[FairfieldLife] Re: Viewing the world through desperate-colored glasses
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Basically, the way I see it, all these TBs are melting down for two reasons. The first is because we're talking about sex as if it were normal to have sex. Many of these people are so uptight that they don't believe that. But the second reason is that we are talking about Maharishi the way we would talk about any other man on the planet, as if he weren't in any way special. We're cutting him no special breaks for being holy. AND THAT MAKES THEM CRAZY. blahblahblahblah liar blahblahblahblahblahblahblah dishonest blahblahblahblahblah lie blahblahblahblah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah lying blah hypocritical blahblahblahblahblah delusions blah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah malicious blahblah venting blahblahblahblahblah blahblah reprehensible. blahblahblahblahblah hallucinating blahblahblahblah translation blah paraniod blahblahblahblahblahblah blahblahblah disingenuous blahblah falsehood blah misrepresentation blah. blah stooopid blahblah reallystoopid blahblahblah reallySTOOPID blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah REALLYREALLYSTOOPID blahblah. *sigh* Can it make 'em crazy if they already are? And so it goes.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Viewing the world through desperate-colored glasses
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Basically, the way I see it, all these TBs are melting down for two reasons. The first is because we're talking about sex as if it were normal to have sex. Many of these people are so uptight that they don't believe that. But the second reason is that we are talking about Maharishi the way we would talk about any other man on the planet, as if he weren't in any way special. We're cutting him no special breaks for being holy. AND THAT MAKES THEM CRAZY. Uh, no, doesn't make me crazy, sorry. What *annoys* me is the lengths you and other TM critics will go to in order to find some excuse, no matter how ridiculous and far-fetched, to dump on him. Goodness knows he had plenty of very human faults; there's really no need to make any more up except as a way of venting one's spleen yet again. The fault you're making up here isn't homosexuality; that wouldn't be a fault. What you're doing is making up his purported homosexuality in order to make up the fault of hypocrisy, given his homophobic views. Those views themselves were bad enough. Quite so Judy. Barry's hypothesis is that the heat generated in this topic is caused by the view that MMY was not just a man. You're demonstrating the falsity of that I'd say. I would say too that the charge of hypocrisy is rather glib (as is the whole topic IMO). It is NOT in itself hypocritical to have homosexual tendencies and also to express the view that homosexuality is a sin. It might be hypocrisy though to express that view and actually indulge those tendencies (though from a Christian view of sin, it may not be as simple as that). You say What *annoys* me is the lengths you and other TM critics will go to in order to find some excuse, no matter how ridiculous and far-fetched, to dump on him. I think you make a valid point. Is the topic an exercise in curiosity? In friendly discussion? An attempt to get at the truth of something? Humour? Or is it purely to push buttons? Well that's a judgement call - who knows *The Truth* (as Barry might say). We have our opinion that's all. If we intuit the latter - that it is just provocation with perhaps a lack of sincerity - then annoyance is absolutely appropriate. It's as if someone were to walk naked into a posh golf club dinner. Oh my, see how these middle class, butt-clenched, up-tight folks REACT to my freedom of expression. They are so sexually repressed that they can't hack it. Ha! Ha! Well, no. That's just juvenile. The negative reaction is to the INTENT to provoke. To the hostility behind the action, not to the action itself. (They may be middle class, butt-clenched, up-tight folks notwithstanding). Pushing buttons? To my mind that's just bad manners. Why not retaliate? But it is, as I say, something you judge - that is to say the intention behind the action. I don't judge the same as you on a lot of Barry's posts I suppose. So, let's see, how do I finish off? Just my opinion of course. Again, goodness knows he exhibited other hypocrisies. It looks as though you're bored with complaining about his real hypocrisies, so you have to conjure up a new one, on the basis of zero evidence.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Viewing the world through desperate-colored glasses
Richard, I am NOT going to reply the way Judy would and try to vilify you for expressing your opinion. Instead, I am going to piggyback on your expressed opinion and offer mine. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Basically, the way I see it, all these TBs are melting down for two reasons. The first is because we're talking about sex as if it were normal to have sex. Many of these people are so uptight that they don't believe that. But the second reason is that we are talking about Maharishi the way we would talk about any other man on the planet, as if he weren't in any way special. We're cutting him no special breaks for being holy. AND THAT MAKES THEM CRAZY. Uh, no, doesn't make me crazy, sorry. What *annoys* me is the lengths you and other TM critics will go to in order to find some excuse, no matter how ridiculous and far-fetched, to dump on him. Goodness knows he had plenty of very human faults; there's really no need to make any more up except as a way of venting one's spleen yet again. The fault you're making up here isn't homosexuality; that wouldn't be a fault. What you're doing is making up his purported homosexuality in order to make up the fault of hypocrisy, given his homophobic views. Those views themselves were bad enough. Quite so Judy. Barry's hypothesis is that the heat generated in this topic is caused by the view that MMY was not just a man. You're demonstrating the falsity of that I'd say. I would say instead that the heat WITH WHICH she responds and the WAY she responds rather confirms my theory. The bottom line of my thesis (which I will address in some length below, where approp- riate), is that you and Judy seem to see nothing either questionable or wrong with getting your buttons pushed and retaliating. My thesis is that such retaliation, and the seemingly compulsive need to indulge in it, reveals a great deal more about the retaliator than it does the person being retaliated against. I would say too that the charge of hypocrisy is rather glib (as is the whole topic IMO). I should point out, just for the record, that I have not made that charge in any of the posts in these threads. That's Curtis' schtick, not mine. I have been merely looking at the phenomenon of guru-bhakti from a different angle, without trying to color it in the ways that spiritual traditions color it. I think that to do so is instructive and valuable. YMMV. I am NOT, in any of these intellectual explor- ations, trying to suggest that my alternative view of guru-bhakti is the ONLY way to see the phenomenon, or the right way to see the phenomenon, merely a different way. I present it only as a different way of looking at the phenomenon. I have done so *consistently* in my contributions to the thread. And yet many here have responded by getting their buttons pushed and feeling a need to retaliate. My contention is that these people are idea- phobic in the exact same way that some men are homophobic. Their first reaction when they hear a way of looking at the phenomenon of guru-bhakti that disagrees with the way they see it is to 1) get their emotional buttons pushed, and 2) retaliate. I'm sorry, but I'm Buddhist enough to believe that anyone who reacts to a mere idea by not only allowing that idea to push their emotional buttons but allowing the idea to push them so strongly that they feel the need to retaliate is pretty lost in Maya. It is NOT in itself hypocritical to have homosexual tendencies and also to express the view that homosexuality is a sin. I would agree with this. I consider the current Pope a closet homosexual, or at the very least a man with *strong* homosexual tendencies him- self. However, his belief system (and, from stories we hear about him, his level of fanaticism) is probably so strong that he would never ACT on those tendencies himself. Therefore, if he were to use his office to condemn homosexuality as a sin, I would not see that as inherently hypocritical. However, if that same Pope had, say, an emotional connection with a male saint, one that periodically reduced him to blubbering about him or becoming so emotionally out of control when talking about him that the *intensity* of his relationship with this male saint and its possible deeper nature became apparent, and *then* decried similar emotional behavior between two men on the street, I might consider that a little hypocritical. My contention is that men in cloistered guru- bhakti traditions often act in ways that would be considered in *any other environment* gayer than Liberace. They *weep* for the gurus they adore; they compose syrupy songs and poems about them; they treat them (and even refer to them) as their masters. So what do you think is the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Viewing the world through desperate-colored glasses
all the words in the world cannot help you escape the label of hypocrite. to pretend as you so often and tiresomely do, that your motives here are tantric and that you are merely expressing lofty and exceptional views and that those who respond to them negatively are lost in maya is just plain stupidity, imo. it may work once or twice if you presented balanced views, but your intentions over the years have clearly been to denigrate and insult those who have a positive and unvarnished view of TM and the Maharishi. you delude yourself into thinking somehow that you are forcing us to consider another point of view and that we can't take it. what we can't take is the juvenile rhetoric of a 60 year old man who thinks foolishly that he is broadening anyone's mind, when it is clear that he is expressing his prejudices and expecting those here to fawn all over this faux consciousness raising exercise. you are someone who delights in pushing others' buttons and finding fault with their beliefs. so be it. but don't try to hide this as your opinion, when in fact it is your agenda. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Richard, I am NOT going to reply the way Judy would and try to vilify you for expressing your opinion. Instead, I am going to piggyback on your expressed opinion and offer mine. snip
[FairfieldLife] Re: Viewing the world through desperate-colored glasses
I think that it is worth pointing out that I did my best to reply unemotionally and without vilification to Richard M's opinions, merely bouncing off his opinion with my own. Compare and contrast to what the man in the dress (Jim, still maintaining the pretense that he is not ed11 and that ed11 is a woman) does when commenting on my post. He DEMONSTRATES *everything* I talked about in my post to Richard M. He *clearly* has his emotional buttons pushed. He *clearly* is in retaliation mode. He *clearly* means to vilify me and attack me personally for the sin of expressing ideas that have pushed his buttons. And he *clearly* feels justified in doing so, as if such retaliation were acceptable and appropriate. Not to mention that the man is pretending to be a woman while commenting on a thread about the possibly gay-tinted aspects of the guru-student relationship. :-) There is NO NEED for me to denigrate and insult people who hold *this kind* of positive view of TM and Maharishi. All I have to do is let them speak. Especially the enlightened ones. :-) How's that private mailing list of yours working out, Jimbo? Have you trained them to talk about you the way that Maharishi talked about Guru Dev yet? With that on your track record you're not exactly in a position to claim that anyone else has an agenda of wanting to be fawned over. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: all the words in the world cannot help you escape the label of hypocrite. to pretend as you so often and tiresomely do, that your motives here are tantric and that you are merely expressing lofty and exceptional views and that those who respond to them negatively are lost in maya is just plain stupidity, imo. it may work once or twice if you presented balanced views, but your intentions over the years have clearly been to denigrate and insult those who have a positive and unvarnished view of TM and the Maharishi. you delude yourself into thinking somehow that you are forcing us to consider another point of view and that we can't take it. what we can't take is the juvenile rhetoric of a 60 year old man who thinks foolishly that he is broadening anyone's mind, when it is clear that he is expressing his prejudices and expecting those here to fawn all over this faux consciousness raising exercise. you are someone who delights in pushing others' buttons and finding fault with their beliefs. so be it. but don't try to hide this as your opinion, when in fact it is your agenda. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Richard, I am NOT going to reply the way Judy would and try to vilify you for expressing your opinion. Instead, I am going to piggyback on your expressed opinion and offer mine. snip
[FairfieldLife] Re: Viewing the world through desperate-colored glasses
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: [snip] The bottom line of my thesis (which I will address in some length below, where approp- riate), is that you and Judy seem to see nothing either questionable or wrong with getting your buttons pushed and retaliating. My thesis is that such retaliation, and the seemingly compulsive need to indulge in it, reveals a great deal more about the retaliator than it does the person being retaliated against. [snip] I'm sorry, but I'm Buddhist enough to believe that anyone who reacts to a mere idea by not only allowing that idea to push their emotional buttons but allowing the idea to push them so strongly that they feel the need to retaliate is pretty lost in Maya. [snip] Here is where we disagree, and disagree strongly. This is where you start to build up to your view that retaliation is somehow JUSTIFIED when you or someone else gets their emotional buttons pushed as the result of hearing an idea that they don't like. You state above that such annoyance and (below) feeling a need to retaliate is absolutely appropriate. I disagree. I think that it's an indication of intellectual and emotional rigidity, and a kind of spiritual fascism that compels one to lash out at the people who hold ideas you don't like. I do think that that a lot of the hard work of what you are saying here is done by the form of words you choose: (push) emotional buttons + retaliatation + lash out The form of words is itself a set of tinted spectacles IMO, an irony considering the title of the topic. Hence the point of the nudist in the golf club analogy. It is possible to object to such provocation quite coolly and reasonably (someone just swinging his dick as you say. Whoever said it was a he? Not a dick-fancying Freudian slip there by any chance? ;-) ). i.e. the response could be one to which the words buttons pushed and retaliation would NOT be reasonable descriptions. Should such club members as are buddhists be required to be quietists in the face of such provocation? No, I don't see why. As long as they don't become overwhelmed by their reaction, become attached to the retaliation as one might say. By the same token they would be quite wrong to react disproprtionately. And wrong to react at all if they completely misjudged the situation. I once went to a very posh wedding in London where the father of the bride was a wealthy, retired dick-doctor. Unfortunately he was loosing his marbles and had the habit of undressing in public inappropriately. Sure enough, in the middle of the ceremony, he had to be quietly ushered out, and everyone politely pretended not to notice. The *same* behaviour as in the golf club analogy was viewed quite differently in this case - and probably by quite similar sets of people! Its the perceived intent, not the thing itself that counts. Actually I have loads of emotional buttons just waiting to be pushed. (but this topic didn't cut it for me in that way). Sometimes that's a problem; sometimes not. It's just not that simple. As my guru would have it: My yellow in this case is not so mellow In fact I'm trying to say, it's frightened like me And all of these emotions of mine keep holding me from Giving my life to a rainbow like you Maybe one day when I am enlightened ALL I AM will be buttons being pushed (or pushing themselves). Man, life will be good then...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Viewing the world through desperate-colored glasses
Barry's hypothesis is that the heat generated in this topic is caused by the view that MMY was not just a man. You're demonstrating the falsity of that I'd say. TurquoiseB wrote: I am NOT going to reply the way Judy would and try to vilify you for expressing your opinion. Instead, I am going to piggyback on your expressed opinion and offer mine. The guilty always scream the loudest. - John Manning I would say instead that the heat WITH WHICH she responds and the WAY she responds rather confirms my theory. The bottom line of my thesis (which I will address in some length below, where approp- riate), is that you and Judy seem to see nothing either questionable or wrong with getting your buttons pushed and retaliating. My thesis is that such retaliation, and the seemingly compulsive need to indulge in it, reveals a great deal more about the retaliator than it does the person being retaliated against. I should point out, just for the record, that I have not made that charge in any of the posts in these threads. That's Curtis' schtick, not mine. I have been merely looking at the phenomenon of guru-bhakti from a different angle, without trying to color it in the ways that spiritual traditions color it. I think that to do so is instructive and valuable. YMMV. I am NOT, in any of these intellectual explor- ations, trying to suggest that my alternative view of guru-bhakti is the ONLY way to see the phenomenon, or the right way to see the phenomenon, merely a different way. I present it only as a different way of looking at the phenomenon. I have done so *consistently* in my contributions to the thread. And yet many here have responded by getting their buttons pushed and feeling a need to retaliate. My contention is that these people are idea- phobic in the exact same way that some men are homophobic. Their first reaction when they hear a way of looking at the phenomenon of guru-bhakti that disagrees with the way they see it is to 1) get their emotional buttons pushed, and 2) retaliate. I'm sorry, but I'm Buddhist enough to believe that anyone who reacts to a mere idea by not only allowing that idea to push their emotional buttons but allowing the idea to push them so strongly that they feel the need to retaliate is pretty lost in Maya. I would agree with this. I consider the current Pope a closet homosexual, or at the very least a man with *strong* homosexual tendencies him- self. However, his belief system (and, from stories we hear about him, his level of fanaticism) is probably so strong that he would never ACT on those tendencies himself. Therefore, if he were to use his office to condemn homosexuality as a sin, I would not see that as inherently hypocritical. However, if that same Pope had, say, an emotional connection with a male saint, one that periodically reduced him to blubbering about him or becoming so emotionally out of control when talking about him that the *intensity* of his relationship with this male saint and its possible deeper nature became apparent, and *then* decried similar emotional behavior between two men on the street, I might consider that a little hypocritical. My contention is that men in cloistered guru- bhakti traditions often act in ways that would be considered in *any other environment* gayer than Liberace. They *weep* for the gurus they adore; they compose syrupy songs and poems about them; they treat them (and even refer to them) as their masters. So what do you think is the *difference* that makes the expression of such emotional over-the-topness mere gay behavior when practiced by two men on the street, but that somehow changes this SAME emotional over-the-topness into something else, something loftier or more spiritual when done in an ashram or a monastery or the Vatican? I'm just curious. Really. I don't see any difference. Then again, I'm Tantric. I think that two gay men expressing their deep and spiritual love for each other are IN NO WAY lesser or less spiritual than a student expressing bhaktied-out love for his guru or teacher. I see both as exactly the same phenomenon, colored by different ways of inter- preting the phenomenon depending on context. But she makes the point BASED ON A FALSE ASSUMPTION. That is, that someone expressing an idea about Maharishi that is contrary to the TMO's dogma about him or her view of him is de facto dumping on him. That is FUNDAMENTALISM. The overreaction to it, in the form of getting your buttons pushed by the idea and feeling the need to retaliate, is just that, an overreaction. The *perception* that someone who expresses an idea that you don't like about Maharishi is dumping on him is FALLACIOUS. It assumes that the way YOU like to see Maharishi is somehow the truth, or the correct way of seeing him. There is no correct way of seeing him. My sin in these
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Viewing the world through desperate-colored glasses
On Apr 15, 2009, at 8:37 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: How's that private mailing list of yours working out, Jimbo? Have you trained them to talk about you the way that Maharishi talked about Guru Dev yet? With that on your track record you're not exactly in a position to claim that anyone else has an agenda of wanting to be fawned over. It's not his private list, it's a private list of Rick and Tom's for enlightened TMers (etc.) that he's on. As per my previous description, it mostly people talking about I, Me and Mine. A kind of epitome of the Me Decade...decades later. People who've been meditating for 30+ years, still talking about Me. Still talking about experiences. It's not unusual for someone to chime in 'I just had the most incredible experience of the relative...more later' as if we're all supposed to wait with baited breath for the details. It's kinda like having a window into where I was years and years ago, so anxious to talk about experiences and have people reinforce them. Or defend them. There's a limited span that is acceptable, outside of that, there's seems to be little understanding and the group seems more like a spiritual codependent group--a common pattern in similar satsangs. Jim mainly seems to dish out his typical regurgitated SCI, albeit to adoring fans of others still stuck in the SCI cum Neoadvaita Fairytale. Don't worry, if you missed that you can always tune into Rory TV LIVE or recorded from Fairfield, IA and watch Rory get in touch with his inner cockroach (no, I'm not kidding), the Rory holidays and high days, all based on--you guessed it--the Rory calendar. There's nothing that says more about Me-ness that having your own calendar. He also has a well-spoken friend who does the same (although he doesn't have his own calendar or holidays yet). Other than masturbating into a mirror on TV, there's just no way to get more Me- ness that this. Apparently this is what goes for spirituality in FF these daze...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Viewing the world through desperate-colored glasses
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Apr 15, 2009, at 8:37 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: How's that private mailing list of yours working out, Jimbo? Have you trained them to talk about you the way that Maharishi talked about Guru Dev yet? With that on your track record you're not exactly in a position to claim that anyone else has an agenda of wanting to be fawned over. It's not his private list, it's a private list of Rick and Tom's for enlightened TMers (etc.) that he's on. Ah, my mistake, and my apologies to Jimbo. I misunderstood what you wrote about it some time ago. As per my previous description, it mostly people talking about I, Me and Mine. A kind of epitome of the Me Decade...decades later. People who've been meditating for 30+ years, still talking about Me. Still talking about experiences. It's not unusual for someone to chime in 'I just had the most incredible experience of the relative...more later' as if we're all supposed to wait with baited breath for the details. It's kinda like having a window into where I was years and years ago, so anxious to talk about experiences and have people reinforce them. Or defend them. There's a limited span that is acceptable, outside of that, there's seems to be little understanding and the group seems more like a spiritual codependent group--a common pattern in similar satsangs. I've seen a few like that. Jim mainly seems to dish out his typical regurgitated SCI, albeit to adoring fans of others still stuck in the SCI cum Neoadvaita Fairytale. I'm happy for him. That's the kind of If I say I'm enlightened they will come environment he seems to have been hoping that FFL would be. Don't worry, if you missed that you can always tune into Rory TV LIVE or recorded from Fairfield, IA and watch Rory get in touch with his inner cockroach (no, I'm not kidding), the Rory holidays and high days, all based on-- you guessed it--the Rory calendar. There's nothing that says more about Me-ness that having your own calendar. I dunno. Having a Rory clock telling Rory time would probably be a little more Me. :-) Hi boys and girls...what time is it? Response from the audience It's Rory time!!! He also has a well-spoken friend who does the same (although he doesn't have his own calendar or holidays yet). Other than masturbating into a mirror on TV, there's just no way to get more Me-ness that this. I'm still thinking you have overlooked the Me- potential of the Ro(ry)lex. :-) Apparently this is what goes for spirituality in FF these daze... It actually sounds tame and fairly harmless compared to what passed for spirituality in Santa Fe. Now THAT was a Me-Zoo. The difference being that many of the animals in that particular Zoo were not merely small- town Me-gos. They were *name* Me-gos. They had large followings and speaking tours and book contracts. So you tended to get Me-Wars. Very entertaining. Once, after a particularly trying day with work, I felt the need for a cathartic purge of some kind. So I looked at the local Santa Fe paper to see what kind of good Clockwork Orangean ultraviolence might be in town for me to watch. I had a choice between going to see a Toby Hooper (creator of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) horror film or going to a big public satsang that put about a dozen of these folks on the same stage at the same time. I went for the satsang, figuring it would be more violent. I was not disappointed. Two of the famous spiritual teachers actually got into a shoving match and one pushed the other off the stage into the orchestra pit of the theater. Now *that* is Me-ness. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Viewing the world through desperate-colored glasses
you are someone who delights in pushing others' buttons and finding fault with their beliefs. so be it. but don't try to hide this as your opinion, when in fact it is your agenda. -Barry is very intelligent and a great writer. I think he is pushing buttons to engage others not for any other reason than for entertainment. It's pretty clear to me that Barry is more at home in the gray areas of paradox and the uncertain than most others. Thus he likes to pome fun at people's certainty about unknowable subjects. People's buttons get pushed. He has never pushed mine, so I am guessing that some people have bigger buttons than others. At any rate I believe that Barry finds any certainty in the mystical arena to be fodder for fools and subject for exploitation. I am quite certain that Barry finds it a form of entertainment. Or else he couldn't have possibly interacted with Judy and the other AMT OG's for as long as he has. Also it's quite obvious that TM and its cult environs have made a big impression upon him, or else he would have long ago moved on. Like many, if not most TMers nowadays the shambles of the TM Movement were for them like a death resulting in the usual steps of acceptance starting with shock, then anger, and so on. we are most still caught up in that cycle somewhere, and few of us have adapted to the new and 'improved' TM Org. Starting with the price increase of a few years back. We are all exploring within ourselves whether we can support the Movement as it now stands with the emphasis on materialism and beurocratic rank and file. The TMO is a Pandora's Box and it stands to reason that we are the forerunners of the old movement insofar as we at FFLife are the morphagenic meme explorers, each trying to cogitate through the extremely radical and controversial views of the Movement. So much of the Movement is merely supposition without any real solid basis in anyones experience. I have been reading Psychoanalysis and Buddhism (Jeremy Saffran, 2003). In this book one of the authors discusses the differences of Zen systems, explaining two entirely discrete methodologies. One of them the author describes as 'top down' and the other as 'bottom up.' The top down system uses certain phrases, such as 'Mu' which means 'not' to arrive at the experience of oneness. The bottom up system uses sitting meditation. The former system can lead to experiences of onesess which can have a narcissism furthering tendency because one takes those experiences and feels condisention to others. While the bottom up system takes one through a very hard system of rigorous sitting contemplation which is very painful, but which allows one to sit with their pain and thus start to feel a closeness to others through shared pain. What I am arriving at, through this analogical view of Zen is that TM because it gives one mystical and profound experiences tends to make one feel superior to others. And this is clearly shown in the way Movement frontrunners show little compassion towards other people in general. It is my thought that Barry constantly tries to open people's minds and hearts by elasticising them, which itself is bound to stir up trouble especially in those who hold onto a discursive and epistimological ethos separate from hard reality. Hard reality is that we're all in the same boat and that this reality we face now is pretty much the only reality we can know. Heaven on Earth, life after death, Gods and so on are really not subjects which can be answered, or if they can be, they are not answered in any systematic procedure for all people. This stream of thought alone tends to run counterindicatory to the whole basic premis of TM which is that anyone who can think a thought can reach unity consciousness through TM alone. The history of the Movement proves otherwise, and that fact blows down the whole house of cards which Maharishi built. In fact, nothing Maharishi taught is entirely the whole truth. Much of what he accomplished he did so by playing on people's fears and former religious teachings. The concept of heaven walking on earth is a Christian fundamental and Zionistic notion and is found nowhere in the Vedas except insofar as it pertains historically or mysthologically. Nowhere in the Vedas does it say we can open a door onto sat Yuga. My point is that anything less than full disclosure in a religious system is suspect, and so fair game to anyone who wishes to look into it. Certainly one need not disrespect Maharishi to make such points, so maybe Barry crosses the line of good taste, and yet, as I noted heretofor, we are all ion a state of shock, anger, or suspended belief, at the death of Maharishi but moreso at the death of the TM Movement which we helped create through our blood sweat and tears, and calloused asses. I don't blame Barry for his speaking volumns of irony. I don't see why anyone does get shaken up by it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Viewing the world through desperate-colored glasses
On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:18 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Apparently this is what goes for spirituality in FF these daze... It actually sounds tame and fairly harmless compared to what passed for spirituality in Santa Fe. Now THAT was a Me-Zoo. The difference being that many of the animals in that particular Zoo were not merely small- town Me-gos. They were *name* Me-gos. They had large followings and speaking tours and book contracts. It is a relatively harmless, feel-good kinda thang. In fact, since these are enlightened TMers, expressing negativity is very verboten-- even talking about wrathful enlightened activity is sure to cause some disapproving messages. (Incidentally I was tossed off without a word after the last message on Jim) In fact, all of the TM we're enlightened satsangs I've attended were pretty harmless, relatively speaking, but on another level they were clear aberrations of authentic spirituality for the most part, serious departures from the traditions they claimed to be from. I remember the first one I went to was when a friend, an old time TM teacher, declared he was enlightened. He felt it was so important to share with others (even though almost no one was interested). Shortly thereafter he rented a hotel conference room and then begged all of his friends to come to a weekend lecture series. Needless to say, we all wondered why he just couldn't come to our house (or we could go to his) and he could tell us all about it for free. No, this knowledge was special and the teaching was meant to be shared and perpetuated with others. The money would help him share his message, which was how to get enlightened in a way that was easily understandable to all TM initiates. Well, after much begging, we dished out a couple of hundred dollars and went. It was amazing how it was presented in very familiar TM instruction format and how the primary diagram looked suspiciously like the bubble diagram, but definitely unique in some ways. It turned out, most if not all of us learned nothing really new, and were out a couple hundred bucks. The only people who bought that he was actually enlightened was a couple of whom the husband thought he was enlightened and had some popular books out on crystals. They used to channel together. sigh It's too bad there wasn't a video-capable internet back then. He could have just set up a chat room like Rory does (and I could have been 300 dollars richer). Shortly thereafter another person began claiming the same thing. This time it had something to do with the virgin Mary and grounding the energy into the world. She proselytized to all her friends, lectured wherever she could and would show up at any conference or new age gathering if they would let her in. Eventually her enlightenment got in the way of her marriage--or her marriage got in the way of her enlightenment--and her mission, and she and her husband went through a nasty divorce. I always enjoyed talking to her, but as her mission grew I found she really stopped listening to what others wanted to share and just wanted to preach her message. You couldn't just talk to her anymore. If you were around her, you were a potential part of spreading that message, that all. Having seen all these kinda trips, it really helped me understand how, in an earlier era when seances were considered in, you could actually found something like the Theosophical Society. Both scenes ring with a similar level of authenticity (although the THeosophical Society was obviously much bigger and did some good work at the same time).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Viewing the world through desperate-colored glasses
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: Am I anyway close to the truth here Barry? Only you can tell me. Nh. I'm just a liar and a minion of Satan with an agenda straight from the bowels of Hell. Nabby and Judy are right. I am the very personification of evil. But thanks for the balanced thoughts. They are a rarity on this forum.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Viewing the world through desperate-colored glasses
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip Basically, the way I see it, all these TBs are melting down for two reasons. The first is because we're talking about sex as if it were normal to have sex. Many of these people are so uptight that they don't believe that. But the second reason is that we are talking about Maharishi the way we would talk about any other man on the planet, as if he weren't in any way special. We're cutting him no special breaks for being holy. AND THAT MAKES THEM CRAZY. Uh, no, doesn't make me crazy, sorry. What *annoys* me is the lengths you and other TM critics will go to in order to find some excuse, no matter how ridiculous and far-fetched, to dump on him. Goodness knows he had plenty of very human faults; there's really no need to make any more up except as a way of venting one's spleen yet again. The fault you're making up here isn't homosexuality; that wouldn't be a fault. What you're doing is making up his purported homosexuality in order to make up the fault of hypocrisy, given his homophobic views. Those views themselves were bad enough. Again, goodness knows he exhibited other hypocrisies. It looks as though you're bored with complaining about his real hypocrisies, so you have to conjure up a new one, on the basis of zero evidence.
