[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Good points, dumbass. Not really. Jimbo's just gotten his OMG-somebody- insulted-Maharishi buttons pushed, and is just lashing out thinking that insulting my former teacher will push mine. It's kinda childish of him, and displays all the intellect of a turnip. :-) For the record, the rape at gunpoint he's going on about never happened. The woman who made that claim to the media later rescinded it, and said that she was angry that a one-nighter with Rama turned into only that and not more. Was the guy a total dirtbag to sleep with his female students when there was such a power dif- ferential in place? You betcha. Did he need a gun to do so? No way. Anyway, now we can get back to watching Jimbo melt down and act like a kindergartener throw- ing a tantrum. MOMMY, MOMMY...he said bad things about my teacher...WW :-) And the funny thing is that I didn't even say bad things about Maharishi. I just treated him the way I think of him, as an ordinary guy with nothing much going for him except having run into the Beatles once, trying to milk that for money up to the end. :-) Just for fun, because turnip-brain is so button- pushed that he's not likely to let up with what he thinks is a zinger, and for those who are newbies here and *haven't read the things I've said about the Rama guy here before*, here's the real rape story. The person who claimed that was an attractive young woman named Annie Eastwood, who was actually a friend of mine during the short time she was around in the Rama trip, so I was up close and personal during this alleged rape. Annie was an aspiring actress who, like most aspiring actresses in L.A., never got anywhere with her aspirations. Having noticed that Fred (Rama) had no problems with sleeping with his female students, she set her sights on him. And one night it paid off. She got the phone call that was Rama's Narcissistic Personality Disorder seduction routine. That is, Come over to my house and we'll have tea and talk about your spiritual future. Which was code for, Come over to my house and have sex with me, after which I'll probably never do this again. It was a pretty sad routine, but women fell for it. Go figure. Anyway, Annie went over to his Malibu house, he showed her around, and in the process showed her his gun collection, mounted in a cabinet. Sure 'nuff, they had sex, and Annie spent the next two weeks telling all the women in the org how wonderful and celestial sex with him was, and saying that she was now Rama's new girlfriend. She believed that she was going to become Parvati to his Shiva, and started acting all hoity-toity with the other women. Many of them who had been in the same position laughed at her when she did this, and sure enough, Rama never called her again. She got the message that she was never going to be as special in the Rama trip as she'd imagined she'd be, and left. Months later, when the Cult Awareness Network-fueled anti-cult media attacks started in earnest, she took her revenge by going to one of the reporters and tried to turn having been shown a gun collection into rape at gunpoint. Years later she rescinded this completely, and retold the story of her one night stand with Rama pretty much the way I've told it above. Even vindictive women grow up in time. :-) That said, was Fred an absolute scumbag to have run this routine on women who were in awe of him, and thus not in a position to say No. Absolutely. Did he also do stuff like rip people off financially and fuck with their lives and their minds? Absolutely. In other words, Fred Lenz - Rama was in my opinion pretty much the *same* as Maharishi. Two guys suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder who got into the spiritual teaching business FAR too early, and who got taken out by it. The only real difference was that Rama had no *products* to sell like Maharishi did, only one-on-one teaching, so Fred's impact on large numbers of people was by definition always going to remain much smaller than MMY's. They were BOTH scumbags in my considered opinion. And they BOTH did some good, for some people. The problem with such teachers comes from considering them more than what they were, and being unwilling or unable to accept the full range of what they were. They were both sinners and saints -- IMO ordinary people with just the pseudo-charisma of NPD going for them. Now maybe Jimbo and Nabby can get back to their cultist Kill the messenger routine without thinking they can push my buttons over past spiritual teachers the way I've pushed theirs. Some of us, after all, toppled them from the pedestals we'd put them up on decades ago. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
About Rama and Maharishi: They were BOTH scumbags in my considered opinion. And they BOTH did some good, for some people. Exactly! I know some people, other than you, who were with Rama and respected him much. As far as I can tell, they meditate wonderfully, you see this when you meditate together with them, got good insights into spiritual principles, good recommendations for their professional life, and even good endorsement of other saints, both the same from Maharishi and Rama. Playing out one Guru against the other, you know only from hearsay, is just too dumb. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Good points, dumbass. Not really. Jimbo's just gotten his OMG-somebody- insulted-Maharishi buttons pushed, and is just lashing out thinking that insulting my former teacher will push mine. It's kinda childish of him, and displays all the intellect of a turnip. :-) For the record, the rape at gunpoint he's going on about never happened. The woman who made that claim to the media later rescinded it, and said that she was angry that a one-nighter with Rama turned into only that and not more. Was the guy a total dirtbag to sleep with his female students when there was such a power dif- ferential in place? You betcha. Did he need a gun to do so? No way. Anyway, now we can get back to watching Jimbo melt down and act like a kindergartener throw- ing a tantrum. MOMMY, MOMMY...he said bad things about my teacher...WW :-) And the funny thing is that I didn't even say bad things about Maharishi. I just treated him the way I think of him, as an ordinary guy with nothing much going for him except having run into the Beatles once, trying to milk that for money up to the end. :-) Just for fun, because turnip-brain is so button- pushed that he's not likely to let up with what he thinks is a zinger, and for those who are newbies here and *haven't read the things I've said about the Rama guy here before*, here's the real rape story. The person who claimed that was an attractive young woman named Annie Eastwood, who was actually a friend of mine during the short time she was around in the Rama trip, so I was up close and personal during this alleged rape. Annie was an aspiring actress who, like most aspiring actresses in L.A., never got anywhere with her aspirations. Having noticed that Fred (Rama) had no problems with sleeping with his female students, she set her sights on him. And one night it paid off. She got the phone call that was Rama's Narcissistic Personality Disorder seduction routine. That is, Come over to my house and we'll have tea and talk about your spiritual future. Which was code for, Come over to my house and have sex with me, after which I'll probably never do this again. It was a pretty sad routine, but women fell for it. Go figure. Anyway, Annie went over to his Malibu house, he showed her around, and in the process showed her his gun collection, mounted in a cabinet. Sure 'nuff, they had sex, and Annie spent the next two weeks telling all the women in the org how wonderful and celestial sex with him was, and saying that she was now Rama's new girlfriend. She believed that she was going to become Parvati to his Shiva, and started acting all hoity-toity with the other women. Many of them who had been in the same position laughed at her when she did this, and sure enough, Rama never called her again. She got the message that she was never going to be as special in the Rama trip as she'd imagined she'd be, and left. Months later, when the Cult Awareness Network-fueled anti-cult media attacks started in earnest, she took her revenge by going to one of the reporters and tried to turn having been shown a gun collection into rape at gunpoint. Years later she rescinded this completely, and retold the story of her one night stand with Rama pretty much the way I've told it above. Even vindictive women grow up in time. :-) That said, was Fred an absolute scumbag to have run this routine on women who were in awe of him, and thus not in a position to say No. Absolutely. Did he also do stuff like rip people off financially and fuck with their lives and their minds? Absolutely. In other words, Fred Lenz - Rama was in my opinion pretty much the *same* as Maharishi. Two guys suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder who got into the spiritual teaching business FAR too early, and who got taken out by it. The only real difference was that Rama had no *products* to sell like Maharishi did, only one-on-one teaching, so Fred's impact on large numbers of people was by definition always going to remain much smaller than MMY's. They were BOTH scumbags in my considered opinion. And they BOTH did some
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: Turq wrote: About Rama and Maharishi: They were BOTH scumbags in my considered opinion. And they BOTH did some good, for some people. Exactly! I know some people, other than you, who were with Rama and respected him much. As far as I can tell, they meditate wonderfully, you see this when you meditate together with them, got good insights into spiritual principles, good recommendations for their professional life, and even good endorsement of other saints, both the same from Maharishi and Rama. They got the meditate well thing from Rama. He could absolutely SMOKE in meditation. In contrast, I never felt that Maharishi could meditate worth a damn. That is, after all, the reason he invented a meditation technique that claimed that sitting there with your mind filled with thoughts and daydreams was correct meditation. Meditating in the same room with Maharishi was (for me) like meditating at home alone; there was almost never any more silence than usual going down. That, in my estimation, is the reason MMY spent so little time *ever* meditating with groups of his students, so that they wouldn't be able to notice that he wasn't very good at it. With Rama it was very different; the silence was so profound that if you were meditating in the same room with him the issue of having thoughts during meditation never arose because you *couldn't* have thoughts. *Very* different experience, one that tended to inspire you to develop deeper levels of meditation on your own. *That* was the main reason I stuck around with him for as long as I did. That and the fact that much of what we did, at least in the earlier years, was FUN. When *he* stopped meditating with his students (and IMO for the same reasons as MMY, having by then become addicted to Valium and lost his phwam! as a meditator) and the FUN went away, to be replaced with just standard cult bullshit, I went away, too. Playing out one Guru against the other, you know only from hearsay, is just too dumb. Jimbo really *isn't* very smart. He got his buttons pushed and so he did the same thing that Nabby (*also* not very smart) does and thought, Wow...him saying things I don't like about *my* spiritual teacher really pissed me off and pushed my buttons, so I'll try to do the exact same thing to him. So he read the Wikipedia article on Fred Lenz - Rama and extracted what he thought would be a good zinger from it, and then tried to use it to demonize me, via my previous association with Fred. It's pretty much classic cult behavior, Kill the messenger. Jim really doesn't have the intelligence to think of anything new and original. My participation in this is simply to point out the mechanics of what Jimbo and his fellow button-pushed TBs are doing. They're trying for a *diversion*, to steer the discussion away from any issues brought up about Maharishi by his critics, and towards dissing the critics themselves. It's pretty pitiful, but hey! that's all they've got. The *most* pitiful aspect of it, which we've seen here quite a few times over the years, is that when the TBs get stuck in a corner in which they cannot possibly deny the criticism (such as Maharishi having slept with his female students), they're reduced to the kinder- garten behavior of shouting, YEAH, BUT YOUR TEACHER DID IT, TOO. NYAAH NYAAH. *Of course* my teacher (for a time) did it, too. The ISSUE is what that said about both him and Maharishi, not what it says about their students. The cult aspect of all of this is getting your buttons pushed *personally* over something that isn't said about you *at all*. It was said about a teacher you once studied with. Taking that personally enough to get all angry and vindictive about it just indicates to me that the teacher in question must not have been much of one. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Good points, dumbass. Not really. Jimbo's just gotten his OMG-somebody- insulted-Maharishi buttons pushed, and is just lashing out thinking that insulting my former teacher will push mine. It's kinda childish of him, and displays all the intellect of a turnip. :-) For the record, the rape at gunpoint he's going on about never happened. The woman who made that claim to the media later rescinded it, and said that she was angry that a one-nighter with Rama turned into only that and not more. Was the guy a total dirtbag to sleep with his female students when there was such a power dif- ferential in place? You betcha. Did he need a gun to do so? No way. Anyway, now we can get back to watching Jimbo melt down and act like a kindergartener throw- ing a tantrum. MOMMY, MOMMY...he said bad things about my teacher...WW :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
Thank you for the Rama clarification - it is unfortunate that people decide to abuse others under the guise of giving them something good - but I suppose it is part of human nature. As to Maharishi's sexual behavior, it doesn't bother me all that much that he did it, I was curious about how those who think he was the best thing since sliced bread worked it out in their heads that the skin boys had come forward with such stories - I figured most would say they thought the skinboys were lying, but they didn't. Although we didn't hear from folks like nabby. The reason I put such weight to what the former secretaries to M said was that they all had pretty consistent stories of how he behaved with women and there are more of the skin boys who have come forward than women who said they had relations with him. If he had been up front about his sexual energy and told everyone Hey, this is what is coming up in my awareness, I want to explore this for myself, if any of you would like to help me, then I would appreciate it. Then that would have been open and honest. It is the lying and hiding the behavior that I find objectionable. And when someone routinely lies, I don't think they are worth following or giving money to. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 5:11 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: Turq wrote: About Rama and Maharishi: They were BOTH scumbags in my considered opinion. And they BOTH did some good, for some people. Exactly! I know some people, other than you, who were with Rama and respected him much. As far as I can tell, they meditate wonderfully, you see this when you meditate together with them, got good insights into spiritual principles, good recommendations for their professional life, and even good endorsement of other saints, both the same from Maharishi and Rama. They got the meditate well thing from Rama. He could absolutely SMOKE in meditation. In contrast, I never felt that Maharishi could meditate worth a damn. That is, after all, the reason he invented a meditation technique that claimed that sitting there with your mind filled with thoughts and daydreams was correct meditation. Meditating in the same room with Maharishi was (for me) like meditating at home alone; there was almost never any more silence than usual going down. That, in my estimation, is the reason MMY spent so little time *ever* meditating with groups of his students, so that they wouldn't be able to notice that he wasn't very good at it. With Rama it was very different; the silence was so profound that if you were meditating in the same room with him the issue of having thoughts during meditation never arose because you *couldn't* have thoughts. *Very* different experience, one that tended to inspire you to develop deeper levels of meditation on your own. *That* was the main reason I stuck around with him for as long as I did. That and the fact that much of what we did, at least in the earlier years, was FUN. When *he* stopped meditating with his students (and IMO for the same reasons as MMY, having by then become addicted to Valium and lost his phwam! as a meditator) and the FUN went away, to be replaced with just standard cult bullshit, I went away, too. Playing out one Guru against the other, you know only from hearsay, is just too dumb. Jimbo really *isn't* very smart. He got his buttons pushed and so he did the same thing that Nabby (*also* not very smart) does and thought, Wow...him saying things I don't like about *my* spiritual teacher really pissed me off and pushed my buttons, so I'll try to do the exact same thing to him. So he read the Wikipedia article on Fred Lenz - Rama and extracted what he thought would be a good zinger from it, and then tried to use it to demonize me, via my previous association with Fred. It's pretty much classic cult behavior, Kill the messenger. Jim really doesn't have the intelligence to think of anything new and original. My participation in this is simply to point out the mechanics of what Jimbo and his fellow button-pushed TBs are doing. They're trying for a *diversion*, to steer the discussion away from any issues brought up about Maharishi by his critics, and towards dissing the critics themselves. It's pretty pitiful, but hey! that's all they've got. The *most* pitiful aspect of it, which we've seen here quite a few times over the years, is that when the TBs get stuck in a corner in which they cannot possibly deny the criticism (such as Maharishi having slept with his female students), they're reduced to the kinder- garten behavior of shouting, YEAH, BUT YOUR TEACHER DID IT, TOO. NYAAH NYAAH. *Of course* my teacher (for a time) did it, too. The ISSUE is what that said about both him and Maharishi, not what
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
For some reason, this reminds me of a story I heard from what I think of as a reliable source: once on a course someone asked Maharishi if it's true that an enlightened man can just look at a person and pop them into enlightenment. Maharishi silently nodded his head. Well, Maharishi, said the guy, why don't you just look at us and pop us into enlightenment. Long pause. Because it would knock your sox off, replied Maharishi. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 4:11 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: Turq wrote: About Rama and Maharishi: They were BOTH scumbags in my considered opinion. And they BOTH did some good, for some people. Exactly! I know some people, other than you, who were with Rama and respected him much. As far as I can tell, they meditate wonderfully, you see this when you meditate together with them, got good insights into spiritual principles, good recommendations for their professional life, and even good endorsement of other saints, both the same from Maharishi and Rama. They got the meditate well thing from Rama. He could absolutely SMOKE in meditation. In contrast, I never felt that Maharishi could meditate worth a damn. That is, after all, the reason he invented a meditation technique that claimed that sitting there with your mind filled with thoughts and daydreams was correct meditation. Meditating in the same room with Maharishi was (for me) like meditating at home alone; there was almost never any more silence than usual going down. That, in my estimation, is the reason MMY spent so little time *ever* meditating with groups of his students, so that they wouldn't be able to notice that he wasn't very good at it. With Rama it was very different; the silence was so profound that if you were meditating in the same room with him the issue of having thoughts during meditation never arose because you *couldn't* have thoughts. *Very* different experience, one that tended to inspire you to develop deeper levels of meditation on your own. *That* was the main reason I stuck around with him for as long as I did. That and the fact that much of what we did, at least in the earlier years, was FUN. When *he* stopped meditating with his students (and IMO for the same reasons as MMY, having by then become addicted to Valium and lost his phwam! as a meditator) and the FUN went away, to be replaced with just standard cult bullshit, I went away, too. Playing out one Guru against the other, you know only from hearsay, is just too dumb. Jimbo really *isn't* very smart. He got his buttons pushed and so he did the same thing that Nabby (*also* not very smart) does and thought, Wow...him saying things I don't like about *my* spiritual teacher really pissed me off and pushed my buttons, so I'll try to do the exact same thing to him. So he read the Wikipedia article on Fred Lenz - Rama and extracted what he thought would be a good zinger from it, and then tried to use it to demonize me, via my previous association with Fred. It's pretty much classic cult behavior, Kill the messenger. Jim really doesn't have the intelligence to think of anything new and original. My participation in this is simply to point out the mechanics of what Jimbo and his fellow button-pushed TBs are doing. They're trying for a *diversion*, to steer the discussion away from any issues brought up about Maharishi by his critics, and towards dissing the critics themselves. It's pretty pitiful, but hey! that's all they've got. The *most* pitiful aspect of it, which we've seen here quite a few times over the years, is that when the TBs get stuck in a corner in which they cannot possibly deny the criticism (such as Maharishi having slept with his female students), they're reduced to the kinder- garten behavior of shouting, YEAH, BUT YOUR TEACHER DID IT, TOO. NYAAH NYAAH. *Of course* my teacher (for a time) did it, too. The ISSUE is what that said about both him and Maharishi, not what it says about their students. The cult aspect of all of this is getting your buttons pushed *personally* over something that isn't said about you *at all*. It was said about a teacher you once studied with. Taking that personally enough to get all angry and vindictive about it just indicates to me that the teacher in question must not have been much of one. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Good points, dumbass. Not really. Jimbo's just gotten his OMG-somebody- insulted-Maharishi buttons pushed, and is just lashing out thinking that insulting my former teacher will push mine. It's kinda childish of him, and displays all
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
Nice try - Lenz WAS a rapist at gunpoint. If this woman recanted her story, that is not evidence he wasn't. Boy, you sure ate it up, though, as a hard core refutation of this loser you followed around. Sticking your cock into a woman, at the point of a gun, IS RAPE, Barry - Have you figured that out yet? Even if YOU think the woman is a cunt. Did Freddie confuse you again?? If you insist this is the TRUTH, you may want to re-examine your standards for judging anyone else you don't like. What a lousy double standard. Fuck your TRUTH, Barry. I don't believe a word of it. I suppose those weren't drugs Lenz was addicted to, they were MMs, right Barry? And when he committed suicide, he didn't really, he was entering Mahasamadhi, right Barry? No, Maharishi was nothing like this depressed loser. However I appreciate your dishonesty, as usual.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Good points, dumbass. Not really. Jimbo's just gotten his OMG-somebody- insulted-Maharishi buttons pushed, and is just lashing out thinking that insulting my former teacher will push mine. It's kinda childish of him, and displays all the intellect of a turnip. :-) For the record, the rape at gunpoint he's going on about never happened. The woman who made that claim to the media later rescinded it, and said that she was angry that a one-nighter with Rama turned into only that and not more. Was the guy a total dirtbag to sleep with his female students when there was such a power dif- ferential in place? You betcha. Did he need a gun to do so? No way. Anyway, now we can get back to watching Jimbo melt down and act like a kindergartener throw- ing a tantrum. MOMMY, MOMMY...he said bad things about my teacher...WW :-) And the funny thing is that I didn't even say bad things about Maharishi. I just treated him the way I think of him, as an ordinary guy with nothing much going for him except having run into the Beatles once, trying to milk that for money up to the end. :-) Just for fun, because turnip-brain is so button- pushed that he's not likely to let up with what he thinks is a zinger, and for those who are newbies here and *haven't read the things I've said about the Rama guy here before*, here's the real rape story. The person who claimed that was an attractive young woman named Annie Eastwood, who was actually a friend of mine during the short time she was around in the Rama trip, so I was up close and personal during this alleged rape. Annie was an aspiring actress who, like most aspiring actresses in L.A., never got anywhere with her aspirations. Having noticed that Fred (Rama) had no problems with sleeping with his female students, she set her sights on him. And one night it paid off. She got the phone call that was Rama's Narcissistic Personality Disorder seduction routine. That is, Come over to my house and we'll have tea and talk about your spiritual future. Which was code for, Come over to my house and have sex with me, after which I'll probably never do this again. It was a pretty sad routine, but women fell for it. Go figure. Anyway, Annie went over to his Malibu house, he showed her around, and in the process showed her his gun collection, mounted in a cabinet. Sure 'nuff, they had sex, and Annie spent the next two weeks telling all the women in the org how wonderful and celestial sex with him was, and saying that she was now Rama's new girlfriend. She believed that she was going to become Parvati to his Shiva, and started acting all hoity-toity with the other women. Many of them who had been in the same position laughed at her when she did this, and sure enough, Rama never called her again. She got the message that she was never going to be as special in the Rama trip as she'd imagined she'd be, and left. Months later, when the Cult Awareness Network-fueled anti-cult media attacks started in earnest, she took her revenge by going to one of the reporters and tried to turn having been shown a gun collection into rape at gunpoint. Years later she rescinded this completely, and retold the story of her one night stand with Rama pretty much the way I've told it above. Even vindictive women grow up in time. :-) That said, was Fred an absolute scumbag to have run this routine on women who were in awe of him, and thus not in a position to say No. Absolutely. Did he also do stuff like rip people off financially and fuck with their lives and their minds? Absolutely. In other words, Fred Lenz - Rama was in my opinion pretty much the *same* as Maharishi. Two guys suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder who got into the spiritual teaching business FAR too early, and who got taken out by it. The only real
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: in the same room with Maharishi was (for me) like meditating at home alone; there was almost never any more silence than usual going down. That, in my estimation, is the reason MMY spent so little time *ever* meditating with groups of his students, so that they wouldn't be able to notice that he wasn't very good at it. Hmmm... perhaps he didn't want people to become addicted to him, so to speak...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
PS While insulting me, to protect your misogynist SMOKIN' teacher, you mention I read an article on Wikipedia- BZT! I have heard this story five or six times, from various sources, and not just regarding one of Rama's rapes, but several of them. Did he encourage you to rape women too? Just curious, because you are SO incredibly defensive, and ignorant about this. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: Nice try - Lenz WAS a rapist at gunpoint. If this woman recanted her story, that is not evidence he wasn't. Boy, you sure ate it up, though, as a hard core refutation of this loser you followed around. Sticking your cock into a woman, at the point of a gun, IS RAPE, Barry - Have you figured that out yet? Even if YOU think the woman is a cunt. Did Freddie confuse you again?? If you insist this is the TRUTH, you may want to re-examine your standards for judging anyone else you don't like. What a lousy double standard. Fuck your TRUTH, Barry. I don't believe a word of it. I suppose those weren't drugs Lenz was addicted to, they were MMs, right Barry? And when he committed suicide, he didn't really, he was entering Mahasamadhi, right Barry? No, Maharishi was nothing like this depressed loser. However I appreciate your dishonesty, as usual.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Good points, dumbass. Not really. Jimbo's just gotten his OMG-somebody- insulted-Maharishi buttons pushed, and is just lashing out thinking that insulting my former teacher will push mine. It's kinda childish of him, and displays all the intellect of a turnip. :-) For the record, the rape at gunpoint he's going on about never happened. The woman who made that claim to the media later rescinded it, and said that she was angry that a one-nighter with Rama turned into only that and not more. Was the guy a total dirtbag to sleep with his female students when there was such a power dif- ferential in place? You betcha. Did he need a gun to do so? No way. Anyway, now we can get back to watching Jimbo melt down and act like a kindergartener throw- ing a tantrum. MOMMY, MOMMY...he said bad things about my teacher...WW :-) And the funny thing is that I didn't even say bad things about Maharishi. I just treated him the way I think of him, as an ordinary guy with nothing much going for him except having run into the Beatles once, trying to milk that for money up to the end. :-) Just for fun, because turnip-brain is so button- pushed that he's not likely to let up with what he thinks is a zinger, and for those who are newbies here and *haven't read the things I've said about the Rama guy here before*, here's the real rape story. The person who claimed that was an attractive young woman named Annie Eastwood, who was actually a friend of mine during the short time she was around in the Rama trip, so I was up close and personal during this alleged rape. Annie was an aspiring actress who, like most aspiring actresses in L.A., never got anywhere with her aspirations. Having noticed that Fred (Rama) had no problems with sleeping with his female students, she set her sights on him. And one night it paid off. She got the phone call that was Rama's Narcissistic Personality Disorder seduction routine. That is, Come over to my house and we'll have tea and talk about your spiritual future. Which was code for, Come over to my house and have sex with me, after which I'll probably never do this again. It was a pretty sad routine, but women fell for it. Go figure. Anyway, Annie went over to his Malibu house, he showed her around, and in the process showed her his gun collection, mounted in a cabinet. Sure 'nuff, they had sex, and Annie spent the next two weeks telling all the women in the org how wonderful and celestial sex with him was, and saying that she was now Rama's new girlfriend. She believed that she was going to become Parvati to his Shiva, and started acting all hoity-toity with the other women. Many of them who had been in the same position laughed at her when she did this, and sure enough, Rama never called her again. She got the message that she was never going to be as special in the Rama trip as she'd imagined she'd be, and left. Months later, when the Cult Awareness Network-fueled anti-cult media attacks started in earnest, she took her revenge by going to one of the reporters and tried to turn having been shown a gun collection into rape at gunpoint. Years later she rescinded this completely, and retold the story of her one night stand with Rama pretty much the way I've told it above. Even vindictive women
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: PS While insulting me, to protect your misogynist SMOKIN' teacher, you mention I read an article on Wikipedia- BZT! I have heard this story five or six times, from various sources, and not just regarding one of Rama's rapes, but several of them. Did he encourage you to rape women too? Just curious, because you are SO incredibly defensive, and ignorant about this. It would certainly explain some of his attitudes regarding women he projects here...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: For some reason, this reminds me of a story I heard from what I think of as a reliable source: once on a course someone asked Maharishi if it's true that an enlightened man can just look at a person and pop them into enlightenment. Maharishi silently nodded his head. Well, Maharishi, said the guy, why don't you just look at us and pop us into enlightenment. Long pause. Because it would knock your sox off, replied Maharishi. I was there. What Maharishi said was it would instantly burn you up
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: For some reason, this reminds me of a story I heard from what I think of as a reliable source: once on a course someone asked Maharishi if it's true that an enlightened man can just look at a person and pop them into enlightenment. Maharishi silently nodded his head. Well, Maharishi, said the guy, why don't you just look at us and pop us into enlightenment. Long pause. Because it would knock your sox off, replied Maharishi. I was there. What Maharishi said was it would instantly burn you up And you actually *believed* this horseshit? Either of you? At least now we know why Nabby is so gullible that he still believes in Benjamin Creme, who has been telling suckers like Nabby that his savior Maitreya is due to appear Any Day Now for over 54 years. He's still a no show. So is any indication that Maharishi or any other teacher has such an ability.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: For some reason, this reminds me of a story I heard from what I think of as a reliable source: once on a course someone asked Maharishi if it's true that an enlightened man can just look at a person and pop them into enlightenment. Maharishi silently nodded his head. Well, Maharishi, said the guy, why don't you just look at us and pop us into enlightenment. Long pause. Because it would knock your sox off, replied Maharishi. I was there. What Maharishi said was it would instantly burn you up I did'nt take notes, he probably said: you would instantly burn up
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
Good save (-: Sigh, I admit to liking the idea that Maharishi said the other phrase about socks. But appreciate your setting me straight. From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 10:15 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: For some reason, this reminds me of a story I heard from what I think of as a reliable source: once on a course someone asked Maharishi if it's true that an enlightened man can just look at a person and pop them into enlightenment. Maharishi silently nodded his head. Well, Maharishi, said the guy, why don't you just look at us and pop us into enlightenment. Long pause. Because it would knock your sox off, replied Maharishi. I was there. What Maharishi said was it would instantly burn you up I did'nt take notes, he probably said: you would instantly burn up
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: For some reason, this reminds me of a story I heard from what I think of as a reliable source: once on a course someone asked Maharishi if it's true that an enlightened man can just look at a person and pop them into enlightenment. Maharishi silently nodded his head. Well, Maharishi, said the guy, why don't you just look at us and pop us into enlightenment. Long pause. Because it would knock your sox off, replied Maharishi. I was there. What Maharishi said was it would instantly burn you up And you actually *believed* this horseshit? Either of you? At least now we know why Nabby is so gullible that he still believes in Benjamin Creme, who has been telling suckers like Nabby that his savior Maitreya is due to appear Any Day Now for over 54 years. He's still a no show. HaHa, ofcourse He is for you who are blind, deluded and dull. Not so much for tens and thousands of others who have seen Him with their own eyes :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: (snip) As to Maharishi's sexual behavior, it doesn't bother me all that much that he did it, I was curious about how those who think he was the best thing since sliced bread worked it out in their heads that the skin boys had come forward with such stories - I figured most would say they thought the skinboys were lying, but they didn't. Once Judith Bourque's book came out, there was no longer any question that the skinboys weren't lying. You really should read the discussions we had here about the book. They contain much more detailed reactions than you've been able to elicit. For most of us, by this time it's old news. Although we didn't hear from folks like nabby. Based on his past posts, he doesn't disbelieve it, but he doesn't find it upsetting.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: For some reason, this reminds me of a story I heard from what I think of as a reliable source: once on a course someone asked Maharishi if it's true that an enlightened man can just look at a person and pop them into enlightenment. Maharishi silently nodded his head. Well, Maharishi, said the guy, why don't you just look at us and pop us into enlightenment. Long pause. Because it would knock your sox off, replied Maharishi. I was there. What Maharishi said was it would instantly burn you up And you actually *believed* this horseshit? Either of you? At least now we know why Nabby is so gullible that he still believes in Benjamin Creme, who has been telling suckers like Nabby that his savior Maitreya is due to appear Any Day Now for over 54 years. He's still a no show. HaHa, ofcourse He is for you who are blind, deluded and dull. Not so much for tens and thousands of others who have seen Him with their own eyes :-) What I read somewhere recently is (in the context of the 9 Ashoks), that Osho actually believed that Krishnamurti, who renounced the role of Maitreya, should have accepted this role, that it was a mistake of him not to do so. Krishnamurti in turn had said, that if the Maitreya was there, he would just exactly tell to the people what Krishnamurti said.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: For some reason, this reminds me of a story I heard from what I think of as a reliable source: once on a course someone asked Maharishi if it's true that an enlightened man can just look at a person and pop them into enlightenment. Maharishi silently nodded his head. Well, Maharishi, said the guy, why don't you just look at us and pop us into enlightenment. Long pause. Because it would knock your sox off, replied Maharishi. I was there. What Maharishi said was it would instantly burn you up And you actually *believed* this horseshit? Either of you? At least now we know why Nabby is so gullible that he still believes in Benjamin Creme, who has been telling suckers like Nabby that his savior Maitreya is due to appear Any Day Now for over 54 years. He's still a no show. HaHa, ofcourse He is for you who are blind, deluded and dull. Not so much for tens and thousands of others who have seen Him with their own eyes :-) What I read somewhere recently is (in the context of the 9 Ashoks), that Osho actually believed that Krishnamurti, who renounced the role of Maitreya, should have accepted this role, that it was a mistake of him not to do so. Which just shows how little Osho knew about anything. Krishnamurti in turn had said, that if the Maitreya was there, he would just exactly tell to the people what Krishnamurti said. Speaking of spiritual Ego's...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: For some reason, this reminds me of a story I heard from what I think of as a reliable source: once on a course someone asked Maharishi if it's true that an enlightened man can just look at a person and pop them into enlightenment. Maharishi silently nodded his head. Well, Maharishi, said the guy, why don't you just look at us and pop us into enlightenment. Long pause. Because it would knock your sox off, replied Maharishi. I was there. What Maharishi said was it would instantly burn you up And you actually *believed* this horseshit? Either of you? At least now we know why Nabby is so gullible that he still believes in Benjamin Creme, who has been telling suckers like Nabby that his savior Maitreya is due to appear Any Day Now for over 54 years. He's still a no show. HaHa, ofcourse He is for you who are blind, deluded and dull. Not so much for tens and thousands of others who have seen Him with their own eyes :-) What I read somewhere recently is (in the context of the 9 Ashoks), that Osho actually believed that Krishnamurti, who renounced the role of Maitreya, should have accepted this role, that it was a mistake of him not to do so. Krishnamurti in turn had said, that if the Maitreya was there, he would just exactly tell to the people what Krishnamurti said. What I find fascinating is anyone so weak-willed and wussy as to believe that such saviors could actually EXIST. In my book this is the height of New Age / Old Age delusional fantasy. It's all based on the wish that there is someone out there who can do it for them and make them instantly happy or enlightened or whatever it is they think would make them better than they are now, with no effort being required on their part. We used to call it the Beam me up, Scotty approach to enlightenment or self-realization. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: (snip) As to Maharishi's sexual behavior, it doesn't bother me all that much that he did it, I was curious about how those who think he was the best thing since sliced bread worked it out in their heads that the skin boys had come forward with such stories - I figured most would say they thought the skinboys were lying, but they didn't. Once Judith Bourque's book came out, there was no longer any question that the skinboys weren't lying. You really should read the discussions we had here about the book. They contain much more detailed reactions than you've been able to elicit. For most of us, by this time it's old news. Although we didn't hear from folks like nabby. Based on his past posts, he doesn't disbelieve it, but he doesn't find it upsetting. If someone tells you: I'm an normal human being, how could you become upset if this person had sex ? I wish people spent their energy on better things than speculating about the private lives of others.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
I was present when he answered pretty much the same question and M's answer was that it would be cruel because the person's physiology wouldn't be trained to maintain it and they would lose it just as easily. There was no mention of *burning up*, just the idea of the torment one would have at having something so wonderful and losing it. The ultimate *tease* so to speak. From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 8:15 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: For some reason, this reminds me of a story I heard from what I think of as a reliable source: once on a course someone asked Maharishi if it's true that an enlightened man can just look at a person and pop them into enlightenment. Maharishi silently nodded his head. Well, Maharishi, said the guy, why don't you just look at us and pop us into enlightenment. Long pause. Because it would knock your sox off, replied Maharishi. I was there. What Maharishi said was it would instantly burn you up I did'nt take notes, he probably said: you would instantly burn up
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: For some reason, this reminds me of a story I heard from what I think of as a reliable source: once on a course someone asked Maharishi if it's true that an enlightened man can just look at a person and pop them into enlightenment. Maharishi silently nodded his head. Well, Maharishi, said the guy, why don't you just look at us and pop us into enlightenment. Long pause. Because it would knock your sox off, replied Maharishi. I was there. What Maharishi said was it would instantly burn you up And you actually *believed* this horseshit? Either of you? At least now we know why Nabby is so gullible that he still believes in Benjamin Creme, who has been telling suckers like Nabby that his savior Maitreya is due to appear Any Day Now for over 54 years. He's still a no show. HaHa, ofcourse He is for you who are blind, deluded and dull. Not so much for tens and thousands of others who have seen Him with their own eyes :-) What I read somewhere recently is (in the context of the 9 Ashoks), that Osho actually believed that Krishnamurti, who renounced the role of Maitreya, should have accepted this role, that it was a mistake of him not to do so. Krishnamurti in turn had said, that if the Maitreya was there, he would just exactly tell to the people what Krishnamurti said. What I find fascinating is anyone so weak-willed and wussy as to believe that such saviors could actually EXIST. In my book this is the height of New Age / Old Age delusional fantasy. It's all based on the wish that there is someone out there who can do it for them and make them instantly happy or enlightened or whatever it is they think would make them better than they are now, with no effort being required on their part. We used to call it the Beam me up, Scotty approach to enlightenment or self-realization. :-) Well, Barry, somebody who is in need of an authority, needs an authority to tell him, that he doesn't need an authority. And that's exactly what Krishnamurti did.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: For some reason, this reminds me of a story I heard from what I think of as a reliable source: once on a course someone asked Maharishi if it's true that an enlightened man can just look at a person and pop them into enlightenment. Maharishi silently nodded his head. Well, Maharishi, said the guy, why don't you just look at us and pop us into enlightenment. Long pause. Because it would knock your sox off, replied Maharishi. I was there. What Maharishi said was it would instantly burn you up And you actually *believed* this horseshit? Either of you? At least now we know why Nabby is so gullible that he still believes in Benjamin Creme, who has been telling suckers like Nabby that his savior Maitreya is due to appear Any Day Now for over 54 years. He's still a no show. HaHa, ofcourse He is for you who are blind, deluded and dull. Not so much for tens and thousands of others who have seen Him with their own eyes :-) What I read somewhere recently is (in the context of the 9 Ashoks), that Osho actually believed that Krishnamurti, who renounced the role of Maitreya, should have accepted this role, that it was a mistake of him not to do so. Which just shows how little Osho knew about anything. Krishnamurti in turn had said, that if the Maitreya was there, he would just exactly tell to the people what Krishnamurti said. Speaking of spiritual Ego's... Maybe read your own masters words: Again according to Creme, at the age of 49, Krishnamurti took the fourth initiation. Maitreya, through one of His associates, said of K: He was a true disciple of Maitreya. The teachings of Krishnamurti are the teachings of Maitreya. (Share International, 9/88,10)* http://www.share-international.org/archives/Krishnamurti/k_bs-teachings-MnK.htm
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
Having been involved in as much channeling as I was the past 25 years, I have to agree. There are all sorts of permutations of it from the living masters, if you want to call them that, to the Space Brothers or Galactics who are going to come down and save us with their superior technology and or energy to the Ascended Masters and avatars and so on. It is all just a way of saying I ain't got no power and I dunno how to git any, so I am gonna wait for the Hand of God to come pick me up and carry me to heaven. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 11:38 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: For some reason, this reminds me of a story I heard from what I think of as a reliable source: once on a course someone asked Maharishi if it's true that an enlightened man can just look at a person and pop them into enlightenment. Maharishi silently nodded his head. Well, Maharishi, said the guy, why don't you just look at us and pop us into enlightenment. Long pause. Because it would knock your sox off, replied Maharishi. I was there. What Maharishi said was it would instantly burn you up And you actually *believed* this horseshit? Either of you? At least now we know why Nabby is so gullible that he still believes in Benjamin Creme, who has been telling suckers like Nabby that his savior Maitreya is due to appear Any Day Now for over 54 years. He's still a no show. HaHa, ofcourse He is for you who are blind, deluded and dull. Not so much for tens and thousands of others who have seen Him with their own eyes :-) What I read somewhere recently is (in the context of the 9 Ashoks), that Osho actually believed that Krishnamurti, who renounced the role of Maitreya, should have accepted this role, that it was a mistake of him not to do so. Krishnamurti in turn had said, that if the Maitreya was there, he would just exactly tell to the people what Krishnamurti said. What I find fascinating is anyone so weak-willed and wussy as to believe that such saviors could actually EXIST. In my book this is the height of New Age / Old Age delusional fantasy. It's all based on the wish that there is someone out there who can do it for them and make them instantly happy or enlightened or whatever it is they think would make them better than they are now, with no effort being required on their part. We used to call it the Beam me up, Scotty approach to enlightenment or self-realization. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: What I find fascinating is anyone so weak-willed and wussy as to believe that such saviors could actually EXIST. In my book this is the height of New Age / Old Age delusional fantasy. It's all based on the wish that there is someone out there who can do it for them and make them instantly happy or enlightened or whatever it is they think would make them better than they are now, with no effort being required on their part. What basis has the Turq for making this statement ? None whatsoever, it's pure fantasy on his part. Again he makes a statement on a subject on which he has zero, nada, 0 experience or knowledge.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: I was present when he answered pretty much the same question and M's answer was that it would be cruel because the person's physiology wouldn't be trained to maintain it and they would lose it just as easily. There was no mention of *burning up*, just the idea of the torment one would have at having something so wonderful and losing it. The ultimate *tease* so to speak. Nervecenters in the body would not be able to handle a great current if it is not ready. Hence the word he used when I was present: burn.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: What I read somewhere recently is (in the context of the 9 Ashoks), that Osho actually believed that Krishnamurti, who renounced the role of Maitreya, should have accepted this role, that it was a mistake of him not to do so. Which just shows how little Osho knew about anything. Krishnamurti in turn had said, that if the Maitreya was there, he would just exactly tell to the people what Krishnamurti said. Speaking of spiritual Ego's... Maybe read your own masters words: Who's master ? Not mine baby. Perhaps you should get in the habit of not only reading stuff but also try to digest what you read. Just a hint. For example, The teachings of Krishnamurti are the teachings of Maitreya. simply means that Krishnamurti, like Jesus, was overshadowed by The Christ who now has the name Maitreya. It doesn't mean that he was Maitreya or played the role Maitreya has in the world today. Again according to Creme, at the age of 49, Krishnamurti took the fourth initiation. Maitreya, through one of His associates, said of K: He was a true disciple of Maitreya. The teachings of Krishnamurti are the teachings of Maitreya. (Share International, 9/88,10)* http://www.share-international.org/archives/Krishnamurti/k_bs-teachings-MnK.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: (snip) You vilify politicians and people in high finance who do the exact same things that Maha did and give him a free pass for doing what you don't tolerate in others. I understand it, but I shore don't agree with it. What good would vilifying him do, Michael? You appear to enjoy wallowing in your outrage, but you won't be satisfied until everyone else is wallowing in it too. Sorta the way *you* do when obsessing on Curtis or Vaj or myself or others of your enemies? Just sayin'... :-) Allow me to obsess a little more and point out that you carefully, deliberately, and dishonestly failed to quote the part of my post that refutes your accusation: Like dishonest politicians and banksters, you are alive and kicking and being destructive. If what you wished to accomplish was to *demonstrate* your obsession, and your tendency to project onto those you dislike your *own* negative qualities, feel free. I allow you. By all means, obsess away. :-) I never even *read* the parts of your post that I snipped, much less deleted them intentionally. That's something *you* repeatedly accuse people of, because you're...uh... insane, and you have a tendency to accuse others of the very tactics that *you* employ. :-) As for parallels, I think mine was apt. Michael obsesses on Maharishi and the TMO because it's an *ongoing issue*. None of the practices and dishonesty he's upset about have stopped; instead, they are normal, everyday policy. But there is another sense in which your stalking is like his (apologies in advance to Michael if I'm incorrect, none needed with regard to the Judester because everyone here knows I'm correct). That's the fact that it seems to *matter* to you both very much that you are able to *convince* others to see issues and obsessions the same way you do. You try to *persuade* others to believe the way that you do, and pile on to the issues you believe are issues. I honestly don't try to do that. I'm here just for my own amusement. I state my opinions -- making clear that opinions is *all* that they are -- and then allow others to react or not react, as they see fit. I don't get drawn into long ego-battles to establish my opinion as the correct one or the dominant one, and I don't try to get other people to defend an opposite position. If they choose to do that, it's their choice; if they choose not to, that's their choice too. Either way is fine with me. Compare and contrast with the Judester, whose *entire online life* can be accurately characterized as a quest to get other people to see things the warped way she sees them, agree with it, and align themselves with her in demonizing the people or orgs she believes are demons. Michael, you have a touch of that yourself, although not really in the same ballpark as The Corrector. She's obsessed about *her* nemesis (moi) for over seventeen years now, trying her best to get everyone on every forum we've shared to think badly of me and diss me the way they should according to her world view. What really gets her panties in a twist is that she has *failed* in this. People still manage to interact with me without wearing the hate-blinders she wants them to wear; people still realize that often I point out truths about Maharishi, King Tonytwit, TM, and the TMO, and react to them as what they are -- mere opinions, not an attempt to sell them anything. This drives her crazy. It drove her crazy when people continued to like Curtis and Vaj and Sal Sunshine, too. It *still* drives her crazy when people continue to like or say positive things about Andrew Skolnick, or Mike Doughney, or John Knapp, or John From Brazil -- all people she's dedicated *enormous* amounts of time and energy and hatred towards getting people to hate, too. What precipitated this set of attacks on MJ, from my point of view, is that this was happening again. A few people were reacting...uh...not negatively to Michael, and to me, so she had to step in to Correct Things. It's her dharma, you see -- she really does see herself as Andrew lampooned her: Judy Stein: Defender of the Faith. :-) Consider all of this, Michael. IMO, there is really no point in trying to convince TM TBs to believe anything other than the TM TB dogma they already believe. You can only express opinions, and then sit back and watch to See What Happens. Change takes time, and in matters of belief, only comes from within. Don't bother spending a lot of energy trying to convince them -- it simply cannot be done. Just state what you believe and then allow *them* to make your points for you by overreacting and going into Kill the messenger mode. If what you desire is to make the point that TM practitioners
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: (snip) You vilify politicians and people in high finance who do the exact same things that Maha did and give him a free pass for doing what you don't tolerate in others. I understand it, but I shore don't agree with it. What good would vilifying him do, Michael? You appear to enjoy wallowing in your outrage, but you won't be satisfied until everyone else is wallowing in it too. Yeah Michael, how dare you keep introducing uncomfortable topics to try and work out the whole story about Marshy! Anyone would think this was a TM discussion forum the way you carry on. It isn't as if there's anything we can do about it now. With politicians and banksters, if enough people become sufficiently infuriated, it could facilitate positive change. But Maharishi, he daid. And we'd all rather keep pretending the self-created myth was true thank you very much, so quit your wallowing and appreciate the good things we got like world peace and perfect health... And as far as politicians and banksters are concerned, unlike Maharishi, they haven't given us much of anything of value. That doesn't excuse the bad stuff he did, but at least with him there are two sides to the ledger.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
Michael Jackson: ...it seems that those who have talked about it (the women and the skin boys) have come forth with some amount of detail Not really. Not a single skin-boy actually saw MMY having sexual relations with anyone. Judith in her book doesn't give any details. From what I've read, MMY could have been getting a foot rub that became sexual to Judith! Go figure. You make a very weak defense, Michael, of your guru, the Maharishi, not to mention trying to get off on someone ele's sex act. LoL! Apparently your program now is about the size of an ant hill in my back yard - it makes my messages to FFL in defense of Marshy look like great big mountain. Apparently Mike and I are the only defenders of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi on this entire list. Go figure. Well, I for one will not be ignored! It has NOT been established that MMY had sexual relations with anyone. You would think that at least one informant would be able to provide evidence if this were true. Without some evidence, or an believable eyewitness report, I'm just not buying it. There's nothing like the *cross-examine*, and MMY is dead. Get over it! It just doesn't make any sense. So, let's review: Are we to believe that Judith walked over to Marshy's house, in the dead of night, climbed in through the bedroom window, and had sexual relations with MMY on his bear skin rug under a painting of Guru Dev. With Nanda Kishore trying to sleep in the living room, and Ms Pittman posted at the front door? This is just outrageous! According to Nancy, you could hear a pin drop on a warm night up there on the hill in Rishikesh, India. Are you thinking that Judith could get within ten feet of the Maharishi without anyone in the whole ashram knowing about it? Secretly sneak over to MMY's house, with a flashlight to what, give MMY a sexy back rub and read the mail? A gal the size of Judith could kill a midget guru like MMY! LoL!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: (snip) You vilify politicians and people in high finance who do the exact same things that Maha did and give him a free pass for doing what you don't tolerate in others. I understand it, but I shore don't agree with it. What good would vilifying him do, Michael? You appear to enjoy wallowing in your outrage, but you won't be satisfied until everyone else is wallowing in it too. Yeah Michael, how dare you keep introducing uncomfortable topics to try and work out the whole story about Marshy! Anyone would think this was a TM discussion forum the way you carry on. Er, vilifying/wallowing in outrage is one thing; working out the whole story is something else again. I'm all for the latter, but in my observation, the former tends to get in the way of the latter. It isn't as if there's anything we can do about it now. With politicians and banksters, if enough people become sufficiently infuriated, it could facilitate positive change. But Maharishi, he daid. And we'd all rather keep pretending the self-created myth was true thank you very much, Speak for yourself. Vilifying TMers who are obviously and on-the-record critical of Maharishi's misbehavior just makes you look stupid. so quit your wallowing and appreciate the good things we got like world peace and perfect health... And as far as politicians and banksters are concerned, unlike Maharishi, they haven't given us much of anything of value. That doesn't excuse the bad stuff he did, but at least with him there are two sides to the ledger.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
From Barry: As for parallels, I think mine was apt. Michael obsesses on Maharishi and the TMO because it's an *ongoing issue*. None of the practices and dishonesty he's upset about have stopped; instead, they are normal, everyday policy. But there is another sense in which your stalking is like his (apologies in advance to Michael if I'm incorrect, none needed with regard to the Judester because everyone here knows I'm correct). I may have tried early on to convince others here on FFL that another point of view might be wise, but it didn't take long before I learned that was a forlorn hope - for the last several months at least I have been asking questions and learning things both facts, personal anecdotes and opinions that have helped me make sense of my time with TM and make sense of TM and the TMO and Marshy in general. Aside from that, I do the same thing now that you say you do, I say how I feel or what I believe and I do pose questions sometimes to see what others believe - I have no illusions that anyone here will change their minds. I would like to thank to everyone who has posted here - I have been criticized for agreeing with you Barry and it is true that sometimes you can really cuss people out but for me I have gained a great deal of insight from your points of view and the stories of what you saw and did in the TMO. I have gained not only from what you and Sal and Curtis have posted it but others as well - if it weren't for Rick I might not have had my eyes opened to M's sexual escapades - and while others excuse the behavior and even say it made him more human for me it goes to credibility - I have a hard time with believing someone is doing things in my best interest when they are lying to my face everyday. It has been most helpful too to read much of Ravi and Bhairitu's posts - a perspective of TM from the Indian perspective. I have also gained from the exchanges with Nabby, Dr. D, seventhray and others who have disagreed with or criticized me - it helped me see that some people will hang on to their illusions no matter what - and I realize they believe I am hanging on to my illusions. FFL has been very helpful for me and at times quite amusing. So thank you everyone. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 3:09 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: (snip) You vilify politicians and people in high finance who do the exact same things that Maha did and give him a free pass for doing what you don't tolerate in others. I understand it, but I shore don't agree with it. What good would vilifying him do, Michael? You appear to enjoy wallowing in your outrage, but you won't be satisfied until everyone else is wallowing in it too. Sorta the way *you* do when obsessing on Curtis or Vaj or myself or others of your enemies? Just sayin'... :-) Allow me to obsess a little more and point out that you carefully, deliberately, and dishonestly failed to quote the part of my post that refutes your accusation: Like dishonest politicians and banksters, you are alive and kicking and being destructive. If what you wished to accomplish was to *demonstrate* your obsession, and your tendency to project onto those you dislike your *own* negative qualities, feel free. I allow you. By all means, obsess away. :-) I never even *read* the parts of your post that I snipped, much less deleted them intentionally. That's something *you* repeatedly accuse people of, because you're...uh... insane, and you have a tendency to accuse others of the very tactics that *you* employ. :-) As for parallels, I think mine was apt. Michael obsesses on Maharishi and the TMO because it's an *ongoing issue*. None of the practices and dishonesty he's upset about have stopped; instead, they are normal, everyday policy. But there is another sense in which your stalking is like his (apologies in advance to Michael if I'm incorrect, none needed with regard to the Judester because everyone here knows I'm correct). That's the fact that it seems to *matter* to you both very much that you are able to *convince* others to see issues and obsessions the same way you do. You try to *persuade* others to believe the way that you do, and pile on to the issues you believe are issues. I honestly don't try to do that. I'm here just for my own amusement. I state my opinions -- making clear that opinions is *all* that they are -- and then allow others to react or not react, as they see fit. I don't get drawn into long ego-battles to establish my opinion as the correct one or the dominant one, and I don't
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
Thank you, Barry, for once again demonstrating at length in this post your chronic dishonesty. Most of the folks who have been on FFL for awhile don't need any additional confirmation. Michael and salyavin haven't picked up on it yet, but they may eventually. If anyone's interested, I'll be happy to identify all the lies in the post I'm responding to, but those who know me and know Barry won't have any trouble doing it for themselves. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: (snip) You vilify politicians and people in high finance who do the exact same things that Maha did and give him a free pass for doing what you don't tolerate in others. I understand it, but I shore don't agree with it. What good would vilifying him do, Michael? You appear to enjoy wallowing in your outrage, but you won't be satisfied until everyone else is wallowing in it too. Sorta the way *you* do when obsessing on Curtis or Vaj or myself or others of your enemies? Just sayin'... :-) Allow me to obsess a little more and point out that you carefully, deliberately, and dishonestly failed to quote the part of my post that refutes your accusation: Like dishonest politicians and banksters, you are alive and kicking and being destructive. If what you wished to accomplish was to *demonstrate* your obsession, and your tendency to project onto those you dislike your *own* negative qualities, feel free. I allow you. By all means, obsess away. :-) I never even *read* the parts of your post that I snipped, much less deleted them intentionally. That's something *you* repeatedly accuse people of, because you're...uh... insane, and you have a tendency to accuse others of the very tactics that *you* employ. :-) As for parallels, I think mine was apt. Michael obsesses on Maharishi and the TMO because it's an *ongoing issue*. None of the practices and dishonesty he's upset about have stopped; instead, they are normal, everyday policy. But there is another sense in which your stalking is like his (apologies in advance to Michael if I'm incorrect, none needed with regard to the Judester because everyone here knows I'm correct). That's the fact that it seems to *matter* to you both very much that you are able to *convince* others to see issues and obsessions the same way you do. You try to *persuade* others to believe the way that you do, and pile on to the issues you believe are issues. I honestly don't try to do that. I'm here just for my own amusement. I state my opinions -- making clear that opinions is *all* that they are -- and then allow others to react or not react, as they see fit. I don't get drawn into long ego-battles to establish my opinion as the correct one or the dominant one, and I don't try to get other people to defend an opposite position. If they choose to do that, it's their choice; if they choose not to, that's their choice too. Either way is fine with me. Compare and contrast with the Judester, whose *entire online life* can be accurately characterized as a quest to get other people to see things the warped way she sees them, agree with it, and align themselves with her in demonizing the people or orgs she believes are demons. Michael, you have a touch of that yourself, although not really in the same ballpark as The Corrector. She's obsessed about *her* nemesis (moi) for over seventeen years now, trying her best to get everyone on every forum we've shared to think badly of me and diss me the way they should according to her world view. What really gets her panties in a twist is that she has *failed* in this. People still manage to interact with me without wearing the hate-blinders she wants them to wear; people still realize that often I point out truths about Maharishi, King Tonytwit, TM, and the TMO, and react to them as what they are -- mere opinions, not an attempt to sell them anything. This drives her crazy. It drove her crazy when people continued to like Curtis and Vaj and Sal Sunshine, too. It *still* drives her crazy when people continue to like or say positive things about Andrew Skolnick, or Mike Doughney, or John Knapp, or John From Brazil -- all people she's dedicated *enormous* amounts of time and energy and hatred towards getting people to hate, too. What precipitated this set of attacks on MJ, from my point of view, is that this was happening again. A few people were reacting...uh...not negatively to Michael, and to me, so she had to step in to Correct Things. It's her dharma, you see -- she really does see herself as Andrew lampooned her: Judy Stein: Defender of the Faith. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
You make good points, and I withdraw my parallel. :-) I think this place (FFL) is best approached as enter- tainment that has the capability of teaching. Like you, I have learned from many in my time here, and as much from those who disagreed with me as from those who agreed. I'm fairly comfortable with my views of Maharishi, TM, the TMO, and spirituality in general, but IMO *none* of them constitute anything resembling truth. They're just ideas that I have. I don't so much believe in them as wear them for a bit while toying with them. In so doing, occasionally I throw them out onto the Internet like spaghetti against a refrigerator; some idea-strands stick, others don't. No big deal either way. I honestly don't think there is enough there there about the whole TM experience to get emotional about or attached to. For me, at least. But I enjoy playing with ideas about it, as a form of amusement and as an opportunity to learn. It's one of my weird ideas of fun. What many of my detractors don't seem to understand when they cast me as a villain with a grudge against Maharishi is that I really couldn't give a flying fuck about him. He doesn't interest me. I'll never read a book about him, and have trouble making it through any of his quotes when they are posted here. He's so much a part of my past that I really can't identify enough to get all that interested in him. But THE TM MOVEMENT, and the people who populated it, or continue to, THEY are more interesting. FFL is, as Bhairitu suggests, the Funny Farm Lounge. It's a zoo. It's a never- ending education in the ongoing history of spiritual movements -- or cults, if you prefer -- past, present, and future. Sooner or later every quirk or weirdness I've witnessed or even heard about in *any* spiritual group, *anywhere*, *anytime* gets acted out here on Fairfield Life. It's like a microcosm of spiritual weirdness. And, as that great philosopher Zaphod Beebelbrox said so eloquently, Anything for a weird life. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: From Barry: As for parallels, I think mine was apt. Michael obsesses on Maharishi and the TMO because it's an *ongoing issue*. None of the practices and dishonesty he's upset about have stopped; instead, they are normal, everyday policy. But there is another sense in which your stalking is like his (apologies in advance to Michael if I'm incorrect, none needed with regard to the Judester because everyone here knows I'm correct). I may have tried early on to convince others here on FFL that another point of view might be wise, but it didn't take long before I learned that was a forlorn hope - for the last several months at least I have been asking questions and learning things both facts, personal anecdotes and opinions that have helped me make sense of my time with TM and make sense of TM and the TMO and Marshy in general. Aside from that, I do the same thing now that you say you do, I say how I feel or what I believe and I do pose questions sometimes to see what others believe - I have no illusions that anyone here will change their minds. I would like to thank to everyone who has posted here - I have been criticized for agreeing with you Barry and it is true that sometimes you can really cuss people out but for me I have gained a great deal of insight from your points of view and the stories of what you saw and did in the TMO. I have gained not only from what you and Sal and Curtis have posted it but others as well - if it weren't for Rick I might not have had my eyes opened to M's sexual escapades - and while others excuse the behavior and even say it made him more human for me it goes to credibility - I have a hard time with believing someone is doing things in my best interest when they are lying to my face everyday. It has been most helpful too to read much of Ravi and Bhairitu's posts - a perspective of TM from the Indian perspective. I have also gained from the exchanges with Nabby, Dr. D, seventhray and others who have disagreed with or criticized me - it helped me see that some people will hang on to their illusions no matter what - and I realize they believe I am hanging on to my illusions. FFL has been very helpful for me and at times quite amusing. So thank you everyone. From: turquoiseb To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 3:09 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: (snip) You vilify politicians and people in high finance who do the exact same things that Maha did and give him a free pass for doing what you don't tolerate in others. I
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
That is a funny funny post - I do love your style of writing and I laughed out loud when I read your quote of Bhairitu's take on FFL. One experience I have not mentioned here is that 2 years after I left MIU I was with a woman in Boulder (not a TM woman) and she wanted to do a pilgrimage with Swami Kriyananda at their place outside Nevada City called Ananda. Ann and I had taken a trip to Portland where we made friends with a couple who were into Kriyananda (I am still friends with them, Ann, not so much). Anyway they had this tradition of doing pilgrimage going to India to visit the places Yogananda and his guru Sri Yukteswar and his guru Lahiri Mahasaya had lived and taught. Well, somehow some of the descendants of Yogananda got annoyed at people wanting to traipse through their homes and told them to get lost - so in 1989, Kriyananda organized a pilgrimage of one of Yodananda's nephews and one other guy who was supposed to the the great-grandson of Lahiri Mahasaya to come to America to Ananda. What struck me after being there at Ananda for a day or two was that even though the techniques were different, even though they were really into music and chanting, the vibe there was just like it was at MIU. I was struck by the similarity of the way people dressed, the way they spoke, their polite yet aloof manner and just about everything about the Ananda people was just like the MIU crowd. I remember after the first meeting and then group meal I was sitting in the dining hall thinking that you could take the MIU folks and put them here and take these folks and put them at MIU, you would never know the difference. One funny thing I heard was the nephew of Yogananda was in his 80's and when he came to the US it was his first trip outside of India. When I met him, he was tall, thin and had a very sweet, sattvic demeanor. The people from Ananda who had been assigned to pick him up from the airport took him through San Francisco where he insisted on trying out a trolley car. The Ananda people nearly crapped in their pants because he got on the back of the car and swung himself back and forth on the pole at the back of the car - they finally got him to come in and sit down but one of them said he nearly had a heart attack fearing Yogananda's nephew was going to fall off the trolley and get killed on his watch. That old man was pretty cool to be around - the great grandson was kind of full of himself, but all in all it was in interesting experience. Kriyananda had not at that point been accused of sexual improprieties and had not fled to Italy - he told all sorts of Yogananda stories including that Yogananda had confided to him that he (Yogananda) had been Arjuna in a previous life. Not that anyone cares what I think, I was not overly impressed withe the Swami - he just seemed like a kindly old man - there wasn't any real energy there, but you would have thought he was God incarnate from the way the Ananda people fawned all over him. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 11:19 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 You make good points, and I withdraw my parallel. :-) I think this place (FFL) is best approached as enter- tainment that has the capability of teaching. Like you, I have learned from many in my time here, and as much from those who disagreed with me as from those who agreed. I'm fairly comfortable with my views of Maharishi, TM, the TMO, and spirituality in general, but IMO *none* of them constitute anything resembling truth. They're just ideas that I have. I don't so much believe in them as wear them for a bit while toying with them. In so doing, occasionally I throw them out onto the Internet like spaghetti against a refrigerator; some idea-strands stick, others don't. No big deal either way. I honestly don't think there is enough there there about the whole TM experience to get emotional about or attached to. For me, at least. But I enjoy playing with ideas about it, as a form of amusement and as an opportunity to learn. It's one of my weird ideas of fun. What many of my detractors don't seem to understand when they cast me as a villain with a grudge against Maharishi is that I really couldn't give a flying fuck about him. He doesn't interest me. I'll never read a book about him, and have trouble making it through any of his quotes when they are posted here. He's so much a part of my past that I really can't identify enough to get all that interested in him. But THE TM MOVEMENT, and the people who populated it, or continue to, THEY are more interesting. FFL is, as Bhairitu suggests, the Funny Farm Lounge. It's a zoo. It's a never- ending education in the ongoing history of spiritual movements -- or cults, if you prefer -- past, present, and future. Sooner or later every quirk or weirdness I've witnessed or even
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
Great stories, nicely told. I never had anything to do with Kriyananda and his set, or the Yogananda trip, but I *completely* get the similar vibe to MUM thang, having experienced it in any number of spiritual trips. I have nothing to add to your excellent rap except to riff off of a typo in your post that you probably didn't notice but which set me to laughing -- Yodananda. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: That is a funny funny post - I do love your style of writing and I laughed out loud when I read your quote of Bhairitu's take on FFL. One experience I have not mentioned here is that 2 years after I left MIU I was with a woman in Boulder (not a TM woman) and she wanted to do a pilgrimage with Swami Kriyananda at their place outside Nevada City called Ananda. Ann and I had taken a trip to Portland where we made friends with a couple who were into Kriyananda (I am still friends with them, Ann, not so much). Anyway they had this tradition of doing pilgrimage going to India to visit the places Yogananda and his guru Sri Yukteswar and his guru Lahiri Mahasaya had lived and taught. Well, somehow some of the descendants of Yogananda got annoyed at people wanting to traipse through their homes and told them to get lost - so in 1989, Kriyananda organized a pilgrimage of one of Yodananda's nephews and one other guy who was supposed to the the great-grandson of Lahiri Mahasaya to come to America to Ananda. What struck me after being there at Ananda for a day or two was that even though the techniques were different, even though they were really into music and chanting, the vibe there was just like it was at MIU. I was struck by the similarity of the way people dressed, the way they spoke, their polite yet aloof manner and just about everything about the Ananda people was just like the MIU crowd. I remember after the first meeting and then group meal I was sitting in the dining hall thinking that you could take the MIU folks and put them here and take these folks and put them at MIU, you would never know the difference. One funny thing I heard was the nephew of Yogananda was in his 80's and when he came to the US it was his first trip outside of India. When I met him, he was tall, thin and had a very sweet, sattvic demeanor. The people from Ananda who had been assigned to pick him up from the airport took him through San Francisco where he insisted on trying out a trolley car. The Ananda people nearly crapped in their pants because he got on the back of the car and swung himself back and forth on the pole at the back of the car - they finally got him to come in and sit down but one of them said he nearly had a heart attack fearing Yogananda's nephew was going to fall off the trolley and get killed on his watch. That old man was pretty cool to be around - the great grandson was kind of full of himself, but all in all it was in interesting experience. Kriyananda had not at that point been accused of sexual improprieties and had not fled to Italy - he told all sorts of Yogananda stories including that Yogananda had confided to him that he (Yogananda) had been Arjuna in a previous life. Not that anyone cares what I think, I was not overly impressed withe the Swami - he just seemed like a kindly old man - there wasn't any real energy there, but you would have thought he was God incarnate from the way the Ananda people fawned all over him. From: turquoiseb To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 11:19 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 Â You make good points, and I withdraw my parallel. :-) I think this place (FFL) is best approached as enter- tainment that has the capability of teaching. Like you, I have learned from many in my time here, and as much from those who disagreed with me as from those who agreed. I'm fairly comfortable with my views of Maharishi, TM, the TMO, and spirituality in general, but IMO *none* of them constitute anything resembling truth. They're just ideas that I have. I don't so much believe in them as wear them for a bit while toying with them. In so doing, occasionally I throw them out onto the Internet like spaghetti against a refrigerator; some idea-strands stick, others don't. No big deal either way. I honestly don't think there is enough there there about the whole TM experience to get emotional about or attached to. For me, at least. But I enjoy playing with ideas about it, as a form of amusement and as an opportunity to learn. It's one of my weird ideas of fun. What many of my detractors don't seem to understand when they cast me as a villain with a grudge against Maharishi is that I really couldn't give a flying fuck about him. He doesn't interest me. I'll never read a book about him, and have trouble making it through any of his quotes when they are posted here. He's so much a part of my past that I really can't
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
What good would vilifying him do, Michael? You appear to enjoy wallowing in your outrage, but you won't be satisfied until everyone else is wallowing in it too. salyavin808: Yeah Michael, how dare you keep introducing uncomfortable topics to try and work out the whole story about Marshy! Anyone would think this was a TM discussion forum the way you carry on... You won't be finding out much from Barry or Michael, since they got booted out of the TMO years ago, and neither of them seem are in a cult now, or even well-read. Barry doesn't really want to talk about Rama - to embarrasing, I guess. Go figure. Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs. It isn't as if there's anything we can do about it now. With politicians and banksters, if enough people become sufficiently infuriated, it could facilitate positive change. But Maharishi, he daid. And we'd all rather keep pretending the self-created myth was true thank you very much, so quit your wallowing and appreciate the good things we got like world peace and perfect health... And as far as politicians and banksters are concerned, unlike Maharishi, they haven't given us much of anything of value. That doesn't excuse the bad stuff he did, but at least with him there are two sides to the ledger.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
Barry doesn't really want to talk about Rama [Frederick Lenz] - too embarrassing, I guess. Spot on! or as Nabby says, BINGO! Despite his pretensions as some sort of spiritual sociologist (gag me with a spoon...), Barry spent far more time with Rama, spent far more of his money on him, and bought into the guy, hook, line and sinker vs. his relatively minimal, and ancient, involvement with TMO and Maharishi. Nobody is concerned about Rama's legacy, BECAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE ONE. He used to consider himself a great lover, by seducing his female followers with a loaded gun. Sexy, huh?? He took hundreds of thousands of dollars from his pathetic followers like Barry, to fuel his degenerate lifestyle, and finally ended his life by first trying to kill a follower, and then successfully committed suicide by drug overdose...oh, while wearing a dog collar. Yeah, wow, if I had followed Maharishi, and this dude, I'd definitely go after Maharishi as the less ethical, dishonest one. Not. Although if someone thought perms, pistols, and pleather were the height of fashion, they might just give Rama a pass - lolo. All I can say is I am glad such a dissolute and criminal windbag is gone for good. Too bad all we get from Barry on this asshole, is crickets. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams wrote: What good would vilifying him do, Michael? You appear to enjoy wallowing in your outrage, but you won't be satisfied until everyone else is wallowing in it too. salyavin808: Yeah Michael, how dare you keep introducing uncomfortable topics to try and work out the whole story about Marshy! Anyone would think this was a TM discussion forum the way you carry on... You won't be finding out much from Barry or Michael, since they got booted out of the TMO years ago, and neither of them seem are in a cult now, or even well-read. Barry doesn't really want to talk about Rama - to embarrasing, I guess. Go figure. Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
Oh man, you are right, I didn't catch that! From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 12:35 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 Great stories, nicely told. I never had anything to do with Kriyananda and his set, or the Yogananda trip, but I *completely* get the similar vibe to MUM thang, having experienced it in any number of spiritual trips. I have nothing to add to your excellent rap except to riff off of a typo in your post that you probably didn't notice but which set me to laughing -- Yodananda. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: That is a funny funny post - I do love your style of writing and I laughed out loud when I read your quote of Bhairitu's take on FFL. One experience I have not mentioned here is that 2 years after I left MIU I was with a woman in Boulder (not a TM woman) and she wanted to do a pilgrimage with Swami Kriyananda at their place outside Nevada City called Ananda. Ann and I had taken a trip to Portland where we made friends with a couple who were into Kriyananda (I am still friends with them, Ann, not so much). Anyway they had this tradition of doing pilgrimage going to India to visit the places Yogananda and his guru Sri Yukteswar and his guru Lahiri Mahasaya had lived and taught. Well, somehow some of the descendants of Yogananda got annoyed at people wanting to traipse through their homes and told them to get lost - so in 1989, Kriyananda organized a pilgrimage of one of Yodananda's nephews and one other guy who was supposed to the the great-grandson of Lahiri Mahasaya to come to America to Ananda. What struck me after being there at Ananda for a day or two was that even though the techniques were different, even though they were really into music and chanting, the vibe there was just like it was at MIU. I was struck by the similarity of the way people dressed, the way they spoke, their polite yet aloof manner and just about everything about the Ananda people was just like the MIU crowd. I remember after the first meeting and then group meal I was sitting in the dining hall thinking that you could take the MIU folks and put them here and take these folks and put them at MIU, you would never know the difference. One funny thing I heard was the nephew of Yogananda was in his 80's and when he came to the US it was his first trip outside of India. When I met him, he was tall, thin and had a very sweet, sattvic demeanor. The people from Ananda who had been assigned to pick him up from the airport took him through San Francisco where he insisted on trying out a trolley car. The Ananda people nearly crapped in their pants because he got on the back of the car and swung himself back and forth on the pole at the back of the car - they finally got him to come in and sit down but one of them said he nearly had a heart attack fearing Yogananda's nephew was going to fall off the trolley and get killed on his watch. That old man was pretty cool to be around - the great grandson was kind of full of himself, but all in all it was in interesting experience. Kriyananda had not at that point been accused of sexual improprieties and had not fled to Italy - he told all sorts of Yogananda stories including that Yogananda had confided to him that he (Yogananda) had been Arjuna in a previous life. Not that anyone cares what I think, I was not overly impressed withe the Swami - he just seemed like a kindly old man - there wasn't any real energy there, but you would have thought he was God incarnate from the way the Ananda people fawned all over him. From: turquoiseb To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 11:19 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 Â You make good points, and I withdraw my parallel. :-) I think this place (FFL) is best approached as enter- tainment that has the capability of teaching. Like you, I have learned from many in my time here, and as much from those who disagreed with me as from those who agreed. I'm fairly comfortable with my views of Maharishi, TM, the TMO, and spirituality in general, but IMO *none* of them constitute anything resembling truth. They're just ideas that I have. I don't so much believe in them as wear them for a bit while toying with them. In so doing, occasionally I throw them out onto the Internet like spaghetti against a refrigerator; some idea-strands stick, others don't. No big deal either way. I honestly don't think there is enough there there about the whole TM experience to get emotional about or attached to. For me, at least. But I enjoy playing with ideas about it, as a form of amusement and as an opportunity to learn. It's one of my weird ideas of fun
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
Not well read!?!?! I read every Rick Riordan book ever published! From: Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 12:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 What good would vilifying him do, Michael? You appear to enjoy wallowing in your outrage, but you won't be satisfied until everyone else is wallowing in it too. salyavin808: Yeah Michael, how dare you keep introducing uncomfortable topics to try and work out the whole story about Marshy! Anyone would think this was a TM discussion forum the way you carry on... You won't be finding out much from Barry or Michael, since they got booted out of the TMO years ago, and neither of them seem are in a cult now, or even well-read. Barry doesn't really want to talk about Rama - to embarrasing, I guess. Go figure. Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs. It isn't as if there's anything we can do about it now. With politicians and banksters, if enough people become sufficiently infuriated, it could facilitate positive change. But Maharishi, he daid. And we'd all rather keep pretending the self-created myth was true thank you very much, so quit your wallowing and appreciate the good things we got like world peace and perfect health... And as far as politicians and banksters are concerned, unlike Maharishi, they haven't given us much of anything of value. That doesn't excuse the bad stuff he did, but at least with him there are two sides to the ledger.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
It's the pop guru thing. Better to learn from someone who is not interested in running a big movement where you can get some good one on one teaching. They're harder to find but they are indeed out there. On 02/05/2013 09:35 AM, turquoiseb wrote: Great stories, nicely told. I never had anything to do with Kriyananda and his set, or the Yogananda trip, but I *completely* get the similar vibe to MUM thang, having experienced it in any number of spiritual trips. I have nothing to add to your excellent rap except to riff off of a typo in your post that you probably didn't notice but which set me to laughing -- Yodananda. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: From Barry: As for parallels, I think mine was apt. Michael obsesses on Maharishi and the TMO because it's an *ongoing issue*. The behavior of the TMO is an ongoing issue, such that sufficient outrage could conceivably (not likely, just conceivably) result in improvement (parallel to politicians and banksters, as noted in my post that Barry chose to quote out of context for the purpose of misleading readers). None of the practices and dishonesty he's upset about have stopped; instead, they are normal, everyday policy. Just as Barry's chronic dishonesty and gratuitous attacks on his critics are his normal, everyday policy. But there is another sense in which your stalking is like his (apologies in advance to Michael if I'm incorrect, none needed with regard to the Judester because everyone here knows I'm correct). Translation: I'm hoping Michael will take my word for what I say about Judy, because he hasn't been around long enough to realize I have no case against her if I tell the truth about her. I may have tried early on to convince others here on FFL that another point of view might be wise, but it didn't take long before I learned that was a forlorn hope - for the last several months at least I have been asking questions and learning things both facts, personal anecdotes and opinions that have helped me make sense of my time with TM and make sense of TM and the TMO and Marshy in general. Aside from that, I do the same thing now that you say you do, I say how I feel or what I believe and I do pose questions sometimes to see what others believe - I have no illusions that anyone here will change their minds. You do realize, Michael, don't you, that the folks here who support TM are in the distinct minority, and that those who are genuine TBs are in an even smaller minority? You are largely, IOW, preaching to the choir. Also, the facts, personal anecdotes, and opinions you've gathered may be new to you, but most of them aren't new to the FFL regulars. I would like to thank to everyone who has posted here - I have been criticized for agreeing with you Barry Only in certain respects, Michael. and it is true that sometimes you can really cuss people out but for me I have gained a great deal of insight from your points of view and the stories of what you saw and did in the TMO. The reason Barry gets so much flak here is not because of his critiques of MMY and the TMO, it's because of how he treats people, especially TMers. Those who make similar criticisms but treat others decently, with respect even in disagreement, don't engender the same reactions.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
MJ, can you really take TB seriously? Still smells Ok to you? After all, I can sorta see you being all upset over Maharishi, but with Bee, its twisted and tragic, his PURE DENIAL of Rama's criminality - his most recent Guru, and *ALL IN* cult experience. Seems to me you'd ask yourself why Bee focuses SO MUCH on Maharishi, and, like I say in my re-post below, Too bad all we get from Barry on this asshole [Rama], is crickets. Makes ME wonder, even if you are Okey-Dokey with it... Now, I know Barry is going to counter with his sensitivity and ponderings over Rama, and his confusion over whether rape at gunpoint is a bad thang, or not, but, that aside, I am curious about how you see it. - Barry doesn't really want to talk about Rama [Frederick Lenz] - too embarrassing, I guess. Spot on! or as Nabby says, BINGO! Despite his pretensions as some sort of spiritual sociologist (gag me with a spoon...), Barry spent far more time with Rama, spent far more of his money on him, and bought into the guy, hook, line and sinker vs. his relatively minimal, and ancient, involvement with TMO and Maharishi. Nobody is concerned about Rama's legacy, BECAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE ONE. He used to consider himself a great lover, by seducing his female followers with a loaded gun. Sexy, huh?? He took hundreds of thousands of dollars from his pathetic followers like Barry, to fuel his degenerate lifestyle, and finally ended his life by first trying to kill a follower, and then successfully committed suicide by drug overdose...oh, while wearing a dog collar. Yeah, wow, if I had followed Maharishi, and this dude, I'd definitely go after Maharishi as the less ethical, dishonest one. Not. Although if someone thought perms, pistols, and pleather were the height of fashion, they might just give Rama a pass - lol. All I can say is I am glad such a dissolute and criminal windbag is gone for good. Too bad all we get from Barry on this asshole, is crickets. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: Oh man, you are right, I didn't catch that! From: turquoiseb To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 12:35 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2  Great stories, nicely told. I never had anything to do with Kriyananda and his set, or the Yogananda trip, but I *completely* get the similar vibe to MUM thang, having experienced it in any number of spiritual trips. I have nothing to add to your excellent rap except to riff off of a typo in your post that you probably didn't notice but which set me to laughing -- Yodananda. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: That is a funny funny post - I do love your style of writing and I laughed out loud when I read your quote of Bhairitu's take on FFL. One experience I have not mentioned here is that 2 years after I left MIU I was with a woman in Boulder (not a TM woman) and she wanted to do a pilgrimage with Swami Kriyananda at their place outside Nevada City called Ananda. Ann and I had taken a trip to Portland where we made friends with a couple who were into Kriyananda (I am still friends with them, Ann, not so much). Anyway they had this tradition of doing pilgrimage going to India to visit the places Yogananda and his guru Sri Yukteswar and his guru Lahiri Mahasaya had lived and taught. Well, somehow some of the descendants of Yogananda got annoyed at people wanting to traipse through their homes and told them to get lost - so in 1989, Kriyananda organized a pilgrimage of one of Yodananda's nephews and one other guy who was supposed to the the great-grandson of Lahiri Mahasaya to come to America to Ananda. What struck me after being there at Ananda for a day or two was that even though the techniques were different, even though they were really into music and chanting, the vibe there was just like it was at MIU. I was struck by the similarity of the way people dressed, the way they spoke, their polite yet aloof manner and just about everything about the Ananda people was just like the MIU crowd. I remember after the first meeting and then group meal I was sitting in the dining hall thinking that you could take the MIU folks and put them here and take these folks and put them at MIU, you would never know the difference. One funny thing I heard was the nephew of Yogananda was in his 80's and when he came to the US it was his first trip outside of India. When I met him, he was tall, thin and had a very sweet, sattvic demeanor. The people from Ananda who had been assigned to pick him up from the airport took him through San Francisco where he insisted on trying out a trolley car. The Ananda people nearly crapped in their pants because he got on the back
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
dunno anything about Rama except what I have read here - I recall 2 things Barry said - one was an acknowledgement of Rama's faults and the other was that in spite of Rama's faults and shortcomings, Barry from time to time got from his association with Rama some good things in the way of experiences. This is the same thing that others here have said of Marshy and other teachers - so since Barry has said outright that Rama did things he shouldn't have, I have no problem with his past with Rama and his present attitude towards his experiences and time in association with him especially since it is the same attitude others have about Marshy. And for what it is worth, I do understand those who had powerful experiences with Marshy still having some appreciation of him - for all his denunciation of Marshy, Mark Landau still has admiration for his old master, fraud that he was. I understand the appreciation - and the denunciation. My old man was an emotionally abusive functional alcoholic, yet he did take good care of us financially and with the best advice he had to offer. He was manipulative (but it was clumsy since he was generally inebriated at night) - I disliked much of his behavior and still appreciated that he worked his ass off to raise 3 kids. So I get it. Personally I didn't have powerful experiences with Marshy, and therefore am left with only the denunciation. From: doctordumb...@rocketmail.com doctordumb...@rocketmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 8:29 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 MJ, can you really take TB seriously? Still smells Ok to you? After all, I can sorta see you being all upset over Maharishi, but with Bee, its twisted and tragic, his PURE DENIAL of Rama's criminality - his most recent Guru, and *ALL IN* cult experience. Seems to me you'd ask yourself why Bee focuses SO MUCH on Maharishi, and, like I say in my re-post below, Too bad all we get from Barry on this asshole [Rama], is crickets. Makes ME wonder, even if you are Okey-Dokey with it... Now, I know Barry is going to counter with his sensitivity and ponderings over Rama, and his confusion over whether rape at gunpoint is a bad thang, or not, but, that aside, I am curious about how you see it. - Barry doesn't really want to talk about Rama [Frederick Lenz] - too embarrassing, I guess. Spot on! or as Nabby says, BINGO! Despite his pretensions as some sort of spiritual sociologist (gag me with a spoon...), Barry spent far more time with Rama, spent far more of his money on him, and bought into the guy, hook, line and sinker vs. his relatively minimal, and ancient, involvement with TMO and Maharishi. Nobody is concerned about Rama's legacy, BECAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE ONE. He used to consider himself a great lover, by seducing his female followers with a loaded gun. Sexy, huh?? He took hundreds of thousands of dollars from his pathetic followers like Barry, to fuel his degenerate lifestyle, and finally ended his life by first trying to kill a follower, and then successfully committed suicide by drug overdose...oh, while wearing a dog collar. Yeah, wow, if I had followed Maharishi, and this dude, I'd definitely go after Maharishi as the less ethical, dishonest one. Not. Although if someone thought perms, pistols, and pleather were the height of fashion, they might just give Rama a pass - lol. All I can say is I am glad such a dissolute and criminal windbag is gone for good. Too bad all we get from Barry on this asshole, is crickets. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: Oh man, you are right, I didn't catch that! From: turquoiseb To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 12:35 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2  Great stories, nicely told. I never had anything to do with Kriyananda and his set, or the Yogananda trip, but I *completely* get the similar vibe to MUM thang, having experienced it in any number of spiritual trips. I have nothing to add to your excellent rap except to riff off of a typo in your post that you probably didn't notice but which set me to laughing -- Yodananda. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: That is a funny funny post - I do love your style of writing and I laughed out loud when I read your quote of Bhairitu's take on FFL. One experience I have not mentioned here is that 2 years after I left MIU I was with a woman in Boulder (not a TM woman) and she wanted to do a pilgrimage with Swami Kriyananda at their place outside Nevada City called Ananda. Ann and I had taken a trip to Portland where we made friends with a couple who were into Kriyananda (I am still friends with them, Ann, not so much
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
I don't have anything to add to what you posted, Michael, just a suggestion. Whatever editor/email program/whatever you are using to write your posts seems to have smart (curly) quotes and semi-quotes turned on. The Yahoo system is obvously unable to process these, and turns them into the â and â characters you see below. Most such editors or programs have an option to turn off smart quotes, even Microstuft Word, if you are using that. You might consider using such an option, because your current setup makes your posts difficult to read. The  characters that show up from place to place are non-breaking spaces, and I don't know why they appear, unless either you or the editor in question is adding them manually; almost no one *tries* to create them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: My thanks to everyone who offered their answers. Since Mike D was the first to respond I will start there, but really I am using all the answers as a springboard to think and write about this:  So from what most of you seem to be saying, you feel he was enlightened in some way, but because his consciousness was housed in a human body, he was subject to flawed human behavior and yet he was still a holy man, or enlightened.  Or you may feel that he was holy and engaged in Divine activity by teaching meditation, yet not enlightened and therefore his human lies and deception were just part of his human life, sort of like the various Popes who have guided the Catholic church while doing things they officially denounced.  I began my question with the idea of Mâs sexual activity because it seems that those who have talked about it (the women and the skin boys) have come forth with some amount of detail, as opposed to some of the financial allegations which are a little lacking in detail (here I speak of things like suitcases across the border rather than the obvious soliciting funds for projects that never materialized that everyone could see) I agree with Navashok that it does make a difference that Maharishi preached celibacy to others and as head of a movement claimed to be so himself. Had he only practiced deception about his sexual activities, I could have turned a blind eye myself, but in addition to the sexual considerations, he did two things â one being that he seemed to take money under false pretenses, asking for funds for many, many projects that never or rarely ever materialized.  Second, he always claimed that everything he ever offered was far superior to anything everyone else offered. His meditation was superior, his advanced techniques were superior, he alone was able to revitalize ancient vedic knowledge - ayurveda, jyotish, yagas, vastu veda and all the adjunct programs and offerings that went with the main things he sold. He seemed to do this to keep his customers loyal to him, to keep the cash flowing and to feed his ego, that he alone could provide the best of the best. So with the sexual activity, Maharishi practiced deception on a grand scale (meaning that he lied for the better part of his adult life to nearly everyone he came into contact, as opposed to just a few times with a few people), he took money under false pretenses therefore committing fraud and seemed to have a large ego. Committing these sexual and financial acts he manipulated people also on a grand scale meaning he manipulated many people for many years, seemingly to feed his ego and achieve sexual and financial gains. This is behavior that most people would not tolerate in their friends, family, co-workers or strangers. As a society we certainly revile our politicians for doing the exact same things. I find it interesting in a cat-with-a-hairball kind of way that some of you can so easily give him a free pass for doing things you would never allow anyone else in your life to get away with. One more thing I want to mention, Mike said this: âThe Bible tells us that all men fall short of the Glory of God. That means that all men have and will sin.â This must mean that he was not enlightened. Maharishiâs own definition of enlightenment was:  â...in this state (of enlightenment) the mind has become transformed into bliss-consciousness, Being is permanently lived as separate from activity.  Then a man realizes that his Self is different from the mind which is engaged with thoughts and desires.   It is now his experience that the mind, which had been identified with desires, is mainly identified with the Self.  He experiences the desires of the mind as lying outside of himself, whereas he used to experience himself as completely involved with desires.  On the surface of the mind desires certainly continue, but deep within the mind they no longer exist, for the depths of the mind are transformed into the nature of the Self.  All the desires which were present in the mind have been thrown upward, as
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
thanks - I will try to fix it From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 1:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 I don't have anything to add to what you posted, Michael, just a suggestion. Whatever editor/email program/whatever you are using to write your posts seems to have smart (curly) quotes and semi-quotes turned on. The Yahoo system is obvously unable to process these, and turns them into the โ€� and โ€� characters you see below. Most such editors or programs have an option to turn off smart quotes, even Microstuft Word, if you are using that. You might consider using such an option, because your current setup makes your posts difficult to read. The ย characters that show up from place to place are non-breaking spaces, and I don't know why they appear, unless either you or the editor in question is adding them manually; almost no one *tries* to create them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: My thanks to everyone who offered their answers. Since Mike D was the first to respond I will start there, but really I am using all the answers as a springboard to think and write about this: ย So from what most of you seem to be saying, you feel he was enlightened in some way, but because his consciousness was housed in a human body, he was subject to flawed human behavior and yet he was still a holy man, or enlightened. ย Or you may feel that he was holy and engaged in Divine activity by teaching meditation, yet not enlightened and therefore his human lies and deception were just part of his human life, sort of like the various Popes who have guided the Catholic church while doing things they officially denounced. ย I began my question with the idea of Mโ€�s sexual activity because it seems that those who have talked about it (the women and the skin boys) have come forth with some amount of detail, as opposed to some of the financial allegations which are a little lacking in detail (here I speak of things like suitcases across the border rather than the obvious soliciting funds for projects that never materialized that everyone could see) I agree with Navashok that it does make a difference that Maharishi preached celibacy to others and as head of a movement claimed to be so himself. Had he only practiced deception about his sexual activities, I could have turned a blind eye myself, but in addition to the sexual considerations, he did two things โ€ one being that he seemed to take money under false pretenses, asking for funds for many, many projects that never or rarely ever materialized. ย Second, he always claimed that everything he ever offered was far superior to anything everyone else offered. His meditation was superior, his advanced techniques were superior, he alone was able to revitalize ancient vedic knowledge - ayurveda, jyotish, yagas, vastu veda and all the adjunct programs and offerings that went with the main things he sold. He seemed to do this to keep his customers loyal to him, to keep the cash flowing and to feed his ego, that he alone could provide the best of the best. So with the sexual activity, Maharishi practiced deception on a grand scale (meaning that he lied for the better part of his adult life to nearly everyone he came into contact, as opposed to just a few times with a few people), he took money under false pretenses therefore committing fraud and seemed to have a large ego. Committing these sexual and financial acts he manipulated people also on a grand scale meaning he manipulated many people for many years, seemingly to feed his ego and achieve sexual and financial gains. This is behavior that most people would not tolerate in their friends, family, co-workers or strangers. As a society we certainly revile our politicians for doing the exact same things. I find it interesting in a cat-with-a-hairball kind of way that some of you can so easily give him a free pass for doing things you would never allow anyone else in your life to get away with. One more thing I want to mention, Mike said this: โ€�The Bible tells usย that all men fall short of the Glory of God. That means that all men have and will sin.โ€� This must mean that he was not enlightened. Maharishiโ€�s own definition of enlightenment was: ย โ€�...in this state (of enlightenment) the mind has become transformed into bliss-consciousness, Being is permanently lived as separate from activity.ย ย Then a man realizes that his Self isย different from the mind which is engaged with thoughts and desires.ย ย ย It is now his experience that the mind, which had been identified with desires, is mainly identified with the Self.ย ย He experiences the desires of the mind as lying outside of himself, whereas he used to experience himself as completely involved with desires.ย ย On the surface
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: (snip) You vilify politicians and people in high finance who do the exact same things that Maha did and give him a free pass for doing what you don't tolerate in others. I understand it, but I shore don't agree with it. What good would vilifying him do, Michael? You appear to enjoy wallowing in your outrage, but you won't be satisfied until everyone else is wallowing in it too. It isn't as if there's anything we can do about it now. With politicians and banksters, if enough people become sufficiently infuriated, it could facilitate positive change. But Maharishi, he daid. And as far as politicians and banksters are concerned, unlike Maharishi, they haven't given us much of anything of value. That doesn't excuse the bad stuff he did, but at least with him there are two sides to the ledger.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: (snip) You vilify politicians and people in high finance who do the exact same things that Maha did and give him a free pass for doing what you don't tolerate in others. I understand it, but I shore don't agree with it. What good would vilifying him do, Michael? You appear to enjoy wallowing in your outrage, but you won't be satisfied until everyone else is wallowing in it too. Sorta the way *you* do when obsessing on Curtis or Vaj or myself or others of your enemies? Just sayin'... :-) Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: (snip) You vilify politicians and people in high finance who do the exact same things that Maha did and give him a free pass for doing what you don't tolerate in others. I understand it, but I shore don't agree with it. What good would vilifying him do, Michael? You appear to enjoy wallowing in your outrage, but you won't be satisfied until everyone else is wallowing in it too. Sorta the way *you* do when obsessing on Curtis or Vaj or myself or others of your enemies? Just sayin'... :-) Allow me to obsess a little more and point out that you carefully, deliberately, and dishonestly failed to quote the part of my post that refutes your accusation: Like dishonest politicians and banksters, you are alive and kicking and being destructive. It makes excellent sense to vilify you for your dishonesty (demonstrated in the very post I'm responding to). The portion of my post you did quote, as you know but did your best to obscure, referred to the uselessness of vilifying Maharishi, who is now dead and harmless, unlike you. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... Yeah, that would be you and Michael, actually, hypocrites both.
