[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
beautifully said. absolutely accurately put. no one could say it better than you have, even the greatest teachers. very, very well said. thank you! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk" wrote: > > > > BC is exploring the fullness and texture of motion found in the > stillness of > > CC :) > > I like to put it this way; when you realize the spark of God that > exists as your own soul in its fullness, that is CC. When that > singular experience grows to embrace the soul of the manifest World, > that is GC, and when that experience melts into unbounded unmanifest > consciousness that is Unity or BC. > > According to MMY all the great souls 'bodies' remain in he Akasha > tattwa until the time of dissolution or pralaya, they have bodies > similar to houses made of glass bricks, enabling the light (glow) to > shine through. They can take any body on any plane at any time if God > so wills it, according to some sources. They are one with the light. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
---thx. Some Neo-Advaitins only wish to "not exist" in any relative sense after death. Horrifying! Here's the true form of the TMO: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_on_sc/sci_monster_snake In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk" wrote: > > > > BC is exploring the fullness and texture of motion found in the > stillness of > > CC :) > > I like to put it this way; when you realize the spark of God that > exists as your own soul in its fullness, that is CC. When that > singular experience grows to embrace the soul of the manifest World, > that is GC, and when that experience melts into unbounded unmanifest > consciousness that is Unity or BC. > > According to MMY all the great souls 'bodies' remain in he Akasha > tattwa until the time of dissolution or pralaya, they have bodies > similar to houses made of glass bricks, enabling the light (glow) to > shine through. They can take any body on any plane at any time if God > so wills it, according to some sources. They are one with the light. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk" wrote: > > BC is exploring the fullness and texture of motion found in the stillness of > CC :) I like to put it this way; when you realize the spark of God that exists as your own soul in its fullness, that is CC. When that singular experience grows to embrace the soul of the manifest World, that is GC, and when that experience melts into unbounded unmanifest consciousness that is Unity or BC. According to MMY all the great souls 'bodies' remain in he Akasha tattwa until the time of dissolution or pralaya, they have bodies similar to houses made of glass bricks, enabling the light (glow) to shine through. They can take any body on any plane at any time if God so wills it, according to some sources. They are one with the light.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
BC is exploring the fullness and texture of motion found in the stillness of CC :) - Original Message - From: "yifuxero" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 2:03 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???) > -Isn't "BC" - Brahman Consciousness - Unity? > > Oneness Temple: > > http://www.experiencefestival.com/forum/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/ > 878 > > > > > - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: >> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 > wrote: >> > >> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" > wrote: >> > > >> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 >> > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." > wrote: >> > > > perhaps after >> > > > > all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he >> > said so!! >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > He did. >> > > > >> > > > MMY: "I'm just a normal human being" >> > > > Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a > normal >> > human >> > > > being" >> > > > >> > > > - Vlodrop, 1999 >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > MMY's normal was someone in CC >> > > >> > > >> > > L. >> > >> > Correct; or rather BC. >> >> So what's the difference between BC (Brahman Consciousness) and CC >> (Cosmic Consciousness)? >> > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
-Isn't "BC" - Brahman Consciousness - Unity? Oneness Temple: http://www.experiencefestival.com/forum/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/ 878 - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > > perhaps after > > > > > all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he > > said so!! > > > > > > > > > > > > He did. > > > > > > > > MMY: "I'm just a normal human being" > > > > Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a normal > > human > > > > being" > > > > > > > > - Vlodrop, 1999 > > > > > > > > > > > > > MMY's normal was someone in CC > > > > > > > > > L. > > > > Correct; or rather BC. > > So what's the difference between BC (Brahman Consciousness) and CC > (Cosmic Consciousness)? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2009, at 3:43 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 > > > > >> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." > wrote: > > > perhaps after > > > all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he > > > said so!! > > > >>> > > > >>> He did. > > > >>> > > > >>> MMY: "I'm just a normal human being" > > > >>> Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a > normal > > > >>> human being" > > > >>> > > > >>> - Vlodrop, 1999 > > you must have figured out by now BillyG that Vaj has -anything- but > reality in mind when evaluating the "demon" Maharishi- lol. Vaj > projects all of his failures and unhappiness on the guy. Both the Turq and Vaj has made this into an almost fulltime job. Some Buddhists, don't you think ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > perhaps after > > > > all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he > said so!! > > > > > > > > > He did. > > > > > > MMY: "I'm just a normal human being" > > > Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a normal > human > > > being" > > > > > > - Vlodrop, 1999 > > > > > > > > > MMY's normal was someone in CC > > > > > > L. > > Correct; or rather BC. So what's the difference between BC (Brahman Consciousness) and CC (Cosmic Consciousness)?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > perhaps after > > > all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he said so!! > > > > > > He did. > > > > MMY: "I'm just a normal human being" > > Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a normal human > > being" > > > > - Vlodrop, 1999 > > > > > MMY's normal was someone in CC > > > L. Correct; or rather BC.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
thanks for the clarification Kirk-- i should have said, "who needs a teacher once the state of CC is permanent?"... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk" wrote: > > > >> > > who needs a teacher once CC is reached? only a seeker of CC stays > > with a teacher. > > > > > > I had some clear CC experiences a few times. Back when I was a kid. > They are what led me to start work with the energies, and they happened > before I did TM. They showed me where to go and what to work on. Those > experiences were the guru. But then one can say the development of states > beyond this bring greater interelatedness, so it's almost certain that some > guru will be in the environment when one has moved towards unity. Even if > its only Guru Datta in the Gap in his bright blue formless form. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2009, at 3:43 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > >> > > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > perhaps after > > all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he > > said so!! > > >>> > > >>> He did. > > >>> > > >>> MMY: "I'm just a normal human being" > > >>> Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a normal > > >>> human being" > > >>> > > >>> - Vlodrop, 1999 > > >> > > >> > > >> MMY's normal was someone in CC > > > > > > > > > A pity he never thought that any of his students > > > were normal. At least not enough to say so. > > > > > > Doncha think? > > > > > > If I get what Amma implies, any of the gurus known for their bad > > behavior, i.e. sex with their students, diddling young boys, etc. > > could not or would not be jivan-mukta's, i.e. in CC. So by that > > standard, ole M. was just one of many false gurus, many who were > > quite popular, but none were "normal" in the sense being described. > > True, but the evidence is so sketchy it hardly holds up, a few > accusations here and there over a 50+ year period is pretty much par > for the course these days. If he was a sexual predator surely there > would have been many victims, yet it's hard to prove even one! > you must have figured out by now BillyG that Vaj has -anything- but reality in mind when evaluating the "demon" Maharishi- lol. Vaj projects all of his failures and unhappiness on the guy.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
>> > who needs a teacher once CC is reached? only a seeker of CC stays > with a teacher. > > I had some clear CC experiences a few times. Back when I was a kid. They are what led me to start work with the energies, and they happened before I did TM. They showed me where to go and what to work on. Those experiences were the guru. But then one can say the development of states beyond this bring greater interelatedness, so it's almost certain that some guru will be in the environment when one has moved towards unity. Even if its only Guru Datta in the Gap in his bright blue formless form.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > > perhaps after > > > > all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he > > > > said so!! > > > > > > He did. > > > > > > MMY: "I'm just a normal human being" > > > Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a normal > > > human being" > > > > > > - Vlodrop, 1999 > > > > > > MMY's normal was someone in CC > > > A pity he never thought that any of his students > were normal. At least not enough to say so. > > Doncha think? > who needs a teacher once CC is reached? only a seeker of CC stays with a teacher.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
that was the point of the Maharishi showing up-- he was here to do anything but continue the tired old standards of normalcy, the very low bar that granted normalcy to anyone with a pulse. he understood that the stressed out nervous systems of the world needed something refreshing to attain. normalcy then became what it is, clean functioning. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > perhaps after > > > > all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he said > so!! > > > He did. > > > > MMY: "I'm just a normal human being" > > > Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a normal > human > > > being" > > > > > > - Vlodrop, 1999 > > MMY's normal was someone in CC > > L. > > I think I would have to agree with Bevan, if MMY was saying he was > normal because he was in CC, then surely that is a new definition of > normal. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Feb 4, 2009, at 3:43 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > >> > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > perhaps after > all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he > said so!! > >>> > >>> He did. > >>> > >>> MMY: "I'm just a normal human being" > >>> Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a normal > >>> human being" > >>> > >>> - Vlodrop, 1999 > >> > >> > >> MMY's normal was someone in CC > > > > > > A pity he never thought that any of his students > > were normal. At least not enough to say so. > > > > Doncha think? > > > If I get what Amma implies, any of the gurus known for their bad > behavior, i.e. sex with their students, diddling young boys, etc. > could not or would not be jivan-mukta's, i.e. in CC. So by that > standard, ole M. was just one of many false gurus, many who were > quite popular, but none were "normal" in the sense being described. True, but the evidence is so sketchy it hardly holds up, a few accusations here and there over a 50+ year period is pretty much par for the course these days. If he was a sexual predator surely there would have been many victims, yet it's hard to prove even one!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > perhaps after > > > > all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he said > so!! > > > He did. > > > > MMY: "I'm just a normal human being" > > > Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a normal > human > > > being" > > > > > > - Vlodrop, 1999 > > MMY's normal was someone in CC > > L. > > I think I would have to agree with Bevan, if MMY was saying he was > normal because he was in CC, then surely that is a new definition of > normal. > Yah, but I seem to recall that MMY made reference to CC as being "merely normal" 30-40 years ago, so the definition was hardly new. L.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
On Feb 4, 2009, at 3:43 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: perhaps after all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he said so!! He did. MMY: "I'm just a normal human being" Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a normal human being" - Vlodrop, 1999 MMY's normal was someone in CC A pity he never thought that any of his students were normal. At least not enough to say so. Doncha think? If I get what Amma implies, any of the gurus known for their bad behavior, i.e. sex with their students, diddling young boys, etc. could not or would not be jivan-mukta's, i.e. in CC. So by that standard, ole M. was just one of many false gurus, many who were quite popular, but none were "normal" in the sense being described.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > perhaps after > > > all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he said so!! > > He did. > > MMY: "I'm just a normal human being" > > Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a normal human > > being" > > > > - Vlodrop, 1999 > MMY's normal was someone in CC > L. I think I would have to agree with Bevan, if MMY was saying he was normal because he was in CC, then surely that is a new definition of normal.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > perhaps after > > > all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he > > > said so!! > > > > He did. > > > > MMY: "I'm just a normal human being" > > Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a normal > > human being" > > > > - Vlodrop, 1999 > > > MMY's normal was someone in CC A pity he never thought that any of his students were normal. At least not enough to say so. Doncha think?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > perhaps after > > all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he said so!! > > > He did. > > MMY: "I'm just a normal human being" > Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a normal human > being" > > - Vlodrop, 1999 > MMY's normal was someone in CC L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
magical elevator ride?! i think you have confused analogy with reality...another example, no doubt, of your confused "selfless" behavior. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Feb 2, 2009, at 8:26 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > > > there are many ways of gaining enlightenment. first off, it is not > > an either/or proposition-- i see the process of gaining > > enlightenment initially like a lightbulb that flashes on, and then > > off, with no regular interval to its timing. an experience of > > enlightenment, then darkness for awile, then another flash, then > > darkness. > > > > eventually the light stays on, and perhaps someone feels confident > > enough to say, "hey everyone, i am enlightened!" and they begin the > > process of watching the lightbulb to see how far the light is > > shining out, and when it appears obscured, and what the public > > proclamation and challenge does to their ability to integrate the > > inner light into their outer life. > > > > and perhaps the light appears to go out again. a learning process > > which takes time; more integration in daily life. and after some > > more time, the lightbulb stays on, for good, under all > > circumstances, and then they have a choice to say, or not to say, "i > > am enlightened", depending on what they feel like doing; hold > > themselves up as an example of enlightenment, or quietly allowing > > the bulb to burn bright within. > > > > so to make the assumption that because someone proclaims their > > enlightenment, that they will suffer a downfall, and have to start > > again from the beginning, is a false assumption. > > > > we as human beings learn by doing, and testing and challenging, and > > if we are true to ourselves and our desire for gaining > > enlightenment, we will eventually be successful, regardless of what > > we may proclaim along the way. > > > Does this happen before or after the magical elevator ride? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] > > On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 > > Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:43 PM > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on > > Maharishi ???) > > > > > > > > we all looked to > > Maharishi as God. Maharishi did not; He simply stated that "I am a > > normal human being" > > > > Maybe you should have taken him at his word, Nabby. > > I did from day one. Never have I met a person more ready to reach out > to humanity. Never have I seen a person more down to earth, someone who > wanted to be a friend with all living creatures. Except, of course, cats. He certainly is a > friend of friends for those fortunate souls for all eternity. Why ? > Because he had gone that path, He knows what unstressing is. And He > certainly knew Liberation; a freedom He above all wanted to share with > His "friends" > This He only could do as a "normal person". Probably the first "normal > person" in the Age if Enlightenment" > If you truly view him as a normal human being why do you capitalize the pronoun "he" whenever you refer to him? Just wondering.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
On Feb 2, 2009, at 8:26 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: there are many ways of gaining enlightenment. first off, it is not an either/or proposition-- i see the process of gaining enlightenment initially like a lightbulb that flashes on, and then off, with no regular interval to its timing. an experience of enlightenment, then darkness for awile, then another flash, then darkness. eventually the light stays on, and perhaps someone feels confident enough to say, "hey everyone, i am enlightened!" and they begin the process of watching the lightbulb to see how far the light is shining out, and when it appears obscured, and what the public proclamation and challenge does to their ability to integrate the inner light into their outer life. and perhaps the light appears to go out again. a learning process which takes time; more integration in daily life. and after some more time, the lightbulb stays on, for good, under all circumstances, and then they have a choice to say, or not to say, "i am enlightened", depending on what they feel like doing; hold themselves up as an example of enlightenment, or quietly allowing the bulb to burn bright within. so to make the assumption that because someone proclaims their enlightenment, that they will suffer a downfall, and have to start again from the beginning, is a false assumption. we as human beings learn by doing, and testing and challenging, and if we are true to ourselves and our desire for gaining enlightenment, we will eventually be successful, regardless of what we may proclaim along the way. Does this happen before or after the magical elevator ride?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
On Feb 2, 2009, at 11:43 PM, yifuxero wrote: --You call it epiphenomenon. I call it "Celestial". A gyulus style realization, where the body simply vanishes, like Abhinavagupta and his 40 disciples, is the more "celestial" type of realization and has been believed to have happened in both Hindu and Buddhist inner tantra realizers. But the Jalus, the Body of Light and the Rainbow body, where non-DNA containing tissues are all that are left behind, this only is known to occur in Mahasandhi/Dzogchen, it would not be considered a celestial type of realization--but of course that depends of how you're defining "celestial".
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "amritasyaputra" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > > > > > Follow the money, Billy. See if the mantra can take the bad > > > taste out of your mouth after you do. See how much of your > > > objectivity you have left after that. > > > > Indeed. Follow the money..right back to the many bank > > accounts of the Shrivastava/Varma clan. Given Shaas' spiel, Geez, it sounds to me as if FFL might have its first Shrivastava/Varma shill. :-) Wouldn't that be a trip? Girish posting here anonymously, trying to recover a few of the "lost" to keep his bank accounts growing? I'm not saying that that's what's going on really, but *effectively* that's what's going on. But it's "all good" because it adds to the entertainment quotient for FFL. Where else in the universe, for example, could you hear someone say with a straight face: "Sorry, Ben, but if a puja.net website or any other site calls Vedic Devatas "Mythology" (as in "Vedic Mythology Podcast") they disqualify themselves from being taken seriously." Now THAT you can take seriously. Serious something, anyway. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--You call it epiphenomenon. I call it "Celestial". - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Feb 2, 2009, at 10:30 PM, yifuxero wrote: > > > ---Good start, but the body (DNA) is not necessarily free of Entropy. > > That type of freedom would entail one getting a Rainbow Light Body, > > which I assume would be basically equivalent to the Fundie Christian > > concept of being "Raptured"...; i.e. being physically translated into > > Heaven without an intervening bodily death. > > Cases of people getting a Rainbow Light body might be similar > > except that the physical body may die, then immediately followed by a > > dissolving of the corpse and the acquisition of a Celestial body. > > In either case, these types of Resurrections involve the DNA's > > evolution into a higher order of existence. I see no evidence for > > that type of evolution taking place in the "Jivan Mukta's". > > Thus, any claimants to Enlightenment seem to forget the other "E" > > word: Entropy. > > > You're making the classic confusion between the gyulus and jalus. > > While there is an obvious connection between Body of Light realizers > and DNA--the only parts left behind are non-DNA tissues--you are > missing the underlying principle and the underlying distinctions IMO. > You're merely fascinated with some epiphenomenon. > > Impressive gab though. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
>
> Dear amritasyaputra:
>
> On Feb 2, 2009, at 7:58 PM, amritasyaputra wrote:
>
> > dear Vaj,
> >
> > If Totality is found in a grain of sand, it is found in every
cell of
> > your body and brain, too. It is you! OK, that I don't know :-)
since
> > you are doubting it.
> > But it is the Self, that's me! And if you don't know your Self,
the
> > basis of your life... sorry but that's not normal.
>
>
> Sorry, but you're delusional.
>
> Self (capital "S") is ego, just because it's expanded to some
large
> proportion or imagined large proportion ("infinity", TMO fav:
> "unboundedness" or "unbounded", Brahman) doesn't make it nondual.
It
> just makes it really fucking BIG. Big deal.
>
> Big Ego.
>
> Not normal.
>
> Sorry.
>
"Only when human beings are able to perceive and acknowledge the
Self in each other can there be real peace." Amma
says a lot about your combative and obsessive personality, dickhead.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
On Feb 2, 2009, at 10:30 PM, yifuxero wrote: > ---Good start, but the body (DNA) is not necessarily free of Entropy. > That type of freedom would entail one getting a Rainbow Light Body, > which I assume would be basically equivalent to the Fundie Christian > concept of being "Raptured"...; i.e. being physically translated into > Heaven without an intervening bodily death. > Cases of people getting a Rainbow Light body might be similar > except that the physical body may die, then immediately followed by a > dissolving of the corpse and the acquisition of a Celestial body. > In either case, these types of Resurrections involve the DNA's > evolution into a higher order of existence. I see no evidence for > that type of evolution taking place in the "Jivan Mukta's". > Thus, any claimants to Enlightenment seem to forget the other "E" > word: Entropy. You're making the classic confusion between the gyulus and jalus. While there is an obvious connection between Body of Light realizers and DNA--the only parts left behind are non-DNA tissues--you are missing the underlying principle and the underlying distinctions IMO. You're merely fascinated with some epiphenomenon. Impressive gab though.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
i've always made a distinction between the average person on the street, which i would call ordinary, and someone with a normally functioning nervous system, or enlightened physiology, which i would call normal. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > > perhaps after > > > > > all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he > > said so!! > > > > > > > > > > > > He did. > > > > > > > > MMY: "I'm a normal human being" > > > > Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a normal > > human > > > > being" > > > > > > > > - Vlodrop, 1999 > > > > > > Nice to hear, it looks like Bevan didn't believe him! > > > > > > How can you read such utter nonsense out of this ? The "hard rocks of > > ignorance" I suppose. > > Bevan was flabbagasterd about MMY's statement since we all looked to > > Maharishi as God. Maharishi did not; He simply stated that "I am a > > normal human being" > > > > Please get a checking. > > Depends on how you define normal, most people would think normal to be > the average Joe on the street. It seems in this context however MMY > meant being enlightened is normal which is how HE would define normal. > > So which was it? Was MMY defining himself as a mere human (the context > I was using) or an Enlightened Being? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
---Good start, but the body (DNA) is not necessarily free of Entropy. That type of freedom would entail one getting a Rainbow Light Body, which I assume would be basically equivalent to the Fundie Christian concept of being "Raptured"...; i.e. being physically translated into Heaven without an intervening bodily death. Cases of people getting a Rainbow Light body might be similar except that the physical body may die, then immediately followed by a dissolving of the corpse and the acquisition of a Celestial body. In either case, these types of Resurrections involve the DNA's evolution into a higher order of existence. I see no evidence for that type of evolution taking place in the "Jivan Mukta's". Thus, any claimants to Enlightenment seem to forget the other "E" word: Entropy. FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Feb 2, 2009, at 7:06 PM, amritasyaputra wrote: > > > But Jivan-Mukta IS (or should be) a normal human being. So he was. > > > > Shaas > > > Nice try. > > A jivan-mukta by ANY modern standard is an extraordinary human being. > After all, they are "beyond" the living--but still living. Incredible. > > Amma got it right. Someone with his level of relative behavior, could > not--as a natural part of his action--embrace totality in a permanent > way. Having said that, take what you can from the shit he madeand > move on. Learn to embrace totality. > > Good advice Amma, good advice. I did, and I do. > > Embrace totality and share it with everyone you can. She lives that > reality. Quite literally. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
On Feb 2, 2009, at 8:32 PM, boo_lives wrote: > Same thing - at this point most of these people have too much invested > to question the investment. And this is the quintessential point for anyone with over-investment with the movement. Can one really trust what the TB says after the signs of the Maheshian 401-k or Roth bottom out? It's most evident when the market--the overwhelming external opinion--takes a very credible dive and the over-invested one still cries the praises of his/ her overvalued "stock"-guru. It's somewhat funny, the misplaced insistences but sad for the fallen market they refuse to see or even acknowledge.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
On Feb 2, 2009, at 8:13 PM, amritasyaputra wrote: > Wow! Are we loosing some of the cool-cat-ness? Maybe some hug from > Ammaji would help. I'm always open to the embrace of Totality, what can I say?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
> "There are no female Avatars in incarnation at this present moment." > > - Benjamin Creme He couldn't get Elizabeth St Clair Prophet under his thumb.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > > > Billy, you're a puzzle to me, cuz ya agrees with me and then ya don't. > > > > So, point taken by you again with your noting that Maharishi got so > > many to place their attentions on the inner life. That's at the top > > of his Column Ahis truly good stuff. > > > > Let me note that a survey of my posts here will find that I have, > > hundreds of times, presented concepts here with a phrase attached -- > > "Maharishi said." That's my way of disclosing my source for the > > concept AND that, yup, Maharishi was my teacher who introduced me to > > the concept. > > > > So, don't miss that, Billy. I give credit to the guy. Even if he was > > a non-celibate, money laundering, presto-digital-religionist, he did > > many of us a philosophical solid. > > > > I still bow, but note that I also bow to my other teachers -- and they > > are legion. > > > > I think I reported here that once I went over to the then-MIU offices > > to give a donation to the movement. The person who was there to > > receive my check was Bobby Warren. I approached his desk and said, > > "I'd like to make a donation." > > > > Here's what he did: He scowled at me like he'd just stepped in dog > > shit -- me. And I have trouble believing this even now, but he > > snapped his fingers at me like a Nazi with an energy that can only be > > described as angry, and said, "Give it to mesnap, snap, snap." > > > > I gave the check and he sat down and turned away from me to do other > > work. > > > > That was it. > > > > That was freaking it. > > > > My ego was expecting, you know, "Hey thanks! You know Maharishi is > > grateful for every donation." Something like that. > > > > But instead, all I got was exactly what the TMO was giving everyone -- > > a most haughty high-hatting sense of entitlement and a concern that > > "you're not really giving enough, so don't expect any thanks." > > > > The history of the TMO is saturated with these kinds of experiences. > > The common folks of the movement are but fodder, and the TMO's thugs > > don't even try to hide it. > > > > Ya want an acid test of the movement? > > > > Ask the kings for a complete list of all the million-dollar-course > > participants, so that we can see if they all agree that the money was > > well spent. Let's see how many of those dummies finally got it that > > they'd been taken to the cleaners once again? Give us a chance to > > grill those idiots and see if any of them cracks and admits the whole > > farce. > > > > Let's get Purusha and Mother Divine folks into a Q&A session -- let > > me, nay, let almost anyone who's been in the movement for a few years > > ask them the hard questions. > > > > Let's have the MUM guys who set up the murder answer our questions. > > > > Let's see the BOOKS. > > > > Follow the money, Billy. See if the mantra can take the bad taste out > > of your mouth after you do. See how much of your objectivity you have > > left after that. > > > > Edg > > Indeed. Follow the money..right back to the many bank accounts of the > Shrivastava/Varma clan. Now thats the book I would love to see. Maybe Michael Lewis could do for the TMO what he did for Wall St reporting. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
> > Ya want an acid test of the movement? > > > > Ask the kings for a complete list of all the million-dollar-course > > participants, so that we can see if they all agree that the money was > > well spent. Let's see how many of those dummies finally got it that > > they'd been taken to the cleaners once again? Give us a chance to > > grill those idiots and see if any of them cracks and admits the whole > > farce. I don't know - it's really hard on the ego to admit you were taken for a million bucks. I think most all of them cling to some story of how it was worth it even if their life didn't really change much as a result of it. > > > > Let's get Purusha and Mother Divine folks into a Q&A session -- let > > me, nay, let almost anyone who's been in the movement for a few years > > ask them the hard questions. > > Same thing - at this point most of these people have too much invested to question the investment. Of course, the tmo could pull a Madoff on them and declare their investment worth zero by kicking them off MD or Purusha when they get sick (and forbid their friends from calling donors to help them pay medical bills, which actually has happened because they were told it may keep donors from giving as much to the tmo). At that pt reality hits too quickly and they can't often handle the cognitive dissonance that results and it's extremely sad. > > Let's have the MUM guys who set up the murder answer our questions. > > > > Let's see the BOOKS. > > That would be fun but will never happen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
er...caught again by my lack of touch typing-- the Maharishi-- don't care for that other pronounciation at all... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > > agreed. the Maharshi set the bar quite high for all of us, stating > again and again that a jivan mukta was the normal state of human > life. anything less was (is) a waste of life. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "amritasyaputra" > wrote: > > > > But Jivan-Mukta IS (or should be) a normal human being. So he was. > > > > Shaas > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 2, 2009, at 6:47 PM, Rick Archer wrote: > > > > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > ] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 > > > > Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:43 PM > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new > > books > > > > on Maharishi ???) > > > > > > > > we all looked to > > > > Maharishi as God. Maharishi did not; He simply stated that "I > am a > > > > normal human being" > > > > > > > > Maybe you should have taken him at his word, Nabby. > > > > > > > Isn't that what Amma told you? That such a person could not be a > > jivan- > > > mukta? > > > > > > He was just a Hindu Ken Lay. A "normal" guy. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
agreed. the Maharshi set the bar quite high for all of us, stating again and again that a jivan mukta was the normal state of human life. anything less was (is) a waste of life. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "amritasyaputra" wrote: > > But Jivan-Mukta IS (or should be) a normal human being. So he was. > > Shaas > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 2, 2009, at 6:47 PM, Rick Archer wrote: > > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > ] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 > > > Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:43 PM > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new > books > > > on Maharishi ???) > > > > > > we all looked to > > > Maharishi as God. Maharishi did not; He simply stated that "I am a > > > normal human being" > > > > > > Maybe you should have taken him at his word, Nabby. > > > > > Isn't that what Amma told you? That such a person could not be a > jivan- > > mukta? > > > > He was just a Hindu Ken Lay. A "normal" guy. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
there are many ways of gaining enlightenment. first off, it is not an either/or proposition-- i see the process of gaining enlightenment initially like a lightbulb that flashes on, and then off, with no regular interval to its timing. an experience of enlightenment, then darkness for awile, then another flash, then darkness. eventually the light stays on, and perhaps someone feels confident enough to say, "hey everyone, i am enlightened!" and they begin the process of watching the lightbulb to see how far the light is shining out, and when it appears obscured, and what the public proclamation and challenge does to their ability to integrate the inner light into their outer life. and perhaps the light appears to go out again. a learning process which takes time; more integration in daily life. and after some more time, the lightbulb stays on, for good, under all circumstances, and then they have a choice to say, or not to say, "i am enlightened", depending on what they feel like doing; hold themselves up as an example of enlightenment, or quietly allowing the bulb to burn bright within. so to make the assumption that because someone proclaims their enlightenment, that they will suffer a downfall, and have to start again from the beginning, is a false assumption. we as human beings learn by doing, and testing and challenging, and if we are true to ourselves and our desire for gaining enlightenment, we will eventually be successful, regardless of what we may proclaim along the way. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "amritasyaputra" wrote: > > dear Vaj, > > If Totality is found in a grain of sand, it is found in every cell of > your body and brain, too. It is you! OK, that I don't know :-) since > you are doubting it. > But it is the Self, that's me! And if you don't know your Self, the > basis of your life... sorry but that's not normal. > > Shaas > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 2, 2009, at 7:34 PM, amritasyaputra wrote: > > > > > What is so about if the > universe > > > can be found in a grain of sand. > > > Totality is YOU, is I. > > > And that is a normal state of life > > > > No, not by a long shot kiddo. The universe might be found in a > grain > > of sand, but that does not mean you found or that you embody that > > totality, even if you glimpsed it, even if you cannot forget that > the > > snake is no longer the rope. There is absolute enlightenment and > there > > is provisional enlightenment. Woe on s/he who confuses the > two...for > > those that confuse the two are just biding time for the inevitable > > downward spiral, however interesting or amusing their claim > of "hey > > look at me, I'm ENLIGHTENED" is. > > > > Seems like comedy, IMO, ultimately tragic. Oh well. > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, what do you mean by < by ANY modern standard>? Modern > > > means probably Kali Yuga, because that is modern since 5000 years. > > > > By modern I was referring to the industrial and post industrial era > of > > humanity. For westerners, that started in Britain, spread to the > US > > and has since spread elsewhere. We now are watching previously > third > > world countries go thru the same process we did, albeit with much > > larger populations. We now feed off them parasitically as forms of > > slave labor so we can have cheap "stuff". > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
Yes, and the world is flat like a cake... because geezerfreak said so. Enjoy Shaas --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > > > Billy, you're a puzzle to me, cuz ya agrees with me and then ya don't. > > > > So, point taken by you again with your noting that Maharishi got so > > many to place their attentions on the inner life. That's at the top > > of his Column Ahis truly good stuff. > > > > Let me note that a survey of my posts here will find that I have, > > hundreds of times, presented concepts here with a phrase attached -- > > "Maharishi said." That's my way of disclosing my source for the > > concept AND that, yup, Maharishi was my teacher who introduced me to > > the concept. > > > > So, don't miss that, Billy. I give credit to the guy. Even if he was > > a non-celibate, money laundering, presto-digital-religionist, he did > > many of us a philosophical solid. > > > > I still bow, but note that I also bow to my other teachers -- and they > > are legion. > > > > I think I reported here that once I went over to the then-MIU offices > > to give a donation to the movement. The person who was there to > > receive my check was Bobby Warren. I approached his desk and said, > > "I'd like to make a donation." > > > > Here's what he did: He scowled at me like he'd just stepped in dog > > shit -- me. And I have trouble believing this even now, but he > > snapped his fingers at me like a Nazi with an energy that can only be > > described as angry, and said, "Give it to mesnap, snap, snap." > > > > I gave the check and he sat down and turned away from me to do other > > work. > > > > That was it. > > > > That was freaking it. > > > > My ego was expecting, you know, "Hey thanks! You know Maharishi is > > grateful for every donation." Something like that. > > > > But instead, all I got was exactly what the TMO was giving everyone -- > > a most haughty high-hatting sense of entitlement and a concern that > > "you're not really giving enough, so don't expect any thanks." > > > > The history of the TMO is saturated with these kinds of experiences. > > The common folks of the movement are but fodder, and the TMO's thugs > > don't even try to hide it. > > > > Ya want an acid test of the movement? > > > > Ask the kings for a complete list of all the million-dollar-course > > participants, so that we can see if they all agree that the money was > > well spent. Let's see how many of those dummies finally got it that > > they'd been taken to the cleaners once again? Give us a chance to > > grill those idiots and see if any of them cracks and admits the whole > > farce. > > > > Let's get Purusha and Mother Divine folks into a Q&A session -- let > > me, nay, let almost anyone who's been in the movement for a few years > > ask them the hard questions. > > > > Let's have the MUM guys who set up the murder answer our questions. > > > > Let's see the BOOKS. > > > > Follow the money, Billy. See if the mantra can take the bad taste out > > of your mouth after you do. See how much of your objectivity you have > > left after that. > > > > Edg > > Indeed. Follow the money..right back to the many bank accounts of the > Shrivastava/Varma clan. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > Billy, you're a puzzle to me, cuz ya agrees with me and then ya don't. > > So, point taken by you again with your noting that Maharishi got so > many to place their attentions on the inner life. That's at the top > of his Column Ahis truly good stuff. > > Let me note that a survey of my posts here will find that I have, > hundreds of times, presented concepts here with a phrase attached -- > "Maharishi said." That's my way of disclosing my source for the > concept AND that, yup, Maharishi was my teacher who introduced me to > the concept. > > So, don't miss that, Billy. I give credit to the guy. Even if he was > a non-celibate, money laundering, presto-digital-religionist, he did > many of us a philosophical solid. > > I still bow, but note that I also bow to my other teachers -- and they > are legion. > > I think I reported here that once I went over to the then-MIU offices > to give a donation to the movement. The person who was there to > receive my check was Bobby Warren. I approached his desk and said, > "I'd like to make a donation." > > Here's what he did: He scowled at me like he'd just stepped in dog > shit -- me. And I have trouble believing this even now, but he > snapped his fingers at me like a Nazi with an energy that can only be > described as angry, and said, "Give it to mesnap, snap, snap." > > I gave the check and he sat down and turned away from me to do other > work. > > That was it. > > That was freaking it. > > My ego was expecting, you know, "Hey thanks! You know Maharishi is > grateful for every donation." Something like that. > > But instead, all I got was exactly what the TMO was giving everyone -- > a most haughty high-hatting sense of entitlement and a concern that > "you're not really giving enough, so don't expect any thanks." > > The history of the TMO is saturated with these kinds of experiences. > The common folks of the movement are but fodder, and the TMO's thugs > don't even try to hide it. > > Ya want an acid test of the movement? > > Ask the kings for a complete list of all the million-dollar-course > participants, so that we can see if they all agree that the money was > well spent. Let's see how many of those dummies finally got it that > they'd been taken to the cleaners once again? Give us a chance to > grill those idiots and see if any of them cracks and admits the whole > farce. > > Let's get Purusha and Mother Divine folks into a Q&A session -- let > me, nay, let almost anyone who's been in the movement for a few years > ask them the hard questions. > > Let's have the MUM guys who set up the murder answer our questions. > > Let's see the BOOKS. > > Follow the money, Billy. See if the mantra can take the bad taste out > of your mouth after you do. See how much of your objectivity you have > left after that. > > Edg Indeed. Follow the money..right back to the many bank accounts of the Shrivastava/Varma clan.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
Wow! Are we loosing some of the cool-cat-ness? Maybe some hug from
Ammaji would help.
Shaas
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
>
> Dear amritasyaputra:
>
> On Feb 2, 2009, at 7:58 PM, amritasyaputra wrote:
>
> > dear Vaj,
> >
> > If Totality is found in a grain of sand, it is found in every
cell of
> > your body and brain, too. It is you! OK, that I don't know :-)
since
> > you are doubting it.
> > But it is the Self, that's me! And if you don't know your Self,
the
> > basis of your life... sorry but that's not normal.
>
>
> Sorry, but you're delusional.
>
> Self (capital "S") is ego, just because it's expanded to some
large
> proportion or imagined large proportion ("infinity", TMO fav:
> "unboundedness" or "unbounded", Brahman) doesn't make it nondual.
It
> just makes it really fucking BIG. Big deal.
>
> Big Ego.
>
> Not normal.
>
> Sorry.
>
> Maybe you should hang out at an Eckhart Tolle gathering, they
really
> go for this kinda thing. Maybe Oprah would show up?Y ou could give
> darshan and make some bucks?
>
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
Dear amritasyaputra:
On Feb 2, 2009, at 7:58 PM, amritasyaputra wrote:
> dear Vaj,
>
> If Totality is found in a grain of sand, it is found in every cell of
> your body and brain, too. It is you! OK, that I don't know :-) since
> you are doubting it.
> But it is the Self, that's me! And if you don't know your Self, the
> basis of your life... sorry but that's not normal.
Sorry, but you're delusional.
Self (capital "S") is ego, just because it's expanded to some large
proportion or imagined large proportion ("infinity", TMO fav:
"unboundedness" or "unbounded", Brahman) doesn't make it nondual. It
just makes it really fucking BIG. Big deal.
Big Ego.
Not normal.
Sorry.
Maybe you should hang out at an Eckhart Tolle gathering, they really
go for this kinda thing. Maybe Oprah would show up?Y ou could give
darshan and make some bucks?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
dear Vaj, If Totality is found in a grain of sand, it is found in every cell of your body and brain, too. It is you! OK, that I don't know :-) since you are doubting it. But it is the Self, that's me! And if you don't know your Self, the basis of your life... sorry but that's not normal. Shaas --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Feb 2, 2009, at 7:34 PM, amritasyaputra wrote: > > > What is so about if the universe > > can be found in a grain of sand. > > Totality is YOU, is I. > > And that is a normal state of life > > No, not by a long shot kiddo. The universe might be found in a grain > of sand, but that does not mean you found or that you embody that > totality, even if you glimpsed it, even if you cannot forget that the > snake is no longer the rope. There is absolute enlightenment and there > is provisional enlightenment. Woe on s/he who confuses the two...for > those that confuse the two are just biding time for the inevitable > downward spiral, however interesting or amusing their claim of "hey > look at me, I'm ENLIGHTENED" is. > > Seems like comedy, IMO, ultimately tragic. Oh well. > > > > > > > By the way, what do you mean by < by ANY modern standard>? Modern > > means probably Kali Yuga, because that is modern since 5000 years. > > By modern I was referring to the industrial and post industrial era of > humanity. For westerners, that started in Britain, spread to the US > and has since spread elsewhere. We now are watching previously third > world countries go thru the same process we did, albeit with much > larger populations. We now feed off them parasitically as forms of > slave labor so we can have cheap "stuff". >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
On Feb 2, 2009, at 7:34 PM, amritasyaputra wrote: What is so about if the universe can be found in a grain of sand. Totality is YOU, is I. And that is a normal state of life No, not by a long shot kiddo. The universe might be found in a grain of sand, but that does not mean you found or that you embody that totality, even if you glimpsed it, even if you cannot forget that the snake is no longer the rope. There is absolute enlightenment and there is provisional enlightenment. Woe on s/he who confuses the two...for those that confuse the two are just biding time for the inevitable downward spiral, however interesting or amusing their claim of "hey look at me, I'm ENLIGHTENED" is. Seems like comedy, IMO, ultimately tragic. Oh well. By the way, what do you mean by < by ANY modern standard>? Modern means probably Kali Yuga, because that is modern since 5000 years. By modern I was referring to the industrial and post industrial era of humanity. For westerners, that started in Britain, spread to the US and has since spread elsewhere. We now are watching previously third world countries go thru the same process we did, albeit with much larger populations. We now feed off them parasitically as forms of slave labor so we can have cheap "stuff".
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
What is so about if the universe can be found in a grain of sand. Totality is YOU, is I. And that is a normal state of life By the way, what do you mean by < by ANY modern standard>? Modern means probably Kali Yuga, because that is modern since 5000 years. Shaas --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Feb 2, 2009, at 7:06 PM, amritasyaputra wrote: > > > But Jivan-Mukta IS (or should be) a normal human being. So he was. > > > > Shaas > > > Nice try. > > A jivan-mukta by ANY modern standard is an extraordinary human being. > After all, they are "beyond" the living--but still living. Incredible. > > Amma got it right. Someone with his level of relative behavior, could > not--as a natural part of his action--embrace totality in a permanent > way. Having said that, take what you can from the shit he madeand > move on. Learn to embrace totality. > > Good advice Amma, good advice. I did, and I do. > > Embrace totality and share it with everyone you can. She lives that > reality. Quite literally. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Feb 2, 2009, at 7:06 PM, amritasyaputra wrote: > > > But Jivan-Mukta IS (or should be) a normal human being. So he was. > > > > Shaas > > > Nice try. > > A jivan-mukta by ANY modern standard is an extraordinary human being. > After all, they are "beyond" the living--but still living. Incredible. > > Amma got it right. Someone with his level of relative behavior, could > not--as a natural part of his action--embrace totality in a permanent > way. Having said that, take what you can from the shit he madeand > move on. Learn to embrace totality. > > Good advice Amma, good advice. I did, and I do. > > Embrace totality and share it with everyone you can. She lives that > reality. Quite literally. "There are no female Avatars in incarnation at this present moment." - Benjamin Creme
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] > > On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 > > Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:43 PM > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on > > Maharishi ???) > > > > > > > > we all looked to > > Maharishi as God. Maharishi did not; He simply stated that "I am a > > normal human being" > > > > Maybe you should have taken him at his word, Nabby. > > I did from day one. Never have I met a person more ready to reach out > to humanity. Never have I seen a person more down to earth, someone who > wanted to be a friend with all living creatures. He certainly is a > friend of friends for those fortunate souls for all eternity. Why ? > Because he had gone that path, He knows what unstressing is. And He > certainly knew Liberation; a freedom He above all wanted to share with > His "friends" > This He only could do as a "normal person". Probably the first "normal > person" in the Age if Enlightenment" Since tenthousands of years on this Planet.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 > Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:43 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on > Maharishi ???) > > > > we all looked to > Maharishi as God. Maharishi did not; He simply stated that "I am a > normal human being" > > Maybe you should have taken him at his word, Nabby. I did from day one. Never have I met a person more ready to reach out to humanity. Never have I seen a person more down to earth, someone who wanted to be a friend with all living creatures. He certainly is a friend of friends for those fortunate souls for all eternity. Why ? Because he had gone that path, He knows what unstressing is. And He certainly knew Liberation; a freedom He above all wanted to share with His "friends" This He only could do as a "normal person". Probably the first "normal person" in the Age if Enlightenment"
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
On Feb 2, 2009, at 7:06 PM, amritasyaputra wrote: But Jivan-Mukta IS (or should be) a normal human being. So he was. Shaas Nice try. A jivan-mukta by ANY modern standard is an extraordinary human being. After all, they are "beyond" the living--but still living. Incredible. Amma got it right. Someone with his level of relative behavior, could not--as a natural part of his action--embrace totality in a permanent way. Having said that, take what you can from the shit he madeand move on. Learn to embrace totality. Good advice Amma, good advice. I did, and I do. Embrace totality and share it with everyone you can. She lives that reality. Quite literally.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
But Jivan-Mukta IS (or should be) a normal human being. So he was. Shaas --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Feb 2, 2009, at 6:47 PM, Rick Archer wrote: > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > ] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 > > Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:43 PM > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books > > on Maharishi ???) > > > > we all looked to > > Maharishi as God. Maharishi did not; He simply stated that "I am a > > normal human being" > > > > Maybe you should have taken him at his word, Nabby. > > > Isn't that what Amma told you? That such a person could not be a jivan- > mukta? > > He was just a Hindu Ken Lay. A "normal" guy. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." > wrote: > > > > > perhaps after > > > > > > all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he > > > said so!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He did. > > > > > > > > > > MMY: "I'm a normal human being" > > > > > Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a > normal > > > human > > > > > being" > > > > > > > > > > - Vlodrop, 1999 > > > > > > > > Nice to hear, it looks like Bevan didn't believe him! > > > > > > > > > How can you read such utter nonsense out of this ? The "hard > rocks of > > > ignorance" I suppose. > > > Bevan was flabbagasterd about MMY's statement since we all looked > to > > > Maharishi as God. Maharishi did not; He simply stated that "I am > a > > > normal human being" > > > > > > Please get a checking. > > > > Depends on how you define normal, most people would think normal to > be > > the average Joe on the street. It seems in this context however MMY > > meant being enlightened is normal which is how HE would define > normal. > > > > So which was it? Was MMY defining himself as a mere human (the > context > > I was using) or an Enlightened Being? > > > > Both. In the Age of Enlightenment enlightened souls will be > considered "normal". He thus set a new standard. In the forthcoming full sunshine of the Age of Enlightenment to be "Blazing with Brahman" will be considered normal human status.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > > perhaps after > > > > > all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he > > said so!! > > > > > > > > > > > > He did. > > > > > > > > MMY: "I'm a normal human being" > > > > Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a normal > > human > > > > being" > > > > > > > > - Vlodrop, 1999 > > > > > > Nice to hear, it looks like Bevan didn't believe him! > > > > > > How can you read such utter nonsense out of this ? The "hard rocks of > > ignorance" I suppose. > > Bevan was flabbagasterd about MMY's statement since we all looked to > > Maharishi as God. Maharishi did not; He simply stated that "I am a > > normal human being" > > > > Please get a checking. > > Depends on how you define normal, most people would think normal to be > the average Joe on the street. It seems in this context however MMY > meant being enlightened is normal which is how HE would define normal. > > So which was it? Was MMY defining himself as a mere human (the context > I was using) or an Enlightened Being? > Both. In the Age of Enlightenment enlightened souls will be considered "normal". He thus set a new standard.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
On Feb 2, 2009, at 6:47 PM, Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:43 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???) we all looked to Maharishi as God. Maharishi did not; He simply stated that "I am a normal human being" Maybe you should have taken him at his word, Nabby. Isn't that what Amma told you? That such a person could not be a jivan- mukta? He was just a Hindu Ken Lay. A "normal" guy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > perhaps after > > > > all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he > said so!! > > > > > > > > > He did. > > > > > > MMY: "I'm a normal human being" > > > Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a normal > human > > > being" > > > > > > - Vlodrop, 1999 > > > > Nice to hear, it looks like Bevan didn't believe him! > > > How can you read such utter nonsense out of this ? The "hard rocks of > ignorance" I suppose. > Bevan was flabbagasterd about MMY's statement since we all looked to > Maharishi as God. Maharishi did not; He simply stated that "I am a > normal human being" > > Please get a checking. Depends on how you define normal, most people would think normal to be the average Joe on the street. It seems in this context however MMY meant being enlightened is normal which is how HE would define normal. So which was it? Was MMY defining himself as a mere human (the context I was using) or an Enlightened Being?
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:43 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???) we all looked to Maharishi as God. Maharishi did not; He simply stated that "I am a normal human being" Maybe you should have taken him at his word, Nabby.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > perhaps after > > > all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he said so!! > > > > > > He did. > > > > MMY: "I'm a normal human being" > > Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a normal human > > being" > > > > - Vlodrop, 1999 > > Nice to hear, it looks like Bevan didn't believe him! How can you read such utter nonsense out of this ? The "hard rocks of ignorance" I suppose. Bevan was flabbagasterd about MMY's statement since we all looked to Maharishi as God. Maharishi did not; He simply stated that "I am a normal human being" Please get a checking.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > perhaps after > > all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he said so!! > > > He did. > > MMY: "I'm just a normal human being" > Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a normal human > being" > > - Vlodrop, 1999 Nice to hear, it looks like Bevan didn't believe him! That was after how long? 50 years, better late than never I guess, though I haven't heard the context of the remark, so I'll remain silent, thanks for sharing it though.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: perhaps after > all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he said so!! He did. MMY: "I'm just a normal human being" Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a normal human being" - Vlodrop, 1999
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > When the ultra-rich buy their yachts etc., what needs are they > fulfilling? Whatever and however you describe those needs, it will be > seen that Maharishi's lifestyle fulfilled exactly those needs for his > ego. > > > Sorry, but if anyone had a private life, it was him. Did you ever try > to get to be in his physical presence? Wasn't his privacy guarded by a > corps of sycophants? Wasn't his life his to define and wasn't the > amount of "private life" he had his to increase or decrease? Do you > think that Maharishi ever complained that he wasn't seeing his family > enough, didn't get "down time" enough, etc.? The ultra rich business owners often seem to have little separation between work life and other life. It is all just life. One entrepreneur I know well has said: "Why have hobbies, why go on vacation? Work is my hobby and there is nothing to vacation from." They often don't need to work at all but do for a variety of reasons. They love what they do. Many thrive on the deal. Others thrive on the power. They believe that they can do it better than anyone else and have a hard time letting go. MMY seemed to be much the same to me as some very rich entrepreneurs I know. One person I know is well into his 80s, on the Fortune 500 list, and still works all the time. Money often is just the report card, a grade for how well you are accomplishing what you want to accomplish. Some flaunt the money more than others, but they all use it one way or another. MMY managed to buy a lot with his money, including seclusion in mighty nice surrounds.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > > > The only thing that Maharishi lacked was a Trikke. > > > > Edg I suppose that sentence says it all about your level of insight, Edg. > I don't think you understand MMY at all, I think you project your own > weaknesses onto him. You seem to have a knowledge of MMY's *inner* > life, as if he weren't the enigma me and a dozen others have thought. > Too bad, you seem to have lost your objectivity. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
On Feb 2, 2009, at 2:07 PM, Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Duveyoung Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 2:01 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???) I think I reported here that once I went over to the then-MIU offices to give a donation to the movement. The person who was there to receive my check was Bobby Warren. I approached his desk and said, "I'd like to make a donation." Here's what he did: He scowled at me like he'd just stepped in dog shit -- me. And I have trouble believing this even now, but he snapped his fingers at me like a Nazi with an energy that can only be described as angry, and said, "Give it to mesnap, snap, snap." Bobby’s nickname: “The Bald Ego” His last words, before swimming under a waterfall in Costa Rica and drowning: “Hey, did you know I’m the world’s champion at swimming under waterfalls?” Arrogant up to the very end--that was our Bobby. He also had another, much funnier more human side, but didn't always show it, unfortunately. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > Billy, you're a puzzle to me, cuz ya agrees with me and then ya don't. > > So, point taken by you again with your noting that Maharishi got so > many to place their attentions on the inner life. That's at the top > of his Column Ahis truly good stuff. > > Let me note that a survey of my posts here will find that I have, > hundreds of times, presented concepts here with a phrase attached -- > "Maharishi said." That's my way of disclosing my source for the > concept AND that, yup, Maharishi was my teacher who introduced me to > the concept. > > So, don't miss that, Billy. I give credit to the guy. Even if he was > a non-celibate, money laundering, presto-digital-religionist, he did > many of us a philosophical solid. > > I still bow, but note that I also bow to my other teachers -- and they > are legion. > > I think I reported here that once I went over to the then-MIU offices > to give a donation to the movement. The person who was there to > receive my check was Bobby Warren. I approached his desk and said, > "I'd like to make a donation." > > Here's what he did: He scowled at me like he'd just stepped in dog > shit -- me. And I have trouble believing this even now, but he > snapped his fingers at me like a Nazi with an energy that can only be > described as angry, and said, "Give it to mesnap, snap, snap." > > I gave the check and he sat down and turned away from me to do other > work. > > That was it. > > That was freaking it. > > My ego was expecting, you know, "Hey thanks! You know Maharishi is > grateful for every donation." Something like that. > > But instead, all I got was exactly what the TMO was giving everyone -- > a most haughty high-hatting sense of entitlement and a concern that > "you're not really giving enough, so don't expect any thanks." > > The history of the TMO is saturated with these kinds of experiences. > The common folks of the movement are but fodder, and the TMO's thugs > don't even try to hide it. > > Ya want an acid test of the movement? > > Ask the kings for a complete list of all the million-dollar-course > participants, so that we can see if they all agree that the money was > well spent. Let's see how many of those dummies finally got it that > they'd been taken to the cleaners once again? Give us a chance to > grill those idiots and see if any of them cracks and admits the whole > farce. > > Let's get Purusha and Mother Divine folks into a Q&A session -- let > me, nay, let almost anyone who's been in the movement for a few years > ask them the hard questions. > > Let's have the MUM guys who set up the murder answer our questions. > > Let's see the BOOKS. > > Follow the money, Billy. See if the mantra can take the bad taste out > of your mouth after you do. See how much of your objectivity you have > left after that. > > Edg If you don't believe that MMY believed that "World Peace is only a matter of money", then there's nothing I can do for you. I'm only sorry it, (TM) left such a bitter taste in your mouth, (some of which I have myself). I just try not to through the baby out with the bath water. If it weren't for MMY some of the hippies he initiated would be dead (or worse), in those days anything was better than what we were doin', you dig? He made us (me) after all, a *Knower of Reality* (MMY Humbolt). Peace..
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Duveyoung Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 2:01 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???) I think I reported here that once I went over to the then-MIU offices to give a donation to the movement. The person who was there to receive my check was Bobby Warren. I approached his desk and said, "I'd like to make a donation." Here's what he did: He scowled at me like he'd just stepped in dog shit -- me. And I have trouble believing this even now, but he snapped his fingers at me like a Nazi with an energy that can only be described as angry, and said, "Give it to mesnap, snap, snap." Bobby's nickname: "The Bald Ego" His last words, before swimming under a waterfall in Costa Rica and drowning: "Hey, did you know I'm the world's champion at swimming under waterfalls?"
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > Hey, haven't lost a thing; if anyone here is rich with > objectionalness, it's me. Heh. > > No, Billy, I don't understand MMY at all. (By the way, when I was a > hotshot gob'nor of the age of enlit, it was considered very bad to > only refer to our god by merely his initials. Wuz ya raised wrong?) No, just got sick of typing M a h a r i s h i.. > I don't understand a thousand actions of his, and since he never > ponied up even a decent Q&A session with the likes of me -- and > there's a ton of me's out there -- we are all left in the dark. This > from a man who is supposed to help us dispel the dark. I'd agree, probably Charlie Lutes too. > And, I'll give ya a point for me projecting, but will you give me a > thousand points for noting MMY's actions which cannot be factually > denied -- actions that could not pass the test of time, the test of > common morality's take of them, or supported by the MILLIONS WHO > ABANDONED HIS TECHNIQUE because of just such "irregularities?" I think he believed the ends justified the means which is the tenor of the entire TMorg, IMO. > If I made up a list of the good things I've done in my life, it'd be a > pretty good list. Anyone want to compare with me? > > But, before I'd do such a comparison, I'd insist that we'd both have > to equally list the bad things we'd done. Please, only in the confessional! > That's the rub, ya see? MMY never allowed that other list to be > considered, never allowed us to know about what the fuck Girish was up > to, never allowed us to know why the mantras changed again and again, > never was open to us -- his true hearted followers -- about why the > TMO took the ATR credits, never addressed why the rich had access to > him, never apologized or even helped us rationalize why African > dictators with blood still dripping off their hands could be > considered friends of the movement, and on and on. This is but a > start on MMY's "column B." Hey, it wouldn't have mattered if, like you said, there weren't many good things he did too. Over at TMblog and here, there are those who are still involved in Eastern Religion, why?because MMY made them who they are, he gave them that first taste of bliss. > Where's your frickin' objectivity, Billy? Are all the above issues > straw dogs or red flags? No, just, MMY was NO power hungry egotist like many suggest He was well intentioned, he may have even been a zealot, but he sincerely believed in what he taught...what, you don't think he absorbed ANY spirituality from his Master SBS? Of course he had...perhaps after all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he said so!! > Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
"BillyG." wrote: > I don't think you understand MMY at all, I think you project your own weaknesses onto him. You seem to have a knowledge of MMY's *inner* life, as if he weren't the enigma me and a dozen others have thought. Too bad, you seem to have lost your objectivity. Billy, Hey, haven't lost a thing; if anyone here is rich with objectionalness, it's me. Heh. No, Billy, I don't understand MMY at all. (By the way, when I was a hotshot gob'nor of the age of enlit, it was considered very bad to only refer to our god by merely his initials. Wuz ya raised wrong?) I don't understand a thousand actions of his, and since he never ponied up even a decent Q&A session with the likes of me -- and there's a ton of me's out there -- we are all left in the dark. This from a man who is supposed to help us dispel the dark. And, I'll give ya a point for me projecting, but will you give me a thousand points for noting MMY's actions which cannot be factually denied -- actions that could not pass the test of time, the test of common morality's take of them, or supported by the MILLIONS WHO ABANDONED HIS TECHNIQUE because of just such "irregularities?" If I made up a list of the good things I've done in my life, it'd be a pretty good list. Anyone want to compare with me? But, before I'd do such a comparison, I'd insist that we'd both have to equally list the bad things we'd done. That's the rub, ya see? MMY never allowed that other list to be considered, never allowed us to know about what the fuck Girish was up to, never allowed us to know why the mantras changed again and again, never was open to us -- his true hearted followers -- about why the TMO took the ATR credits, never addressed why the rich had access to him, never apologized or even helped us rationalize why African dictators with blood still dripping off their hands could be considered friends of the movement, and on and on. This is but a start on MMY's "column B." Where's your frickin' objectivity, Billy? Are all the above issues straw dogs or red flags? Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > Judy, > > You call that your normal response? What a cop out. > What am I? Chopped liver? Where's your red pencil? > > It's one thing to carp about definitions, by you are > totally and mindfully changing the subject of the > conversation. Er, no, I'm sticking to the point I wanted to make. > Maharishi had the rights, privileges and spending power > that would be the fulfillment of the desires of almost > everyone on the planet. > > That's one hell of a powerful statement, and you're > ignoring it on purpose, sez moi. > > Power corrupted the holy dude. Do you deny this? I have no idea whether power corrupted him. Doesn't interest me much either. YMMV.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
Judy, You call that your normal response? What a cop out. What am I? Chopped liver? Where's your red pencil? It's one thing to carp about definitions, by you are totally and mindfully changing the subject of the conversation. Maharishi had the rights, privileges and spending power that would be the fulfillment of the desires of almost everyone on the planet. That's one hell of a powerful statement, and you're ignoring it on purpose, sez moi. Power corrupted the holy dude. Do you deny this? Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > > > Judy, > > > > When the ultra-rich buy their yachts etc., what > > needs are they fulfilling? > > I wasn't discussing psychological needs. > > > > > On the other hand, wealthy people tend to use > > > their money to enrich their private lives. MMY > > > didn't have much of a private life to enrich. > > > > Sorry, but if anyone had a private life, it was him. > > Did you ever try to get to be in his physical presence? > > Not what I meant by "private life," of course. > > > > > These "luxuries" were all in the context of his > > > work for the movement, not to support a lavish > > > lifestyle--he didn't have a lifestyle, only a > > > workstyle: no second homes, no expensive > > > vacations, none of the standard rich person's > > > leisure toys. > > > > Come on, come on, come on, he had every luxury > > that he wanted, but personal power was his addiction. > > Non sequitur; not what I was addressing. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > Judy, > > When the ultra-rich buy their yachts etc., what > needs are they fulfilling? I wasn't discussing psychological needs. > > On the other hand, wealthy people tend to use > > their money to enrich their private lives. MMY > > didn't have much of a private life to enrich. > > Sorry, but if anyone had a private life, it was him. > Did you ever try to get to be in his physical presence? Not what I meant by "private life," of course. > > These "luxuries" were all in the context of his > > work for the movement, not to support a lavish > > lifestyle--he didn't have a lifestyle, only a > > workstyle: no second homes, no expensive > > vacations, none of the standard rich person's > > leisure toys. > > Come on, come on, come on, he had every luxury > that he wanted, but personal power was his addiction. Non sequitur; not what I was addressing.
