[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: You'd think so, but an enlightened person doesn't have enough of a mind to become bound by stories, and deluded, like the ignorant person does. The conditioning of the mind, and how it works, is quite different from the way most are used to. The unseen habit of the mind constantly thinking, in its ignorant state, is too overwhelming for the ignorant mind to even comprehend what not thinking during everyday existence, is like. Hey Dr.D, hope you enjoyed your birthday :-) You migh have answered this before, and like you said above it could be too overwhelming for the ignorant mind to even comprehend but could you say more about the proccess of thinking for an enlightened person ? Does it mean thoughts only arise as a response to an impulse, say for example a post here, and otherwise they do not appear ? Ignorants minds wants to know, if at all possible :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
I did, Thanks! Yes, like that - the mind becomes a true servant, instead of an enabler for the ego. The whole thing about enlightenment is the identity shifts from highly localized, to conveniently localized, but otherwise universal. Until I conditioned my mind successfully through the inner and outer strokes of TM, I never would have believed the overwhelming number of thoughts and feelings dedicated to preserving, and isolating, a wholly made up identity. Maybe 90% of the total? The benefits to only using the mind when necessary, are huge - the most obvious, that the mind is always calm, relaxed, sharp, and centered. Better sense of humor too! Hope that answered your question! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: You'd think so, but an enlightened person doesn't have enough of a mind to become bound by stories, and deluded, like the ignorant person does. The conditioning of the mind, and how it works, is quite different from the way most are used to. The unseen habit of the mind constantly thinking, in its ignorant state, is too overwhelming for the ignorant mind to even comprehend what not thinking during everyday existence, is like. Hey Dr.D, hope you enjoyed your birthday :-) You migh have answered this before, and like you said above it could be too overwhelming for the ignorant mind to even comprehend but could you say more about the proccess of thinking for an enlightened person ? Does it mean thoughts only arise as a response to an impulse, say for example a post here, and otherwise they do not appear ? Ignorants minds wants to know, if at all possible :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
Only 100% agave. Enlightened men, and women, are free to do as they please. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: Yep, I have always heard that enlightened men drink tequila From: doctordumbass@... doctordumbass@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:07 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...  I am not a big gin drinker (GT is the exception), so my martinis are usually vodka based. Tonight, however, the spirit of celebration comes from south of the border, the classic lemon-lime margarita, with Anejo 100% agave tequila. Cheers. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Personally, I think you project your own subjective images as a replacement for reality. Fact is, I already have a double martini before me now: Beefeater brand - pulled from the freezer (I was after all a Russian Orthodox monastic) pored extra-dry, with a ring of lemon rubbed around the rim and then deposited at the bottom. Even a bit of ice thrown in to maintain the Arctic temperature. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: you best read it all again Personally, I think he needs a drink. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:30 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... à Shankara did NOT say such a thing. In many places he discusses the benefits of yogic meditation. However, the benefits according to Shankara are purification of the heart rather than either union with brahman or freedom from bondage to prakriti. The purpose of the post was to examine the real but unstated differences between the recognition/practice found in Yoga and Vedanta rather than a polemic against TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: that means that meditation like what marshy taught was essentially a meaningless pursuit. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] What Maharishi did NOT say ... Ãâà Since the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya Vidyaranya), the Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until Yogic advaita has become the norm.Ãâà It manifested in the idea that transcendence or nirvikalpa-samaadhi was the experiential requirement for brahma-jÃÆ'ñana (knowledge of brahmÃÆ'âtman). This notion is directly adverse to Adi Shankara's written declarations about liberation: Upadesasahasri Shankara did not extol yogic nirvikalpa-samaadhi (non-conceptual absorption or transcendence). Rather, speaking from the understanding that the Self (Atman) is already nirvikalpa by nature, he firmly contrasts the true nature of the Self and the mind: As I have no restlessness (viksepa) I have hence no absorption (samadhi). Restlessness or absorption belong to the mind which is changeable. Ãâà A similar view is expressed in 13.17: Ãâà How can samadhi, non-samadhi or anything else which is to be done belong to me? For having meditated and known me, they realize that they have completed [all] that needed to be done. Ãâà and 14.35: Ãâà I have never seen non-samadhi, nor anything else [needing] to be purified, belonging to me who am changeless, the pure Brahman, free from evil. Ãâà Ãâà In 15.14 Sankara presents a critique of meditation as an essentially dualistically structured activity: Ãâà One [comes] to consist of that upon which one fixes one's mind, if one is different from [it]. But, there is no action in the Self through which to become the Self. [It] does not depend upon [anything else] for being the Self, since if [it] depended upon [anything else], it would not be the Self. Ãâà Ãâà Furthermore, in 16.39-40, Sankara implicitly criticizes the Sankhya-Yoga view that liberation is dissociation from the association of purusa and prakrti, when he says: It is not at all reasonable that liberation is either a connection [with Brahman] or a dissociation [from prakrti]. For an association is non-eternal and the same is true for dissociation also. One's own nature is never lost. As is evident in his writings, Sankara implicitly rejects both the emancipation of yoga, namely
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
Enlightened Person: Someone fascinated with the story of awakening that they're currently entertaining in their mind. Deluded Person: Someone fascinated with the story of delusion that they're currently entertaining in their mind. The non-dual spirituality scene: A mixture of people obsessed by the I'm awakened delusion teaching a mixture of people obsessed by the I'm ignorant delusion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: Only 100% agave. Enlightened men, and women, are free to do as they please. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: Yep, I have always heard that enlightened men drink tequila From: doctordumbass@ doctordumbass@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:07 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...  I am not a big gin drinker (GT is the exception), so my martinis are usually vodka based. Tonight, however, the spirit of celebration comes from south of the border, the classic lemon-lime margarita, with Anejo 100% agave tequila. Cheers. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Personally, I think you project your own subjective images as a replacement for reality. Fact is, I already have a double martini before me now: Beefeater brand - pulled from the freezer (I was after all a Russian Orthodox monastic) pored extra-dry, with a ring of lemon rubbed around the rim and then deposited at the bottom. Even a bit of ice thrown in to maintain the Arctic temperature. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: you best read it all again Personally, I think he needs a drink. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:30 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... à Shankara did NOT say such a thing. In many places he discusses the benefits of yogic meditation. However, the benefits according to Shankara are purification of the heart rather than either union with brahman or freedom from bondage to prakriti. The purpose of the post was to examine the real but unstated differences between the recognition/practice found in Yoga and Vedanta rather than a polemic against TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: that means that meditation like what marshy taught was essentially a meaningless pursuit. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] What Maharishi did NOT say ... Ãâà Since the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya Vidyaranya), the Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until Yogic advaita has become the norm.Ãâà It manifested in the idea that transcendence or nirvikalpa-samaadhi was the experiential requirement for brahma-jÃÆ'ñana (knowledge of brahmÃÆ'âtman). This notion is directly adverse to Adi Shankara's written declarations about liberation: Upadesasahasri Shankara did not extol yogic nirvikalpa-samaadhi (non-conceptual absorption or transcendence). Rather, speaking from the understanding that the Self (Atman) is already nirvikalpa by nature, he firmly contrasts the true nature of the Self and the mind: As I have no restlessness (viksepa) I have hence no absorption (samadhi). Restlessness or absorption belong to the mind which is changeable. Ãâà A similar view is expressed in 13.17: Ãâà How can samadhi, non-samadhi or anything else which is to be done belong to me? For having meditated and known me, they realize that they have completed [all] that needed to be done. Ãâà and 14.35: Ãâà I have never seen non-samadhi, nor anything else [needing] to be purified, belonging to me who am changeless, the pure Brahman, free from evil. Ãâà Ãâà In 15.14 Sankara presents a critique of meditation as an essentially dualistically structured activity: Ãâà One [comes] to consist of that upon which one fixes one's mind, if one is different from [it]. But, there is no action in the Self through which to become the Self. [It] does not depend upon [anything else] for being the Self, since if [it] depended upon [anything else
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
This can easily be disproved by altering one's own consciousness. What you see in an altered state, either by drugs or other means, is not real yet not unreal, because they are presented to us. The perceptions and events in altered states are just a real as those encountered in the waking state, or in dreams. There is nothing in the waking state that you can't do in dreams. Dreams are real in the sense that they are presented to us, just like in the waking state or in a hallucination. According to the Gaudapadacharya, the founder of the Advaita Vedanta tradition, sense perceptions in the waking state, in dreams, and in altered states, are 'like a city of Gandharvas', an illusion'. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey no_reply@... wrote: Enlightened Person: Someone fascinated with the story of awakening that they're currently entertaining in their mind. Deluded Person: Someone fascinated with the story of delusion that they're currently entertaining in their mind. The non-dual spirituality scene: A mixture of people obsessed by the I'm awakened delusion teaching a mixture of people obsessed by the I'm ignorant delusion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Only 100% agave. Enlightened men, and women, are free to do as they please. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: Yep, I have always heard that enlightened men drink tequila From: doctordumbass@ doctordumbass@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:07 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...  I am not a big gin drinker (GT is the exception), so my martinis are usually vodka based. Tonight, however, the spirit of celebration comes from south of the border, the classic lemon-lime margarita, with Anejo 100% agave tequila. Cheers. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Personally, I think you project your own subjective images as a replacement for reality. Fact is, I already have a double martini before me now: Beefeater brand - pulled from the freezer (I was after all a Russian Orthodox monastic) pored extra-dry, with a ring of lemon rubbed around the rim and then deposited at the bottom. Even a bit of ice thrown in to maintain the Arctic temperature. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: you best read it all again Personally, I think he needs a drink. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:30 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... à Shankara did NOT say such a thing. In many places he discusses the benefits of yogic meditation. However, the benefits according to Shankara are purification of the heart rather than either union with brahman or freedom from bondage to prakriti. The purpose of the post was to examine the real but unstated differences between the recognition/practice found in Yoga and Vedanta rather than a polemic against TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: that means that meditation like what marshy taught was essentially a meaningless pursuit. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] What Maharishi did NOT say ... Ãâà Since the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya Vidyaranya), the Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until Yogic advaita has become the norm.Ãâà It manifested in the idea that transcendence or nirvikalpa-samaadhi was the experiential requirement for brahma-jÃÆ'ñana (knowledge of brahmÃÆ'âtman). This notion is directly adverse to Adi Shankara's written declarations about liberation: Upadesasahasri Shankara did not extol yogic nirvikalpa-samaadhi (non-conceptual absorption or transcendence). Rather, speaking from the understanding that the Self (Atman) is already nirvikalpa by nature, he firmly contrasts the true nature of the Self and the mind: As I have no restlessness (viksepa) I have hence no absorption (samadhi). Restlessness or absorption belong to the mind which is changeable. Ãâà A similar view is expressed in 13.17
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
azgrey, any third option possible?! From: azgrey no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 12:08 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... Enlightened Person: Someone fascinated with the story of awakening that they're currently entertaining in their mind. Deluded Person: Someone fascinated with the story of delusion that they're currently entertaining in their mind. The non-dual spirituality scene: A mixture of people obsessed by the I'm awakened delusion teaching a mixture of people obsessed by the I'm ignorant delusion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: Only 100% agave. Enlightened men, and women, are free to do as they please. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: Yep, I have always heard that enlightened men drink tequila From: doctordumbass@ doctordumbass@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:07 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...  I am not a big gin drinker (GT is the exception), so my martinis are usually vodka based. Tonight, however, the spirit of celebration comes from south of the border, the classic lemon-lime margarita, with Anejo 100% agave tequila. Cheers. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Personally, I think you project your own subjective images as a replacement for reality. Fact is, I already have a double martini before me now: Beefeater brand - pulled from the freezer (I was after all a Russian Orthodox monastic) pored extra-dry, with a ring of lemon rubbed around the rim and then deposited at the bottom. Even a bit of ice thrown in to maintain the Arctic temperature. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: you best read it all again Personally, I think he needs a drink. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:30 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... Â Shankara did NOT say such a thing. In many places he discusses the benefits of yogic meditation. However, the benefits according to Shankara are purification of the heart rather than either union with brahman or freedom from bondage to prakriti. The purpose of the post was to examine the real but unstated differences between the recognition/practice found in Yoga and Vedanta rather than a polemic against TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: that means that meditation like what marshy taught was essentially a meaningless pursuit. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] What Maharishi did NOT say ... ÂÂ Since the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya Vidyaranya), the Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until Yogic advaita has become the norm.ÂÂ It manifested in the idea that transcendence or nirvikalpa-samaadhi was the experiential requirement for brahma-jÃÆ'±ana (knowledge of brahmÃÆ'¢tman). This notion is directly adverse to Adi Shankara's written declarations about liberation: Upadesasahasri Shankara did not extol yogic nirvikalpa-samaadhi (non-conceptual absorption or transcendence). Rather, speaking from the understanding that the Self (Atman) is already nirvikalpa by nature, he firmly contrasts the true nature of the Self and the mind: As I have no restlessness (viksepa) I have hence no absorption (samadhi). Restlessness or absorption belong to the mind which is changeable. ÂÂ A similar view is expressed in 13.17: ÂÂ How can samadhi, non-samadhi or anything else which is to be done belong to me? For having meditated and known me, they realize that they have completed [all] that needed to be done. ÂÂ and 14.35: ÂÂ I have never seen non-samadhi, nor anything else [needing] to be purified, belonging to me who am changeless, the pure Brahman, free from evil. ÂÂ ÂÂ In 15.14 Sankara presents a critique of meditation as an essentially dualistically structured activity: ÂÂ One [comes] to consist of that upon which one
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
You'd think so, but an enlightened person doesn't have enough of a mind to become bound by stories, and deluded, like the ignorant person does. The conditioning of the mind, and how it works, is quite different from the way most are used to. The unseen habit of the mind constantly thinking, in its ignorant state, is too overwhelming for the ignorant mind to even comprehend what not thinking during everyday existence, is like. Anyway, it may look good logically, but there is no actual reality to the comparisons you have made. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey no_reply@... wrote: Enlightened Person: Someone fascinated with the story of awakening that they're currently entertaining in their mind. Deluded Person: Someone fascinated with the story of delusion that they're currently entertaining in their mind. The non-dual spirituality scene: A mixture of people obsessed by the I'm awakened delusion teaching a mixture of people obsessed by the I'm ignorant delusion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Only 100% agave. Enlightened men, and women, are free to do as they please. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: Yep, I have always heard that enlightened men drink tequila From: doctordumbass@ doctordumbass@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:07 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...  I am not a big gin drinker (GT is the exception), so my martinis are usually vodka based. Tonight, however, the spirit of celebration comes from south of the border, the classic lemon-lime margarita, with Anejo 100% agave tequila. Cheers. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Personally, I think you project your own subjective images as a replacement for reality. Fact is, I already have a double martini before me now: Beefeater brand - pulled from the freezer (I was after all a Russian Orthodox monastic) pored extra-dry, with a ring of lemon rubbed around the rim and then deposited at the bottom. Even a bit of ice thrown in to maintain the Arctic temperature. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: you best read it all again Personally, I think he needs a drink. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:30 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... à Shankara did NOT say such a thing. In many places he discusses the benefits of yogic meditation. However, the benefits according to Shankara are purification of the heart rather than either union with brahman or freedom from bondage to prakriti. The purpose of the post was to examine the real but unstated differences between the recognition/practice found in Yoga and Vedanta rather than a polemic against TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: that means that meditation like what marshy taught was essentially a meaningless pursuit. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] What Maharishi did NOT say ... Ãâà Since the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya Vidyaranya), the Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until Yogic advaita has become the norm.Ãâà It manifested in the idea that transcendence or nirvikalpa-samaadhi was the experiential requirement for brahma-jÃÆ'ñana (knowledge of brahmÃÆ'âtman). This notion is directly adverse to Adi Shankara's written declarations about liberation: Upadesasahasri Shankara did not extol yogic nirvikalpa-samaadhi (non-conceptual absorption or transcendence). Rather, speaking from the understanding that the Self (Atman) is already nirvikalpa by nature, he firmly contrasts the true nature of the Self and the mind: As I have no restlessness (viksepa) I have hence no absorption (samadhi). Restlessness or absorption belong to the mind which is changeable. Ãâà A similar view is expressed in 13.17: Ãâà How can samadhi, non-samadhi or anything else which is to be done belong to me? For having meditated and known me, they realize
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
From: emptybill emptybill@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] What Maharishi did NOT say ... Read it and weep. Just read it in the original Sanskrit, din't understand next to anything and laughed my ass off... LoL! ##US-P14.035ab ## asamAdhIM na pashyAmi nirvikArasya sarvadA | ##US-P14.035cd ## brahmaNo me vishuddhasya shodhyaM cAnyad vipApmanaH ||
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: that means that meditation like what marshy taught was essentially a meaningless pursuit. Yes, yes, MJ...you've got it now...the pursuit of meaninglessness. From: emptybill emptybill@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] What Maharishi did NOT say ...  Since the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya Vidyaranya), the Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until Yogic advaita has become the norm. It manifested in the idea that transcendence or nirvikalpa-samaadhi was the experiential requirement for brahma-jñana (knowledge of brahmâtman). This notion is directly adverse to Adi Shankara's written declarations about liberation: Upadesasahasri Shankara did not extol yogic nirvikalpa-samaadhi (non-conceptual absorption or transcendence). Rather, speaking from the understanding that the Self (Atman) is already nirvikalpa by nature, he firmly contrasts the true nature of the Self and the mind: As I have no restlessness (viksepa) I have hence no absorption (samadhi). Restlessness or absorption belong to the mind which is changeable.  A similar view is expressed in 13.17:  How can samadhi, non-samadhi or anything else which is to be done belong to me? For having meditated and known me, they realize that they have completed [all] that needed to be done.  and 14.35:  I have never seen non-samadhi, nor anything else [needing] to be purified, belonging to me who am changeless, the pure Brahman, free from evil.   In 15.14 Sankara presents a critique of meditation as an essentially dualistically structured activity:  One [comes] to consist of that upon which one fixes one's mind, if one is different from [it]. But, there is no action in the Self through which to become the Self. [It] does not depend upon [anything else] for being the Self, since if [it] depended upon [anything else], it would not be the Self.   Furthermore, in 16.39-40, Sankara implicitly criticizes the Sankhya-Yoga view that liberation is dissociation from the association of purusa and prakrti, when he says: It is not at all reasonable that liberation is either a connection [with Brahman] or a dissociation [from prakrti]. For an association is non-eternal and the same is true for dissociation also. One's own nature is never lost. As is evident in his writings, Sankara implicitly rejects both the emancipation of yoga, namely, that liberation has to be accomplished through the real dissociation of the purusa from prakrti, and the yogic pursuit towards that end, -  that is, the achievement of nirvikalpa or asamprajata-samadhi (transcendence). Read it and weep.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
I'm glad you still believe in pie in the sky. From: emptybill emptyb...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:06 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... Sorry but you have only jumped to your own prepared conclusion. Shankara wrote refutations of yoga as a vedic ultimate but accepted it as a provisional practice to assist someone searching for ultimate knowledge/practice. You have a fight with the TMO. Thus everything you say is negative about TM. The reality is more complex than your everything TM is wrong agenda. It is quite boring to the folks here 'cause we have heard it all before by people able to present more articulate and thoughtful arguments than you present here. You appear to want to spin Shankara's commentary until he seems to dance with Michael J. Dance if you wish. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: you best read it all again From: emptybill emptybill@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:30 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...  Shankara did NOT say such a thing. In many places he discusses the benefits of yogic meditation. However, the benefits according to Shankara are purification of the heart rather than either union with brahman or freedom from bondage to prakriti. The purpose of the post was to examine the real but unstated differences between the recognition/practice found in Yoga and Vedanta rather than a polemic against TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: that means that meditation like what marshy taught was essentially a meaningless pursuit. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] What Maharishi did NOT say ...  Since the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya Vidyaranya), the Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until Yogic advaita has become the norm. It manifested in the idea that transcendence or nirvikalpa-samaadhi was the experiential requirement for brahma-jñana (knowledge of brahmâtman). This notion is directly adverse to Adi Shankara's written declarations about liberation: Upadesasahasri Shankara did not extol yogic nirvikalpa-samaadhi (non-conceptual absorption or transcendence). Rather, speaking from the understanding that the Self (Atman) is already nirvikalpa by nature, he firmly contrasts the true nature of the Self and the mind: As I have no restlessness (viksepa) I have hence no absorption (samadhi). Restlessness or absorption belong to the mind which is changeable.  A similar view is expressed in 13.17:  How can samadhi, non-samadhi or anything else which is to be done belong to me? For having meditated and known me, they realize that they have completed [all] that needed to be done.  and 14.35:  I have never seen non-samadhi, nor anything else [needing] to be purified, belonging to me who am changeless, the pure Brahman, free from evil.   In 15.14 Sankara presents a critique of meditation as an essentially dualistically structured activity:  One [comes] to consist of that upon which one fixes one's mind, if one is different from [it]. But, there is no action in the Self through which to become the Self. [It] does not depend upon [anything else] for being the Self, since if [it] depended upon [anything else], it would not be the Self.   Furthermore, in 16.39-40, Sankara implicitly criticizes the Sankhya-Yoga view that liberation is dissociation from the association of purusa and prakrti, when he says: It is not at all reasonable that liberation is either a connection [with Brahman] or a dissociation [from prakrti]. For an association is non-eternal and the same is true for dissociation also. One's own nature is never lost. As is evident in his writings, Sankara implicitly rejects both the emancipation of yoga, namely, that liberation has to be accomplished through the real dissociation of the purusa from prakrti, and the yogic pursuit towards that end, -  that is, the achievement of nirvikalpa or asamprajata-samadhi (transcendence). Read it and weep.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
If you are THAT then searching for THAT is a waste of time, its spiritual jerking off. From: emptybill emptyb...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:06 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... Sorry but you have only jumped to your own prepared conclusion. Shankara wrote refutations of yoga as a vedic ultimate but accepted it as a provisional practice to assist someone searching for ultimate knowledge/practice. You have a fight with the TMO. Thus everything you say is negative about TM. The reality is more complex than your everything TM is wrong agenda. It is quite boring to the folks here 'cause we have heard it all before by people able to present more articulate and thoughtful arguments than you present here. You appear to want to spin Shankara's commentary until he seems to dance with Michael J. Dance if you wish. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: you best read it all again From: emptybill emptybill@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:30 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...  Shankara did NOT say such a thing. In many places he discusses the benefits of yogic meditation. However, the benefits according to Shankara are purification of the heart rather than either union with brahman or freedom from bondage to prakriti. The purpose of the post was to examine the real but unstated differences between the recognition/practice found in Yoga and Vedanta rather than a polemic against TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: that means that meditation like what marshy taught was essentially a meaningless pursuit. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] What Maharishi did NOT say ...  Since the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya Vidyaranya), the Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until Yogic advaita has become the norm. It manifested in the idea that transcendence or nirvikalpa-samaadhi was the experiential requirement for brahma-jñana (knowledge of brahmâtman). This notion is directly adverse to Adi Shankara's written declarations about liberation: Upadesasahasri Shankara did not extol yogic nirvikalpa-samaadhi (non-conceptual absorption or transcendence). Rather, speaking from the understanding that the Self (Atman) is already nirvikalpa by nature, he firmly contrasts the true nature of the Self and the mind: As I have no restlessness (viksepa) I have hence no absorption (samadhi). Restlessness or absorption belong to the mind which is changeable.  A similar view is expressed in 13.17:  How can samadhi, non-samadhi or anything else which is to be done belong to me? For having meditated and known me, they realize that they have completed [all] that needed to be done.  and 14.35:  I have never seen non-samadhi, nor anything else [needing] to be purified, belonging to me who am changeless, the pure Brahman, free from evil.   In 15.14 Sankara presents a critique of meditation as an essentially dualistically structured activity:  One [comes] to consist of that upon which one fixes one's mind, if one is different from [it]. But, there is no action in the Self through which to become the Self. [It] does not depend upon [anything else] for being the Self, since if [it] depended upon [anything else], it would not be the Self.   Furthermore, in 16.39-40, Sankara implicitly criticizes the Sankhya-Yoga view that liberation is dissociation from the association of purusa and prakrti, when he says: It is not at all reasonable that liberation is either a connection [with Brahman] or a dissociation [from prakrti]. For an association is non-eternal and the same is true for dissociation also. One's own nature is never lost. As is evident in his writings, Sankara implicitly rejects both the emancipation of yoga, namely, that liberation has to be accomplished through the real dissociation of the purusa from prakrti, and the yogic pursuit towards that end, -  that is, the achievement of nirvikalpa or asamprajata-samadhi (transcendence). Read it and weep.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
You have a fight with the TMO. Thus everything you say is negative about TM. The reality is more complex than your everything TM is wrong agenda. It is quite boring to the folks here 'cause we have heard it all before by people able to present more articulate and thoughtful arguments than you present here. I have no fight with the TMO - I merely see things clearly where I didn't before, thanks in great degree to my participation here on FFL. And not only as many will assume from the posts of Barry, Curtis, Edg, and Sal, but even more from the posts of folks like you, Nabby, feste, dr d, and seventh ray. To see the degree to which these folks can believe in the nonsense promoted by Marshy and the TM Movement helped me to see the Light! Whee! It also made me realize the real problem with TM champions is they all have something wrong with their olfactory sense - they don't believe that shit stinks. I mean TM is supposed to make you stronger on every level, yet in practice it often leads to people becoming weaker and weaker. One of the things I love about not doing TM anymore is that I no longer get tired in the afternoon. During the years I did TM everyday, I ALWAYS got tired in the afternoon, especially if I was not able to do program in the afternoon. No TM, no afternoon fatigue. When I see people doing TM for years and believing they have to go through south facing entrances, have to have yagyas, can't go outside during a solar eclipse - I mean man! If TM leads one to be that gullible, no thanks. From: emptybill emptyb...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:06 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... Sorry but you have only jumped to your own prepared conclusion. Shankara wrote refutations of yoga as a vedic ultimate but accepted it as a provisional practice to assist someone searching for ultimate knowledge/practice. You have a fight with the TMO. Thus everything you say is negative about TM. The reality is more complex than your everything TM is wrong agenda. It is quite boring to the folks here 'cause we have heard it all before by people able to present more articulate and thoughtful arguments than you present here. You appear to want to spin Shankara's commentary until he seems to dance with Michael J. Dance if you wish. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: you best read it all again From: emptybill emptybill@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:30 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...  Shankara did NOT say such a thing. In many places he discusses the benefits of yogic meditation. However, the benefits according to Shankara are purification of the heart rather than either union with brahman or freedom from bondage to prakriti. The purpose of the post was to examine the real but unstated differences between the recognition/practice found in Yoga and Vedanta rather than a polemic against TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: that means that meditation like what marshy taught was essentially a meaningless pursuit. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] What Maharishi did NOT say ...  Since the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya Vidyaranya), the Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until Yogic advaita has become the norm. It manifested in the idea that transcendence or nirvikalpa-samaadhi was the experiential requirement for brahma-jñana (knowledge of brahmâtman). This notion is directly adverse to Adi Shankara's written declarations about liberation: Upadesasahasri Shankara did not extol yogic nirvikalpa-samaadhi (non-conceptual absorption or transcendence). Rather, speaking from the understanding that the Self (Atman) is already nirvikalpa by nature, he firmly contrasts the true nature of the Self and the mind: As I have no restlessness (viksepa) I have hence no absorption (samadhi). Restlessness or absorption belong to the mind which is changeable.  A similar view is expressed in 13.17:  How can samadhi, non-samadhi or anything else which is to be done belong to me? For having meditated and known me, they realize that they have completed [all] that needed to be done.  and 14.35:  I have never seen non-samadhi, nor anything else [needing] to be purified, belonging to me who am changeless, the pure Brahman, free from evil.   In 15.14 Sankara presents a critique of meditation as an essentially dualistically structured activity:  One [comes] to consist of that upon which one fixes one's mind, if one is different from
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
You have a fight with the TMO. Thus everything you say is negative about TM... mjackson74: I have no fight with the TMO... There is no 'TMO' - if there were, the movement would be managed like a business. What you're calling the TMO is just a school in Iowa. In reality, MMY's movement is worldwide. What you experienced as a baker non-student was just a pot and pan and some kitchen small talk. You never even met the MMY or took a single course. You're just the kitchen informant, that's it. Why should we believe you any more than we believe Barry, who claimed he once saw a guy levitate? Barry was a one time 'door-boy' for MMY himself. The truth is, you know next to nothing about the comings-and-goings of MMY, any more than we do. I can't even find anyone that knows you from the MUM school. Go figure. You don't have any news and you're off the program, so who cares what you think? Quit wasting our time - you don't even know anything about yoga. LoL!
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: You have a fight with the TMO. Thus everything you say is negative about TM. The reality is more complex than your everything TM is wrong agenda. It is quite boring to the folks here 'cause we have heard it all before by people able to present more articulate and thoughtful arguments than you present here. I have no fight with the TMO - I merely see things clearly where I didn't before, thanks in great degree to my participation here on FFL. And not only as many will assume from the posts of Barry, Curtis, Edg, and Sal, but even more from the posts of folks like you, Nabby, feste, dr d, and seventh ray. To see the degree to which these folks can believe in the nonsense promoted by Marshy and the TM Movement helped me to see the Light! Whee! It also made me realize the real problem with TM champions is they all have something wrong with their olfactory sense - they don't believe that shit stinks. I mean TM is supposed to make you stronger on every level, yet in practice it often leads to people becoming weaker and weaker. One of the things I love about not doing TM anymore is that I no longer get tired in the afternoon. During the years I did TM everyday, I ALWAYS got tired in the afternoon, especially if I was not able to do program in the afternoon. No TM, no afternoon fatigue. When I see people doing TM for years and believing they have to go through south facing entrances, have to have yagyas, can't go outside during a solar eclipse - I mean man! If TM leads one to be that gullible, no thanks. Actually, I think that people that fall for all of the hooplah - Vedic honey, south facing entrances, Rajas, allowing others to dictate their movements and activities - these people didn't become gullible because of TM they were already excellent candidates to fall for everything - hook, line and sinker. There are many people who NEED these things to believe in, to be told what is what, to have their lives structured by others or by a system. These are human beings who yearn for the security this kind of heavy structure brings to their lives. No real decisions need to be made about anything. The kind of house they should live in, what they should eat, who they should study, what they should be doing twice a day at exactly the same time - these are all laid out for them. Certain types of people seek this, they like it. I don't think that true independent thinkers would settle for such structure, but maybe I'm wrong. I know when, at MIU, I was faced with various degrees of this kind of hard structure I'd find myself drinking a few beers in town, most nights going to my boyfriend's pod for some great sex or refusing to stop my art halfway through class every day to have a 10 minute meditation break as dictated by the professor (I figured twice a day was enough). I was incorrigible. Probably always have been and most likely always will be. From: emptybill emptybill@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:06 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... Â Sorry but you have only jumped to your own prepared conclusion. Shankara wrote refutations of yoga as a vedic ultimate but accepted it as a provisional practice to assist someone searching for ultimate knowledge/practice. You have a fight with the TMO. Thus everything you say is negative about TM. The reality is more complex than your everything TM is wrong agenda. It is quite boring to the folks here 'cause we have heard it all before by people able to present more articulate and thoughtful arguments than you present here. You appear to want to spin Shankara's commentary until he seems to dance with Michael J. Dance if you wish. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: you best read it all again From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:30 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... Ã Shankara did NOT say such a thing. In many places he discusses the benefits of yogic meditation. However, the benefits according to Shankara are purification of the heart rather than either union with brahman or freedom from bondage to prakriti. The purpose of the post was to examine the real but unstated differences between the recognition/practice found in Yoga and Vedanta rather than a polemic against TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: that means that meditation like what marshy taught was essentially a meaningless pursuit. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:45 PM Subject
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
emptybill: Shankara wrote refutations of yoga as a vedic ultimate but accepted it as a provisional practice to assist someone searching for ultimate knowledge/practice... So, let's sum up what we know: It has already been established that the 'TM' practice derives from the teachings of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. Brahmanand was a Dasanami Swami whose headquarters was at Sringeri. All the Saraswati Swamis are tantrics who worship the Tripuransundari and belong to the Sri Vidya sect. The worship of Shri Vidya has been popular in India from very ancient times. Swami Gaudapada, the teacher of Shankaracharaya, was a worshiper of Sri Vidya. Following his initiation, Shankara wrote a lucid ode to Shri Vidya, the Sound Ariya Lahari, a translation of which is now available in English. The TM bija mantras are enumerated in the main scripture of Sri Vidya, the Sounda, which according to tradition, was composed by the Adi Shankara. Many disciples of Shankaracharya were worshipers of Sri Vidya, such as Sureshvara, Padmapada, Vidyaranya and the brother of Chaitanya, Nityanand. Abhinavagupta, and our own Swami Brahmananda Saraswati were both Sri Vidya tantrics. The TM bija mantras are derived from the tantric Sri Vidya tradition of Karnataka and are enumerated in the Sound Arya Lahari. There is a shrine to Shankara at the Sri Vidya temple down in Kanchipuram peeth, wherein lies the Sri Yantra. Swami Rama has recounted in his book, 'Living With the Himalayan Masters', a direct, first hand account of Guru Dev having a Sri Yantra in his possession. All we as TMers need to know is that all the Saraswati gurus follow the Sri Vidya tradition.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
even your supporters here in FFL all seem to think you are unhinged From: Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 9:50 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... emptybill: Shankara wrote refutations of yoga as a vedic ultimate but accepted it as a provisional practice to assist someone searching for ultimate knowledge/practice... So, let's sum up what we know: It has already been established that the 'TM' practice derives from the teachings of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. Brahmanand was a Dasanami Swami whose headquarters was at Sringeri. All the Saraswati Swamis are tantrics who worship the Tripuransundari and belong to the Sri Vidya sect. The worship of Shri Vidya has been popular in India from very ancient times. Swami Gaudapada, the teacher of Shankaracharaya, was a worshiper of Sri Vidya. Following his initiation, Shankara wrote a lucid ode to Shri Vidya, the Sound Ariya Lahari, a translation of which is now available in English. The TM bija mantras are enumerated in the main scripture of Sri Vidya, the Sounda, which according to tradition, was composed by the Adi Shankara. Many disciples of Shankaracharya were worshipers of Sri Vidya, such as Sureshvara, Padmapada, Vidyaranya and the brother of Chaitanya, Nityanand. Abhinavagupta, and our own Swami Brahmananda Saraswati were both Sri Vidya tantrics. The TM bija mantras are derived from the tantric Sri Vidya tradition of Karnataka and are enumerated in the Sound Arya Lahari. There is a shrine to Shankara at the Sri Vidya temple down in Kanchipuram peeth, wherein lies the Sri Yantra. Swami Rama has recounted in his book, 'Living With the Himalayan Masters', a direct, first hand account of Guru Dev having a Sri Yantra in his possession. All we as TMers need to know is that all the Saraswati gurus follow the Sri Vidya tradition.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
You misunderstand my point of view, which is that if you believe the unbelievable over the top hype with which TM is advertised by the Movement, TM SHOULD make one better on all levels including one's intelligence (after all its supposed to make us better students, better workers, better everything) so one could assume TM practice would enable one's intelligence and discernment to improve to the point where one would not be taken in by such blatant nonsense. Evidently it does not, ergo, TM results are far less than advertised. From: Ann awoelfleba...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 9:41 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: You have a fight with the TMO. Thus everything you say is negative about TM. The reality is more complex than your everything TM is wrong agenda. It is quite boring to the folks here 'cause we have heard it all before by people able to present more articulate and thoughtful arguments than you present here. I have no fight with the TMO - I merely see things clearly where I didn't before, thanks in great degree to my participation here on FFL. And not only as many will assume from the posts of Barry, Curtis, Edg, and Sal, but even more from the posts of folks like you, Nabby, feste, dr d, and seventh ray. To see the degree to which these folks can believe in the nonsense promoted by Marshy and the TM Movement helped me to see the Light! Whee! It also made me realize the real problem with TM champions is they all have something wrong with their olfactory sense - they don't believe that shit stinks. I mean TM is supposed to make you stronger on every level, yet in practice it often leads to people becoming weaker and weaker. One of the things I love about not doing TM anymore is that I no longer get tired in the afternoon. During the years I did TM everyday, I ALWAYS got tired in the afternoon, especially if I was not able to do program in the afternoon. No TM, no afternoon fatigue. When I see people doing TM for years and believing they have to go through south facing entrances, have to have yagyas, can't go outside during a solar eclipse - I mean man! If TM leads one to be that gullible, no thanks. Actually, I think that people that fall for all of the hooplah - Vedic honey, south facing entrances, Rajas, allowing others to dictate their movements and activities - these people didn't become gullible because of TM they were already excellent candidates to fall for everything - hook, line and sinker. There are many people who NEED these things to believe in, to be told what is what, to have their lives structured by others or by a system. These are human beings who yearn for the security this kind of heavy structure brings to their lives. No real decisions need to be made about anything. The kind of house they should live in, what they should eat, who they should study, what they should be doing twice a day at exactly the same time - these are all laid out for them. Certain types of people seek this, they like it. I don't think that true independent thinkers would settle for such structure, but maybe I'm wrong. I know when, at MIU, I was faced with various degrees of this kind of hard structure I'd find myself drinking a few beers in town, most nights going to my boyfriend's pod for some great sex or refusing to stop my art halfway through class every day to have a 10 minute meditation break as dictated by the professor (I figured twice a day was enough). I was incorrigible. Probably always have been and most likely always will be. From: emptybill emptybill@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:06 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...  Sorry but you have only jumped to your own prepared conclusion. Shankara wrote refutations of yoga as a vedic ultimate but accepted it as a provisional practice to assist someone searching for ultimate knowledge/practice. You have a fight with the TMO. Thus everything you say is negative about TM. The reality is more complex than your everything TM is wrong agenda. It is quite boring to the folks here 'cause we have heard it all before by people able to present more articulate and thoughtful arguments than you present here. You appear to want to spin Shankara's commentary until he seems to dance with Michael J. Dance if you wish. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: you best read it all again From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:30 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... Â Shankara did
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
emptybill: This is a perfect example of the uselessness of presenting ideas to the self-stupified So, Bill, why did the Saraswati Sannyasins adopt the Shakta tradition - why won't you address the question? Excerpt from 'Auspicious Wisdom': Like the other Sankara texts, it is possible that SL was composed either in the Sankara matha of Srinigeri or Kanchipuram. The attribution of these four works to Sankara solidifies connections between smarta brahmans, who identify with one of the southern Sankara pithas, and Sakta and Srividya traditionalists. Srividya appears to have undergone something of a reformation in the south in the period of the composition of these texts. Between the ninth and twelfth centuries, southerners distance themselves from Kashmiri Kaulism in order to distinguish Srividya from morally suspect Tantrism. Sakta non-dualism is broadly construed to be compatible with Sankara's Advaita Vedanta, though points of difference are rarely articulated and no serious effort is made to address them. Work cited: Auspicious Wisdom by Douglas Renfrew Brooks State University of New York Press, 1992 (page 47-48) Since the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya Vidyaranya), the Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until Yogic advaita has become the norm... For most TMers it's enough to know that the Shankaracharya Sanyasins have taken up the Sri Vidya tradtition and they all worship the Sri Yantra of Tripurasundari. The Adwaita that was extolled by the Adi is just pseudo-Buddhism, for the Brahamin caste in the eighth century. We don't know why the Shankaracharyas adopted the Sri Vidya, but we do know it came from Kashmere Tantrism. So, far from being degraded, they discovered tantric monism, which is far superior than believing the world is an illusion, not real - pure Buddhism. Kashmere Saivism is based on the Siva Sutra, the purpose of which is to preserve for man the principles of Monism in the literature called the Tantras. According to Theos Bernard, when studied in detail, Kasmere Saivism provides the most complete analysis of Nature yet devised by any system of Indian philosophy. However, human logic can never construct an unassailable Monism; final proof can be had only by the experience of Samadhi, attained through mantra meditation. That's why all the Sri Vidya adherents meditate on the bija of Saraswati at least twice a day. Kashmere Saivism accepts the fundamental premise that pure consciousness is the substance of the universe. However, it differs from the Samkhya and Vedanta systems in its interpretation of the three basic problems: 1) What is the nature of the ultimate reality; 2) What is the cause of its first movement; and 3) What is the nature of its manifest form? From 'Centering', a translation by Paul Reps and Swami Laksmanjoo in Zen Flesh, Zen Bones: Intone a sound audibly, then less and less audible as feeling deepens into this silent harmony. 'Vijñânabhairava Tantra' http://tinyurl.com/ykjog56 You can view a photo of Marshy and Laksmanjoo here: http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/images/lakman01.jpg Works cited: 'Foundations of Hindu Philosophy' by Theos Bernard, Ph.D. Author of 'Heaven Lies Within Us', 'Penthouse of the Gods', 'Hatha Yoga', etc., etc. Philosophical Library, 1947 pp. 129-130 Self-rea;ozation in Kashmere Shaivism The oral teachings of Swami Laksmanjoo. By John Hughes Foreward by John Hughes SUNY Press, 1994
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
duh! Not ALL of us, MJ, king of lumping together! Richard, I think you're often intentionally funny and I enjoy the knowledge you post and I don't think you're any more unhinged than any of the rest of us. So there and go figure! From: Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:55 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... even your supporters here in FFL all seem to think you are unhinged From: Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 9:50 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... emptybill: Shankara wrote refutations of yoga as a vedic ultimate but accepted it as a provisional practice to assist someone searching for ultimate knowledge/practice... So, let's sum up what we know: It has already been established that the 'TM' practice derives from the teachings of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. Brahmanand was a Dasanami Swami whose headquarters was at Sringeri. All the Saraswati Swamis are tantrics who worship the Tripuransundari and belong to the Sri Vidya sect. The worship of Shri Vidya has been popular in India from very ancient times. Swami Gaudapada, the teacher of Shankaracharaya, was a worshiper of Sri Vidya. Following his initiation, Shankara wrote a lucid ode to Shri Vidya, the Sound Ariya Lahari, a translation of which is now available in English. The TM bija mantras are enumerated in the main scripture of Sri Vidya, the Sounda, which according to tradition, was composed by the Adi Shankara. Many disciples of Shankaracharya were worshipers of Sri Vidya, such as Sureshvara, Padmapada, Vidyaranya and the brother of Chaitanya, Nityanand. Abhinavagupta, and our own Swami Brahmananda Saraswati were both Sri Vidya tantrics. The TM bija mantras are derived from the tantric Sri Vidya tradition of Karnataka and are enumerated in the Sound Arya Lahari. There is a shrine to Shankara at the Sri Vidya temple down in Kanchipuram peeth, wherein lies the Sri Yantra. Swami Rama has recounted in his book, 'Living With the Himalayan Masters', a direct, first hand account of Guru Dev having a Sri Yantra in his possession. All we as TMers need to know is that all the Saraswati gurus follow the Sri Vidya tradition.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams richard@... wrote: emptybill: Shankara wrote refutations of yoga as a vedic ultimate but accepted it as a provisional practice to assist someone searching for ultimate knowledge/practice... So, let's sum up what we know: It has already been established that the 'TM' practice derives from the teachings of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. Brahmanand was a Dasanami Swami whose headquarters was at Sringeri. All the Saraswati Swamis are tantrics who worship the Tripuransundari and belong to the Sri Vidya sect. The worship of Shri Vidya has been popular in India from very ancient times. Swami Gaudapada, the teacher of Shankaracharaya, was a worshiper of Sri Vidya. Following his initiation, Shankara wrote a lucid ode to Shri Vidya, the Sound Ariya Lahari, a translation of which is now available in English. The TM bija mantras are enumerated in the main scripture of Sri Vidya, the Sounda, which according to tradition, was composed by the Adi Shankara. Many disciples of Shankaracharya were worshipers of Sri Vidya, such as Sureshvara, Padmapada, Vidyaranya and the brother of Chaitanya, Nityanand. Abhinavagupta, and our own Swami Brahmananda Saraswati were both Sri Vidya tantrics. The TM bija mantras are derived from the tantric Sri Vidya tradition of Karnataka and are enumerated in the Sound Arya Lahari. There is a shrine to Shankara at the Sri Vidya temple down in Kanchipuram peeth, wherein lies the Sri Yantra. Is that the same as the Guru Dev had, could there be several Sri Yantra's and have you visited Kanchipuram Peeth ? Swami Rama has recounted in his book, 'Living With the Himalayan Masters', a direct, first hand account of Guru Dev having a Sri Yantra in his possession. All we as TMers need to know is that all the Saraswati gurus follow the Sri Vidya tradition.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
Read it and weep. card: Just read it in the original Sanskrit, din't understand next to anything and laughed my ass off... LoL! You can imagine Bill's confusion reading an English translation of the Ananda Lahari. LoL! http://www.kanchiforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1819 Subhash Kak argues that this is the Sri Yantra is described in the Svetasvatara Upanishad. Go figure. http://ikashmir.net/subhashkak/docs/SriChakra.pdf
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
Yes, agreed. And in that spirit, I enjoy the things Maharishi raised awareness about - Not that I will EVER take seriously the warning about entrances, but, at the same time, I appreciate becoming more sensitive to the world around me, the cardinal points, what a yagya is, etc. I like to think about the many things he brought up, not necessarily adopting them as personal law, nor rejecting them automatically, as empty. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: You have a fight with the TMO. Thus everything you say is negative about TM. The reality is more complex than your everything TM is wrong agenda. It is quite boring to the folks here 'cause we have heard it all before by people able to present more articulate and thoughtful arguments than you present here. I have no fight with the TMO - I merely see things clearly where I didn't before, thanks in great degree to my participation here on FFL. And not only as many will assume from the posts of Barry, Curtis, Edg, and Sal, but even more from the posts of folks like you, Nabby, feste, dr d, and seventh ray. To see the degree to which these folks can believe in the nonsense promoted by Marshy and the TM Movement helped me to see the Light! Whee! It also made me realize the real problem with TM champions is they all have something wrong with their olfactory sense - they don't believe that shit stinks. I mean TM is supposed to make you stronger on every level, yet in practice it often leads to people becoming weaker and weaker. One of the things I love about not doing TM anymore is that I no longer get tired in the afternoon. During the years I did TM everyday, I ALWAYS got tired in the afternoon, especially if I was not able to do program in the afternoon. No TM, no afternoon fatigue. When I see people doing TM for years and believing they have to go through south facing entrances, have to have yagyas, can't go outside during a solar eclipse - I mean man! If TM leads one to be that gullible, no thanks. Actually, I think that people that fall for all of the hooplah - Vedic honey, south facing entrances, Rajas, allowing others to dictate their movements and activities - these people didn't become gullible because of TM they were already excellent candidates to fall for everything - hook, line and sinker. There are many people who NEED these things to believe in, to be told what is what, to have their lives structured by others or by a system. These are human beings who yearn for the security this kind of heavy structure brings to their lives. No real decisions need to be made about anything. The kind of house they should live in, what they should eat, who they should study, what they should be doing twice a day at exactly the same time - these are all laid out for them. Certain types of people seek this, they like it. I don't think that true independent thinkers would settle for such structure, but maybe I'm wrong. I know when, at MIU, I was faced with various degrees of this kind of hard structure I'd find myself drinking a few beers in town, most nights going to my boyfriend's pod for some great sex or refusing to stop my art halfway through class every day to have a 10 minute meditation break as dictated by the professor (I figured twice a day was enough). I was incorrigible. Probably always have been and most likely always will be. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:06 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... Â Sorry but you have only jumped to your own prepared conclusion. Shankara wrote refutations of yoga as a vedic ultimate but accepted it as a provisional practice to assist someone searching for ultimate knowledge/practice. You have a fight with the TMO. Thus everything you say is negative about TM. The reality is more complex than your everything TM is wrong agenda. It is quite boring to the folks here 'cause we have heard it all before by people able to present more articulate and thoughtful arguments than you present here. You appear to want to spin Shankara's commentary until he seems to dance with Michael J. Dance if you wish. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: you best read it all again From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:30 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... Ã Shankara did NOT say such a thing. In many places he discusses the benefits of yogic meditation. However, the benefits according to Shankara are purification
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
Doc, I love it when you write like this. I also very much appreciated it when you wrote that few if any organizations are democratic and that the leaders of the TMO are also trying to uphold a legacy. I appreciate your expressing both sides of the issue. Plus I loved what you wrote about the smells of India. I've only experienced the cinematic India and that of course lacked stimulation for the olfactory sense. But movies definitely have been able to convey the chaotic richness of that amazing country. Finally thanks for clarifying about Snowden and the different kinds of security clearances there are. Happy Day Before Your Birthday! From: doctordumb...@rocketmail.com doctordumb...@rocketmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 11:57 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... Yes, agreed. And in that spirit, I enjoy the things Maharishi raised awareness about - Not that I will EVER take seriously the warning about entrances, but, at the same time, I appreciate becoming more sensitive to the world around me, the cardinal points, what a yagya is, etc. I like to think about the many things he brought up, not necessarily adopting them as personal law, nor rejecting them automatically, as empty. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: You have a fight with the TMO. Thus everything you say is negative about TM. The reality is more complex than your everything TM is wrong agenda. It is quite boring to the folks here 'cause we have heard it all before by people able to present more articulate and thoughtful arguments than you present here. I have no fight with the TMO - I merely see things clearly where I didn't before, thanks in great degree to my participation here on FFL. And not only as many will assume from the posts of Barry, Curtis, Edg, and Sal, but even more from the posts of folks like you, Nabby, feste, dr d, and seventh ray. To see the degree to which these folks can believe in the nonsense promoted by Marshy and the TM Movement helped me to see the Light! Whee! It also made me realize the real problem with TM champions is they all have something wrong with their olfactory sense - they don't believe that shit stinks. I mean TM is supposed to make you stronger on every level, yet in practice it often leads to people becoming weaker and weaker. One of the things I love about not doing TM anymore is that I no longer get tired in the afternoon. During the years I did TM everyday, I ALWAYS got tired in the afternoon, especially if I was not able to do program in the afternoon. No TM, no afternoon fatigue. When I see people doing TM for years and believing they have to go through south facing entrances, have to have yagyas, can't go outside during a solar eclipse - I mean man! If TM leads one to be that gullible, no thanks. Actually, I think that people that fall for all of the hooplah - Vedic honey, south facing entrances, Rajas, allowing others to dictate their movements and activities - these people didn't become gullible because of TM they were already excellent candidates to fall for everything - hook, line and sinker. There are many people who NEED these things to believe in, to be told what is what, to have their lives structured by others or by a system. These are human beings who yearn for the security this kind of heavy structure brings to their lives. No real decisions need to be made about anything. The kind of house they should live in, what they should eat, who they should study, what they should be doing twice a day at exactly the same time - these are all laid out for them. Certain types of people seek this, they like it. I don't think that true independent thinkers would settle for such structure, but maybe I'm wrong. I know when, at MIU, I was faced with various degrees of this kind of hard structure I'd find myself drinking a few beers in town, most nights going to my boyfriend's pod for some great sex or refusing to stop my art halfway through class every day to have a 10 minute meditation break as dictated by the professor (I figured twice a day was enough). I was incorrigible. Probably always have been and most likely always will be. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:06 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... Â Sorry but you have only jumped to your own prepared conclusion. Shankara wrote refutations of yoga as a vedic ultimate but accepted it as a provisional practice to assist someone searching for ultimate knowledge/practice. You have a fight with the TMO. Thus everything you say
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
One analogy Maharishi used, that I always enjoyed was the swan who was able to separate the milk from the water in drawing nourishment from a plant. This analogy was used in explaining how the faculty of discrimination grows in separating the real from the unreal as one grows in higher consciousness. I mention it only in that MJ appears to have no ability to make any kind of discrimination between anything to to with TM or M's teaching . It is all a bunch of hooey in his opinion. Here's a link about whether or not a swan really can separate milk from water. Evidently the jury is still out. But I think the analogy still holds. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_swan_able_to_separate_water_from_milk_and_d\ rink_only_milk http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_swan_able_to_separate_water_from_milk_and_\ drink_only_milk --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: Yes, agreed. And in that spirit, I enjoy the things Maharishi raised awareness about - Not that I will EVER take seriously the warning about entrances, but, at the same time, I appreciate becoming more sensitive to the world around me, the cardinal points, what a yagya is, etc. I like to think about the many things he brought up, not necessarily adopting them as personal law, nor rejecting them automatically, as empty. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: You have a fight with the TMO. Thus everything you say is negative about TM. The reality is more complex than your everything TM is wrong agenda. It is quite boring to the folks here 'cause we have heard it all before by people able to present more articulate and thoughtful arguments than you present here. I have no fight with the TMO - I merely see things clearly where I didn't before, thanks in great degree to my participation here on FFL. And not only as many will assume from the posts of Barry, Curtis, Edg, and Sal, but even more from the posts of folks like you, Nabby, feste, dr d, and seventh ray. To see the degree to which these folks can believe in the nonsense promoted by Marshy and the TM Movement helped me to see the Light! Whee! It also made me realize the real problem with TM champions is they all have something wrong with their olfactory sense - they don't believe that shit stinks. I mean TM is supposed to make you stronger on every level, yet in practice it often leads to people becoming weaker and weaker. One of the things I love about not doing TM anymore is that I no longer get tired in the afternoon. During the years I did TM everyday, I ALWAYS got tired in the afternoon, especially if I was not able to do program in the afternoon. No TM, no afternoon fatigue. When I see people doing TM for years and believing they have to go through south facing entrances, have to have yagyas, can't go outside during a solar eclipse - I mean man! If TM leads one to be that gullible, no thanks. Actually, I think that people that fall for all of the hooplah - Vedic honey, south facing entrances, Rajas, allowing others to dictate their movements and activities - these people didn't become gullible because of TM they were already excellent candidates to fall for everything - hook, line and sinker. There are many people who NEED these things to believe in, to be told what is what, to have their lives structured by others or by a system. These are human beings who yearn for the security this kind of heavy structure brings to their lives. No real decisions need to be made about anything. The kind of house they should live in, what they should eat, who they should study, what they should be doing twice a day at exactly the same time - these are all laid out for them. Certain types of people seek this, they like it. I don't think that true independent thinkers would settle for such structure, but maybe I'm wrong. I know when, at MIU, I was faced with various degrees of this kind of hard structure I'd find myself drinking a few beers in town, most nights going to my boyfriend's pod for some great sex or refusing to stop my art halfway through class every day to have a 10 minute meditation break as dictated by the professor (I figured twice a day was enough). I was incorrigible. Probably always have been and most likely always will be. From: emptybill To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:06 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... Â Sorry but you have only jumped to your own prepared conclusion. Shankara wrote refutations of yoga as a vedic ultimate but accepted it as a provisional practice to assist someone searching for ultimate knowledge/practice. You have a fight with the TMO. Thus everything you say is negative about TM. The reality is more complex than your everything TM is wrong
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
mjackson74: even your supporters here in FFL What supporters would that be? LoL! all seem to think you are unhinged This is where the conversation gets personal, right? Shankara wrote refutations of yoga as a vedic ultimate but accepted it as a provisional practice to assist someone searching for ultimate knowledge/practice... So, let's sum up what we know: It has already been established that the 'TM' practice derives from the teachings of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. Brahmanand was a Dasanami Swami whose headquarters was at Sringeri. All the Saraswati Swamis are tantrics who worship the Tripuransundari and belong to the Sri Vidya sect. The worship of Shri Vidya has been popular in India from very ancient times. Swami Gaudapada, the teacher of Shankaracharaya, was a worshiper of Sri Vidya. Following his initiation, Shankara wrote a lucid ode to Shri Vidya, the Sound Ariya Lahari, a translation of which is now available in English. The TM bija mantras are enumerated in the main scripture of Sri Vidya, the Sounda, which according to tradition, was composed by the Adi Shankara. Many disciples of Shankaracharya were worshipers of Sri Vidya, such as Sureshvara, Padmapada, Vidyaranya and the brother of Chaitanya, Nityanand. Abhinavagupta, and our own Swami Brahmananda Saraswati were both Sri Vidya tantrics. The TM bija mantras are derived from the tantric Sri Vidya tradition of Karnataka and are enumerated in the Sound Arya Lahari. There is a shrine to Shankara at the Sri Vidya temple down in Kanchipuram peeth, wherein lies the Sri Yantra. Swami Rama has recounted in his book, 'Living With the Himalayan Masters', a direct, first hand account of Guru Dev having a Sri Yantra in his possession. All we as TMers need to know is that all the Saraswati gurus follow the Sri Vidya tradition.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
On 06/19/2013 11:34 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote: mjackson74: even your supporters here in FFL What supporters would that be? LoL! all seem to think you are unhinged This is where the conversation gets personal, right? Shankara wrote refutations of yoga as a vedic ultimate but accepted it as a provisional practice to assist someone searching for ultimate knowledge/practice... So, let's sum up what we know: It has already been established that the 'TM' practice derives from the teachings of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. Brahmanand was a Dasanami Swami whose headquarters was at Sringeri. All the Saraswati Swamis are tantrics who worship the Tripuransundari and belong to the Sri Vidya sect. The worship of Shri Vidya has been popular in India from very ancient times. Swami Gaudapada, the teacher of Shankaracharaya, was a worshiper of Sri Vidya. Following his initiation, Shankara wrote a lucid ode to Shri Vidya, the Sound Ariya Lahari, a translation of which is now available in English. The TM bija mantras are enumerated in the main scripture of Sri Vidya, the Sounda, which according to tradition, was composed by the Adi Shankara. Many disciples of Shankaracharya were worshipers of Sri Vidya, such as Sureshvara, Padmapada, Vidyaranya and the brother of Chaitanya, Nityanand. Abhinavagupta, and our own Swami Brahmananda Saraswati were both Sri Vidya tantrics. The TM bija mantras are derived from the tantric Sri Vidya tradition of Karnataka and are enumerated in the Sound Arya Lahari. There is a shrine to Shankara at the Sri Vidya temple down in Kanchipuram peeth, wherein lies the Sri Yantra. Swami Rama has recounted in his book, 'Living With the Himalayan Masters', a direct, first hand account of Guru Dev having a Sri Yantra in his possession. All we as TMers need to know is that all the Saraswati gurus follow the Sri Vidya tradition. Nobody know when the beej akshara's first appeared but undoubtedly way before Shankara. To me they sound like some early humans were imitating the sounds of birds and noticed that thinking them had a particular effect. Now that's just a theory of mine though.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
Regardless of a swan's ability to do anything, I know Marshy was a liar and a greedy opportunist. I also know that TM technique seems to have some good effects for some people, some great effects for some people, perhaps some fabulous effects for a few people. I also know that those positive effects are not unique as Marshy and Company said they were, and that other kinds of practices can have equal and or better effects, without the downside of TM - its addictive quality, the strange way TM'ers always feel fatigued in the afternoon if they don't do TM, and the unstressing effects. Like it or not you also have to, for the most part, go to an organization for TM that lies, promotes bullshit and abuses people (like the Dome no see other saints policy) and worse. I am also aware that some people are ok with knowing they are going to or sending their friends to a bunch of really strange people at best and a bunch of abusive liars at worst who have TM in their hands for giving instruction. I am not ok with supporting these yahoos, and I have no regard for those who do because they think they personally get something from the practice. The attitude is Oh, I feel good when I do TM, so I am going to ignore what a bunch of lying, abusive bastards the people who teach it are. When you condone, even tacitly their behavior you are adding a great deal of negative energy in collective awareness in the world, made all the more egregious by the fact the negative energy is created under the deceitful guise of actually trying to be the saviors of the world. The arrogance of a group that claims to have a lock on Supreme Knowledge and everyone will come flocking to them to give them Supreme Life, and you can't see what you condone and support and what a unbelievable megalomaniac that bastard Maharishi was? I watched this kind of attitude and lived it myself at MIU. We, the lowly peons who actually did the grunt work that kept the place in business put up with, turned a blind eye to, condoned, aided and abetted all the crappy behavior the administration committed because we wanted to be in the Domes, or get an advanced technique, or become a governor, or be a student. We were the little snakes that allowed the big snakes to eat up whatever they wanted. But, hey it was all for personal and global enlightenment, oh wait, they don't say that anymore, it was all for world peace and to inaugurate the Global Country of Gullible Goobers who enable the fat ass leeches who love high on other people's money. That about sums it up, and may I say Seventh Ray, as an analyst, you would be better off going back to your real avocation of being an ass. From: seventhray27 steve.sun...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:29 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... One analogy Maharishi used, that I always enjoyed was the swan who was able to separate the milk from the water in drawing nourishment from a plant. This analogy was used in explaining how the faculty of discrimination grows in separating the real from the unreal as one grows in higher consciousness. I mention it only in that MJ appears to have no ability to make any kind of discrimination between anything to to with TM or M's teaching . It is all a bunch of hooey in his opinion. Here's a link about whether or not a swan really can separate milk from water. Evidently the jury is still out. But I think the analogy still holds. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_swan_able_to_separate_water_from_milk_and_drink_only_milk --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: Yes, agreed. And in that spirit, I enjoy the things Maharishi raised awareness about - Not that I will EVER take seriously the warning about entrances, but, at the same time, I appreciate becoming more sensitive to the world around me, the cardinal points, what a yagya is, etc. I like to think about the many things he brought up, not necessarily adopting them as personal law, nor rejecting them automatically, as empty. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: You have a fight with the TMO. Thus everything you say is negative about TM. The reality is more complex than your everything TM is wrong agenda. It is quite boring to the folks here 'cause we have heard it all before by people able to present more articulate and thoughtful arguments than you present here. I have no fight with the TMO - I merely see things clearly where I didn't before, thanks in great degree to my participation here on FFL. And not only as many will assume from the posts of Barry, Curtis, Edg, and Sal, but even more from the posts of folks like you, Nabby, feste, dr d, and seventh ray. To see the degree to which these folks can
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
Hi Share, Thanks - I didn't mean to confuse, but I haven't yet been to India. When I wrote SE Asia, I meant Indonesia, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and the Philippines. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Doc, I love it when you write like this. I also very much appreciated it when you wrote that few if any organizations are democratic and that the leaders of the TMO are also trying to uphold a legacy. I appreciate your expressing both sides of the issue. Plus I loved what you wrote about the smells of India. I've only experienced the cinematic India and that of course lacked stimulation for the olfactory sense. But movies definitely have been able to convey the chaotic richness of that amazing country. Finally thanks for clarifying about Snowden and the different kinds of security clearances there are. Happy Day Before Your Birthday! From: doctordumbass@... doctordumbass@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 11:57 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... Â Yes, agreed. And in that spirit, I enjoy the things Maharishi raised awareness about - Not that I will EVER take seriously the warning about entrances, but, at the same time, I appreciate becoming more sensitive to the world around me, the cardinal points, what a yagya is, etc. I like to think about the many things he brought up, not necessarily adopting them as personal law, nor rejecting them automatically, as empty. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: You have a fight with the TMO. Thus everything you say is negative about TM. The reality is more complex than your everything TM is wrong agenda. It is quite boring to the folks here 'cause we have heard it all before by people able to present more articulate and thoughtful arguments than you present here. I have no fight with the TMO - I merely see things clearly where I didn't before, thanks in great degree to my participation here on FFL. And not only as many will assume from the posts of Barry, Curtis, Edg, and Sal, but even more from the posts of folks like you, Nabby, feste, dr d, and seventh ray. To see the degree to which these folks can believe in the nonsense promoted by Marshy and the TM Movement helped me to see the Light! Whee! It also made me realize the real problem with TM champions is they all have something wrong with their olfactory sense - they don't believe that shit stinks. I mean TM is supposed to make you stronger on every level, yet in practice it often leads to people becoming weaker and weaker. One of the things I love about not doing TM anymore is that I no longer get tired in the afternoon. During the years I did TM everyday, I ALWAYS got tired in the afternoon, especially if I was not able to do program in the afternoon. No TM, no afternoon fatigue. When I see people doing TM for years and believing they have to go through south facing entrances, have to have yagyas, can't go outside during a solar eclipse - I mean man! If TM leads one to be that gullible, no thanks. Actually, I think that people that fall for all of the hooplah - Vedic honey, south facing entrances, Rajas, allowing others to dictate their movements and activities - these people didn't become gullible because of TM they were already excellent candidates to fall for everything - hook, line and sinker. There are many people who NEED these things to believe in, to be told what is what, to have their lives structured by others or by a system. These are human beings who yearn for the security this kind of heavy structure brings to their lives. No real decisions need to be made about anything. The kind of house they should live in, what they should eat, who they should study, what they should be doing twice a day at exactly the same time - these are all laid out for them. Certain types of people seek this, they like it. I don't think that true independent thinkers would settle for such structure, but maybe I'm wrong. I know when, at MIU, I was faced with various degrees of this kind of hard structure I'd find myself drinking a few beers in town, most nights going to my boyfriend's pod for some great sex or refusing to stop my art halfway through class every day to have a 10 minute meditation break as dictated by the professor (I figured twice a day was enough). I was incorrigible. Probably always have been and most likely always will be. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:06 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
, 2013 11:06 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...  Sorry but you have only jumped to your own prepared conclusion. Shankara wrote refutations of yoga as a vedic ultimate but accepted it as a provisional practice to assist someone searching for ultimate knowledge/practice. You have a fight with the TMO. Thus everything you say is negative about TM. The reality is more complex than your everything TM is wrong agenda. It is quite boring to the folks here 'cause we have heard it all before by people able to present more articulate and thoughtful arguments than you present here. You appear to want to spin Shankara's commentary until he seems to dance with Michael J. Dance if you wish. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: you best read it all again From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:30 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... à Shankara did NOT say such a thing. In many places he discusses the benefits of yogic meditation. However, the benefits according to Shankara are purification of the heart rather than either union with brahman or freedom from bondage to prakriti. The purpose of the post was to examine the real but unstated differences between the recognition/practice found in Yoga and Vedanta rather than a polemic against TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: that means that meditation like what marshy taught was essentially a meaningless pursuit. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] What Maharishi did NOT say ... Ãâà Since the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya Vidyaranya), the Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until Yogic advaita has become the norm.Ãâà It manifested in the idea that transcendence or nirvikalpa-samaadhi was the experiential requirement for brahma-jÃÆ'ñana (knowledge of brahmÃÆ'âtman). This notion is directly adverse to Adi Shankara's written declarations about liberation: Upadesasahasri Shankara did not extol yogic nirvikalpa-samaadhi (non-conceptual absorption or transcendence). Rather, speaking from the understanding that the Self (Atman) is already nirvikalpa by nature, he firmly contrasts the true nature of the Self and the mind: As I have no restlessness (viksepa) I have hence no absorption (samadhi). Restlessness or absorption belong to the mind which is changeable. Ãâà A similar view is expressed in 13.17: Ãâà How can samadhi, non-samadhi or anything else which is to be done belong to me? For having meditated and known me, they realize that they have completed [all] that needed to be done. Ãâà and 14.35: Ãâà I have never seen non-samadhi, nor anything else [needing] to be purified, belonging to me who am changeless, the pure Brahman, free from evil. Ãâà Ãâà In 15.14 Sankara presents a critique of meditation as an essentially dualistically structured activity: Ãâà One [comes] to consist of that upon which one fixes one's mind, if one is different from [it]. But, there is no action in the Self through which to become the Self. [It] does not depend upon [anything else] for being the Self, since if [it] depended upon [anything else], it would not be the Self. Ãâà Ãâà Furthermore, in 16.39-40, Sankara implicitly criticizes the Sankhya-Yoga view that liberation is dissociation from the association of purusa and prakrti, when he says: It is not at all reasonable that liberation is either a connection [with Brahman] or a dissociation [from prakrti]. For an association is non-eternal and the same is true for dissociation also. One's own nature is never lost. As is evident in his writings, Sankara implicitly rejects both the emancipation of yoga, namely, that liberation has to be accomplished through the real dissociation of the purusa from prakrti, and the yogic pursuit towards that end, - Ãâà that is, the achievement of nirvikalpa or asamprajata-samadhi (transcendence). Read it and weep.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: That about sums it up, and may I say Seventh Ray, as an analyst, you would be better off going back to your real avocation of being an ass. Do you think I'd be more successful or less successful at that, than you were at being a channeler for all those years? BTW, did you have a particular handle? Maybe something like The Pleidian Viking. Did you effect a certain voice. I've noticed Barbara Marciniak has like an Asian, high pitched voice with a little lisp throw in for good measure. Maybe you'll favor us with a little Youtube piece just for SGs. Who was your favorite channel? Was it a disembodied entity from a another part of the universe, or just an entity disembodied from our earthly time? Fill us in Mikey.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
Mikey, talk to me here. Something occurred to me while I was taking a shower. You know, you may be a victim of, of, well, The Maharishi Effect. I have noticed, that people who attempt to strike on their own and develop their own following, and more often than not, fail, come back as the harshest critics of The Knowledege. And obviously, you seem a somewhat ambitious fellow, and fresh from your stint as foot soldier at MUM you naturally want to aspire to greater things. So you hang out your shingle as a channeller. You come up with an attractive persona, practice a suitable channel voice and voila' you're MJ the next new thing in channeling. The problem of course, is if no one comes, or you get some dingy little group of three or four people. Okay, not to be discouraged it's on to Act II. You're gonna help the vets. So, goodbye Mikey the channel, hello Mikey the do gooder. So you assemble all your bonifides, put together some spiffy presentation, and what happens, the DLF was there right before you and all you get is an don't call us, we'll call you I feel for ya Mikey. We can get through this. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: Regardless of a swan's ability to do anything, I know Marshy was a liar and a greedy opportunist. I also know that TM technique seems to have some good effects for some people, some great effects for some people, perhaps some fabulous effects for a few people. I also know that those positive effects are not unique as Marshy and Company said they were, and that other kinds of practices can have equal and or better effects, without the downside of TM - its addictive quality, the strange way TM'ers always feel fatigued in the afternoon if they don't do TM, and the unstressing effects. Like it or not you also have to, for the most part, go to an organization for TM that lies, promotes bullshit and abuses people (like the Dome no see other saints policy) and worse. I am also aware that some people are ok with knowing they are going to or sending their friends to a bunch of really strange people at best and a bunch of abusive liars at worst who have TM in their hands for giving instruction. I am not ok with supporting these yahoos, and I have no regard for those who do because they think they personally get something from the practice. The attitude is Oh, I feel good when I do TM, so I am going to ignore what a bunch of lying, abusive bastards the people who teach it are. When you condone, even tacitly their behavior you are adding a great deal of negative energy in collective awareness in the world, made all the more egregious by the fact the negative energy is created under the deceitful guise of actually trying to be the saviors of the world. The arrogance of a group that claims to have a lock on Supreme Knowledge and everyone will come flocking to them to give them Supreme Life, and you can't see what you condone and support and what a unbelievable megalomaniac that bastard Maharishi was? I watched this kind of attitude and lived it myself at MIU. We, the lowly peons who actually did the grunt work that kept the place in business put up with, turned a blind eye to, condoned, aided and abetted all the crappy behavior the administration committed because we wanted to be in the Domes, or get an advanced technique, or become a governor, or be a student. We were the little snakes that allowed the big snakes to eat up whatever they wanted. But, hey it was all for personal and global enlightenment, oh wait, they don't say that anymore, it was all for world peace and to inaugurate the Global Country of Gullible Goobers who enable the fat ass leeches who love high on other people's money. That about sums it up, and may I say Seventh Ray, as an analyst, you would be better off going back to your real avocation of being an ass. From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:29 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...  One analogy Maharishi used, that I always enjoyed was the swan who was able to separate the milk from the water in drawing nourishment from a plant.  This analogy was used in explaining how the faculty of discrimination grows in separating the real from the unreal as one grows in higher consciousness. I mention it only in that MJ appears to have no ability to make any kind of discrimination between anything to to with TM or M's teaching .  It is all a bunch of hooey in his opinion.  Here's a link about whether or not a swan really can separate milk from water.  Evidently the jury is still out.  But I think the analogy still  holds. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_swan_able_to_separate_water_from_milk_and_d\ rink_only_milk --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: Yes, agreed. And in that spirit, I enjoy the things Maharishi raised awareness about - Not that I
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
you are so ignorant and stupid its difficult to answer your absurd questions - I have already posted everything about my former channeling here in FFL and I never attempted to have a following although some former TM'er like former TM teacher Bob Fickes have done exactly that. From: seventhray27 steve.sun...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... Mikey, talk to me here. Something occurred to me while I was taking a shower. You know, you may be a victim of, of, well, The Maharishi Effect. I have noticed, that people who attempt to strike on their own and develop their own following, and more often than not, fail, come back as the harshest critics of The Knowledege. And obviously, you seem a somewhat ambitious fellow, and fresh from your stint as foot soldier at MUM you naturally want to aspire to greater things. So you hang out your shingle as a channeller. You come up with an attractive persona, practice a suitable channel voice and voila' you're MJ the next new thing in channeling. The problem of course, is if no one comes, or you get some dingy little group of three or four people. Okay, not to be discouraged it's on to Act II. You're gonna help the vets. So, goodbye Mikey the channel, hello Mikey the do gooder. So you assemble all your bonifides, put together some spiffy presentation, and what happens, the DLF was there right before you and all you get is an don't call us, we'll call you I feel for ya Mikey. We can get through this. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: Regardless of a swan's ability to do anything, I know Marshy was a liar and a greedy opportunist. I also know that TM technique seems to have some good effects for some people, some great effects for some people, perhaps some fabulous effects for a few people. I also know that those positive effects are not unique as Marshy and Company said they were, and that other kinds of practices can have equal and or better effects, without the downside of TM - its addictive quality, the strange way TM'ers always feel fatigued in the afternoon if they don't do TM, and the unstressing effects. Like it or not you also have to, for the most part, go to an organization for TM that lies, promotes bullshit and abuses people (like the Dome no see other saints policy) and worse. I am also aware that some people are ok with knowing they are going to or sending their friends to a bunch of really strange people at best and a bunch of abusive liars at worst who have TM in their hands for giving instruction. I am not ok with supporting these yahoos, and I have no regard for those who do because they think they personally get something from the practice. The attitude is Oh, I feel good when I do TM, so I am going to ignore what a bunch of lying, abusive bastards the people who teach it are. When you condone, even tacitly their behavior you are adding a great deal of negative energy in collective awareness in the world, made all the more egregious by the fact the negative energy is created under the deceitful guise of actually trying to be the saviors of the world. The arrogance of a group that claims to have a lock on Supreme Knowledge and everyone will come flocking to them to give them Supreme Life, and you can't see what you condone and support and what a unbelievable megalomaniac that bastard Maharishi was? I watched this kind of attitude and lived it myself at MIU. We, the lowly peons who actually did the grunt work that kept the place in business put up with, turned a blind eye to, condoned, aided and abetted all the crappy behavior the administration committed because we wanted to be in the Domes, or get an advanced technique, or become a governor, or be a student. We were the little snakes that allowed the big snakes to eat up whatever they wanted. But, hey it was all for personal and global enlightenment, oh wait, they don't say that anymore, it was all for world peace and to inaugurate the Global Country of Gullible Goobers who enable the fat ass leeches who love high on other people's money. That about sums it up, and may I say Seventh Ray, as an analyst, you would be better off going back to your real avocation of being an ass. From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:29 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... Â One analogy Maharishi used, that I always enjoyed was the swan who was able to separate the milk from the water in drawing nourishment from a plant. Â This analogy was used in explaining how the faculty of discrimination grows in separating the real from the unreal as one grows in higher consciousness. I mention
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
Personally, I think you project your own subjective images as a replacement for reality. Fact is, I already have a double martini before me now: Beefeater brand - pulled from the freezer (I was after all a Russian Orthodox monastic) pored extra-dry, with a ring of lemon rubbed around the rim and then deposited at the bottom. Even a bit of ice thrown in to maintain the Arctic temperature. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: you best read it all again Personally, I think he needs a drink. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:30 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...  Shankara did NOT say such a thing. In many places he discusses the benefits of yogic meditation. However, the benefits according to Shankara are purification of the heart rather than either union with brahman or freedom from bondage to prakriti. The purpose of the post was to examine the real but unstated differences between the recognition/practice found in Yoga and Vedanta rather than a polemic against TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: that means that meditation like what marshy taught was essentially a meaningless pursuit. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] What Maharishi did NOT say ... àSince the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya Vidyaranya), the Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until Yogic advaita has become the norm.àIt manifested in the idea that transcendence or nirvikalpa-samaadhi was the experiential requirement for brahma-jñana (knowledge of brahmâtman). This notion is directly adverse to Adi Shankara's written declarations about liberation: Upadesasahasri Shankara did not extol yogic nirvikalpa-samaadhi (non-conceptual absorption or transcendence). Rather, speaking from the understanding that the Self (Atman) is already nirvikalpa by nature, he firmly contrasts the true nature of the Self and the mind: As I have no restlessness (viksepa) I have hence no absorption (samadhi). Restlessness or absorption belong to the mind which is changeable. àA similar view is expressed in 13.17: àHow can samadhi, non-samadhi or anything else which is to be done belong to me? For having meditated and known me, they realize that they have completed [all] that needed to be done. àand 14.35: àI have never seen non-samadhi, nor anything else [needing] to be purified, belonging to me who am changeless, the pure Brahman, free from evil. ààIn 15.14 Sankara presents a critique of meditation as an essentially dualistically structured activity: àOne [comes] to consist of that upon which one fixes one's mind, if one is different from [it]. But, there is no action in the Self through which to become the Self. [It] does not depend upon [anything else] for being the Self, since if [it] depended upon [anything else], it would not be the Self. ààFurthermore, in 16.39-40, Sankara implicitly criticizes the Sankhya-Yoga view that liberation is dissociation from the association of purusa and prakrti, when he says: It is not at all reasonable that liberation is either a connection [with Brahman] or a dissociation [from prakrti]. For an association is non-eternal and the same is true for dissociation also. One's own nature is never lost. As is evident in his writings, Sankara implicitly rejects both the emancipation of yoga, namely, that liberation has to be accomplished through the real dissociation of the purusa from prakrti, and the yogic pursuit towards that end, - àthat is, the achievement of nirvikalpa or asamprajata-samadhi (transcendence). Read it and weep.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
This is pretty damned funny, 7th! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: Mikey, talk to me here. Something occurred to me while I was taking a shower. You know, you may be a victim of, of, well, The Maharishi Effect. I have noticed, that people who attempt to strike on their own and develop their own following, and more often than not, fail, come back as the harshest critics of The Knowledege. And obviously, you seem a somewhat ambitious fellow, and fresh from your stint as foot soldier at MUM you naturally want to aspire to greater things. So you hang out your shingle as a channeller. You come up with an attractive persona, practice a suitable channel voice and voila' you're MJ the next new thing in channeling. The problem of course, is if no one comes, or you get some dingy little group of three or four people. Okay, not to be discouraged it's on to Act II. You're gonna help the vets. So, goodbye Mikey the channel, hello Mikey the do gooder. So you assemble all your bonifides, put together some spiffy presentation, and what happens, the DLF was there right before you and all you get is an don't call us, we'll call you I feel for ya Mikey. We can get through this. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: Regardless of a swan's ability to do anything, I know Marshy was a liar and a greedy opportunist. I also know that TM technique seems to have some good effects for some people, some great effects for some people, perhaps some fabulous effects for a few people. I also know that those positive effects are not unique as Marshy and Company said they were, and that other kinds of practices can have equal and or better effects, without the downside of TM - its addictive quality, the strange way TM'ers always feel fatigued in the afternoon if they don't do TM, and the unstressing effects. Like it or not you also have to, for the most part, go to an organization for TM that lies, promotes bullshit and abuses people (like the Dome no see other saints policy) and worse. I am also aware that some people are ok with knowing they are going to or sending their friends to a bunch of really strange people at best and a bunch of abusive liars at worst who have TM in their hands for giving instruction. I am not ok with supporting these yahoos, and I have no regard for those who do because they think they personally get something from the practice. The attitude is Oh, I feel good when I do TM, so I am going to ignore what a bunch of lying, abusive bastards the people who teach it are. When you condone, even tacitly their behavior you are adding a great deal of negative energy in collective awareness in the world, made all the more egregious by the fact the negative energy is created under the deceitful guise of actually trying to be the saviors of the world. The arrogance of a group that claims to have a lock on Supreme Knowledge and everyone will come flocking to them to give them Supreme Life, and you can't see what you condone and support and what a unbelievable megalomaniac that bastard Maharishi was? I watched this kind of attitude and lived it myself at MIU. We, the lowly peons who actually did the grunt work that kept the place in business put up with, turned a blind eye to, condoned, aided and abetted all the crappy behavior the administration committed because we wanted to be in the Domes, or get an advanced technique, or become a governor, or be a student. We were the little snakes that allowed the big snakes to eat up whatever they wanted. But, hey it was all for personal and global enlightenment, oh wait, they don't say that anymore, it was all for world peace and to inaugurate the Global Country of Gullible Goobers who enable the fat ass leeches who love high on other people's money. That about sums it up, and may I say Seventh Ray, as an analyst, you would be better off going back to your real avocation of being an ass. From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:29 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...  One analogy Maharishi used, that I always enjoyed was the swan who was able to separate the milk from the water in drawing nourishment from a plant.  This analogy was used in explaining how the faculty of discrimination grows in separating the real from the unreal as one grows in higher consciousness. I mention it only in that MJ appears to have no ability to make any kind of discrimination between anything to to with TM or M's teaching .  It is all a bunch of hooey in his opinion.  Here's a link about whether or not a swan really can separate milk from water.  Evidently the jury is still out.  But I think the analogy still  holds. http://wiki.answers.com/Q
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
I am not a big gin drinker (GT is the exception), so my martinis are usually vodka based. Tonight, however, the spirit of celebration comes from south of the border, the classic lemon-lime margarita, with Anejo 100% agave tequila. Cheers. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@... wrote: Personally, I think you project your own subjective images as a replacement for reality. Fact is, I already have a double martini before me now: Beefeater brand - pulled from the freezer (I was after all a Russian Orthodox monastic) pored extra-dry, with a ring of lemon rubbed around the rim and then deposited at the bottom. Even a bit of ice thrown in to maintain the Arctic temperature. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: you best read it all again Personally, I think he needs a drink. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:30 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...  Shankara did NOT say such a thing. In many places he discusses the benefits of yogic meditation. However, the benefits according to Shankara are purification of the heart rather than either union with brahman or freedom from bondage to prakriti. The purpose of the post was to examine the real but unstated differences between the recognition/practice found in Yoga and Vedanta rather than a polemic against TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: that means that meditation like what marshy taught was essentially a meaningless pursuit. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] What Maharishi did NOT say ... àSince the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya Vidyaranya), the Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until Yogic advaita has become the norm.àIt manifested in the idea that transcendence or nirvikalpa-samaadhi was the experiential requirement for brahma-jñana (knowledge of brahmâtman). This notion is directly adverse to Adi Shankara's written declarations about liberation: Upadesasahasri Shankara did not extol yogic nirvikalpa-samaadhi (non-conceptual absorption or transcendence). Rather, speaking from the understanding that the Self (Atman) is already nirvikalpa by nature, he firmly contrasts the true nature of the Self and the mind: As I have no restlessness (viksepa) I have hence no absorption (samadhi). Restlessness or absorption belong to the mind which is changeable. àA similar view is expressed in 13.17: àHow can samadhi, non-samadhi or anything else which is to be done belong to me? For having meditated and known me, they realize that they have completed [all] that needed to be done. àand 14.35: àI have never seen non-samadhi, nor anything else [needing] to be purified, belonging to me who am changeless, the pure Brahman, free from evil. ààIn 15.14 Sankara presents a critique of meditation as an essentially dualistically structured activity: àOne [comes] to consist of that upon which one fixes one's mind, if one is different from [it]. But, there is no action in the Self through which to become the Self. [It] does not depend upon [anything else] for being the Self, since if [it] depended upon [anything else], it would not be the Self. ààFurthermore, in 16.39-40, Sankara implicitly criticizes the Sankhya-Yoga view that liberation is dissociation from the association of purusa and prakrti, when he says: It is not at all reasonable that liberation is either a connection [with Brahman] or a dissociation [from prakrti]. For an association is non-eternal and the same is true for dissociation also. One's own nature is never lost. As is evident in his writings, Sankara implicitly rejects both the emancipation of yoga, namely, that liberation has to be accomplished through the real dissociation of the purusa from prakrti, and the yogic pursuit towards that end, - àthat is, the achievement of nirvikalpa or asamprajata-samadhi (transcendence). Read it and weep.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
Yep, I have always heard that enlightened men drink tequila From: doctordumb...@rocketmail.com doctordumb...@rocketmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:07 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... I am not a big gin drinker (GT is the exception), so my martinis are usually vodka based. Tonight, however, the spirit of celebration comes from south of the border, the classic lemon-lime margarita, with Anejo 100% agave tequila. Cheers. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@... wrote: Personally, I think you project your own subjective images as a replacement for reality. Fact is, I already have a double martini before me now: Beefeater brand - pulled from the freezer (I was after all a Russian Orthodox monastic) pored extra-dry, with a ring of lemon rubbed around the rim and then deposited at the bottom. Even a bit of ice thrown in to maintain the Arctic temperature. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: you best read it all again Personally, I think he needs a drink. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:30 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...  Shankara did NOT say such a thing. In many places he discusses the benefits of yogic meditation. However, the benefits according to Shankara are purification of the heart rather than either union with brahman or freedom from bondage to prakriti. The purpose of the post was to examine the real but unstated differences between the recognition/practice found in Yoga and Vedanta rather than a polemic against TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: that means that meditation like what marshy taught was essentially a meaningless pursuit. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] What Maharishi did NOT say ...  Since the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya Vidyaranya), the Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until Yogic advaita has become the norm. It manifested in the idea that transcendence or nirvikalpa-samaadhi was the experiential requirement for brahma-jñana (knowledge of brahmâtman). This notion is directly adverse to Adi Shankara's written declarations about liberation: Upadesasahasri Shankara did not extol yogic nirvikalpa-samaadhi (non-conceptual absorption or transcendence). Rather, speaking from the understanding that the Self (Atman) is already nirvikalpa by nature, he firmly contrasts the true nature of the Self and the mind: As I have no restlessness (viksepa) I have hence no absorption (samadhi). Restlessness or absorption belong to the mind which is changeable.  A similar view is expressed in 13.17:  How can samadhi, non-samadhi or anything else which is to be done belong to me? For having meditated and known me, they realize that they have completed [all] that needed to be done.  and 14.35:  I have never seen non-samadhi, nor anything else [needing] to be purified, belonging to me who am changeless, the pure Brahman, free from evil.   In 15.14 Sankara presents a critique of meditation as an essentially dualistically structured activity:  One [comes] to consist of that upon which one fixes one's mind, if one is different from [it]. But, there is no action in the Self through which to become the Self. [It] does not depend upon [anything else] for being the Self, since if [it] depended upon [anything else], it would not be the Self.   Furthermore, in 16.39-40, Sankara implicitly criticizes the Sankhya-Yoga view that liberation is dissociation from the association of purusa and prakrti, when he says: It is not at all reasonable that liberation is either a connection [with Brahman] or a dissociation [from prakrti]. For an association is non-eternal and the same is true for dissociation also. One's own nature is never lost. As is evident in his writings, Sankara implicitly rejects both the emancipation of yoga, namely, that liberation has to be accomplished through the real dissociation of the purusa from prakrti, and the yogic pursuit towards that end, -  that is, the achievement of nirvikalpa or asamprajata-samadhi (transcendence). Read it and weep.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
Are you implying the subject matter has already been exhausted. How rude!! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: you are so ignorant and stupid its difficult to answer your absurd questions - I have already posted everything about my former channeling here in FFL and I never attempted to have a following although some former TM'er like former TM teacher Bob Fickes have done exactly that. From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...  Mikey, talk to me here. Something occurred to me while I was taking a shower. You know, you may be a victim of, of, well, The Maharishi Effect. I have noticed, that people who attempt to strike on their own and develop their own following, and more often than not, fail, come back as the harshest critics of The Knowledege. And obviously, you seem a somewhat ambitious fellow, and fresh from your stint as foot soldier at MUM you naturally want to aspire to greater things. So you hang out your shingle as a channeller. You come up with an attractive persona, practice a suitable channel voice and voila' you're MJ the next new thing in channeling. The problem of course, is if no one comes, or you get some dingy little group of three or four people. Okay, not to be discouraged it's on to Act II. You're gonna help the vets. So, goodbye Mikey the channel, hello Mikey the do gooder. So you assemble all your bonifides, put together some spiffy presentation, and what happens, the DLF was there right before you and all you get is an don't call us, we'll call you I feel for ya Mikey. We can get through this. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: Regardless of a swan's ability to do anything, I know Marshy was a liar and a greedy opportunist. I also know that TM technique seems to have some good effects for some people, some great effects for some people, perhaps some fabulous effects for a few people. I also know that those positive effects are not unique as Marshy and Company said they were, and that other kinds of practices can have equal and or better effects, without the downside of TM - its addictive quality, the strange way TM'ers always feel fatigued in the afternoon if they don't do TM, and the unstressing effects. Like it or not you also have to, for the most part, go to an organization for TM that lies, promotes bullshit and abuses people (like the Dome no see other saints policy) and worse. I am also aware that some people are ok with knowing they are going to or sending their friends to a bunch of really strange people at best and a bunch of abusive liars at worst who have TM in their hands for giving instruction. I am not ok with supporting these yahoos, and I have no regard for those who do because they think they personally get something from the practice. The attitude is Oh, I feel good when I do TM, so I am going to ignore what a bunch of lying, abusive bastards the people who teach it are. When you condone, even tacitly their behavior you are adding a great deal of negative energy in collective awareness in the world, made all the more egregious by the fact the negative energy is created under the deceitful guise of actually trying to be the saviors of the world. The arrogance of a group that claims to have a lock on Supreme Knowledge and everyone will come flocking to them to give them Supreme Life, and you can't see what you condone and support and what a unbelievable megalomaniac that bastard Maharishi was? I watched this kind of attitude and lived it myself at MIU. We, the lowly peons who actually did the grunt work that kept the place in business put up with, turned a blind eye to, condoned, aided and abetted all the crappy behavior the administration committed because we wanted to be in the Domes, or get an advanced technique, or become a governor, or be a student. We were the little snakes that allowed the big snakes to eat up whatever they wanted. But, hey it was all for personal and global enlightenment, oh wait, they don't say that anymore, it was all for world peace and to inaugurate the Global Country of Gullible Goobers who enable the fat ass leeches who love high on other people's money. That about sums it up, and may I say Seventh Ray, as an analyst, you would be better off going back to your real avocation of being an ass. From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:29 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... àOne analogy Maharishi used, that I always enjoyed was the swan who was able to separate the milk from the water in drawing nourishment from a plant. àThis analogy was used in explaining how the faculty of discrimination grows
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@... wrote: Personally, I think you project your own subjective images as a replacement for reality. Fact is, I already have a double martini before me now: Beefeater brand - pulled from the freezer (I was after all a Russian Orthodox monastic) pored extra-dry, with a ring of lemon rubbed around the rim and then deposited at the bottom. Even a bit of ice thrown in to maintain the Arctic temperature. See, great minds think alike, you were just one step ahead of me. Bottoms up. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: you best read it all again Personally, I think he needs a drink. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:30 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...  Shankara did NOT say such a thing. In many places he discusses the benefits of yogic meditation. However, the benefits according to Shankara are purification of the heart rather than either union with brahman or freedom from bondage to prakriti. The purpose of the post was to examine the real but unstated differences between the recognition/practice found in Yoga and Vedanta rather than a polemic against TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: that means that meditation like what marshy taught was essentially a meaningless pursuit. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] What Maharishi did NOT say ... àSince the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya Vidyaranya), the Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until Yogic advaita has become the norm.àIt manifested in the idea that transcendence or nirvikalpa-samaadhi was the experiential requirement for brahma-jñana (knowledge of brahmâtman). This notion is directly adverse to Adi Shankara's written declarations about liberation: Upadesasahasri Shankara did not extol yogic nirvikalpa-samaadhi (non-conceptual absorption or transcendence). Rather, speaking from the understanding that the Self (Atman) is already nirvikalpa by nature, he firmly contrasts the true nature of the Self and the mind: As I have no restlessness (viksepa) I have hence no absorption (samadhi). Restlessness or absorption belong to the mind which is changeable. àA similar view is expressed in 13.17: àHow can samadhi, non-samadhi or anything else which is to be done belong to me? For having meditated and known me, they realize that they have completed [all] that needed to be done. àand 14.35: àI have never seen non-samadhi, nor anything else [needing] to be purified, belonging to me who am changeless, the pure Brahman, free from evil. ààIn 15.14 Sankara presents a critique of meditation as an essentially dualistically structured activity: àOne [comes] to consist of that upon which one fixes one's mind, if one is different from [it]. But, there is no action in the Self through which to become the Self. [It] does not depend upon [anything else] for being the Self, since if [it] depended upon [anything else], it would not be the Self. ààFurthermore, in 16.39-40, Sankara implicitly criticizes the Sankhya-Yoga view that liberation is dissociation from the association of purusa and prakrti, when he says: It is not at all reasonable that liberation is either a connection [with Brahman] or a dissociation [from prakrti]. For an association is non-eternal and the same is true for dissociation also. One's own nature is never lost. As is evident in his writings, Sankara implicitly rejects both the emancipation of yoga, namely, that liberation has to be accomplished through the real dissociation of the purusa from prakrti, and the yogic pursuit towards that end, - àthat is, the achievement of nirvikalpa or asamprajata-samadhi (transcendence). Read it and weep.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
emptybill: Since the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya Vidyaranya), the Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until Yogic advaita has become the norm... For most TMers it's enough to know that the Shankaracharya Sanyasins have taken up the Sri Vidya tradtition and they all worship the Sri Yantra of Tripurasundari. The Adwaita that was extolled by the Adi is just pseudo-Buddhism, for the Brahamin caste in the eighth century. We don't know why the Shankaracharyas adopted the Sri Vidya, but we do know it came from Kashmere Tantrism. So, far from being degraded, they discovered tantric monism, which is far superior than believing the world is an illusion, not real - pure Buddhism. Kashmere Saivism is based on the Siva Sutra, the purpose of which is to preserve for man the principles of Monism in the literature called the Tantras. According to Theos Bernard, when studied in detail, Kasmere Saivism provides the most complete analysis of Nature yet devised by any system of Indian philosophy. However, human logic can never construct an unassailable Monism; final proof can be had only by the experience of Samadhi, attained through mantra meditation. That's why all the Sri Vidya adherents meditate on the bija of Saraswati at least twice a day. Kashmere Saivism accepts the fundamental premise that pure consciousness is the substance of the universe. However, it differs from the Samkhya and Vedanta systems in its interpretation of the three basic problems: 1) What is the nature of the ultimate reality; 2) What is the cause of its first movement; and 3) What is the nature of its manifest form? From 'Centering', a translation by Paul Reps and Swami Laksmanjoo in Zen Flesh, Zen Bones: Intone a sound audibly, then less and less audible as feeling deepens into this silent harmony. 'Vijñânabhairava Tantra' http://tinyurl.com/ykjog56 You can view a photo of Marshy and Laksmanjoo here: http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/images/lakman01.jpg Works cited: 'Foundations of Hindu Philosophy' by Theos Bernard, Ph.D. Author of 'Heaven Lies Within Us', 'Penthouse of the Gods', 'Hatha Yoga', etc., etc. Philosophical Library, 1947 pp. 129-130 Self-rea;ozation in Kashmere Shaivism The oral teachings of Swami Laksmanjoo. By John Hughes Foreward by John Hughes SUNY Press, 1994
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
Shankara did NOT say such a thing. In many places he discusses the benefits of yogic meditation. However, the benefits according to Shankara are purification of the heart rather than either union with brahman or freedom from bondage to prakriti. The purpose of the post was to examine the real but unstated differences between the recognition/practice found in Yoga and Vedanta rather than a polemic against TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: that means that meditation like what marshy taught was essentially a meaningless pursuit. From: emptybill emptybill@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] What Maharishi did NOT say ...  Since the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya Vidyaranya), the Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until Yogic advaita has become the norm. It manifested in the idea that transcendence or nirvikalpa-samaadhi was the experiential requirement for brahma-jñana (knowledge of brahmâtman). This notion is directly adverse to Adi Shankara's written declarations about liberation: Upadesasahasri Shankara did not extol yogic nirvikalpa-samaadhi (non-conceptual absorption or transcendence). Rather, speaking from the understanding that the Self (Atman) is already nirvikalpa by nature, he firmly contrasts the true nature of the Self and the mind: As I have no restlessness (viksepa) I have hence no absorption (samadhi). Restlessness or absorption belong to the mind which is changeable.  A similar view is expressed in 13.17:  How can samadhi, non-samadhi or anything else which is to be done belong to me? For having meditated and known me, they realize that they have completed [all] that needed to be done.  and 14.35:  I have never seen non-samadhi, nor anything else [needing] to be purified, belonging to me who am changeless, the pure Brahman, free from evil.   In 15.14 Sankara presents a critique of meditation as an essentially dualistically structured activity:  One [comes] to consist of that upon which one fixes one's mind, if one is different from [it]. But, there is no action in the Self through which to become the Self. [It] does not depend upon [anything else] for being the Self, since if [it] depended upon [anything else], it would not be the Self.   Furthermore, in 16.39-40, Sankara implicitly criticizes the Sankhya-Yoga view that liberation is dissociation from the association of purusa and prakrti, when he says: It is not at all reasonable that liberation is either a connection [with Brahman] or a dissociation [from prakrti]. For an association is non-eternal and the same is true for dissociation also. One's own nature is never lost. As is evident in his writings, Sankara implicitly rejects both the emancipation of yoga, namely, that liberation has to be accomplished through the real dissociation of the purusa from prakrti, and the yogic pursuit towards that end, -  that is, the achievement of nirvikalpa or asamprajata-samadhi (transcendence). Read it and weep.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
that means that meditation like what marshy taught was essentially a meaningless pursuit. emptybill: Shankara did NOT say such a thing. In many places he discusses the benefits of yogic meditation. However, the benefits according to Shankara are purification of the heart rather than either union with brahman or freedom from bondage to prakriti. The purpose of the post was to examine the real but unstated differences between the recognition/practice found in Yoga and Vedanta rather than a polemic against TM. So, what do we know about MMY's relation to Kashmere Shaivism? Kashmir Shaivism is absolute idealist monism - abhedha - non dualism, so that makes it similar to Kevala Advaita. These terms describe the ultimate reality: Cit - consciousness - the One reality. So, this sounds a lot like MMY and SCI, so it's no wonder MMY was attracted to Laksmanjoo. So, unlike Kevala Avaita which postulates maya, matter, as illusion, Kasmir Shaivism is founded on the notion that matter is not separated from consciousness, but is instead, *identical* to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_Shaivism Kashmere Shaivism was exported to South Asia as the Sri Vidya tantrism in Karnataka. So, we when we realize that Brahmanand Saraswati was a Sri Vidya adherent, it all starts to make sense.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
This is a perfect example of the uselessness of presenting ideas to the self-stupified. Your post demonstrates your utter inability (even unwillingness to try) to comprehend the meaning. BarryTwo musta been a rishi 'cause he clearly saw that you are unable to demonstrate anything but prairie-dog enlightenment. All glory to the prairie-dog. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams wrote: emptybill: Since the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya Vidyaranya), the Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until Yogic advaita has become the norm... For most TMers it's enough to know that the Shankaracharya Sanyasins have taken up the Sri Vidya tradtition and they all worship the Sri Yantra of Tripurasundari. The Adwaita that was extolled by the Adi is just pseudo-Buddhism, for the Brahamin caste in the eighth century. We don't know why the Shankaracharyas adopted the Sri Vidya, but we do know it came from Kashmere Tantrism. So, far from being degraded, they discovered tantric monism, which is far superior than believing the world is an illusion, not real - pure Buddhism. Kashmere Saivism is based on the Siva Sutra, the purpose of which is to preserve for man the principles of Monism in the literature called the Tantras. According to Theos Bernard, when studied in detail, Kasmere Saivism provides the most complete analysis of Nature yet devised by any system of Indian philosophy. However, human logic can never construct an unassailable Monism; final proof can be had only by the experience of Samadhi, attained through mantra meditation. That's why all the Sri Vidya adherents meditate on the bija of Saraswati at least twice a day. Kashmere Saivism accepts the fundamental premise that pure consciousness is the substance of the universe. However, it differs from the Samkhya and Vedanta systems in its interpretation of the three basic problems: 1) What is the nature of the ultimate reality; 2) What is the cause of its first movement; and 3) What is the nature of its manifest form? From 'Centering', a translation by Paul Reps and Swami Laksmanjoo in Zen Flesh, Zen Bones: Intone a sound audibly, then less and less audible as feeling deepens into this silent harmony. 'Vijñânabhairava Tantra' http://tinyurl.com/ykjog56 You can view a photo of Marshy and Laksmanjoo here: http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/images/lakman01.jpg Works cited: 'Foundations of Hindu Philosophy' by Theos Bernard, Ph.D. Author of 'Heaven Lies Within Us', 'Penthouse of the Gods', 'Hatha Yoga', etc., etc. Philosophical Library, 1947 pp. 129-130 Self-rea;ozation in Kashmere Shaivism The oral teachings of Swami Laksmanjoo. By John Hughes Foreward by John Hughes SUNY Press, 1994
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
you best read it all again From: emptybill emptyb...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:30 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ... Shankara did NOT say such a thing. In many places he discusses the benefits of yogic meditation. However, the benefits according to Shankara are purification of the heart rather than either union with brahman or freedom from bondage to prakriti. The purpose of the post was to examine the real but unstated differences between the recognition/practice found in Yoga and Vedanta rather than a polemic against TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: that means that meditation like what marshy taught was essentially a meaningless pursuit. From: emptybill emptybill@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] What Maharishi did NOT say ...  Since the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya Vidyaranya), the Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until Yogic advaita has become the norm. It manifested in the idea that transcendence or nirvikalpa-samaadhi was the experiential requirement for brahma-jñana (knowledge of brahmâtman). This notion is directly adverse to Adi Shankara's written declarations about liberation: Upadesasahasri Shankara did not extol yogic nirvikalpa-samaadhi (non-conceptual absorption or transcendence). Rather, speaking from the understanding that the Self (Atman) is already nirvikalpa by nature, he firmly contrasts the true nature of the Self and the mind: As I have no restlessness (viksepa) I have hence no absorption (samadhi). Restlessness or absorption belong to the mind which is changeable.  A similar view is expressed in 13.17:  How can samadhi, non-samadhi or anything else which is to be done belong to me? For having meditated and known me, they realize that they have completed [all] that needed to be done.  and 14.35:  I have never seen non-samadhi, nor anything else [needing] to be purified, belonging to me who am changeless, the pure Brahman, free from evil.   In 15.14 Sankara presents a critique of meditation as an essentially dualistically structured activity:  One [comes] to consist of that upon which one fixes one's mind, if one is different from [it]. But, there is no action in the Self through which to become the Self. [It] does not depend upon [anything else] for being the Self, since if [it] depended upon [anything else], it would not be the Self.   Furthermore, in 16.39-40, Sankara implicitly criticizes the Sankhya-Yoga view that liberation is dissociation from the association of purusa and prakrti, when he says: It is not at all reasonable that liberation is either a connection [with Brahman] or a dissociation [from prakrti]. For an association is non-eternal and the same is true for dissociation also. One's own nature is never lost. As is evident in his writings, Sankara implicitly rejects both the emancipation of yoga, namely, that liberation has to be accomplished through the real dissociation of the purusa from prakrti, and the yogic pursuit towards that end, -  that is, the achievement of nirvikalpa or asamprajata-samadhi (transcendence). Read it and weep.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
Sorry but you have only jumped to your own prepared conclusion. Shankara wrote refutations of yoga as a vedic ultimate but accepted it as a provisional practice to assist someone searching for ultimate knowledge/practice. You have a fight with the TMO. Thus everything you say is negative about TM. The reality is more complex than your everything TM is wrong agenda. It is quite boring to the folks here 'cause we have heard it all before by people able to present more articulate and thoughtful arguments than you present here. You appear to want to spin Shankara's commentary until he seems to dance with Michael J. Dance if you wish. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: you best read it all again From: emptybill emptybill@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:30 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...  Shankara did NOT say such a thing. In many places he discusses the benefits of yogic meditation. However, the benefits according to Shankara are purification of the heart rather than either union with brahman or freedom from bondage to prakriti. The purpose of the post was to examine the real but unstated differences between the recognition/practice found in Yoga and Vedanta rather than a polemic against TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: that means that meditation like what marshy taught was essentially a meaningless pursuit. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] What Maharishi did NOT say ... àSince the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya Vidyaranya), the Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until Yogic advaita has become the norm.àIt manifested in the idea that transcendence or nirvikalpa-samaadhi was the experiential requirement for brahma-jñana (knowledge of brahmâtman). This notion is directly adverse to Adi Shankara's written declarations about liberation: Upadesasahasri Shankara did not extol yogic nirvikalpa-samaadhi (non-conceptual absorption or transcendence). Rather, speaking from the understanding that the Self (Atman) is already nirvikalpa by nature, he firmly contrasts the true nature of the Self and the mind: As I have no restlessness (viksepa) I have hence no absorption (samadhi). Restlessness or absorption belong to the mind which is changeable. àA similar view is expressed in 13.17: àHow can samadhi, non-samadhi or anything else which is to be done belong to me? For having meditated and known me, they realize that they have completed [all] that needed to be done. àand 14.35: àI have never seen non-samadhi, nor anything else [needing] to be purified, belonging to me who am changeless, the pure Brahman, free from evil. ààIn 15.14 Sankara presents a critique of meditation as an essentially dualistically structured activity: àOne [comes] to consist of that upon which one fixes one's mind, if one is different from [it]. But, there is no action in the Self through which to become the Self. [It] does not depend upon [anything else] for being the Self, since if [it] depended upon [anything else], it would not be the Self. ààFurthermore, in 16.39-40, Sankara implicitly criticizes the Sankhya-Yoga view that liberation is dissociation from the association of purusa and prakrti, when he says: It is not at all reasonable that liberation is either a connection [with Brahman] or a dissociation [from prakrti]. For an association is non-eternal and the same is true for dissociation also. One's own nature is never lost. As is evident in his writings, Sankara implicitly rejects both the emancipation of yoga, namely, that liberation has to be accomplished through the real dissociation of the purusa from prakrti, and the yogic pursuit towards that end, - àthat is, the achievement of nirvikalpa or asamprajata-samadhi (transcendence). Read it and weep.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: you best read it all again Personally, I think he needs a drink. From: emptybill emptybill@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:30 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...  Shankara did NOT say such a thing. In many places he discusses the benefits of yogic meditation. However, the benefits according to Shankara are purification of the heart rather than either union with brahman or freedom from bondage to prakriti. The purpose of the post was to examine the real but unstated differences between the recognition/practice found in Yoga and Vedanta rather than a polemic against TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: that means that meditation like what marshy taught was essentially a meaningless pursuit. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] What Maharishi did NOT say ... àSince the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya Vidyaranya), the Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until Yogic advaita has become the norm.àIt manifested in the idea that transcendence or nirvikalpa-samaadhi was the experiential requirement for brahma-jñana (knowledge of brahmâtman). This notion is directly adverse to Adi Shankara's written declarations about liberation: Upadesasahasri Shankara did not extol yogic nirvikalpa-samaadhi (non-conceptual absorption or transcendence). Rather, speaking from the understanding that the Self (Atman) is already nirvikalpa by nature, he firmly contrasts the true nature of the Self and the mind: As I have no restlessness (viksepa) I have hence no absorption (samadhi). Restlessness or absorption belong to the mind which is changeable. àA similar view is expressed in 13.17: àHow can samadhi, non-samadhi or anything else which is to be done belong to me? For having meditated and known me, they realize that they have completed [all] that needed to be done. àand 14.35: àI have never seen non-samadhi, nor anything else [needing] to be purified, belonging to me who am changeless, the pure Brahman, free from evil. ààIn 15.14 Sankara presents a critique of meditation as an essentially dualistically structured activity: àOne [comes] to consist of that upon which one fixes one's mind, if one is different from [it]. But, there is no action in the Self through which to become the Self. [It] does not depend upon [anything else] for being the Self, since if [it] depended upon [anything else], it would not be the Self. ààFurthermore, in 16.39-40, Sankara implicitly criticizes the Sankhya-Yoga view that liberation is dissociation from the association of purusa and prakrti, when he says: It is not at all reasonable that liberation is either a connection [with Brahman] or a dissociation [from prakrti]. For an association is non-eternal and the same is true for dissociation also. One's own nature is never lost. As is evident in his writings, Sankara implicitly rejects both the emancipation of yoga, namely, that liberation has to be accomplished through the real dissociation of the purusa from prakrti, and the yogic pursuit towards that end, - àthat is, the achievement of nirvikalpa or asamprajata-samadhi (transcendence). Read it and weep.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
you could say Shankara liked cookies, and MJ would have an aha experience of some sort. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill wrote: Shankara did NOT say such a thing. In many places he discusses the benefits of yogic meditation. However, the benefits according to Shankara are purification of the heart rather than either union with brahman or freedom from bondage to prakriti. The purpose of the post was to examine the real but unstated differences between the recognition/practice found in Yoga and Vedanta rather than a polemic against TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: that means that meditation like what marshy taught was essentially a meaningless pursuit. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] What Maharishi did NOT say ...  Since the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya Vidyaranya), the Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until Yogic advaita has become the norm. It manifested in the idea that transcendence or nirvikalpa-samaadhi was the experiential requirement for brahma-jñana (knowledge of brahmâtman). This notion is directly adverse to Adi Shankara's written declarations about liberation: Upadesasahasri Shankara did not extol yogic nirvikalpa-samaadhi (non-conceptual absorption or transcendence). Rather, speaking from the understanding that the Self (Atman) is already nirvikalpa by nature, he firmly contrasts the true nature of the Self and the mind: As I have no restlessness (viksepa) I have hence no absorption (samadhi). Restlessness or absorption belong to the mind which is changeable.  A similar view is expressed in 13.17:  How can samadhi, non-samadhi or anything else which is to be done belong to me? For having meditated and known me, they realize that they have completed [all] that needed to be done.  and 14.35:  I have never seen non-samadhi, nor anything else [needing] to be purified, belonging to me who am changeless, the pure Brahman, free from evil.   In 15.14 Sankara presents a critique of meditation as an essentially dualistically structured activity:  One [comes] to consist of that upon which one fixes one's mind, if one is different from [it]. But, there is no action in the Self through which to become the Self. [It] does not depend upon [anything else] for being the Self, since if [it] depended upon [anything else], it would not be the Self.   Furthermore, in 16.39-40, Sankara implicitly criticizes the Sankhya-Yoga view that liberation is dissociation from the association of purusa and prakrti, when he says: It is not at all reasonable that liberation is either a connection [with Brahman] or a dissociation [from prakrti]. For an association is non-eternal and the same is true for dissociation also. One's own nature is never lost. As is evident in his writings, Sankara implicitly rejects both the emancipation of yoga, namely, that liberation has to be accomplished through the real dissociation of the purusa from prakrti, and the yogic pursuit towards that end, -  that is, the achievement of nirvikalpa or asamprajata-samadhi (transcendence). Read it and weep.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
best he read the Crest Jewel of Discrimination, but I don't think any kind of deep thinking is his forte. the knee jerk reaction seems to suit him better. but he's made it abundantly clear that he will never to TM meditation. never, never, never. no, don't tempt him, cuz he's not going to do it! but its good that he has a forum where he can remind himself fifty times a week about that, lest he might somehow forget. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill wrote: Sorry but you have only jumped to your own prepared conclusion. Shankara wrote refutations of yoga as a vedic ultimate but accepted it as a provisional practice to assist someone searching for ultimate knowledge/practice. You have a fight with the TMO. Thus everything you say is negative about TM. The reality is more complex than your everything TM is wrong agenda. It is quite boring to the folks here 'cause we have heard it all before by people able to present more articulate and thoughtful arguments than you present here. You appear to want to spin Shankara's commentary until he seems to dance with Michael J. Dance if you wish. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: you best read it all again From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:30 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...  Shankara did NOT say such a thing. In many places he discusses the benefits of yogic meditation. However, the benefits according to Shankara are purification of the heart rather than either union with brahman or freedom from bondage to prakriti. The purpose of the post was to examine the real but unstated differences between the recognition/practice found in Yoga and Vedanta rather than a polemic against TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: that means that meditation like what marshy taught was essentially a meaningless pursuit. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] What Maharishi did NOT say ... àSince the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya Vidyaranya), the Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until Yogic advaita has become the norm.àIt manifested in the idea that transcendence or nirvikalpa-samaadhi was the experiential requirement for brahma-jñana (knowledge of brahmâtman). This notion is directly adverse to Adi Shankara's written declarations about liberation: Upadesasahasri Shankara did not extol yogic nirvikalpa-samaadhi (non-conceptual absorption or transcendence). Rather, speaking from the understanding that the Self (Atman) is already nirvikalpa by nature, he firmly contrasts the true nature of the Self and the mind: As I have no restlessness (viksepa) I have hence no absorption (samadhi). Restlessness or absorption belong to the mind which is changeable. àA similar view is expressed in 13.17: àHow can samadhi, non-samadhi or anything else which is to be done belong to me? For having meditated and known me, they realize that they have completed [all] that needed to be done. àand 14.35: àI have never seen non-samadhi, nor anything else [needing] to be purified, belonging to me who am changeless, the pure Brahman, free from evil. ààIn 15.14 Sankara presents a critique of meditation as an essentially dualistically structured activity: àOne [comes] to consist of that upon which one fixes one's mind, if one is different from [it]. But, there is no action in the Self through which to become the Self. [It] does not depend upon [anything else] for being the Self, since if [it] depended upon [anything else], it would not be the Self. ààFurthermore, in 16.39-40, Sankara implicitly criticizes the Sankhya-Yoga view that liberation is dissociation from the association of purusa and prakrti, when he says: It is not at all reasonable that liberation is either a connection [with Brahman] or a dissociation [from prakrti]. For an association is non-eternal and the same is true for dissociation also. One's own nature is never lost. As is evident in his writings, Sankara implicitly rejects both the emancipation of yoga, namely, that liberation has to be accomplished through the real dissociation of the purusa from prakrti, and the yogic pursuit towards that end, - àthat is, the achievement of nirvikalpa or asamprajata-samadhi (transcendence). Read it and weep.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: you best read it all again Personally, I think he needs a drink. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yzgh5LVYJwc From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:30 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...  Shankara did NOT say such a thing. In many places he discusses the benefits of yogic meditation. However, the benefits according to Shankara are purification of the heart rather than either union with brahman or freedom from bondage to prakriti. The purpose of the post was to examine the real but unstated differences between the recognition/practice found in Yoga and Vedanta rather than a polemic against TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: that means that meditation like what marshy taught was essentially a meaningless pursuit. From: emptybill emptybill@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] What Maharishi did NOT say ... àSince the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya Vidyaranya), the Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until Yogic advaita has become the norm.àIt manifested in the idea that transcendence or nirvikalpa-samaadhi was the experiential requirement for brahma-jñana (knowledge of brahmâtman). This notion is directly adverse to Adi Shankara's written declarations about liberation: Upadesasahasri Shankara did not extol yogic nirvikalpa-samaadhi (non-conceptual absorption or transcendence). Rather, speaking from the understanding that the Self (Atman) is already nirvikalpa by nature, he firmly contrasts the true nature of the Self and the mind: As I have no restlessness (viksepa) I have hence no absorption (samadhi). Restlessness or absorption belong to the mind which is changeable. àA similar view is expressed in 13.17: àHow can samadhi, non-samadhi or anything else which is to be done belong to me? For having meditated and known me, they realize that they have completed [all] that needed to be done. àand 14.35: àI have never seen non-samadhi, nor anything else [needing] to be purified, belonging to me who am changeless, the pure Brahman, free from evil. ààIn 15.14 Sankara presents a critique of meditation as an essentially dualistically structured activity: àOne [comes] to consist of that upon which one fixes one's mind, if one is different from [it]. But, there is no action in the Self through which to become the Self. [It] does not depend upon [anything else] for being the Self, since if [it] depended upon [anything else], it would not be the Self. ààFurthermore, in 16.39-40, Sankara implicitly criticizes the Sankhya-Yoga view that liberation is dissociation from the association of purusa and prakrti, when he says: It is not at all reasonable that liberation is either a connection [with Brahman] or a dissociation [from prakrti]. For an association is non-eternal and the same is true for dissociation also. One's own nature is never lost. As is evident in his writings, Sankara implicitly rejects both the emancipation of yoga, namely, that liberation has to be accomplished through the real dissociation of the purusa from prakrti, and the yogic pursuit towards that end, - àthat is, the achievement of nirvikalpa or asamprajata-samadhi (transcendence). Read it and weep.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Maharishi did NOT say ...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: you best read it all again If you can find the book... [https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/q71/1011887_1015\ 1493503728741_653594920_n.jpg]
