[FairfieldLife] Re: When one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert Gimbel wrote: In order to have cause and effect, there must be the dimension of time present. Therefore, these laws do apply in the relative world of time and sequence. Can you cite an example of cause and effect which does not exist in time and space? If so, it would be transcendental, that is, beyond space and time. That would be termed Brahman, which is not an object of knowledge. Brahman is a metaphysical or philosophical concept. This is really weird. There's something in Richard's text that often makes this fella feel good. Perhaps it's the rhythm... hmmm... :D For some reason it seems to activate the visual cortex... diirghatamaa maamateyo jujurvaan dashame yuge | apaam arthaM yatiinaam brahmaa bhavati saarathiH!
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
Curtis wrote: Since none of us actually experience causation... You may want to re-think this statement, Curtis. Apparently you got confused and went over to the transcendentalist point of view without realizing it. If you were a philosophy major at MUM, this is understandable. But, in fact, everyone experiences Causation. Everyone knows that human excrement always flows downstream. In philosophy, Causation is a relationship that describes and analyses cause and effect. In physics, we get from this the first law of thermodynamics: energy can be neither created nor destroyed, which gives rise to the second law of thermodynamics involving entropy. According to most Western philosophers, Causality denotes a logical relationship between one physical event, the cause, and another physical event, the effect - the cause-effect relationship. In the transcendentalist view, (Mandukya Upanishad, Brahma Sutras, Yoga Vashishta) there is mention of causality, but causality is explained as part of the creation of the universe, a concept which is opposed to the deterministic view of modern science. In a deterministic world-view, there is nothing but Causation, which has been described as a chain of events following one after another according to the law of Causation. All causes of things are beginnings; that we have scientific knowledge when we know the cause; that to know a thing's existence is to know the reason why it is. - Aristotle Because of this, that happens. - Gotoma Looking at the sky, he fell into a ditch. - Punditster
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
On Apr 25, 2007, at 10:07 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the other hand, if your mouth is full of salt, you cannot taste the sugar. Jim, I know you think your words and comments are profound and worthy of eight posts in a 24 hr. period, but I assure you, they are rather boring, and most likely the group will benefit more greatly if you saw fit to STFU until tomorrow. Thanks, Lurk. (groan) I was wondering how much more of these saccharine pronouncements we were going to have to endure today. Apparently Jim has set himself up as the Village Wise Man, whose accumulated wisdom we better listen to--or else. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 25, 2007, at 10:07 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: On the other hand, if your mouth is full of salt, you cannot taste the sugar. Jim, I know you think your words and comments are profound and worthy of eight posts in a 24 hr. period, but I assure you, they are rather boring, and most likely the group will benefit more greatly if you saw fit to STFU until tomorrow. Thanks, Lurk. (groan) I was wondering how much more of these saccharine pronouncements we were going to have to endure today. Apparently Jim has set himself up as the Village Wise Man, whose accumulated wisdom we better listen to--or else. Sal Thanks for giving me that power over you Sal, but I respectfully decline, now and forever. Your life is your own as you may know. Please do with it as you will.
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the other hand, if your mouth is full of salt, you cannot taste the sugar. I've never spoken to you this way Jim. There is no salt in my mouth. Which way? I am just observing what I see. If you find what I said insulting, I am at a loss for words. I am certainly challenging you, as you often challenge here. Why is that an issue?
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: On the other hand, if your mouth is full of salt, you cannot taste the sugar. Jim, I know you think your words and comments are profound and worthy of eight posts in a 24 hr. period, but I assure you, they are rather boring, and most likely the group will benefit more greatly if you saw fit to STFU until tomorrow. lurk I apologize for the eight posts. That was a mistake and won't happen again. I forgot I had posted this morning. As for my words being profound, that is hilarious, though they obviously engendered some sort of reation in you, so why is it about me? My above comment re salt and sugar was like me saying It is a beautiful sunrise this morning or a square has four equal sides. Oooh how profound! lol!
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
Ditto. Excellent discussion between two fine writers and thinkers. Big thanks for that. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great responses man, thanks. Lots to think about. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: You discount my experience -- thats fine. Particularly if you have repeated personal experience in which no value was gained, and no experience was occuring. Since none of us actually experience causation, we build our beliefs around our conclusions from our experiences. Even MMY makes this critical epistemological distinction that simultaneity is not the same as causation. Causation can be demonstrated statistically -- but thats probably beyond common personal practice. Still, while one similtenatity may be coincidence, a dozen such, in different contexts, is common sense causality. How many times do you need to slip in ice to avoid icy spots on the walkway in winter? Is that dumb superstition, or worldly-wise common sense? If a yagya results in the same experience a dozen times, its not that much of a stretch to posit causality. Demonstrating in a scientific paper takes more. But we live our lives all the time positing causality without statistical proof. I am not inclined to discount people's reports of subjective experiences since I have had plenty of them myself. It is what we conclude about their value that may distinguish our views. My sense of value of yagyas is probablistic. I don't really know their effect. Given the direct experience, I find it plausible, not certain, that they could have a wider, deeper, core-level effect. As I said, I don't discount the subjective experience, I reject the physical effect claims. I don't make any firm claims. I simply extraoplate that they may have peaceful effect beyond the room. I don't need an explanation to enjoy it. If you wanted to charge me $1000 to hear magical music that would cure cancer, I might have a bigger stake in asking questions. OK, but a bit of a strawman relative to my view of yagyas. I am not suggesting a $1000 yagya can cure cancer. Or anything like that. I know a lot of reasons why Delta blues moves me. It has to do with my values and what I am looking for from music. I understand why I like it so much. Some of the reasons are very logical given my personal values and taste. Art and logic are not in a battle in my life. They play nicely together. I know a lot of reasons why yagyas moves me. It has to do with my values and what I am looking for from yagyas. I understand why I like it so much. Some of the reasons are very logical given my personal values and taste. Art and logic are not in a battle in my life. They play nicely together. :) But these are areas where falsifiability is not needed. The only person who cares about my taste is me. But a claim concerning the outer physical effects of yagyas is an area that requires (for me) more support in how it works for me to take the theory seriously. So far I am not convinced in its theoretical support or its empirical proof. I consider it a low probability area so I don't give it much attention. I think focusing on their outer effects is misguided and misses their real value to people which I will discuss below. But these are areas where falsifiability is not needed. The only person who cares about my taste is me. And since the global outer physical effects of yagyas is at a low ranking of my values, I am less concerned about absolute proof. The direct experience is as real as the effect of delta blues on you. The art and pagentry are evident. A global or social effect is plausible, a nice bonus. Since I don't focus primarily or soley on there being possible larger and global effects, your issues with yagyas don't appear to apply to me. I have a plausible, and for me satisfying theory of how pujas, meditations and chanting effects my mind. I do not have a theory that supports a trans personal effect on the world or the physical claims of yagyas done for specific physical effects. I have a loose conceptual framework in which such are plausible. For such speculation on plausible possibilities, no rigourous proof is needed. I do not discount the experiences of others as misguided moodmaking concerning people's subjective effects from these traditional practices. I do not believe that they are influencing the world in the manor claimed. I am not claiming such. Plausible speculation and musings perhaps. I have participated in yagyas with MMY and
[FairfieldLife] Re: When one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
Robert Gimbel wrote: In order to have cause and effect, there must be the dimension of time present. Therefore, these laws do apply in the relative world of time and sequence. Can you cite an example of cause and effect which does not exist in time and space? If so, it would be transcendental, that is, beyond space and time. That would be termed Brahman, which is not an object of knowledge. Brahman is a metaphysical or philosophical concept. But, in the Transcendent, there is no time, it doesn't exist. According to Shankara in his commentary on Brahma Sutras, time is an illusion, but it is real as long as we are experiencing it. It is unreal in the absolute sense, so time, according to Shankara, is not real, yet it is also not unreal - it is maya, that is, indescribable. This is the classic Indian transcendental view. Material determinism does not recognize a transcendental view. Causation is the general law of physics which we ALL experience to one degree or another. In contrast, very few have even postulated the existence of a transcendtal state, mostly the Upanishadic thinkers. So, when one has an intension, in a place of no-time... Different laws of nature apply. This is where miracles occur. Sure, if Rome's Pilot commanded Jesus to quick; Perform a miracle for some ego satisfaction.. It would have been quite difficult to do that; Because of that consciousness being so literal, material, time-oriented... Miracles only occur, outside of time. It is an experience which cannot be explained in linear terms. That's why they call it a miracle; You must be open to something greater than your ego. That's all. Jesus said, that we all could perform miracles greater than he. Maybe so, but performing miracles can also get you killed. Look what happened to Simon Magus - he rose up off the ground and Simon Peter didn't like that, so Peter caused him to crash to the ground. Lord Krishna lifted up Govardhan Hill and as a consequence, he killed millions of living beings - a sin. If you are always looking up at the sky you might fall into a ditch, hit your head on a rock and die from drowning. Why is it so hard to believe, that you could transcend time, and change anything? If we could cause change at will, we would be magicians. But in fact, there is no such thing as change, only transformations of energy. Things don't change into other things. And there is no force that enters into the world dividing history into a 'before and after'. There are no chance events - everything happens for a reason. Why is that so hard to believe? Because it's not based on common sense. We get all our knowledge from our senses, mainly from our eyes and ears. These are the two primary means of gaining knowledge. Otherwise we must depend on inference and verbal testimony. The most reliable senses that we have are general knowledge based on observation: human excrement always flows downstream. It is just common sense to assume that human waste products will always follow the law of gravity and not fly up into our face for no reason. If we do not use our common sense, we might imagine that monkeys are flying up out of our butts instead of crap, and that instead of a corn cob for wiping we should use a baseball bat or a catchers mitt, and instead of crapping in a stream we should be going to the loo out on a softball field or with baboons inside a zoo cell. Which would be non-sensical, would it not? There's nothing wrong with crapping out in a field, and swatting at crap balls as they fly down to the ground, but most people would probably look askance at your actions. Not to mention that it would require great skill, especially without the crap balls flying up towards your face. Have you tried this? I have, and as a skilled janitor I can tell you that it makes quite a mess to clean up. One guy apparently tried this when he was constipated and almost caused a riot. I reported him to the hall monitor who told him to get the hell out and take a bath in the creek and clean himself and put on some shoes before he went back to class. It would probably be better to use an enclosed brick out house for crapping and meditate inside there, day-dreaming about monkeys and baseball, and swatting flies that you imagine to be balls of crap or monkeys in the shape of crap balls. That way, you could probably avoid being put inside the nut house out house or tied into a bed with a straight jacket and given a bed pan and Prozac. It just makes more common sense to assume that a stream would carry away your waste products rather than try to convince everyone in the third world that the spirits of the dead caused you to expel shit and then swat it into your friend's lap. They might get the wrong idea and think that your were out of your mind and not being practical. Curtis wrote: Since none of us actually experience causation... You may want to
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues snip I have a plausible, and for me satisfying theory of how pujas, meditations and chanting effects my mind. I do not have a theory that supports a trans personal effect on the world or the physical claims of yagyas done for specific physical effects. snip It was a cultural ceremony that had lots of psychological values and social values snip We may all have different views of what is beyond the empirically obvious. Some may hold there is nothing. I think there are forces of nature, not necessarily anthropormorphic entities. Its plausible to me that yagyas, as well as catholic masses and mardi gras celebrations enliven such. It strikes me that yagyas and religious and cultural celebrations, as well as healing-type rituals (such as the shamanic soul retrieval Robert Gimbel just posted a piece about, the laying on of hands, etc.), may all fall under the general heading of attitude adjustments. (The experience of gratitude new morning goes on to suggest as an effect of a yagya would be an example.) And I suspect that attitude adjustments of this type can have more far-reaching, profound effects than may be immediately evident. One's attitude affects just about everything one does, the choices one makes, big and small, consciously and subconsciously. It seems to me entirely plausible that such an attitude adjustment could have a long, broad chain of effects, many of them small and indirect, that could ultimately converge on a gross physical effect--physical healing, the lucky avoidance of negative occurrences, greater prosperity, etc., etc.--for which the cause-and-effect chain is as if hidden. I don't think it matters much whether one attributes a positive outcome to some divine entity or to laws of nature, rather than to a purely natural, if obscure, process. Actually, I should think it might *help* to believe it's out of one's own hands, so that one just lets the process happen without trying to consciously engineer it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
That was excellent Judy. John Ginder one of the co-founders of Neuro Linguistic Programing, took this view I think. He was one of my hypnosis instructors. He used to make up rituals on the spot to demonstrate how he could disrupt patterns of thinking. In his writings he was pretty clear that he believed that the content of the ritual was not the most important aspect. He felt that once the mechanism of the ritual was understood for its psychological effect, then you could substitute all the superficial variables to fit the person's cultural context. He felt that some magical beliefs were caused by not knowing what was the most important thing in a ritual, so they get passed down with a lot of baggage and unnecessary beliefs. He had been spending time with a healer in South America and was attempting to distill out what aspects of his technique might be used by other. He called this process modeling. First you imitate everything the person does, and then you strip out each component to find what was the key part that mattered. The difference that made the difference. In a seminar he began describing this process in a way that made me think that he was starting to believe in an external magical effect from some healing rituals, and asked him a series of questions to find out where he was drawing the line in his beliefs. It became clear to me that he was still struggling with deciding where to draw the line himself. (or was using it as a teaching point for me, he was a sneaky bastard) He had a principle of useful beliefs. These are beliefs which were lacking in solid reasoning or support, but which give a value to a person's life. He went little too far into intellectual relativism for my taste, but it was a valuable concept for me to apply concerning other people's beliefs. I can't know what function a belief serves for another person. He had hot young thing with him who took off each day and returned with high-line shopping bags at the end of the sessions. I turned to my friend on the course and commented, Looks like a hard day spending John's money. My friend turned to me and said Looks like a hard day spending OUR money! John Grinder was one of the most brilliant guys I have met. He ended up drawing different lines than I do. I can't help thinking it was because he had a monstrous ego and just couldn't give up being intrinsically special in a magical sort of way. So I take his NLP insights with more than a grain of salt. But he was a truly original thinker and his modeling of the hypnotic techniques of Milton Erickson allowed others to learn how to shift people's attention states with language. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues snip I have a plausible, and for me satisfying theory of how pujas, meditations and chanting effects my mind. I do not have a theory that supports a trans personal effect on the world or the physical claims of yagyas done for specific physical effects. snip It was a cultural ceremony that had lots of psychological values and social values snip We may all have different views of what is beyond the empirically obvious. Some may hold there is nothing. I think there are forces of nature, not necessarily anthropormorphic entities. Its plausible to me that yagyas, as well as catholic masses and mardi gras celebrations enliven such. It strikes me that yagyas and religious and cultural celebrations, as well as healing-type rituals (such as the shamanic soul retrieval Robert Gimbel just posted a piece about, the laying on of hands, etc.), may all fall under the general heading of attitude adjustments. (The experience of gratitude new morning goes on to suggest as an effect of a yagya would be an example.) And I suspect that attitude adjustments of this type can have more far-reaching, profound effects than may be immediately evident. One's attitude affects just about everything one does, the choices one makes, big and small, consciously and subconsciously. It seems to me entirely plausible that such an attitude adjustment could have a long, broad chain of effects, many of them small and indirect, that could ultimately converge on a gross physical effect--physical healing, the lucky avoidance of negative occurrences, greater prosperity, etc., etc.--for which the cause-and-effect chain is as if hidden. I don't think it matters much whether one attributes a positive outcome to some divine entity or to laws of nature, rather than to a purely natural, if obscure, process. Actually, I should think it might *help* to believe it's out of one's own hands, so that one just lets the process happen without trying to consciously engineer it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Ginder one of the co-founders of Neuro Linguistic Programing, took this view I think. He was one of my hypnosis instructors. He used to make up rituals on the spot to demonstrate how he could disrupt patterns of thinking. In his writings he was pretty clear that he believed that the content of the ritual was not the most important aspect. He felt that once the mechanism of the ritual was understood for its psychological effect, then you could substitute all the superficial variables to fit the person's cultural context. He felt that some magical beliefs were caused by not knowing what was the most important thing in a ritual, so they get passed down with a lot of baggage and unnecessary beliefs. You know how many shamanic belief systems, such as Native Americans and South Pacific islanders, have a figure in their mythology named The Trickster? That's always been my belief about where the power of ritual comes from. Not from the actions performed or from the language used, or from *any* of those nitty-gritty details. Rituals work because they allow the practitioner of the ritual to trick them- selves into a state of attention in which their desires are more easily manifested. Working with this theory in mind, I once developed a ritual for job or contract interviews that never fails. I get up early, run a few miles, shower, med, and then put on a certain interview suit that I bought in Paris and that I have associated in my mind with success. Then I walk into the interview not giving a damn whether I get the job or the contract, focusing *only* on having as much FUN with the interview process as humanly possible. And it's never failed. Not once. I really think that my ritual isn't really very different from the yagyas that people talk about here or from Tibetan rituals I have participated in. The thing that made them work for the *first* person who came up with the ritual was that the words and actions allowed him to trick himself into the necessary state of attention to manifest what he wanted to manifest. Then, later, he said the same words and performed the same actions, and it worked again. After a while, other people began to associate a sense of expectation around the saying of the words and the performance of the actions, but that's not (IMO) what makes anything happen. What makes stuff happen is the trick, the shift in state of attention. Over time, if people come to believe that saying the same words and performing the same actions have some kind of magical qualities, that allows them to trick themselves as well, and the ritual is passed along to another generation. Just a theory...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
This is really great advice. Thank you. TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Ginder one of the co-founders of Neuro Linguistic Programing, took this view I think. He was one of my hypnosis instructors. He used to make up rituals on the spot to demonstrate how he could disrupt patterns of thinking. In his writings he was pretty clear that he believed that the content of the ritual was not the most important aspect. He felt that once the mechanism of the ritual was understood for its psychological effect, then you could substitute all the superficial variables to fit the person's cultural context. He felt that some magical beliefs were caused by not knowing what was the most important thing in a ritual, so they get passed down with a lot of baggage and unnecessary beliefs. You know how many shamanic belief systems, such as Native Americans and South Pacific islanders, have a figure in their mythology named The Trickster? That's always been my belief about where the power of ritual comes from. Not from the actions performed or from the language used, or from *any* of those nitty-gritty details. Rituals work because they allow the practitioner of the ritual to trick them- selves into a state of attention in which their desires are more easily manifested. Working with this theory in mind, I once developed a ritual for job or contract interviews that never fails. I get up early, run a few miles, shower, med, and then put on a certain interview suit that I bought in Paris and that I have associated in my mind with success. Then I walk into the interview not giving a damn whether I get the job or the contract, focusing *only* on having as much FUN with the interview process as humanly possible. And it's never failed. Not once. - Ahhh...imagining that irresistible new car smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. - Ahhh...imagining that irresistible new car smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
TurquoiseB wrote: Working with this theory in mind, I once developed a ritual for job or contract interviews that never fails. I get up early, run a few miles, shower, med, and then put on a certain interview suit that I bought in Paris and that I have associated in my mind with success. Then I walk into the interview not giving a damn whether I get the job or the contract, focusing *only* on having as much FUN with the interview process as humanly possible. And it's never failed. Not once. So, you trick them into thinking you can do the work. Nice. But how, exactly, does an American get jobs over in France on a tourist visa? Apparently you've outsourced yourself. So, how do French workers feel about immigrants taking their jobs and going to French free clinics?
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 24, 2007, at 6:29 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I do know that once ad hominem arguments are used any reasoned, respectful discussion is over. Amen, Curtis. Thanks for this well-reasoned response to Jim's obnoxious and immature baiting. Sal From where does Sal get the incentive to describe what others write as obnoxious and immature ? From her own frustrated mind obviously. Rather revealing IMHO.
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Apr 24, 2007, at 6:29 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I do know that once ad hominem arguments are used any reasoned, respectful discussion is over. Amen, Curtis. Thanks for this well-reasoned response to Jim's obnoxious and immature baiting. From where does Sal get the incentive to describe what others write as obnoxious and immature ? From her own frustrated mind obviously. Rather revealing IMHO. Well, at least no one can blame it on me this time. :-) I've been on a Road Trip through the Pyrenees and Catalonia, and this is the first time I've felt like checking in to see how things are on FFL. 'Bout the same, it appears to me. I shall now go back to sitting beside the ocean at this WiFi cafe, and leave the ultimate deter- mination of who and what is obnoxious and immature to those who have developed some expertise in that area. I shall content my immature self with watching young Spanish girls walk by. Adios. Unc
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: [snip] What the movement does is take money from people for religious rituals. I have seen two personal friends drain their bank accounts trying to solve health issues with yagyas which did not work. Well actually it did work in the sense that MMY cashed in on someone's desperate hope. I am not in favor of this. If the movement was sincere about this they would test it. They did no follow up to see if the yagya worked. I find this contemptible. They don't care what happens as long as the check clears. [snip] I say that MMY is welcome to the money. In one's very first exposure to TM and the TMO -- I am referring to the first 5 minutes of step one of the 7 step program to learn TM called the Introductory Lecture, -- virtually everyone is told that TM is neither a religion or a philosophy. To MMY's credit, he drilled this home to us and repeated it constantly and irritatingly for nigh on 25 years. And what did the majority of the acolytes and hangers-on that I witnessed during my involvement with the TMO in the '70s do with this little piece of information? Why, they ignored it completely with a wink-wink, nudge nudge that the real knowledge was just around the corner and that their master and guru would come out with it soon...all the while, I may add, these same people were telling the meditators, the general public, and the press that TM was neither a religion or a philosophy. And we all saw these cultists approach MMY on tapes with this attitude of hey, MMY, when are you coming out with the REAL stuff...and MMY would consistently tell them: no, TM is the whole shebang; that's all you need. And yet they kept coming back insisting it wasn't. Well, the cultists won out. They finally wore the old man down. I think he just got exhausted and said to himself: Well, I've been telling 'em it's not a religion but they keep insisting it is and treating me like a guru so I guess I gotta give 'em what they want. And so you've got yagyas and religion and all that right up the ying- yang. If TMO sycophants and meditators in general are going to, on MMY's word, send the TMO oodles and oodles of cash for 5-minutes of yagyas, then they are suckers, they're off the program, and they all deserve to be parted from their last dime. They were told right up front and time and time and time again that this wasn't a religion but they insisted that it was and that's what they got. I feel more sympathy for the Nigerian email hustlers than I do for the whole lot of TM cultists who have ruined this movement by insisting on silliness like yagyas and spending thousands of dollars on things that have nothing to do with the TM Program.
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip My criticism of selling yagyas comes from its theory as well as its practice. I don't know of any plausible theory of how offering, smoke and food to statues of Indians mythological characters can have an effect on the world without proposing a magical connection. Actually, there are quite a few theories floating around these days from highly credentialed, non-TM physicists that would allow for yagyas to have an effect on the world, along with a lot of other phenomena that you would call magic. I don't discount this Judy. The world is a plenty magical place and there is so much to discover. I think MMY has too many a priori assumptions for me to believe that he is sincerely trying to find out what works and what doesn't. That doesn't make sense, Curtis. Why on earth would having a priori assumptions indicate a lack of sincerity? He believes he knows how it all works behind the scenes. What he's experimenting with is the implementation. How could it be otherwise? Nobody's ever tried to accomplish what he wants to accomplish systematically on such a large scale, even those who share his a priori assumptions. So he has to make it up as he goes along. Whether he's making smart choices about what to try and how is another question. MMY's use of science is as a marketing language with contempt for it methods. When I spent a month with David OJ going over the research, I got a front row seat on how the movement approaches science. They are the pharmaceutical company using science as marketing who don't want to hear any counter evidence to their assumptions about its value. There is just too much money at stake. MMY is not open to the possibility that he is wrong about any of his theories, so he is not actually testing them. He lacks an openness to falsifiability and this subverts the whole method as a way of getting to truth. This methodology is fine for a religious believer. If MMY just stepped up and dropped the scientific marketing front you and I never would have met online. But in his contempt for the method he misses the opportunity to advance our knowledge in some interesting areas. I don't get the sense that you approach science the way MMY does Judy. I think you understand the value of its method better, and are more open to the possibility for theories to be proven wrong so we can get to the ones that can be proven right. I don' think we are so far apart on that issue. Take pulse diagnosis for one. It is easy to actually test to see if it has medical merit. But these tests are not being done because the possibility of it not being accurate is unthinkable for the movement. This approach continues into how TMO approaches yagyas. They don't care if they are getting the promised results. I like the approach you seem to be taking with the testing of different ideas for real. Unfortunately MMY does not approach knowledge with humility. He is a knower like Bush is a decider. And the surety of this identity is both of their downfalls. But if others are putting in the time and effort, more power to them. They all have to do with the nature and mechanics of consciousness, and while they approach the problem from different angles, they all appear to gravitate toward a view of reality that is remarkably similar to that of MMY and a whole bunch of ancient cultures. These theories aren't yet mainstream, but they're moving in that direction. Oh, and they all involve quantum mechanics in one way or another. I think it will be left to people far more brilliant than me to sort these relationships out. When most people discuss quantum mechanics from outside physics I think they are using physics terms in a sort of poetry. I don't have the math tools necessary to really understand what high level physics is saying about reality. But your optimism that it will serve as a great insight about reality is warranted. But as Clint Eastwood said in Dirty Harry A man's got to know his limitations. I know mine. That goes for both of us. But my point is that just because you don't know about these kinds of theories doesn't mean they don't exist. So leave that door open a crack. It is not that I am not aware of these theories in the poetic way non mathematicians can approach these technical fields. But I am not convinced that the people discussing these field outside their technical contexts are offering the most fruitful areas for man's future growth of knowledge. Physics poetry is bad physics and bad poetry IMO. I see a lot of people
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
On Apr 25, 2007, at 9:24 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: MMY's use of science is as a marketing language with contempt for it methods. When I spent a month with David OJ going over the research, I got a front row seat on how the movement approaches science. They are the pharmaceutical company using science as marketing who don't want to hear any counter evidence to their assumptions about its value. There is just too much money at stake. MMY is not open to the possibility that he is wrong about any of his theories, so he is not actually testing them. He lacks an openness to falsifiability and this subverts the whole method as a way of getting to truth. This methodology is fine for a religious believer. If MMY just stepped up and dropped the scientific marketing front you and I never would have met online. But in his contempt for the method he misses the opportunity to advance our knowledge in some interesting areas. If you could document your insights to this in more detail, I'm sure it would be helpful for the people who are still trying to extricate themselves from the whole, very seductive scientific marketing we're not a religion thing. Could you give any more specifics? These are very important insights because they have the potential to help people gain some missing perspective. Many TMers and certainly most TB's believe TM science is genuine and sacrosanct. You are presenting an important alternative view with the potential to help people still swayed by misrepresentation and outright lies.
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
It's amazing the complex, unrealistic mental gymnastics that people like shemp and brigante go through to pretend that everything the tmo does, like aggressively yagyas and all the other money making schemes that consistently come out year after year, did not originate with MMY. In fact according to this post below MMY was forced by his devotees to come up with yagyas and is powerless to stop the tmo from continuing to aggressively market them. This is really a bizarre belief for anyone who has actually worked in the movement or close to MMY. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What the movement does is take money from people for religious rituals. I have seen two personal friends drain their bank accounts trying to solve health issues with yagyas which did not work. Well actually it did work in the sense that MMY cashed in on someone's desperate hope. I am not in favor of this. If the movement was sincere about this they would test it. They did no follow up to see if the yagya worked. I find this contemptible. They don't care what happens as long as the check clears. [snip] I say that MMY is welcome to the money. In one's very first exposure to TM and the TMO -- I am referring to the first 5 minutes of step one of the 7 step program to learn TM called the Introductory Lecture, -- virtually everyone is told that TM is neither a religion or a philosophy. To MMY's credit, he drilled this home to us and repeated it constantly and irritatingly for nigh on 25 years. And what did the majority of the acolytes and hangers-on that I witnessed during my involvement with the TMO in the '70s do with this little piece of information? Why, they ignored it completely with a wink-wink, nudge nudge that the real knowledge was just around the corner and that their master and guru would come out with it soon...all the while, I may add, these same people were telling the meditators, the general public, and the press that TM was neither a religion or a philosophy. And we all saw these cultists approach MMY on tapes with this attitude of hey, MMY, when are you coming out with the REAL stuff...and MMY would consistently tell them: no, TM is the whole shebang; that's all you need. And yet they kept coming back insisting it wasn't. Well, the cultists won out. They finally wore the old man down. I think he just got exhausted and said to himself: Well, I've been telling 'em it's not a religion but they keep insisting it is and treating me like a guru so I guess I gotta give 'em what they want. And so you've got yagyas and religion and all that right up the ying- yang. If TMO sycophants and meditators in general are going to, on MMY's word, send the TMO oodles and oodles of cash for 5-minutes of yagyas, then they are suckers, they're off the program, and they all deserve to be parted from their last dime. They were told right up front and time and time and time again that this wasn't a religion but they insisted that it was and that's what they got. I feel more sympathy for the Nigerian email hustlers than I do for the whole lot of TM cultists who have ruined this movement by insisting on silliness like yagyas and spending thousands of dollars on things that have nothing to do with the TM Program.
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
New, --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: My criticism of selling yagyas comes from its theory as well as its practice. I don't know of any plausible theory of how offering, smoke and food to statues of Indians mythological characters can have an effect on the world without proposing a magical connection. (poetic physicsy sounding words don't cut it for me) MMY is selling an ancient religion's world view. I don't share it, so his sincerity or lack of it as he scoops up the bucks is irrelevant. You said previously that you do not believe in yagyas. Is this based on experience or simply a belief? it appears the latter. You discount my experience -- thats fine. Particularly if you have repeated personal experience in which no value was gained, and no experience was occuring. Since none of us actually experience causation, we build our beliefs around our conclusions from our experiences. Even MMY makes this critical epistemological distinction that simultaneity is not the same as causation. (remember the guy who got enlightened stepping on a tomato?) I am not inclined to discount people's reports of subjective experiences since I have had plenty of them myself. It is what we conclude about their value that may distinguish our views. Thats quite counter to my personal experience. Starting with pujas -- not a yagya per se, but they are offering, smoke and food to ... images. Did you never feel anything from doing a puja. Did you ever initaite 20-30 people in a day? And felt nothing? If so, I can only say amazing. I felt a lot. I loved pujas and the way they made me feel. Although I don't value the experience in the same way I once did, as having an important positive effect on how my consciousness functions, I will always cherish the peak experiences I had doing puja and teaching TM. But I don't view its value in the same way so it is (for me) like a memory of a childhood Christmas. I still love Christmas but it is different for me now. It is more about people and less about Santa. If you did feel something from pujas, do you discount the experience, because you don't know of any plausible theory of how it works? Do you require such plausible theories in all areas of your life? Falling in love? Appreciating music? As I said, I don't discount the subjective experience, I reject the physical effect claims. Falling in love is usually reasonable once you understand a person's value system. I think falling in love follows lots of detectable reasons. It follows rules like propinquity. Each life stage has obvious criteria that we use in selecting a mate. Falling in love is not such a mystery. As far as taste in music goes, I am not sure that it needs much explanation. Some people seem predisposed to notice music and each of us seems drawn to different qualities. I don't need an explanation to enjoy it. If you wanted to charge me $1000 to hear magical music that would cure cancer, I might have a bigger stake in asking questions. I know a lot of reasons why Delta blues moves me. It has to do with my values and what I am looking for from music. I understand why I like it so much. Some of the reasons are very logical given my personal values and taste. Art and logic are not in a battle in my life. They play nicely together. But these are areas where falsifiability is not needed. The only person who cares about my taste is me. But a claim concerning the outer physical effects of yagyas is an area that requires (for me) more support in how it works for me to take the theory seriously. So far I am not convinced in its theoretical support or its empirical proof. I consider it a low probability area so I don't give it much attention. I think focusing on their outer effects is misguided and misses their real value to people which I will discuss below. I would find it odd anyone who does not believe such experiences until they are well vested the theory and research as to which neurotransmittors are triggering various receptors? I like that too -- but tend to still enjoy the experience regardless. I have a plausible, and for me satisfying theory of how pujas, meditations and chanting effects my mind. I do not have a theory that supports a trans personal effect on the world or the physical claims of yagyas done for specific physical effects. It differs from MMY's view and is more influenced by my experiences as a hypnotherapist than from religious scriptures. I am fascinated with altered states but do not view them as higher states. Have you participated in a number of yagyas and homas, making offerings along with the priest(s), feeling the heat of the offering fire, for hours long offerings? If so, and you felt nothing? Amazing if so. Highly counter to my experience. If you have not participated in such, how can you
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's amazing the complex, unrealistic mental gymnastics that people like shemp and brigante go through to pretend that everything the tmo does, like aggressively yagyas and all the other money making schemes that consistently come out year after year, did not originate with MMY. In fact according to this post below MMY was forced by his devotees to come up with yagyas and is powerless to stop the tmo from continuing to aggressively market them. This is really a bizarre belief for anyone who has actually worked in the movement or close to MMY. Actually, you sound like one of the enablers. It sounds to me like YOU were around MMY at some point in your meditating career. And when the nutty, cultist stuff started to come down the pike I suspect that, instead of raising your hand and saying Maharishi, we can't do that, you were part of the Silent Unanimity that kept your collective mouth shut, didn't protest, and let MMY continue on his merry way with whatever whacky scheme entered his mind. I suspect, boo_lives, that if you did speak up, you were afraid that you would be shunned and, eventually, pushed away from access to MMY or assigned to some Siberian TM outpost, like South Fallsberg or Santa Barbara and, as such, away from getting MMY's darshan and the coveted access of being in or close to the inner circle. Much safer to just not make waves and, heck, the guy's enlighted, you must have reasoned, is of course perfect and is not capable of making a mistake. How long, my friend, were you around MMY and during what years? I ask because once I ascertain what era of the TMO it was, I will recall which kookinesses came out of that time period and then proceed to ask you whether you stood up to it and what exactly you did from your side to prevent it. I will then determine whether my suspicions that you were an enabler are correct... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: What the movement does is take money from people for religious rituals. I have seen two personal friends drain their bank accounts trying to solve health issues with yagyas which did not work. Well actually it did work in the sense that MMY cashed in on someone's desperate hope. I am not in favor of this. If the movement was sincere about this they would test it. They did no follow up to see if the yagya worked. I find this contemptible. They don't care what happens as long as the check clears. [snip] I say that MMY is welcome to the money. In one's very first exposure to TM and the TMO -- I am referring to the first 5 minutes of step one of the 7 step program to learn TM called the Introductory Lecture, -- virtually everyone is told that TM is neither a religion or a philosophy. To MMY's credit, he drilled this home to us and repeated it constantly and irritatingly for nigh on 25 years. And what did the majority of the acolytes and hangers-on that I witnessed during my involvement with the TMO in the '70s do with this little piece of information? Why, they ignored it completely with a wink-wink, nudge nudge that the real knowledge was just around the corner and that their master and guru would come out with it soon...all the while, I may add, these same people were telling the meditators, the general public, and the press that TM was neither a religion or a philosophy. And we all saw these cultists approach MMY on tapes with this attitude of hey, MMY, when are you coming out with the REAL stuff...and MMY would consistently tell them: no, TM is the whole shebang; that's all you need. And yet they kept coming back insisting it wasn't. Well, the cultists won out. They finally wore the old man down. I think he just got exhausted and said to himself: Well, I've been telling 'em it's not a religion but they keep insisting it is and treating me like a guru so I guess I gotta give 'em what they want. And so you've got yagyas and religion and all that right up the ying- yang. If TMO sycophants and meditators in general are going to, on MMY's word, send the TMO oodles and oodles of cash for 5-minutes of yagyas, then they are suckers, they're off the program, and they all deserve to be parted from their last dime. They were told right up front and time and time and time again that this wasn't a religion but they insisted that it was and that's what they got. I feel more sympathy for the Nigerian email hustlers than I do for the whole lot of TM cultists who have ruined this movement by insisting on silliness like yagyas and spending thousands of dollars on things that have nothing to do with the TM Program.
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
There are people much more qualified than I am who have already done this work, guys like Barry Markofsky (Sp?). For me being a strong advocate for this perspective is really over. I spent some time when I first shifted my perspective on MMY and TM attempting to persuade people about my POV. But I have concluded that we all have to seek out our own perspectives. I appreciate your thinking I might have something to add to the discussion. If you accept MMY's interpretation of the value of the subjective experiences from his program, this point is moot. At least it was for me when I was into TM. I didn't stop TM because I felt the research was not good science, and I didn't stay in because of the science. It influenced my confidence in his interpretation of my experiences a little. When I was an active TM guy it was for the experiences I was having, and the value I gave them from MMY's perspective. All the other insights that came when I left were afterthoughts. I accepted the role of science as a marketing tool for the West ala MMY's SOB. People really into this don't care about the science. It is not the most important peg that the belief system attaches to. The money, the sex, the pseudo science, the manipulations, none of this really matters if MMY was correct in his evaluation of human consciousness IMO. And it matters little to people who have decided that his POV is flawed also. They are all just curiosities. I had this discussion with John Knapp when he asked me to write for his site. I am not against such sites, but I told him that I feel like this information is all out there for people who want it. Virtually no one is starting TM today, and the ones who do have more than enough info to evaluate it. My POV is valuable to me. I am not confused about its value for others. I do enjoy discussing it here though because I feel like I am addressing people who have hammered out their own perspectives on these issues as I have. By revisiting these ideas I am able to reassess how I view these topics now. More importantly for me, it is giving me a connection to people who are still pursuing their own spiritual paths on their own terms. This is a sub culture that I had lost touch with, and it has a value for me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 25, 2007, at 9:24 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: MMY's use of science is as a marketing language with contempt for it methods. When I spent a month with David OJ going over the research, I got a front row seat on how the movement approaches science. They are the pharmaceutical company using science as marketing who don't want to hear any counter evidence to their assumptions about its value. There is just too much money at stake. MMY is not open to the possibility that he is wrong about any of his theories, so he is not actually testing them. He lacks an openness to falsifiability and this subverts the whole method as a way of getting to truth. This methodology is fine for a religious believer. If MMY just stepped up and dropped the scientific marketing front you and I never would have met online. But in his contempt for the method he misses the opportunity to advance our knowledge in some interesting areas. If you could document your insights to this in more detail, I'm sure it would be helpful for the people who are still trying to extricate themselves from the whole, very seductive scientific marketing we're not a religion thing. Could you give any more specifics? These are very important insights because they have the potential to help people gain some missing perspective. Many TMers and certainly most TB's believe TM science is genuine and sacrosanct. You are presenting an important alternative view with the potential to help people still swayed by misrepresentation and outright lies.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
On Apr 25, 2007, at 9:14 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I have participated in yagyas with MMY and outside the movement. My Vedic wedding was about 5 hours long. Practically longer than the marriage! (sorry, Curtis, couldn't resist.:)) It was a blast. I got a great rent-a-pundit from one of the DC temples and we threw dung in a fire for hours. Uh, oh, now that explains a lot... What I find absolutely fascinating is the way your very reasonable and well thought-out responses are causing all sorts of angst and almost panic in the ranks of the still-faithful--it's like, they now have to prove you wrong, or else...something. Their world might collapse, I suppose. It's not enough for them that *they* believe yagyas have some inherent value, whether it's on the level of the physical or not, *you* must believe it too. And if you don't, it's got to be because you are still wallowing in ignorance, never experienced them (or haven't experienced enough of them) or just haven't thought it through enough, etc. Their insecurity is so great they must take down (or try to) anyone who feels differently. Every time I hear one of these wacko tirades I thank heavens I am on the outside looking in. Rent-a-pundit--got to be a great Mad Magazine skit in there somewhere. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip My criticism of selling yagyas comes from its theory as well as its practice. I don't know of any plausible theory of how offering, smoke and food to statues of Indians mythological characters can have an effect on the world without proposing a magical connection. Actually, there are quite a few theories floating around these days from highly credentialed, non-TM physicists that would allow for yagyas to have an effect on the world, along with a lot of other phenomena that you would call magic. I don't discount this Judy. The world is a plenty magical place and there is so much to discover. I think MMY has too many a priori assumptions for me to believe that he is sincerely trying to find out what works and what doesn't. That doesn't make sense, Curtis. Why on earth would having a priori assumptions indicate a lack of sincerity? He believes he knows how it all works behind the scenes. What he's experimenting with is the implementation. How could it be otherwise? Nobody's ever tried to accomplish what he wants to accomplish systematically on such a large scale, even those who share his a priori assumptions. So he has to make it up as he goes along. Whether he's making smart choices about what to try and how is another question. MMY's use of science is as a marketing language with contempt for it methods. I don't think it's contempt but more a lack of understanding of what's required. There's not the trace of a question in his mind about whether his theories/beliefs are correct, so of course he expects them to be validated by science. If they aren't, it has to be the fault of the science. Maybe that's what you're calling contempt, but I think it's the wrong term. Science is an imperfect tool, as far as he's concerned (which even scientists acknowledge), so he's not going to let it get in the way. If the results of a particular test are helpful, fine; if not, never mind, throw them out and try something else. In any case, this should all be in the past tense, because he's pretty much dropped the emphasis on science in recent years. snip MMY is not open to the possibility that he is wrong about any of his theories, so he is not actually testing them. He lacks an openness to falsifiability and this subverts the whole method as a way of getting to truth. Exactly. But that doesn't equate to insincerity. He isn't trying to *find out* what the truth is; he thinks he knows it already. He's not trying to use science to prove something he knows isn't true. I don't get the sense that you approach science the way MMY does Judy. I think you understand the value of its method better, and are more open to the possibility for theories to be proven wrong so we can get to the ones that can be proven right. I don't think we are so far apart on that issue. Take pulse diagnosis for one. It is easy to actually test to see if it has medical merit. But these tests are not being done because the possibility of it not being accurate is unthinkable for the movement. Ah, but it *isn't* easy to actually test. The only definitive test would be one like the Framingham study or the Nurses' study, in which a very large number of people, some of whom were subject to standard medical diagnosis and some of whom were subject to pulse diagnosis, were followed closely for many years. sigh I just came back from spending a good hour reading an old (1998) discussion on alt.m.t about the pitfalls of testing extraordinary claims, including pulse diagnosis and a bunch of others. The sigh is because there hasn't been a discussion on FFL on any topic (since I've been here, at least) that came anywhere even remotely near this one in depth and thoroughness. I had forgotten what alt.m.t used to be like. Anyway, the discussion covered many of the issues you've raised in this post (not yagyas, which weren't such a big deal back then; in fact most of it was about non-TM extraordinary claims). If you're interested and have the time, I think you'd find it edifying. It begins here-- http://tinyurl.com/2jrc88 --and continues for about a Google page and a half (but there's more material than that would suggest, because some of the posts are so long they're truncated on the main page and continued on a sub- page). If you want to describe how you think pulse diagnosis could be tested, please do, and we can take it from there. I suspect what you have in mind is the test Andrew Skolnick proposed and Deepak Chopra
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip What I find absolutely fascinating is the way your very reasonable and well thought-out responses are causing all sorts of angst and almost panic in the ranks of the still- faithful Actually, Sal, I believe there was only one person who challenged Curtis about yagyas (new morning), and his challenge certainly wasn't angst- or panic- filled.
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had this discussion with John Knapp when he asked me to write for his site. I am not against such sites, but I told him that I feel like this information is all out there for people who want it. Virtually no one is starting TM today, and the ones who do have more than enough info to evaluate it. My POV is valuable to me. I am not confused about its value for others. Bingo. What he said. I do enjoy discussing it here though because I feel like I am addressing people who have hammered out their own perspectives on these issues as I have. By revisiting these ideas I am able to reassess how I view these topics now. More importantly for me, it is giving me a connection to people who are still pursuing their own spiritual paths on their own terms. This is a sub culture that I had lost touch with, and it has a value for me. It's probably the main reason I'm here as well. I'm most comfortable these days with folks who have blown out of one spiritual path or another. They might have BTDT and then committed to another formal spiritual path, or they might be more like Curtis and me, and are trying to roll our own. But there is something very mother is at home about folks who have walked away from a strong spiritual path and not only lived to tell about it, but to laugh at it. It may be as simple a thing as the laughter. When you encounter people who have developed the ability to laugh at the stuff they were once forbidden to laugh at, and even more important, to laugh at the stupid shit that we all did in such environments, there is a certain resonance there that is magical. Maybe it's what ex-alcoholics (*really* ex) feel in AA meetings, or the sense of freedom that L.A. ex-cokeheads feel in the numerous bars there that are now substance-free: no alcohol, no cigarettes, no drugs, just herbal tonic drinks and good conversation with other BTDTers. (Thanks for this acronym, Sal...it's a useful one, and probably should be added to the FFL list of them.) Anyway, to echo Curtis' sentiments, I find that there is a fine comfort level on the New FFL that I suspect is more conducive to good conver- sations. You don't go to one of those substance- free bars to talk overmuch about the evils of drugs, let alone to argue with those who still use them. We *know* all about the cool things that drugs do. We've BTDT. We get drugs. And we get TM and Maharishi's spiritual path, too. We wouldn't have spent so many years doing it if we hadn't gotten what it had to offer. And some of us have moved on from it to different paths, and some are still on the same path but with more distance from it, and others trod no path but their own. But as far as I can tell, all have interesting things to say, and interesting perspectives to bring to the conversations. Even if you're dropping into the conversation from some seaside bar in Catalonia. Maybe FFL is a little like the Cheers myth. You know the one; it was in the theme song to the TV show. The bar where everybody knows your name. And (unsaid in the song but implied), where you don't really have to prove much of anything. People like you there because you hold up your end of the conversation. You don't have to be rich, you don't have to be pious, you don't have to be a governor or a raja, you don't have to be much of anything except your self. And occasionally Self.
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 25, 2007, at 9:14 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I have participated in yagyas with MMY and outside the movement. My Vedic wedding was about 5 hours long. Practically longer than the marriage! (sorry, Curtis, couldn't resist.:)) It was a blast. I got a great rent-a-pundit from one of the DC temples and we threw dung in a fire for hours. Uh, oh, now that explains a lot... What I find absolutely fascinating is the way your very reasonable and well thought-out responses are causing all sorts of angst and almost panic in the ranks of the still-faithful--it's like, they now have to prove you wrong, or else...something. Their world might collapse, I suppose. It's not enough for them that *they* believe yagyas have some inherent value, whether it's on the level of the physical or not, *you* must believe it too. And if you don't, it's got to be because you are still wallowing in ignorance, never experienced them (or haven't experienced enough of them) or just haven't thought it through enough, etc. Their insecurity is so great they must take down (or try to) anyone who feels differently. Every time I hear one of these wacko tirades I thank heavens I am on the outside looking in. Rent-a-pundit--got to be a great Mad Magazine skit in there somewhere. Sal What *I* find absolutely fascinating is the phenomenon of those who once sold out completely to the Movement to now have a negative knee- jerk reaction whenever someone praises something Maharishi or the Movement has come out with. As if they cannot concieve of the fact that those supporting Maharishi now have been through the blind obedience phase, the rejection phase, and have come out the other side stronger than ever, not just wishing and hoping for what Maharishi says he is doing, or mood-making about it, but as strong as the power of Surya, living it. Perhaps a way to describe the difference, at least in my terms, is that before when I believed in desperation in everything that Maharishi said, there was a constant reinforcement needed, at first by being close to his Movement, and then later by the thoughts I had, constantly reinforced. Now, all of that has blown away. Completely gone. I never talk about TM, spiritual practice, or any of that outside of this group. And when I do write about it here, my voice comes out effortlessly, with a lot of momentum. So those who automatically categorize any support of Maharishi as blind obedience, with hope against hope that the goal may some day be reached, have in plain english, MISSED THE F*CKING BUS.
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 25, 2007, at 9:24 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: MMY's use of science is as a marketing language with contempt for it methods. When I spent a month with David OJ going over the research, I got a front row seat on how the movement approaches science. They are the pharmaceutical company using science as marketing who don't want to hear any counter evidence to their assumptions about its value. There is just too much money at stake. MMY is not open to the possibility that he is wrong about any of his theories, so he is not actually testing them. He lacks an openness to falsifiability and this subverts the whole method as a way of getting to truth. This methodology is fine for a religious believer. If MMY just stepped up and dropped the scientific marketing front you and I never would have met online. But in his contempt for the method he misses the opportunity to advance our knowledge in some interesting areas. If you could document your insights to this in more detail, I'm sure it would be helpful for the people who are still trying to extricate themselves from the whole, very seductive scientific marketing we're not a religion thing. Could you give any more specifics? These are very important insights because they have the potential to help people gain some missing perspective. Many TMers and certainly most TB's believe TM science is genuine and sacrosanct. You are presenting an important alternative view with the potential to help people still swayed by misrepresentation and outright lies. TM is only as scientific as science is. If you are a scientist it may have some value in interesting you. Or if the goal remains elusive. On the other hand, experience and experience alone is by far the best teacher. You remember the expression, Believe nothing that you hear and only half of what you see? Think about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Apr 24, 2007, at 6:29 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I do know that once ad hominem arguments are used any reasoned, respectful discussion is over. Amen, Curtis. Thanks for this well-reasoned response to Jim's obnoxious and immature baiting. Sal From where does Sal get the incentive to describe what others write as obnoxious and immature ? From her own frustrated mind obviously. Rather revealing IMHO. It is protection of the lower self. It is a good thing though that Sal and Barry and Vaj and Curtis have remained on this board. And all the best to you Nablus!
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MMY's use of science is as a marketing language with contempt for it methods. When I spent a month with David OJ going over the research, I got a front row seat on how the movement approaches science. They are the pharmaceutical company using science as marketing who don't want to hear any counter evidence to their assumptions about its value. There is just too much money at stake. MMY is not open to the possibility that he is wrong about any of his theories, so he is not actually testing them. He lacks an openness to falsifiability and this subverts the whole method as a way of getting to truth. This methodology is fine for a religious believer. If MMY just stepped up and dropped the scientific marketing front you and I never would have met online. But in his contempt for the method he misses the opportunity to advance our knowledge in some interesting areas. I don't get the sense that you approach science the way MMY does Judy. I think you understand the value of its method better, and are more open to the possibility for theories to be proven wrong so we can get to the ones that can be proven right. I don' think we are so far apart on that issue. Take pulse diagnosis for one. It is easy to actually test to see if it has medical merit. But these tests are not being done because the possibility of it not being accurate is unthinkable for the movement. This approach continues into how TMO approaches yagyas. They don't care if they are getting the promised results. I like the approach you seem to be taking with the testing of different ideas for real. Unfortunately MMY does not approach knowledge with humility. He is a knower like Bush is a decider. And the surety of this identity is both of their downfalls. On the other hand, if your mouth is full of salt, you cannot taste the sugar.
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the other hand, if your mouth is full of salt, you cannot taste the sugar. Jim, I know you think your words and comments are profound and worthy of eight posts in a 24 hr. period, but I assure you, they are rather boring, and most likely the group will benefit more greatly if you saw fit to STFU until tomorrow. lurk
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
On the other hand, if your mouth is full of salt, you cannot taste the sugar. I've never spoken to you this way Jim. There is no salt in my mouth. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: MMY's use of science is as a marketing language with contempt for it methods. When I spent a month with David OJ going over the research, I got a front row seat on how the movement approaches science. They are the pharmaceutical company using science as marketing who don't want to hear any counter evidence to their assumptions about its value. There is just too much money at stake. MMY is not open to the possibility that he is wrong about any of his theories, so he is not actually testing them. He lacks an openness to falsifiability and this subverts the whole method as a way of getting to truth. This methodology is fine for a religious believer. If MMY just stepped up and dropped the scientific marketing front you and I never would have met online. But in his contempt for the method he misses the opportunity to advance our knowledge in some interesting areas. I don't get the sense that you approach science the way MMY does Judy. I think you understand the value of its method better, and are more open to the possibility for theories to be proven wrong so we can get to the ones that can be proven right. I don' think we are so far apart on that issue. Take pulse diagnosis for one. It is easy to actually test to see if it has medical merit. But these tests are not being done because the possibility of it not being accurate is unthinkable for the movement. This approach continues into how TMO approaches yagyas. They don't care if they are getting the promised results. I like the approach you seem to be taking with the testing of different ideas for real. Unfortunately MMY does not approach knowledge with humility. He is a knower like Bush is a decider. And the surety of this identity is both of their downfalls. On the other hand, if your mouth is full of salt, you cannot taste the sugar.
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: You discount my experience -- thats fine. Particularly if you have repeated personal experience in which no value was gained, and no experience was occuring. Since none of us actually experience causation, we build our beliefs around our conclusions from our experiences. Even MMY makes this critical epistemological distinction that simultaneity is not the same as causation. Causation can be demonstrated statistically -- but thats probably beyond common personal practice. Still, while one similtenatity may be coincidence, a dozen such, in different contexts, is common sense causality. How many times do you need to slip in ice to avoid icy spots on the walkway in winter? Is that dumb superstition, or worldly-wise common sense? If a yagya results in the same experience a dozen times, its not that much of a stretch to posit causality. Demonstrating in a scientific paper takes more. But we live our lives all the time positing causality without statistical proof. I am not inclined to discount people's reports of subjective experiences since I have had plenty of them myself. It is what we conclude about their value that may distinguish our views. My sense of value of yagyas is probablistic. I don't really know their effect. Given the direct experience, I find it plausible, not certain, that they could have a wider, deeper, core-level effect. As I said, I don't discount the subjective experience, I reject the physical effect claims. I don't make any firm claims. I simply extraoplate that they may have peaceful effect beyond the room. I don't need an explanation to enjoy it. If you wanted to charge me $1000 to hear magical music that would cure cancer, I might have a bigger stake in asking questions. OK, but a bit of a strawman relative to my view of yagyas. I am not suggesting a $1000 yagya can cure cancer. Or anything like that. I know a lot of reasons why Delta blues moves me. It has to do with my values and what I am looking for from music. I understand why I like it so much. Some of the reasons are very logical given my personal values and taste. Art and logic are not in a battle in my life. They play nicely together. I know a lot of reasons why yagyas moves me. It has to do with my values and what I am looking for from yagyas. I understand why I like it so much. Some of the reasons are very logical given my personal values and taste. Art and logic are not in a battle in my life. They play nicely together. :) But these are areas where falsifiability is not needed. The only person who cares about my taste is me. But a claim concerning the outer physical effects of yagyas is an area that requires (for me) more support in how it works for me to take the theory seriously. So far I am not convinced in its theoretical support or its empirical proof. I consider it a low probability area so I don't give it much attention. I think focusing on their outer effects is misguided and misses their real value to people which I will discuss below. But these are areas where falsifiability is not needed. The only person who cares about my taste is me. And since the global outer physical effects of yagyas is at a low ranking of my values, I am less concerned about absolute proof. The direct experience is as real as the effect of delta blues on you. The art and pagentry are evident. A global or social effect is plausible, a nice bonus. Since I don't focus primarily or soley on there being possible larger and global effects, your issues with yagyas don't appear to apply to me. I have a plausible, and for me satisfying theory of how pujas, meditations and chanting effects my mind. I do not have a theory that supports a trans personal effect on the world or the physical claims of yagyas done for specific physical effects. I have a loose conceptual framework in which such are plausible. For such speculation on plausible possibilities, no rigourous proof is needed. I do not discount the experiences of others as misguided moodmaking concerning people's subjective effects from these traditional practices. I do not believe that they are influencing the world in the manor claimed. I am not claiming such. Plausible speculation and musings perhaps. I have participated in yagyas with MMY and outside the movement. My Vedic wedding was about 5 hours long. It was a blast. I got a great rent-a-pundit from one of the DC temples and we threw dung in a fire for hours. I felt a very heightened state of mind. Having spent years rounding, I was in a perfect frame of mind to really enjoy it's effect. Cool. But I do not believe that we actually got the blessings of the planet Ketu despite throwing a lot of dung in the fire while hearing ketu namaha thousands of times. Clearly you slipped up and used your left
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
Great responses man, thanks. Lots to think about. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: You discount my experience -- thats fine. Particularly if you have repeated personal experience in which no value was gained, and no experience was occuring. Since none of us actually experience causation, we build our beliefs around our conclusions from our experiences. Even MMY makes this critical epistemological distinction that simultaneity is not the same as causation. Causation can be demonstrated statistically -- but thats probably beyond common personal practice. Still, while one similtenatity may be coincidence, a dozen such, in different contexts, is common sense causality. How many times do you need to slip in ice to avoid icy spots on the walkway in winter? Is that dumb superstition, or worldly-wise common sense? If a yagya results in the same experience a dozen times, its not that much of a stretch to posit causality. Demonstrating in a scientific paper takes more. But we live our lives all the time positing causality without statistical proof. I am not inclined to discount people's reports of subjective experiences since I have had plenty of them myself. It is what we conclude about their value that may distinguish our views. My sense of value of yagyas is probablistic. I don't really know their effect. Given the direct experience, I find it plausible, not certain, that they could have a wider, deeper, core-level effect. As I said, I don't discount the subjective experience, I reject the physical effect claims. I don't make any firm claims. I simply extraoplate that they may have peaceful effect beyond the room. I don't need an explanation to enjoy it. If you wanted to charge me $1000 to hear magical music that would cure cancer, I might have a bigger stake in asking questions. OK, but a bit of a strawman relative to my view of yagyas. I am not suggesting a $1000 yagya can cure cancer. Or anything like that. I know a lot of reasons why Delta blues moves me. It has to do with my values and what I am looking for from music. I understand why I like it so much. Some of the reasons are very logical given my personal values and taste. Art and logic are not in a battle in my life. They play nicely together. I know a lot of reasons why yagyas moves me. It has to do with my values and what I am looking for from yagyas. I understand why I like it so much. Some of the reasons are very logical given my personal values and taste. Art and logic are not in a battle in my life. They play nicely together. :) But these are areas where falsifiability is not needed. The only person who cares about my taste is me. But a claim concerning the outer physical effects of yagyas is an area that requires (for me) more support in how it works for me to take the theory seriously. So far I am not convinced in its theoretical support or its empirical proof. I consider it a low probability area so I don't give it much attention. I think focusing on their outer effects is misguided and misses their real value to people which I will discuss below. But these are areas where falsifiability is not needed. The only person who cares about my taste is me. And since the global outer physical effects of yagyas is at a low ranking of my values, I am less concerned about absolute proof. The direct experience is as real as the effect of delta blues on you. The art and pagentry are evident. A global or social effect is plausible, a nice bonus. Since I don't focus primarily or soley on there being possible larger and global effects, your issues with yagyas don't appear to apply to me. I have a plausible, and for me satisfying theory of how pujas, meditations and chanting effects my mind. I do not have a theory that supports a trans personal effect on the world or the physical claims of yagyas done for specific physical effects. I have a loose conceptual framework in which such are plausible. For such speculation on plausible possibilities, no rigourous proof is needed. I do not discount the experiences of others as misguided moodmaking concerning people's subjective effects from these traditional practices. I do not believe that they are influencing the world in the manor claimed. I am not claiming such. Plausible speculation and musings perhaps. I have participated in yagyas with MMY and outside the movement. My Vedic wedding was about 5 hours long. It was a blast. I got a great rent-a-pundit from one of the DC temples and we threw dung in a fire for hours. I felt a very heightened state of mind. Having spent years rounding, I was in a perfect frame of mind to really enjoy
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think most people on this group are far beyond falling for this stunt. OK. Though I am sure you are not offering that as support of your personal views. And I doubt they need you to articulate thier views. But if it floats your dingy ... It was just the context for the joke. It wouldn't be funny to a group of true believers. Interesting exchange- the longer one. And interesting that skeptics will take anecdotal evidence from a few people and pronounce Maharishi a liar, cheat and fraud. On the other hand we live on a planet saturated with greed and bloodshed and these same detractors of Maharishi's take this environment for granted. When did a gun or a fighter or a missle accomplish anything except more misery? And yet we hear little about that from these same detractors. And I'm not picking on you, Curtis, just using your ideas as an example. You perform practically next to the pentagon and haven't said anything against the immoral policies of that hellish institution- the countless billions we pay in taxes to help perpetuate the world's suffering. And yet, Maharishi comes out with plan after plan to better the world and all he harvests from some is unceasing criticism. Boy, talk about taking on the world's karma! His programs may not work for everyone and Lord knows the TMO makes plenty of mistakes, but the same can be said for every other institution on earth. Every one. So I'm watching and waiting and hoping and praying with those wanting world peace, who though it may be a rocky start, refuse to settle for the bloody greedy status quo. Jai Guru Dev.
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
Interesting exchange- the longer one. And interesting that skeptics will take anecdotal evidence from a few people and pronounce Maharishi a liar, cheat and fraud. My criticism of selling yagyas comes from its theory as well as its practice. I don't know of any plausible theory of how offering, smoke and food to statues of Indians mythological characters can have an effect on the world without proposing a magical connection. (poetic physicsy sounding words don't cut it for me) MMY is selling an ancient religion's world view. I don't share it, so his sincerity or lack of it as he scoops up the bucks is irrelevant. Either way, IMO, he is selling false hope for cash to a world who needs some real solutions. I am of the opinion that this kind of religious belief is not helping the problems of the world, it is hurting them. Being critical of this type of thinking is a positive act for me. On the other hand we live on a planet saturated with greed and bloodshed and these same detractors of Maharishi's take this environment for granted. When did a gun or a fighter or a missle accomplish anything except more misery? When it is used to stop the expansion of tyrants. My Dad fought in such a war. Here in my city guns are often used to stop people who break the social contract and start shooting the place up. I am glad that there are areas of society who can open a can of wup-ass when needed. The current president's misuse of this power doesn't make it less valuable. Since the mythic God Krishna himself advocated killing I think your view is not only incorrect from my POV, it is inconsistent with the teachings of the Guru you are criticizing me for criticizing. MMY has been a military hawk for most of his life. And yet we hear little about that from these same detractors. And I'm not picking on you, Curtis, just using your ideas as an example. You perform practically next to the pentagon and haven't said anything against the immoral policies of that hellish institution- the countless billions we pay in taxes to help perpetuate the world's suffering. I am posting on a board related to MMY. I enjoy discussing philosophy and religion here. I am saturated with political opinions of every variety here in DC. I do not view the Pentagon as a hellish institution. I have not been a fan of the current administration, but I love being an American and I am proud to perform in its capital. I meet people from all over the world who flock here for good reason. And yet, Maharishi comes out with plan after plan to better the world and all he harvests from some is unceasing criticism. I disagree with this statement. I view MMY's motivations differently than you do. My criticism of MMY is IMO well earned. My small voice never penetrates his silk lined rooms. It is just something I do to express my own views and opinions just as you do. He is completely insulated from hearing any criticism and is giggling all the way to the bank. Boy, talk about taking on the world's karma! His programs may not work for everyone and Lord knows the TMO makes plenty of mistakes, but the same can be said for every other institution on earth. Every one. So I'm watching and waiting and hoping and praying with those wanting world peace, who though it may be a rocky start, refuse to settle for the bloody greedy status quo. Jai Guru Dev. I may not be an idealist in the same way Jim. I am comfortable with a perspective that world peace is not only not achievable, it stems from a misguided understanding of human nature. I wrote a post months ago about my view that world peace is not a proper goal. World stability as a dynamic tension between country's power is a goal that I can relate to. So when people try selling snake oil panaceas for the complex problems of world peace, I view this cynically, especially when the seller has not achieved peace in his own tiny organization. Praying or meditating for world peace is misguided, IMO, on every level. There is nothing intrinsically harmful in me being critical of MMY or his pie-in-the-sky-for-cash plans. It gives me a chance to write which is valuable for me. If MMY's theories about how the world operates were correct, then none of the money stuff would matter. I reject his theories of human consciousness as being incorrect. I think this new big idea is just another rally the few believers left attempt that I find comical. If MMY is correct in his view of how the world operates, then my criticism means nothing. If I am correct, then I am standing up for what is true against a man preaching (and charging for) ideas that are misguided. I was happy to leave my whole perspective packed into a quick joke about Bevan having to deliver yet another majestic plan for saving the world. This situation made me laugh out loud and I wanted to share that feeling with some other's who might find the same humor. I'll put you down for not so much. ---
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 10:09 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls Interesting exchange- the longer one. And interesting that skeptics will take anecdotal evidence from a few people and pronounce Maharishi a liar, cheat and fraud. My criticism of selling yagyas comes from its theory as well as its practice. Snip In reading this, I was reminded of Maharishi's admission of doubt, expressed to Earl Kaplan in the midst of a planning session to raise millions more for the pundits, that large groups of pundits would actually have the predicted effect. See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/files/TMO%20--%20the%20Odd%20Sid e/
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting exchange- the longer one. And interesting that skeptics will take anecdotal evidence from a few people and pronounce Maharishi a liar, cheat and fraud. My criticism of selling yagyas comes from its theory as well as its practice. I don't know of any plausible theory of how offering, smoke and food to statues of Indians mythological characters can have an effect on the world without proposing a magical connection. (poetic physicsy sounding words don't cut it for me) MMY is selling an ancient religion's world view. I don't share it, so his sincerity or lack of it as he scoops up the bucks is irrelevant. Either way, IMO, he is selling false hope for cash to a world who needs some real solutions. I am of the opinion that this kind of religious belief is not helping the problems of the world, it is hurting them. Being critical of this type of thinking is a positive act for me. I can appreciate the act of being skeptical of something once bought hook line and sinker without any critical assessment, and that is good. In my case and others I've been aware of, there is often a 'boomerang' effect, or a tendency to later condemn *everything* which was at first accepted without question. Where my skepticism leaves me is quietly, not passing judgment on such huge initiatives as the accomplishment of world peace. It is too easy to buy it blindly or condemn it blindly. On the other hand we live on a planet saturated with greed and bloodshed and these same detractors of Maharishi's take this environment for granted. When did a gun or a fighter or a missle accomplish anything except more misery? When it is used to stop the expansion of tyrants. My Dad fought in such a war. Here in my city guns are often used to stop people who break the social contract and start shooting the place up. I am glad that there are areas of society who can open a can of wup-ass when needed. The current president's misuse of this power doesn't make it less valuable. Since the mythic God Krishna himself advocated killing I think your view is not only incorrect from my POV, it is inconsistent with the teachings of the Guru you are criticizing me for criticizing. MMY has been a military hawk for most of his life. It is not the use of force I am objecting to. it is the mindset within the pentagon that weapons are the ultimate solution, that having been corrupted by endless amounts of taxpayers' dollars, those who would wage war now see everything as a target. It is no longer healthy or noble to support them. And yet we hear little about that from these same detractors. And I'm not picking on you, Curtis, just using your ideas as an example. You perform practically next to the pentagon and haven't said anything against the immoral policies of that hellish institution- the countless billions we pay in taxes to help perpetuate the world's suffering. I am posting on a board related to MMY. I enjoy discussing philosophy and religion here. I am saturated with political opinions of every variety here in DC. I do not view the Pentagon as a hellish institution. I have not been a fan of the current administration, but I love being an American and I am proud to perform in its capital. I meet people from all over the world who flock here for good reason. I am not knocking the USA either. I love my country too. However, be careful with regard to the propaganda ceaselessly promulgated by the military. They are basically a corporate enterprise now; death for profit. There is little nobility or idealistic fervor left in the military, unfortunately. It sure isn't the military of 60 years ago! And yet, Maharishi comes out with plan after plan to better the world and all he harvests from some is unceasing criticism. I disagree with this statement. I view MMY's motivations differently than you do. My criticism of MMY is IMO well earned. My small voice never penetrates his silk lined rooms. It is just something I do to express my own views and opinions just as you do. He is completely insulated from hearing any criticism and is giggling all the way to the bank. Again, be careful of that boomerang effect. In my experience, MMY is completely aware of what goes on in the world, including criticism aimed at him and his movement. There is no insulation as far as I can see. Anymore than GWB is insulated despite the attempts of his private army (aka secret svc) to insulate him. Boy, talk about taking on the world's karma! His programs may not work for everyone and Lord knows the TMO makes plenty of mistakes, but the same can be said for every other institution on earth. Every one. So I'm watching and waiting and hoping and praying with those wanting world peace, who though it may be a rocky start, refuse to
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
I can appreciate the act of being skeptical of something once bought hook line and sinker without any critical assessment, and that is good. In my case and others I've been aware of, there is often a 'boomerang' effect, or a tendency to later condemn *everything* which was at first accepted without question. Where my skepticism leaves me is quietly, not passing judgment on such huge initiatives as the accomplishment of world peace. It is too easy to buy it blindly or condemn it blindly. Not the old ad hominem attack that I had bought something hook line and sinker when I was into TM, or the boomerang effect is now impairing my thinking. I thought we had gotten past that old tired thing. I don't think you are in a position to know how much a philosophy major at MIU might have given to analyzing MMY's claims. But I did my best to assess the claims, and as I have often said, I had no complaints about the experiences his rounding courses gave me. It is the interpretation of what those experiences mean that changed for me as I continued my study into human consciousness and came to the conclusion that MMY was not offering the best explanation for my experiences. There was and is no boomerang effect in my thinking for the last 18 years since I left the movement any more than there is in your own thinking. Skepticism of extravagant claims is not a mental deficit, it is healthy and appropriate. Nor do I have warlike tendencies. One of us spent their early early twenties teaching meditation and one of us joined the army. I do know that once ad hominem arguments are used any reasoned, respectful discussion is over. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Interesting exchange- the longer one. And interesting that skeptics will take anecdotal evidence from a few people and pronounce Maharishi a liar, cheat and fraud. My criticism of selling yagyas comes from its theory as well as its practice. I don't know of any plausible theory of how offering, smoke and food to statues of Indians mythological characters can have an effect on the world without proposing a magical connection. (poetic physicsy sounding words don't cut it for me) MMY is selling an ancient religion's world view. I don't share it, so his sincerity or lack of it as he scoops up the bucks is irrelevant. Either way, IMO, he is selling false hope for cash to a world who needs some real solutions. I am of the opinion that this kind of religious belief is not helping the problems of the world, it is hurting them. Being critical of this type of thinking is a positive act for me. I can appreciate the act of being skeptical of something once bought hook line and sinker without any critical assessment, and that is good. In my case and others I've been aware of, there is often a 'boomerang' effect, or a tendency to later condemn *everything* which was at first accepted without question. Where my skepticism leaves me is quietly, not passing judgment on such huge initiatives as the accomplishment of world peace. It is too easy to buy it blindly or condemn it blindly. On the other hand we live on a planet saturated with greed and bloodshed and these same detractors of Maharishi's take this environment for granted. When did a gun or a fighter or a missle accomplish anything except more misery? When it is used to stop the expansion of tyrants. My Dad fought in such a war. Here in my city guns are often used to stop people who break the social contract and start shooting the place up. I am glad that there are areas of society who can open a can of wup-ass when needed. The current president's misuse of this power doesn't make it less valuable. Since the mythic God Krishna himself advocated killing I think your view is not only incorrect from my POV, it is inconsistent with the teachings of the Guru you are criticizing me for criticizing. MMY has been a military hawk for most of his life. It is not the use of force I am objecting to. it is the mindset within the pentagon that weapons are the ultimate solution, that having been corrupted by endless amounts of taxpayers' dollars, those who would wage war now see everything as a target. It is no longer healthy or noble to support them. And yet we hear little about that from these same detractors. And I'm not picking on you, Curtis, just using your ideas as an example. You perform practically next to the pentagon and haven't said anything against the immoral policies of that hellish institution- the countless billions we pay in taxes to help perpetuate the world's suffering. I am posting on a board related to MMY. I enjoy discussing philosophy and religion here. I am saturated with political opinions
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
On Apr 24, 2007, at 6:29 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I do know that once ad hominem arguments are used any reasoned, respectful discussion is over. Amen, Curtis. Thanks for this well-reasoned response to Jim's obnoxious and immature baiting. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can appreciate the act of being skeptical of something once bought hook line and sinker without any critical assessment, and that is good. In my case and others I've been aware of, there is often a 'boomerang' effect, or a tendency to later condemn *everything* which was at first accepted without question. Where my skepticism leaves me is quietly, not passing judgment on such huge initiatives as the accomplishment of world peace. It is too easy to buy it blindly or condemn it blindly. Not the old ad hominem attack that I had bought something hook line and sinker when I was into TM, or the boomerang effect is now impairing my thinking. I thought we had gotten past that old tired thing. I don't think you are in a position to know how much a philosophy major at MIU might have given to analyzing MMY's claims. But I did my best to assess the claims, and as I have often said, I had no complaints about the experiences his rounding courses gave me. It is the interpretation of what those experiences mean that changed for me as I continued my study into human consciousness and came to the conclusion that MMY was not offering the best explanation for my experiences. There was and is no boomerang effect in my thinking for the last 18 years since I left the movement any more than there is in your own thinking. Skepticism of extravagant claims is not a mental deficit, it is healthy and appropriate. Nor do I have warlike tendencies. One of us spent their early early twenties teaching meditation and one of us joined the army. I do know that once ad hominem arguments are used any reasoned, respectful discussion is over. I wasn't trying to attack you or argue, only drawing from my own experience regarding how you were reaching your conclusions. Perhaps my speculations were too simplistic. Time will tell whether or not the old man is doing it right.
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 24, 2007, at 6:29 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I do know that once ad hominem arguments are used any reasoned, respectful discussion is over. Amen, Curtis. Thanks for this well-reasoned response to Jim's obnoxious and immature baiting. Sal Again, I am not baiting Curtis. I could find no other explanation for his conclusions, simply based on my own experiences. In other words, the times I have thought in a similar fashion, though not about the same subject matter, it was because of the dynamics of my mind asd I described. And I don't see myself as unique or special in some way. (As an aside, all of the talk in the media and schools these days that each one of us is different is really overblown nonsense, imo.) If he and I can both reach opposite conclusions about the same phenomena, the relative truth of it is subjective and lives in our minds and hearts, not in the events we are witnessing. Whether or not you choose to believe this is up to you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My criticism of selling yagyas comes from its theory as well as its practice. I don't know of any plausible theory of how offering, smoke and food to statues of Indians mythological characters can have an effect on the world without proposing a magical connection. (poetic physicsy sounding words don't cut it for me) MMY is selling an ancient religion's world view. I don't share it, so his sincerity or lack of it as he scoops up the bucks is irrelevant. You said previously that you do not believe in yagyas. Is this based on experience or simply a belief? it appears the latter. You discount my experience -- thats fine. Particularly if you have repeated personal experience in which no value was gained, and no experience was occuring. Thats quite counter to my personal experience. Starting with pujas -- not a yagya per se, but they are offering, smoke and food to ... images. Did you never feel anything from doing a puja. Did you ever initaite 20-30 people in a day? And felt nothing? If so, I can only say amazing. If you did feel something from pujas, do you discount the experience, because you don't know of any plausible theory of how it works? Do you require such plausible theories in all areas of your life? Falling in love? Appreciating music? I would find it odd anyone who does not believe such experiences until they are well vested the theory and research as to which neurotransmittors are triggering various receptors? I like that too -- but tend to still enjoy the experience regardless. Have you participated in a number of yagyas and homas, making offerings along with the priest(s), feeling the heat of the offering fire, for hours long offerings? If so, and you felt nothing? Amazing if so. Highly counter to my experience. If you have not participated in such, how can you possibly discount the experience of others as misguided mood making? Have you had large yagyas done for you at traditional temples? and didn't feel anything? Amazing if so. Again, highly counter to my experience. If you have not had such done, it seems an odd basis to form strong beliefs about such. You seem to make a distinction about selling yagyas. Are yagyas OK as long as they are not sold? In this view, can the pundits collect out of pocket expenses for materials? But it need be volunteer labor -- or can they charge a fair wage? I have had some yagyas done for me that were paid for and some for free. I have participated in yagyas and homas in which I contributed nothing and others that i sponsored a large part of it. Both are fulfilling. I am not sure I see your point about selling I have never had a TMO yagya -- but the ones I have sponsored, no on is getting rich. We share an appreciation of rationalism and empirical evidence ( though I find, in my life, sometimes i have to live with experience alone, not always having a clear theory and empirical findings to articulate and explain such.) That you appear to be blasting something you have no experince with is puzzling.
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip My criticism of selling yagyas comes from its theory as well as its practice. I don't know of any plausible theory of how offering, smoke and food to statues of Indians mythological characters can have an effect on the world without proposing a magical connection. Actually, there are quite a few theories floating around these days from highly credentialed, non-TM physicists that would allow for yagyas to have an effect on the world, along with a lot of other phenomena that you would call magic. They all have to do with the nature and mechanics of consciousness, and while they approach the problem from different angles, they all appear to gravitate toward a view of reality that is remarkably similar to that of MMY and a whole bunch of ancient cultures. These theories aren't yet mainstream, but they're moving in that direction. Oh, and they all involve quantum mechanics in one way or another.
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
Hey New Morning, Thanks for taking the time to post this much detail. You have raised many legitimate questions. Let me give it some thought and respond in detail. I appreciate an opportunity to discuss this. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: My criticism of selling yagyas comes from its theory as well as its practice. I don't know of any plausible theory of how offering, smoke and food to statues of Indians mythological characters can have an effect on the world without proposing a magical connection. (poetic physicsy sounding words don't cut it for me) MMY is selling an ancient religion's world view. I don't share it, so his sincerity or lack of it as he scoops up the bucks is irrelevant. You said previously that you do not believe in yagyas. Is this based on experience or simply a belief? it appears the latter. You discount my experience -- thats fine. Particularly if you have repeated personal experience in which no value was gained, and no experience was occuring. Thats quite counter to my personal experience. Starting with pujas -- not a yagya per se, but they are offering, smoke and food to ... images. Did you never feel anything from doing a puja. Did you ever initaite 20-30 people in a day? And felt nothing? If so, I can only say amazing. If you did feel something from pujas, do you discount the experience, because you don't know of any plausible theory of how it works? Do you require such plausible theories in all areas of your life? Falling in love? Appreciating music? I would find it odd anyone who does not believe such experiences until they are well vested the theory and research as to which neurotransmittors are triggering various receptors? I like that too -- but tend to still enjoy the experience regardless. Have you participated in a number of yagyas and homas, making offerings along with the priest(s), feeling the heat of the offering fire, for hours long offerings? If so, and you felt nothing? Amazing if so. Highly counter to my experience. If you have not participated in such, how can you possibly discount the experience of others as misguided mood making? Have you had large yagyas done for you at traditional temples? and didn't feel anything? Amazing if so. Again, highly counter to my experience. If you have not had such done, it seems an odd basis to form strong beliefs about such. You seem to make a distinction about selling yagyas. Are yagyas OK as long as they are not sold? In this view, can the pundits collect out of pocket expenses for materials? But it need be volunteer labor -- or can they charge a fair wage? I have had some yagyas done for me that were paid for and some for free. I have participated in yagyas and homas in which I contributed nothing and others that i sponsored a large part of it. Both are fulfilling. I am not sure I see your point about selling I have never had a TMO yagya -- but the ones I have sponsored, no on is getting rich. We share an appreciation of rationalism and empirical evidence ( though I find, in my life, sometimes i have to live with experience alone, not always having a clear theory and empirical findings to articulate and explain such.) That you appear to be blasting something you have no experince with is puzzling.
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
---I agree with the discussion (below); i.e. puja/yagya/homa sponsorships can be beneficial, although it's difficult to prove that bad karma has been mitigated or prevented in advance (Heyam Dukham Anagatam). Various possibible outcomes are continually branching out infinitely in all directions, and the outcome that becomes manifested is the most probable. But since there's a powerful energy being generated and released by the rituals as causes, theory supports the notion that effects are taking place, but where? Who knows? possibly on some planet 100 light years away. Say an accident is indicated in one's astrological chart for a certain date. Pujas/yagyas are performed in advance, but on the given date, the person stubs his toe. Who's to say that a worse fate might have occurred, that was mitigated by the pujas? But we don't know that particular parallel outcome. We only know the outcome with he stubbed toe. Therefore, if one is looking for a type of proof consistent with the level of scientific method demanded by MIT physicists, forget it. However, certain demonstrations may be possible; as well as various types of circumstantial evidence. For example, the energy. Various visions may occur on or just before the date, somehow associated with possible events. Look for the clues and circumstantial evidence. Once in the late 70's while traveling in Tijuana, I decided to test the power of rituals by hiring a famous Santeria sorcerer named El Negro to place a hex on MMY. He did this and shortly thereafter I returned to L.A. and had a talk with Charlie Lutes (at that time he had an office in the TM Center on Santa Monica Blvd.). Charlie told me that (around the same time I had the hex placed on MMY), that MMY had recently become very concerned about evil influences and was asking a number of people to surround him, affording a type of protective aura. Was this unusual behavior on MMY's part connected in any way to the hex that El Negro placed on him? I beleive so, but the connection is purely circumstantial. Yes, pujas/yagyas/homas, and other rituals (such as those performed by Santeria sorcerers), definitely do have an effect!. I'm convinced of it. Recently, the Virgin Mary appeared to me in a brief vision. She asked me to have some pujas performed for her. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: My criticism of selling yagyas comes from its theory as well as its practice. I don't know of any plausible theory of how offering, smoke and food to statues of Indians mythological characters can have an effect on the world without proposing a magical connection. (poetic physicsy sounding words don't cut it for me) MMY is selling an ancient religion's world view. I don't share it, so his sincerity or lack of it as he scoops up the bucks is irrelevant. You said previously that you do not believe in yagyas. Is this based on experience or simply a belief? it appears the latter. You discount my experience -- thats fine. Particularly if you have repeated personal experience in which no value was gained, and no experience was occuring. Thats quite counter to my personal experience. Starting with pujas - - not a yagya per se, but they are offering, smoke and food to ... images. Did you never feel anything from doing a puja. Did you ever initaite 20-30 people in a day? And felt nothing? If so, I can only say amazing. If you did feel something from pujas, do you discount the experience, because you don't know of any plausible theory of how it works? Do you require such plausible theories in all areas of your life? Falling in love? Appreciating music? I would find it odd anyone who does not believe such experiences until they are well vested the theory and research as to which neurotransmittors are triggering various receptors? I like that too -- but tend to still enjoy the experience regardless. Have you participated in a number of yagyas and homas, making offerings along with the priest(s), feeling the heat of the offering fire, for hours long offerings? If so, and you felt nothing? Amazing if so. Highly counter to my experience. If you have not participated in such, how can you possibly discount the experience of others as misguided mood making? Have you had large yagyas done for you at traditional temples? and didn't feel anything? Amazing if so. Again, highly counter to my experience. If you have not had such done, it seems an odd basis to form strong beliefs about such. You seem to make a distinction about selling yagyas. Are yagyas OK as long as they are not sold? In this view, can the pundits collect out of pocket expenses for materials? But it need be volunteer labor -- or can they charge a fair wage? I have had some yagyas done for me that were paid for and some for
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip My criticism of selling yagyas comes from its theory as well as its practice. I don't know of any plausible theory of how offering, smoke and food to statues of Indians mythological characters can have an effect on the world without proposing a magical connection. Actually, there are quite a few theories floating around these days from highly credentialed, non-TM physicists that would allow for yagyas to have an effect on the world, along with a lot of other phenomena that you would call magic. I don't discount this Judy. The world is a plenty magical place and there is so much to discover. I think MMY has too many a priori assumptions for me to believe that he is sincerely trying to find out what works and what doesn't. But if others are putting in the time and effort, more power to them. They all have to do with the nature and mechanics of consciousness, and while they approach the problem from different angles, they all appear to gravitate toward a view of reality that is remarkably similar to that of MMY and a whole bunch of ancient cultures. These theories aren't yet mainstream, but they're moving in that direction. Oh, and they all involve quantum mechanics in one way or another. I think it will be left to people far more brilliant than me to sort these relationships out. When most people discuss quantum mechanics from outside physics I think they are using physics terms in a sort of poetry. I don't have the math tools necessary to really understand what high level physics is saying about reality. But your optimism that it will serve as a great insight about reality is warranted. But as Clint Eastwood said in Dirty Harry A man's got to know his limitations. I know mine.
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip My criticism of selling yagyas comes from its theory as well as its practice. I don't know of any plausible theory of how offering, smoke and food to statues of Indians mythological characters can have an effect on the world without proposing a magical connection. Actually, there are quite a few theories floating around these days from highly credentialed, non-TM physicists that would allow for yagyas to have an effect on the world, along with a lot of other phenomena that you would call magic. I don't discount this Judy. The world is a plenty magical place and there is so much to discover. I think MMY has too many a priori assumptions for me to believe that he is sincerely trying to find out what works and what doesn't. That doesn't make sense, Curtis. Why on earth would having a priori assumptions indicate a lack of sincerity? He believes he knows how it all works behind the scenes. What he's experimenting with is the implementation. How could it be otherwise? Nobody's ever tried to accomplish what he wants to accomplish systematically on such a large scale, even those who share his a priori assumptions. So he has to make it up as he goes along. Whether he's making smart choices about what to try and how is another question. But if others are putting in the time and effort, more power to them. They all have to do with the nature and mechanics of consciousness, and while they approach the problem from different angles, they all appear to gravitate toward a view of reality that is remarkably similar to that of MMY and a whole bunch of ancient cultures. These theories aren't yet mainstream, but they're moving in that direction. Oh, and they all involve quantum mechanics in one way or another. I think it will be left to people far more brilliant than me to sort these relationships out. When most people discuss quantum mechanics from outside physics I think they are using physics terms in a sort of poetry. I don't have the math tools necessary to really understand what high level physics is saying about reality. But your optimism that it will serve as a great insight about reality is warranted. But as Clint Eastwood said in Dirty Harry A man's got to know his limitations. I know mine. That goes for both of us. But my point is that just because you don't know about these kinds of theories doesn't mean they don't exist. So leave that door open a crack.
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
A grand total of 16,000 Vedic pandits will perform this service for the world, Dr Morris said. Witnesses at the event report that although Dr. Morris was able to get through this line with a straight face, when he turned away from the podium, a jet of lassie shot out of his nose forcefully enough to knock Burger King crown off of Raja Ram's head. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maharishi's message from Akshaya Tritiya Global Good News 22 April 2007 On 20 April 2007, the auspicious day of Akshaya Tritiyathe Day of Lasting Achievements in the Vedic CalendarDr Bevan Morris, the Prime Minister of the Global Country of World Peace, summarized the address of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi to the world. 'Maharishi has given today a hint of that great secret of the administration of Raja Raam (ruler of the Global Country of World Peace),' he said. 'And that is administration on that level where, when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls. 'This is the expression of that level of administration where it is cosmic law that has been invoked to administer the life of society, not only in favour of society as a whole, but in terms of every individual Every individual can have spontaneous fulfilment of their desire materialized by cosmic law, by the law of the galactic universe. It is the heartfelt desire of Raja Raam to achieve such a level of purity in the life of the world, that this will be the case for every individual in every nation on earth,' Dr Morris said. Echoing Maharishi's words, he said that this is 'Raam Brahm Paramarat Rupathe administration of Brahm (Totality, total Natural Law) itself. And even, as Maharishi explained, taking that to another level, before the requirement is known by anyone, that requirement could be fulfilled by the parental influence of the cosmic law that administers the universe. 'So this is the secret that Maharishi said, ''I was almost too hasty to express.'' ' This is the secret of Raja Raam's silent administration 'which is dawning now, as the Kali Yuga ends and the Sat Yuga begins. We see this on the level, Maharishi explained, of Shabda Brahman, that the Brahman known through the field of Vedic Sound, which is Shruti (that which is revealed) in that eternal field of totality of all Natural Law ... that is being enlivened through the Vedic performances of the Vedic Pandits of India, and that is the level where we have, at once, the two realities of infinite silence and infinite dynamism, of Gyana Shakti and Kriya Shakti, both together, neutralizing each other, covering each other. 'These two opposite values are unified in one grand totality of infinite silence without a trace of activity; but then, in the nature of that infinite silence, the Para Prakriti, the unified value of dynamism and its eightfold divided naturethis grand reality is available completely to be the blissful administrator of life on earth. 'This is the administration of our Raja Raam, that everything in our world will be sustained on this level of its own cosmic dignity and nature. Everything will always be evolving to higher and higher levels of fulfilment.' Dr Morris presented Maharishi's explanation of the first sounds of Rk Veda and their significance as the dynamics of Natural Lawthat 'this is the level of administration where ''AK'' will really be known in the world again. It was hidden in the Kali Yuga, even in the printing of the Veda, but now ''AK'', ''A'' to ''Ka'', infinity to its point, the reverberation of infinite silence with infinite dynamism', is becoming the reality of the global administration of the world. 'So it is such a joy to know,' he said, 'that this level of completely competent rulership that can do anything without doing at all, is now going to be the reality.' Dr Morris outlined the great news about Maharishi's Kurma Chakra Calendarthe system of evaluation predicting yearly, monthly, and daily events of the different kinds of influences that can be seen in the horoscope. Maharishi's desire is that there be Vedic Pandits and Vedic Jyotishis (astrologers) taking care of these influences for every country in the world from the Brahmasthan (centre point) of India. 'And they should cover all five elementsPrithivi, Jala, Agni, Vayu, Akasha (earth, water, fire, air, space)in each area to see where any imbalance may be coming, any fury of nature, whether in water, through excessive rain and flood; or wind and hurricane. The idea is, to calm that fury of nature in advance, to prevent any disaster befalling any of the 192 countries of the world.' A grand total of 16,000 Vedic pandits will perform this service for the world, Dr Morris said. And then, when this is established, small groups of 5-11 Vedic Pandits will begin to move about the world, that everyone
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A grand total of 16,000 Vedic pandits will perform this service for the world, Dr Morris said. Witnesses at the event report that although Dr. Morris was able to get through this line with a straight face, when he turned away from the podium, a jet of lassie shot out of his nose forcefully enough to knock Burger King crown off of Raja Ram's head. I kind of like the idea suggested here. Rather have it happening than not. Even if there is no effect, its kind of a beautiful pagent. But, having been to, in comparision, small yagyas, I know there is an effect. Probably the TMO hype oversells benefits. What PR effort anywhere doesn't for their pet projects? I say to 16,000 pundits at the center of the world, cool!. Best of luck. Why knock things that are basically a good thing? Do what you think is good, and let others do what they think is good. Why ridicule it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: A grand total of 16,000 Vedic pandits will perform this service for the world, Dr Morris said. Witnesses at the event report that although Dr. Morris was able to get through this line with a straight face, when he turned away from the podium, a jet of lassie shot out of his nose forcefully enough to knock Burger King crown off of Raja Ram's head. I kind of like the idea suggested here. Rather have it happening than not. Even if there is no effect, its kind of a beautiful pagent. But, having been to, in comparision, small yagyas, I know there is an effect. I don't share your belief in the effect of yagyas beyond the buzz you get listening to chanting. Yagyas are supposed to have specific physical effects, so they actually could be tested in a manor consistent with reasonable thinking. So far that is lacking. I am not challenging your personal beliefs. I'm sure you have your reasons for them just as I do for mine. Probably the TMO hype oversells benefits. What the movement does is take money from people for religious rituals. I have seen two personal friends drain their bank accounts trying to solve health issues with yagyas which did not work. Well actually it did work in the sense that MMY cashed in on someone's desperate hope. I am not in favor of this. If the movement was sincere about this they would test it. They did no follow up to see if the yagya worked. I find this contemptible. They don't care what happens as long as the check clears. What PR effort anywhere doesn't for their pet projects? I say to 16,000 pundits at the center of the world, cool!. So you believe that this project, out of all the smoke they have blown in the past, is going to happen? I do not share this belief either. Best of luck. Why knock things that are basically a good thing? Do what you think is good, and let others do what they think is good. Why ridicule it. Because I am following my own bliss. I do not share the belief that taking money for yagyas is a good thing. I do not believe that this project will be sincerely followed up on, even if it was a good thing. This is consistent with a pattern of MMY selling happy ideas that the world can be improved with magic that he is selling. In a world with real problems that need real solutions, magical thinking does not help IMO. There are about 3 people left in the movement. None of what I a say makes any difference. But it makes me feel sane to speak up against what I see as deluded thinking. My joke was pointing out that I can't believe at this point that Bevan believed the claim as he made it. I think most people on this group are far beyond falling for this stunt.
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: A grand total of 16,000 Vedic pandits will perform this service for the world, Dr Morris said. Witnesses at the event report that although Dr. Morris was able to get through this line with a straight face, when he turned away from the podium, a jet of lassie shot out of his nose forcefully enough to knock Burger King crown off of Raja Ram's head. I kind of like the idea suggested here. Rather have it happening than not. Even if there is no effect, its kind of a beautiful pagent. But, having been to, in comparision, small yagyas, I know there is an effect. I don't share your belief in the effect of yagyas beyond the buzz you get listening to chanting. Its not a belief, its my experience. Though we can both cite how experience can at times be misinterpreted. Much to turq's chagrin. Yagyas are supposed to have specific physical effects, so they actually could be tested in a manor consistent with reasonable thinking. So far that is lacking. So is scientific validation of many things. Like love. Doesn'tmean its not a strong experience. Or not real. I am not challenging your personal beliefs. Thats nice, since I have not expressed my beliefs, but rather my experience. You choose to cast it as belief. isn't that odd. I'm sure you have your reasons for them just as I do for mine. My experience is different than yours. Probably the TMO hype oversells benefits. What the movement does is take money from people for religious rituals. I have seen two personal friends drain their bank accounts trying to solve health issues with yagyas which did not work. Well actually it did work in the sense that MMY cashed in on someone's desperate hope. I am not in favor of this. If the movement was sincere about this they would test it. They did no follow up to see if the yagya worked. I find this contemptible. They don't care what happens as long as the check clears. So you have some personal issues with yagyas. I am not being trite, but your experience is with something other than 16,000 pundits at the center of india. Using your theme of proof, you have not offered evidence that this project is fraudulent. The TMO has not asked for money for it AFAIK. You can cite track record and extraoplate how you wish. I just don't buy your premise that everything the TMO does is a fraudulent money grab. A lot has been. But in my view, their recod is mixed, and perhaps on the mend. The current long-standing free course, with scholarships, is an example. The point of my post was that your vision seems so clouded by absolute biases. Sure some bias and skepticism is justified. But yours sem so thickand dense that you can't look a fresh at something, as it is. Without your overlays. I am sure you think I am the perverbial Charlie Brown waiting for Lucy to let go of the football AGAIN. But until you show that funds are being collected for this project and fraudulently used, I will continue to say -- more power to you TMO. Go 16,000 pundits. Its a nice vision of possibilities. I hope it is successful. And may the weak tendencies of the TMO of the past be subdued to let this vision flourish. As I said, even if its just on the level of pagentry or art, its a nice thing. What PR effort anywhere doesn't for their pet projects? I say to 16,000 pundits at the center of the world, cool!. So you believe that this project, out of all the smoke they have blown in the past, is going to happen? Did I say that? I said, or tried to convey that its a nice vision and I wish them luck. And power to overcome skepticism and naysayers amongst other obstacles. I do not share this belief either. But feel free, cast and twist my words anyway that pleses and humors you. Best of luck. Why knock things that are basically a good thing? Do what you think is good, and let others do what they think is good. Why ridicule it. Because I am following my own bliss. Cool. May Dopamine flood your pleasure centers. I do not share the belief that taking money for yagyas is a good thing. And where, for goodness sakes, did I express this belief? Can't you see even a litle bit how your biases are clouding your vision? You are seeing thngs not on the page. I do not believe that this project will be sincerely followed up on, even if it was a good thing. OK. This is consistent with a pattern of MMY selling happy ideas that the world can be improved with magic that he is selling. In a world with real problems that need real solutions, magical thinking does not help IMO. OK. I love science. I also love art. I can appreciate the artistry of 16,000 pundits doing yagyas in unision form the center of India. I also, for
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: A grand total of 16,000 Vedic pandits will perform this service for the world, Dr Morris said. Witnesses at the event report that although Dr. Morris was able to get through this line with a straight face, when he turned away from the podium, a jet of lassie shot out of his nose forcefully enough to knock Burger King crown off of Raja Ram's head. I kind of like the idea suggested here. Rather have it happening than not. Even if there is no effect, its kind of a beautiful pagent. But, having been to, in comparision, small yagyas, I know there is an effect. Probably the TMO hype oversells benefits. What PR effort anywhere doesn't for their pet projects? I say to 16,000 pundits at the center of the world, cool!. Best of luck. Why knock things that are basically a good thing? Do what you think is good, and let others do what they think is good. Why ridicule it. It's a very large claim, but no different from what Jesus and other prophets have said, i.e., that the children of God certainly can live up to their divine birthright: nothing will be impossible to you. Jesus: And He said to them, Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you. http://bible.cc/matthew/17-20.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: when one looks to the sky for rain, the rain falls
I think most people on this group are far beyond falling for this stunt. OK. Though I am sure you are not offering that as support of your personal views. And I doubt they need you to articulate thier views. But if it floats your dingy ... It was just the context for the joke. It wouldn't be funny to a group of true believers. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: A grand total of 16,000 Vedic pandits will perform this service for the world, Dr Morris said. Witnesses at the event report that although Dr. Morris was able to get through this line with a straight face, when he turned away from the podium, a jet of lassie shot out of his nose forcefully enough to knock Burger King crown off of Raja Ram's head. I kind of like the idea suggested here. Rather have it happening than not. Even if there is no effect, its kind of a beautiful pagent. But, having been to, in comparision, small yagyas, I know there is an effect. I don't share your belief in the effect of yagyas beyond the buzz you get listening to chanting. Its not a belief, its my experience. Though we can both cite how experience can at times be misinterpreted. Much to turq's chagrin. Yagyas are supposed to have specific physical effects, so they actually could be tested in a manor consistent with reasonable thinking. So far that is lacking. So is scientific validation of many things. Like love. Doesn'tmean its not a strong experience. Or not real. I am not challenging your personal beliefs. Thats nice, since I have not expressed my beliefs, but rather my experience. You choose to cast it as belief. isn't that odd. I'm sure you have your reasons for them just as I do for mine. My experience is different than yours. Probably the TMO hype oversells benefits. What the movement does is take money from people for religious rituals. I have seen two personal friends drain their bank accounts trying to solve health issues with yagyas which did not work. Well actually it did work in the sense that MMY cashed in on someone's desperate hope. I am not in favor of this. If the movement was sincere about this they would test it. They did no follow up to see if the yagya worked. I find this contemptible. They don't care what happens as long as the check clears. So you have some personal issues with yagyas. I am not being trite, but your experience is with something other than 16,000 pundits at the center of india. Using your theme of proof, you have not offered evidence that this project is fraudulent. The TMO has not asked for money for it AFAIK. You can cite track record and extraoplate how you wish. I just don't buy your premise that everything the TMO does is a fraudulent money grab. A lot has been. But in my view, their recod is mixed, and perhaps on the mend. The current long-standing free course, with scholarships, is an example. The point of my post was that your vision seems so clouded by absolute biases. Sure some bias and skepticism is justified. But yours sem so thickand dense that you can't look a fresh at something, as it is. Without your overlays. I am sure you think I am the perverbial Charlie Brown waiting for Lucy to let go of the football AGAIN. But until you show that funds are being collected for this project and fraudulently used, I will continue to say -- more power to you TMO. Go 16,000 pundits. Its a nice vision of possibilities. I hope it is successful. And may the weak tendencies of the TMO of the past be subdued to let this vision flourish. As I said, even if its just on the level of pagentry or art, its a nice thing. What PR effort anywhere doesn't for their pet projects? I say to 16,000 pundits at the center of the world, cool!. So you believe that this project, out of all the smoke they have blown in the past, is going to happen? Did I say that? I said, or tried to convey that its a nice vision and I wish them luck. And power to overcome skepticism and naysayers amongst other obstacles. I do not share this belief either. But feel free, cast and twist my words anyway that pleses and humors you. Best of luck. Why knock things that are basically a good thing? Do what you think is good, and let others do what they think is good. Why ridicule it. Because I am following my own bliss. Cool. May Dopamine flood your pleasure centers. I do not share the belief that taking money for yagyas is a good thing. And where, for goodness sakes, did I express this belief? Can't you see even a litle bit how your biases are clouding your vision?
