of narcissistic PD are at least five of the following: 1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance 2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love 3. believes that he or she is special and unique 4. requires excessive admiration 5. has a sense of entitlement 6. is interpersonally exploitative 7. lacks empathy 8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her 9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes Now of course, just because you believe you are special, doesn't mean you aren't special.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in Cc - Humboldt
IMHO: Death does not mean the spirit left. It could mean that the spirit moved to another body. If there's another spirit in that body, he may subordinate himself to that lower spirit. Once in a different body, he can't be the same guy that you will recognize or perceive with cosmic consciousness because not one thing is the same, down to the cellular level. Everything is unique. Another thing to consider? We all have free will. The CC can choose to withdraw his support or can choose to spring into action whenever he thinks fit. Another point: a higher spirit can co-exist with you in your body. This may perhaps help explain why some are sickly some are not. Meaning, if you are sickly, you might have a lower spirit co-existing with you in your body. If you go for exorcism - that might work. Assuming MMY is a higher spirit or co-existing with a higher spirit in his present form - what does he do to share the graces or the benefits of co-existing with this higher spirit? In my case, I think my [EMAIL PROTECTED] is one of the best way I can share with you things that I think will have a positive effect in your life. Because the lower spirit may have been attracted to your body, if that attraction was removed or somehow expelled, that lower spirit may just have to find another body. What I got in ageless_secret can remove what can lower your self-control. What is the possibility that you may have another spirit co-existing with you in your body? Greater than 100%. So - developing your self-control is a must. How do you develop self-control? Meditation. If you guys are coming to Las Vegas, give me a call @ (702) 275-1011 and we should meditate together and you drink from my water. We should at least meet so we can at least mentally be one spirit or one church and build a greater peace. Salvador (Sonny) Santayana === MMY: (interrupting) Anyone who will go will come back. Go has to be back. One doesn't go, doesn't There's no question of coming back when he doesn't go. There is no question of coming back. When his going is arrested, he doesn't get a passport to come back. His going is arrested, it doesn't go. S: Thank you. MMY: Is that point clear? S: Uh, yeah kinda. I don't see if a man reaches Cosmic Consciousness, and he leaves the body, and like you say he's unbounded, then can he choose to come back to earth in a body to help Click to join ageless_secret - Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A recorded lecture by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi August 1970, Humboldt State College, California bigsnip It cannot leave one time, go to other time. So the unboundedness is free from the boundaries of time and space. And that is why a man living Cosmic Consciousness does not go somewhere. His body goes from manifested state to unmanifested state. The body goes, he doesn't go. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/163387 OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:11 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: snip Maybe he really wasn't a yogi. Is that a possibility here? Yes! Be interesting to hear a definition of yogi from both of you. CC type attainment as a minimum--the slightly dualistic turiyatita--beyond the forth being what I'd refer to in a TM-style context. Slightly dualistic turiyatita OK... and beyond the beyond? OK again... snort L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY lecture on death in CC - Humboldt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] But soon after, while I was very morose, sorrow, sad, entire world was empty for me and I did not understand what to do without Guru Dev, just a half a minute or two seconds after, a flash came and it appeared to me that Guru Dev was scolding me; What a fool you are! You have been with me for all these many months and years, and you heard my discourses too. Is it a moment of feeling sorry? Why should you be sorry today? And you think that I am gone, where am I gone? Till now whenever you wanted to meet me, you had, you had to come to the place where I was, and today when I have attained nirvana, I am everywhere, I am omnipresent. Where have I gone? Very foolish for you to mourn on this occasion. I am with you, here, there, everywhere. Why should you be sorry? And the moment this flash came, my face became very brilliant, I became very cheerful. And when I raised my head, my friends who were standing there, very anxious and held in suspense, they were upset to see my brilliant and cheerful face. And then they said, What has happened to you? I said, No you can't understand, nothing has happened to me, I am alright, now let me go back to the ashram and make the necessary arrangements. Where does it say that Guudev actually spoke to him? ...and it appeared to me that Guru Dev was scolding me; Schizophrenics hear voices and think its someone talking to them. Non-schizophrenics recall the attitude and put it into words or simply remember the sound of the person saying the words, but don't say Gurudev spoke these words to me after he died. Instead, they say and it appeared to me that Guru Dev was scolding me. Likewise, MMY received direct inspiration from Gurudev to do something but didn't say Gurudev appeared in a vision and told me to do this. Lawson
