Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, P Duff pduff@... wrote: Sorry if what I wrote came across as negative. I don't think your request is the slightest bit ridiculous. My point there was that bias is just another belief system, and can be as blinding as any other. I really enjoyed your response and did not take it as negative in any way, but as an invitation to think more deeply about such a test. I couldn't agree more with your point concerning bias. We are flawed cognitive monkeys and is sometimes amazes me that we ever get anything right! The monkeys, given enough time and enough typewriters, may write Hamlet. But there's a chance that they'll not need a lot of time; they might get it correct right out of the chute. And, by golly, they do! Clearly, the monkeys are acting in accord w/ nature and thereby have its demonstrably full support. Break out dem crowns and robes already. This is why it is so hard for me to accept the claim of anyone who claims to have gotten EVERYTHING right! (Yeah, I'm calling you out Holy Tradition.) I dunno, the monkeys feel that they have a lock on it, and their experience backs that feeling up. But, mind you, the monkeys don't think they got it right on the first attempt; they don't know that this was one attempt of a gazillion envisioned, nothing about the bigger picture. Thy don't know that somebody staged this as an experiment , borrowed the monkeys, rented the typewriters and lab space, etc. All the monkeys know is that they sat quietly at the typewriters, quietly putting their attention on typing Hamlet. And out it came, everything correct, just as they expected. Silly monkeys, You don't get the big picture at all. You don't even have the neurons to support a big picture. You're just a troupe of damn monkeys being used in an experiment, and you act like you invented air or something. And where did you get those robes?, asks the scientist, sitting in a mock-up office in God's lab. And on it goes. Upward, downward, every which-a-way. P Duff curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, P Duff pduff@ wrote: Hi, Curtis, it has been a long time. A couple points, if you will. First, I agree wholeheartedly that your ability to express yourself in writing has improved tremendously. When I first started lurking here I read bits of posts of almost everybody and thought to myself, Oh, this must be some other Curtis. But it wasn't some other Curtis. Kudos and thanks for the wonderful surprise. That was nice of you, thanks. I use FFL as a means to keep me writing regularly, it is a great resource. Good to have you back. Second point. You write, [You are] up for any demo of master of any other level than what I am currently perceiving. I suspect if these connections are real there should be some testable predictions possible. But are you also up for conceding that the testable predictions being met that the connections are indeed real as claimed? Or might you be likely to say that your senses are unreliable, that a little thing affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheat. The master's seeming powerful abilities may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. Well the whole field of epistemology is devoted to helping us fill in our cognitive gaps, so everyone is subject to the flaws you mention, not just me. And it goes a lot deeper than stomach disorders, we have genuine brain flaws that interfere with our ability to sort out good and bad conclusions from our experience. I couldn't help myself. I ripped the stomach disorders schtick from Dickens' A Christmas Carol. The lines are from the part where Scrooge tries to justify to himself why the apparition of his former partner cannot be real. It seemed to fit the discussion. :) I would actually hope that a person who claimed to be functioning in a higher state would know the limits of my abilities and be the first to help me design a convincing demo. Wouldn't it be nice if it was a collaboration rather than an antagonistic relationship? Wouldn't such a person be a champion of all the things that would help a waking state person be confident? They should be the first to mention experimental flaws that go way beyond what you have brought up. Absolutely. IOW, I hold that it's not meaningful to ask for proof unless you: 1) are able to recognize it when you see it. 2) are willing to accept it when you recognize it. I guess we would have to be more specific about what I was thinking of. I mean the kind of physical manifestation mentioned in the siddhis as abilities of people in higher states. So for your first point, I should be able to recognize it as a pre-condition of any proposed demo. I am not looking for someone to make the clouds we are watching disappear. I want some real master of the
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
On Oct 14, 2011, at 12:09 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau m@... wrote: I use the arts for this if I understand you. I don't understand the term apperceptive mass. This is what Merriam says: psychol: the whole of a person's previous experience that is used in understanding a new percept or idea —called also apperceiving mass, apperception mass But I take it further than that, throwing in all the ways we have have of knowing, including intuition, discernment, direct cognition, past life wisdom, even ritambhara pragya (two or three of which you may no longer hold much store in) Let me flip it around: do you believe that there was a race of monkeys who not only could communicate with humans but could fly through the air as is contained in the stories about Hanuman, or do you see him as a poetic device created out of the imagination of the writer? There is a lot of insights into human nature in scriptures like all enduring literature. I just don't take them literally as truth. Same with the stories about mystics and seers. We have plenty alive today and none of them can offer a compelling demonstration that they are living in a state that gives them any more command over natural laws than I have. Only if they were advanced ETs with marked simian qualities, which would in no way surprise me. It's my (empirically unfounded) conviction that Earth was quite an openly cosmopolitan place, galactically speaking, till as recently as Akhenaten and Nefertiti (at least in certain, restricted locales). (Of course, I don't believe everything in every scripture everywhere is literally true, but I think a lot more of it might be than most would.) Back atcha Mark, all the best on whatever levels you can groove on! Thanks, mon, now where along the way did I mostly lose that art (at least for this 3D realm)? P.S. My first love was the blues. Then I went off into Dylan, who had far more of an effect on me than the Beatles, or any other artist. I've written over 100 songs and tried to break into the music business in the early eighties, with no real success. I would always drop the music for long periods, like after my cancer (at 18), when I got into TM, etc. I'm working on a new song now, extremely sporadically. Bless you for sticking with it and having it sustain you. Do you have any cajun blood?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, P Duff pduff@... wrote: Hi, Curtis, it has been a long time. A couple points, if you will. First, I agree wholeheartedly that your ability to express yourself in writing has improved tremendously. When I first started lurking here I read bits of posts of almost everybody and thought to myself, Oh, this must be some other Curtis. But it wasn't some other Curtis. Kudos and thanks for the wonderful surprise. That was nice of you, thanks. I use FFL as a means to keep me writing regularly, it is a great resource. Good to have you back. Second point. You write, [You are] up for any demo of master of any other level than what I am currently perceiving. I suspect if these connections are real there should be some testable predictions possible. But are you also up for conceding that the testable predictions being met that the connections are indeed real as claimed? Or might you be likely to say that your senses are unreliable, that a little thing affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheat. The master's seeming powerful abilities may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. Well the whole field of epistemology is devoted to helping us fill in our cognitive gaps, so everyone is subject to the flaws you mention, not just me. And it goes a lot deeper than stomach disorders, we have genuine brain flaws that interfere with our ability to sort out good and bad conclusions from our experience. I couldn't help myself. I ripped the stomach disorders schtick from Dickens' A Christmas Carol. The lines are from the part where Scrooge tries to justify to himself why the apparition of his former partner cannot be real. It seemed to fit the discussion. :) I would actually hope that a person who claimed to be functioning in a higher state would know the limits of my abilities and be the first to help me design a convincing demo. Wouldn't it be nice if it was a collaboration rather than an antagonistic relationship? Wouldn't such a person be a champion of all the things that would help a waking state person be confident? They should be the first to mention experimental flaws that go way beyond what you have brought up. Absolutely. IOW, I hold that it's not meaningful to ask for proof unless you: 1) are able to recognize it when you see it. 2) are willing to accept it when you recognize it. I guess we would have to be more specific about what I was thinking of. I mean the kind of physical manifestation mentioned in the siddhis as abilities of people in higher states. So for your first point, I should be able to recognize it as a pre-condition of any proposed demo. I am not looking for someone to make the clouds we are watching disappear. I want some real master of the universe shit! Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and all. If there is some question of my ability to perceive it, then we have the wrong demo. I am standing in for everyman in this imagined demo. You are correct. We need the right demo. And I want to see the real shit as well. I think, read, believe, that there are elements on what we are calling more powerful levels that cannot be brought out to what the average person could see, e.g., angels helping somebody out of their dying body. I think such things indeed require a super-sized-face-East-when-you-meditate nervous system. Of course, there's the argument to be made that the angels thang is naught but an artifact of the turbo nervous system at 110% rated power. In the realm where the phenomenon of subject and object of experience no longer map to waking state, then the rules of waking state no longer apply. But there are many claimed abilities that are declared to happen on this gross level, such as levitation. I think pics are great and descriptions wonderful, but that's because I'm a parlor trick junkie. I love things that hint at being way cool. And that's my bias. But at the end of the day I, too, gotta see the motherfucker up in the air. I don't limit any demonstration to just me. If someone had such an ability they should be able to prove it under the kind of conditions Randi imposes on his challenge. I am aware that my ability to evaluate somethings might be flawed and I would need some expertise. But if someone could actually fly, for example. With the right transparency (I can walk where I want) I would be impressed with such a demo. It would rock my world. If someone was going to demonstrate that they could telepathically pick a greater than random number of cards viewed by a person in another room, then I would need a little help to construct a reliable test. But the heart of your challenge is reasonable. Am I a good witness for such a test at all? Would my bias be too strong to change my mind even when faced with evidence? I can't answer that to your
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
On 10/14/2011 07:02 AM, turquoiseb wrote: Some spiritual seekers seem to feel the need to invent a user interface of gods and goddesses and Big People In The Sky and sentient intelligences that run everything to allow them to interface with infinity. They were invented in the Indian culture as a way to explain abstract concepts to simple people. It's called personification. I wished I had videotaped the wonderful talk about this that followed the Kathakali dance performance I saw in Cochin.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
Forgive the intrusion and the fact that I haven't been privy to what has gone on in the old rounds before this, but science has pretty much proved that there are other dimensions that are invisible to us. One of their big goals is to catch a graviton disappearing into one of them. Most scientists now seem to think there are 11 altogether (though I am not really up on this). I believe there are twelve, all beyond the Source/vacuum state proposed by quantum mechanics. Curtis, do you discount the possibility of this and the further possibility that incorporeal beings, or beings that are made of more subtle energy than the matter we are used to, might exist in those dimensions--that they might be objective but made of energies, fields or materials that are not normally perceptible by most through our ordinary senses? On Oct 14, 2011, at 9:38 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: The angels, gods and saints I have directed interacted with are a lot more real than either of you, but please, continue with your fantasy! A dull nervous system doesn't have the ability of refined perception and so cannot see the lifeforms all around us. Maybe next life? and believe me I am being generous with you two nit-wits. Hey Jim, Can't you see how such a statement sort of makes the claim that enlightenment is a normal state and that you are not using the claim as an elitist,bogus? You are even using it as a putdown for the unenlightened, of which I am a proud member. I have no way to evaluate your subjective claims Jim. And I am sure you are aware that there are other neurological explanations for how you can interact with beings who actually don't have an objective existence. I would like to direct your attention to the third man phenomenon in extreme sports. NPR coverage: (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112746464) It is a common hallucination for rock climbers and extreme sport enthusiasts that at some time during a period of high stress, their minds will manufacture a partner on the rope for climbers, or next to them on a bike or while extreme marathoning who they can converse with and who eggs them on. It is one part of the brain communicating with another in an objectified form. Now I know you saw these things under different conditions, but doesn't it give you any pause to know that the brain has this innate capability? Especially when combined with meditation states which also have this effect? It certainly did on me when I conversed with Guru Dev. And even if you don't choose to apply this knowledge to yourself, can't you see how someone like me would be more likely to apply this explanation to you than to assume that you are in a higher state of mind than I am? And I like you Jim. This is not some anti Jim putdown. But honestly you seem like the sort of regular guy for whom claims of special abilities seems unsupported at best. For all your ah shucks descriptions of this state, the fact is that it is a fantastic claim. You are claiming to be in direct contact with beings of immense power over the world we live in, or at least to be able to do something more than the rest of us. Is there a single thing that you can show for this belief other than that you are asserting it? I know we have gone round and round and the answer is no, but I ask it again in the context of your claiming that you have special powers of perception of beings that I do not have. Because it doesn't seem to have any manifestation other than to have made you believe it about yourself, and you are using it in a sort of unpleasant putdown way here, I have to go with: whatever it is that you are internally experiencing, it seems to have done nothing to improve your sensitivity to others even. That is a pretty low bar for a claim of such lofty knowledge, don't you think? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: Masked Zebra said: But in both cases they received tremendous support from celestial intelligences which arranged for their nervous systems to comprehend and experience themselves, the universe, and reality in just these terms: the primacy of the reality of an impersonal Self. I do not see a need to apply separate and autonomous intelligent agency to such beings. What they represent to me are simple neural or consciousness-based user interfaces which present themselves within the context of human intercommunication styles. IOW, humans are used to communicating with mouths and ears and characteristic human armored body language cues. Consequently our nervous systems project similar user interfaces onto other neurally projected constructs. Thus we see angels,
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
On Oct 14, 2011, at 11:38 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: The angels, gods and saints I have directed interacted with are a lot more real than either of you, but please, continue with your fantasy! A dull nervous system doesn't have the ability of refined perception and so cannot see the lifeforms all around us. Maybe next life? and believe me I am being generous with you two nit-wits. Hey Jim, Can't you see how such a statement sort of makes the claim that enlightenment is a normal state and that you are not using the claim as an elitist,bogus? You are even using it as a putdown for the unenlightened, of which I am a proud member. I have no way to evaluate your subjective claims Jim. And I am sure you are aware that there are other neurological explanations for how you can interact with beings who actually don't have an objective existence. One of the odd things about Dzogchen practice is that while many of the practices induce extremely real visions that are virtually indistinguishable from waking reality - simultaneous with their arising is a deep revulsion for the illusions themselves, which has practical application in real life. You're less encumbered by appearances in general. The very fact that we can be encumbered by imagery or ingrained mentation is what successful advertising is all about. Who would want to live in their own advertising realm? Not me. I want to free of all that crap. Where problems arise is when people take them too seriously. Esp. mental imagery like whynotnow7 enjoys so much. They just tether you deeper to that world. And unfortunately, since we live in a physical world, not a mental one, it's not very helpful - esp. when the body dies and you have to pass thru that mental world again when all your neural hardware shuts down.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
Does the Source/vacuum state connection/equation seem weak to you? On Oct 14, 2011, at 10:27 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau m@... wrote: Forgive the intrusion and the fact that I haven't been privy to what has gone on in the old rounds before this, but science has pretty much proved that there are other dimensions that are invisible to us. One of their big goals is to catch a graviton disappearing into one of them. Most scientists now seem to think there are 11 altogether (though I am not really up on this). I believe there are twelve, all beyond the Source/vacuum state proposed by quantum mechanics. Curtis, do you discount the possibility of this Your contributions are always welcome and never an intrusion Mark. No I don't discount physics, but I also recognize that this level of physics involves levels of mathematical calculations that I don't have the training to follow. I am not a fan of the physics poetry level of people without physics backgrounds putting these concepts into words we use with the same limitations of our senses. And these concepts have little to do with claiming to see an angelic being which requires nothing more than the senses and the mind to appreciate, so the connection is weak at best. In other words, just because there are unknowns in physics and it it pushing against the range of our senses, that doesn't mean that it is any more likely that people perceiving beings are observing an objective fact outside something their minds produced. and the further possibility that incorporeal beings, or beings that are made of more subtle energy than the matter we are used to, might exist in those dimensions--that they might be objective but made of energies, fields or materials that are not normally perceptible by most through our ordinary senses? They might, but this is a huge jump to these claims with zero basis. We are making the jump between I saw a UFO and I know it is an alien craft. Just because there is mystery doesn't support these claims. I am reading a book by a neuroscientist called Phantoms in the Brain, probing the mysteries of the human mind. It describes case after case of false but compelling perceptions based on the mind's interaction with the senses to construct our reality. Patients who have limbs missing who see and feel its presence day after day. If the phantom limb is supposedly holding a coffee cup,and the doctor snatches it from their hand, they will react to the pain of having their fingers twisted as it gets caught in the loop of the cup. It goes on case after case of mistaken perceptions. I know that we have amazing capacities that we are just beginning to discover. But doesn't it make sense to rule out known neurological malfunctions before we start to take such claims at face value? It is the nature of these types of experiences that they are compelling and convincing. I have had them, I know. But the intricate interaction between our senses and brain's construction of reality leads me to conclude that we are vulnerable to over emphasizing the value of these experiences and believing that we KNOW what they mean. Am I the only one who is interested to distinguish whether or not these beings are actually outside our own minds? It makes a difference. And if in fact there is genuine contact with an actual external being, is it to much to ask for something out of the ordinary to be able to be made manifest to the rest of us? I know that these experiences are important to you but I encourage you to read some texts by these neuroscientists about what they have discovered about what our brains are capable of. It is a real eye opener and has given me a platform to begin to understand how we might understand such experiences outside a spiritual perspective. But I will always be open to anyone who can step up and deliver more than an assertion that it is so. I am not saying I KNOW what people are experiencing is manufactured by the brain. But I would like this consideration to be added to the mix as we try to understand them. On Oct 14, 2011, at 9:38 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: The angels, gods and saints I have directed interacted with are a lot more real than either of you, but please, continue with your fantasy! A dull nervous system doesn't have the ability of refined perception and so cannot see the lifeforms all around us. Maybe next life? and believe me I am being generous with you two nit-wits. Hey Jim, Can't you see how such a statement sort of makes the claim that enlightenment is a normal state and that you are not using the claim as an elitist,bogus? You are even using it as a putdown for the unenlightened, of which I am a proud member.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
Well, I hear you about what our minds can manufacture. We've all had hallucinations, have we not? But I do believe that we can synthesize our right and left brains, our spiritual and material/analytic sides, our poetic and scientific sensibilities when we attempt to use our apperceptive mass to approach reality. And I also believe we can use true discernment to distinguish what is false from what is true, although it can get extremely difficult. I know that quantum weirdness and simultaneity over distances far enough to break the light speed barrier have boggled the minds of most scientists because they border on the magical. I don't expect anything I write to change anyone's mind really, but I might just give you a hint of encouragement to entertain the possibility that the other dimensions science is just beginning to attempt to fathom are all real, that each one embodies a richer, deeper, more unfathomable aspect of infinity and that they might even correspond to the nine angelic realms alluded to in the bible or other bardos or lokas described in the east (in other words, if you will, really ponder the possibility instead of rejecting it out of hand as weak). I also believe that, eventually, science will come to a deeper, truer, understanding/theory of everything that will, of necessity, close the gap between science and the mystical. If there is any such thing as truth, it will remain true no matter what the terminology surrounding it will be. If I speak of a source of all things, an unmanifest state from which all of creation comes forth, thus using poetical language, and I state that the vacuum state of quantum theory is science's postulation of that source (forget, for the moment about consciousness, though I agree with Teilhard that if consciousness exists at any level, it must exist at every level), would this seem weak to you? I realize, of course, that the immediately above is, perhaps, less of a jump than the above that, by far, but my, yes, multidimensional existence/experience can't help but hold the possibility that the above that part is not as weak as you immediately perceive. I think that was another one of those many things that M got right. The way he said it, is that each higher dimension was more powerful than the previous and held beings and that the higher the dimension the fewer the number of beings that dwelt there. Do you really believe that all the mystics and seers of all the traditions through time and world with all there agreements despite the different verbiage and imagery have all had nothing of value to offer? Anyway, FWIW, enough mentation for today. How far does it ever really get us? :-) Cordially, always, m On Oct 14, 2011, at 10:52 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau m@... wrote: Does the Source/vacuum state connection/equation seem weak to you? I'm not sure what you are referring to. If you mean the connection between consciousness and the vacuum state then I have heard physicists refute this with Maharishi in symposiums at MIU. But if you are speaking about an actual physics equation than I have not idea. On Oct 14, 2011, at 10:27 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau m@... wrote: Forgive the intrusion and the fact that I haven't been privy to what has gone on in the old rounds before this, but science has pretty much proved that there are other dimensions that are invisible to us. One of their big goals is to catch a graviton disappearing into one of them. Most scientists now seem to think there are 11 altogether (though I am not really up on this). I believe there are twelve, all beyond the Source/vacuum state proposed by quantum mechanics. Curtis, do you discount the possibility of this Your contributions are always welcome and never an intrusion Mark. No I don't discount physics, but I also recognize that this level of physics involves levels of mathematical calculations that I don't have the training to follow. I am not a fan of the physics poetry level of people without physics backgrounds putting these concepts into words we use with the same limitations of our senses. And these concepts have little to do with claiming to see an angelic being which requires nothing more than the senses and the mind to appreciate, so the connection is weak at best. In other words, just because there are unknowns in physics and it it pushing against the range of our senses, that doesn't mean that it is any more likely that people perceiving beings are observing an objective fact outside something their minds produced. and the further possibility that incorporeal beings, or beings that are made of more subtle energy than the matter we are used to, might exist in those dimensions--that they might be objective
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
Hi, Curtis, it has been a long time. A couple points, if you will. First, I agree wholeheartedly that your ability to express yourself in writing has improved tremendously. When I first started lurking here I read bits of posts of almost everybody and thought to myself, Oh, this must be some other Curtis. But it wasn't some other Curtis. Kudos and thanks for the wonderful surprise. Second point. You write, [You are] up for any demo of master of any other level than what I am currently perceiving. I suspect if these connections are real there should be some testable predictions possible. But are you also up for conceding that the testable predictions being met that the connections are indeed real as claimed? Or might you be likely to say that your senses are unreliable, that a little thing affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheat. The master's seeming powerful abilities may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. IOW, I hold that it's not meaningful to ask for proof unless you: 1) are able to recognize it when you see it. 2) are willing to accept it when you recognize it. Can you give me an example of what, short of a roll of duct tape and a .44 mag, would compel you to say, Wow! TM [tantra, really good tequila, et al.] may not have done it for me, but it sure can deliver on its promise? P Duff curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau m@... wrote: Well, I hear you about what our minds can manufacture. We've all had hallucinations, have we not? My point is more comprehensive. I am saying that our brain is always constructing our sense of reality even out of sensory perceptions so we have no ability to distinguish if it came from inside or outside sometimes. But I do believe that we can synthesize our right and left brains, our spiritual and material/analytic sides, our poetic and scientific sensibilities when we attempt to use our apperceptive mass to approach reality. I use the arts for this if I understand you. I don't understand the term apperceptive mass. And I also believe we can use true discernment to distinguish what is false from what is true, although it can get extremely difficult. I'll go further. Humans suck at this and have so many cognitive flaws and gaps, it is amazing we get anything right! We combine it with and perverse natural inflated confidence about out abilities. I know that quantum weirdness and simultaneity over distances far enough to break the light speed barrier have boggled the minds of most scientists because they border on the magical. That sounds clearly over the border so far! I don't expect anything I write to change anyone's mind really, but I might just give you a hint of encouragement to entertain the possibility that the other dimensions science is just beginning to attempt to fathom are all real, that each one embodies a richer, deeper, more unfathomable aspect of infinity I am 100% with you up to here. Part of my interest in challenging spiritual explanations that claim to explain this mystery has to do with restoring the more appropriate sense of humility that we are wondrous beings in a wondrous world and do not have it all figured out from ancient literature. and that they might even correspond to the nine angelic realms alluded to in the bible or other bardos or lokas described in the east (in other words, if you will, really ponder the possibility instead of rejecting it out of hand as weak). I am not rejecting it out of hand. I devoted 15 years of my life to these claims and went as far into the experience as I could. But the connection you are making is between science and literature. For me, we might as well be connecting them to the characters in Moby Dick. Underneath your statement is an unspoken premise that these books are different from other imaginative literature produced by humans. I can't assume that they had more a clue than we do today and see much evidence that we have learned a lot about reality since then that they got completely wrong. I also believe that, eventually, science will come to a deeper, truer, understanding/theory of everything that will, of necessity, close the gap between science and the mystical. If there is any such thing as truth, it will remain true no matter what the terminology surrounding it will be. I don't know how far science can go towards explaining our lives but so far I am happy with the growing insights. I am not sure they will ever confirm the mystical claims, but they might. If I speak of a source of all things, an unmanifest state from which all of creation comes forth, thus using poetical language, and I state that the vacuum state of quantum theory is science's postulation of that source (forget, for the moment about
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
On Oct 11, 2011, at 10:57 AM, maskedzebra wrote: Now I would like to say something about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. To be physically near to him (you more or less had to do Transcendental Meditation to 'get' Maharishi) was to be near the most alive, sensitive, entertaining, compelling, ironic, strong, attractive, deep personality that you could ever imagine. No one who was close to Maharishi—as a disciple, as an initiator—has ever, in rejecting Maharishi, acquired an experience (in this repudiation of his authenticity as a spiritual Master) that qualitatively (in the negative sense) compared the experience of loving and surrendering to him. To know Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (say, in the early and mid-seventies—and before this) was to know (if one came to be close to him physically) the most beautiful human being in the world. Maharishi implied to us that he was in Unity Consciousness. In those halcyon days, to doubt the whole universe was somehow perfectly representing itself in Maharishi would be the same as doubting that the Atlantic Ocean is full of wetness. Maharishi's brilliance and beauty and charisma were virtually physical. Now, if I come across anyone who once was in the Movement and devoted to Maharishi who can conjure up an experience which I feel comes from a deeper place in his rejection of Maharishi than he (or she) came from when he or she loved, adored, and even worshiped Maharishi, I stand refuted. But this cannot happen. Or at least, it has not happened yet. But it has. Sit down and talk to one of Mahesh's personal secretaries and hear their stories. Hear how the person they revered and adored slowly lost the mask of respectability and gained their suspicion. The revelatory 'Maharshee' drone-lectures that ended up being from coached pre-lecture sessionsby westerners reading from English translations. The weirdness, the something's not right feelings and the process of slowly finding out why all was quite not what it seemed. The angry outbursts lasting hours, unheard of in the holy; the destruction of lives; the visit of Mahesh to the revered Shankaracharya of the South who placed Mahesh's awareness within his own Brahman Consciousness and declared his consciousness like that of a busy supermarket and on and on. Perhaps if you get the right person, you'll hear of the legitimate saints they went on to meet and the remarkable differences. There's many ways one can do this. The saint who can explain how certain yogis will use different methods to effectively numb out and dumb out their students. Or take a psychic friend and just pop in on a Purusha facility. I get that Mahesh had all the attributes of a celebrity and he certainly had the garb and the mystique that we naive westerners thought must be holy. But a glimpse behind the facade is all it takes for all of that to fall away...if you even want to do so. Most will not want to pull off the veils of their cherishes memories of youth. Many cannot. As you see, our engrained ego-sense loves to hold onto these stories. If we were associated in some way with that story, it makes it even more unlikely that we'd be willing to let go. No one likes to feel naked in that sense, esp. if we have no new equally vogue garb to replace it with. So I suspect you're deeply attached to these stories. You're still telling the same stories you were telling back in the 80's and in the very same way; the same phrasing, the same grandiose conviction, delivery and almost - but not quite - the same oomph.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
On Oct 10, 2011, at 3:18 PM, maskedzebra wrote: Answer: I resist giving a simple response to this question. What follows here is strictly my own idiosyncratic view of the matter. I doubt I will take anyone with me in what I say. But I will go ahead anyway. Enlightenment, in the case of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, was real; real here means: functioning in a different context mechanically, behaviourally, experientially. Enlightenment *is* a separate and distinct state of awareness which is as different from waking state as waking state is to dream state. Enlightenment is like waking up from a dream, and it is, unquestionably, the experience of knowing the intention of the entire cosmos is acting through one's individual existence. Unless it has this—mechanical, purposeful—aspect, it can't be enlightenment. Not the way Maharishi defined it. Not the way Maharishi made it possible for me to know what he was experiencing. Well I hope you realize that this would also be a classical description of an number of psychiatric disorders, including but not limited to Schizotypal personality disorder or Schizophrenia. One should probably include the more recent Kundalini psychosis. Real is a relative term. There is not any style of validation for these states in Mahesh's system performed by someone known to be competent with higher states of consciousness. But as for the true reality of it: that is: does enlightenment represent the fulfillment, the perfection, the consummation of what it means to be a human being? this I reject categorically. Well, pointing out of the enlightened state is essential to grokking the reality of what we experience or imagine as an enlightened state or stage. The traditional presentation is that we've been so conditioned to delusion for countless lives that we're much, much more likely to chose a delusion as our enlightenment. In one sense there are no enlightened people, there's only enlightened action. Those who talk, inevitably, don't know. Enlightenment—any state that takes you outside of normal waking state—including transcendence—is ultimately an illusion. Unless enlightenment involves no modification, it is seeing thing as they really are - just as they are. I think that was one of the hardest things for people (like me) who were or are conditioned by Hindu- or Veda-think to grok. Note: I am not saying that it isn't something very real as measured by how it allows one to function, the experience it immutably affords one to have at all times, the stability of it, its unconquerable integrity. It is all these things. But the question becomes: *How* is it that this state of consciousness comes about? Buddhist awakeners might say it 'was there, from the beginning'. After all, everything that's compounded, changes. For sure, it is the perpetual integrated experience of transcendence. But, after all, does enlightenment correspond to objective reality? Does reality seek to have itself embodied in a human being in the form of enlightenment? Yes, of course it corresponds to objective reality. No. A universal No to this. Which is why Maharishi started to come apart at the end; it is why (if I may speak personally) I started to come apart at the end. Enlightenment—if you're all out there—cannot be sustained. And reality will bring it down. If, that is, you put yourself on the line: as in: I am enlightened; let me lead you to the promised land (Unity Consciousness). Just do this technique. Or: let me confront you inside the metaphysical drama of creation. From the tradition I come from, and the actual tradition of Christ some believe, they might say that relaxation (unstressing?) continues to the cellular level. One gets less and less encumbered - and then just returns to the source of the five elements: light. So, strictly speaking, yes, TM can produce a style of psychosis which could describe fittingly the state of enlightenment. But I have never seen *anyone* on the earth other than Maharishi that I believe is 'truly enlightened'. I have. But I have to say I don't feel nor had I ever experienced Mahesh as enlightened. A couple of minor siddhis? Maybe. And then even that fell away. That would be my perception. But then maybe he was just not my Elvis. Because, as I have said, enlightenment requires the cosmos to appear to be behind one's actions and supporting one's experience of a unified state of consciousness. Enlightenment should and can meet all tests—but one. All the tests short of reality deciding to confront it. Then Reality overpowers reality. And enlightenment is seen for what it really is: a very unnatural, deceitful, black-magical state of consciousness, which alienates one from who one really is. Well that brings up an interesting observation other yogis have made on dark yogis like Mahesh. They are experts at producing forms of delusion, mind-scars if you will, that
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
On Oct 10, 2011, at 6:21 PM, Yifu wrote: As to Christianity, (orthodox Christianity as opposed to Gnosticism); there are claims as to the redeeming power of Christ's Crucifixion. Are such claims (as made by St. Paul and the various historical characters such as St. Xavier) true or false. What's the evidence? The gist of it would be that if Jesus of Nazareth actually attained the Great Transfer of the Rainbow Body (Tib.: ‘ja’lus ‘pho ba chen po), he would actually become a form of unconceivable enlightened action capable of occurring in many different dimensions simultaneously. So he'd effectively be available to all dimensions and their sentient inhabitants, anywhere: heaven, hell and everywhere in-between. Best of luck to Father Tiso co.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
On Oct 9, 2011, at 11:54 AM, maskedzebra wrote: I had been working against my Enlightenment Hallucination So would you agree that TM can produce a style of psychosis and that this is what many are seeing as a higher state of consciousness?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
On Sep 27, 2011, at 1:51 PM, PaliGap wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: An interesting detail from Swarupananda is that Mahesh never entered into the guru-shishya relationship with Brahmananda. I am shocked. Truly shocked. What no guru-shishya? What is wrong with these people? What's wrong is: 1. He holds no authentic teacher relationship from the teacher he claims a relationship with. 2. He received no permission/instruction to teach what he claims is a technique that comes from aforementioned relationship (another lie). 3. Claims to be a yogi but there is know known evidence of diksha, etc. 4. Directly violates the beliefs re: Natural Law, dharma-laws of his tradition and teacher. 5. Claims to have renounced the world and to be celibate, but is not. So in other words, in the tradition he claims to come from, by their own standards, he's a mountebank. I think really, for all intents and purposes, this movie puts an end to a lotta of people's misunderstandings, misperceptions and fantasies (not that there's anything wrong with that ;-)). -and not that this is anything new to many of us.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bhairitu Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 2:19 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly On Netflix it is still in the Saved queue which means they don't have any copies yet and are waiting for an NTSC version. The version sold on Amazon is PAL (Europe's video standard) and most people interested wouldn't know what to do with it nor own a PAL playing DVD player (I have a couple of them). They need to author an NTSC Region 1 DVD. In most cases that's just a remux of the VOB files as the streams are usually just 24fps streams sped up for 25fps. NTSC players take care of the conversion from 24fps to 30. A 1000 DVD in the US cost $790 to replicate for D-9 (dual layer) discs. This includes the glass master which can be used for another run. There is a regular version, playable on US DVD players, floating around. There are copies in FF.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 4:36 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , obbajeeba no_reply@... wrote: I thought I read somewhere on this board that MIU had a copy for the students or a student copy in the library? Are you maybe thinking of Judith Bourque's book? I believe that was the town library, not the MUM library. We did have some discussion of that awhile back. It took the librarian awhile to read the book and decide to put it on the shelves, which was seen as a huge *scandale* by many on FFL. I'm sure the MUM library doesn't have a copy, but the student government members do, and have read it.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of obbajeeba Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 2:31 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly I thought I read somewhere on this board that MIU had a copy for the students or a student copy in the library? I think the students had downloaded it from BitTorrent or something.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
This is what happens when you don't have your distribution together. The US is a big market and probably the best channel to promote the DVD is through political sites where people express concerns about cults, etc. I don't know how well it would go over at holistic expos but that is another possibility. Many people don't want to buy though and would prefer to just rent the DVD or see it streaming. We don't know the back story but the little company could be terrified that the TMO might come after them in the US. But that would also be bad publicity for the TMO and picked up by news sites that do stories on things like Scientology. On 09/20/2011 08:06 AM, whynotnow7 wrote: Nice - Vaj encourages his Bash Maharishi view by stealing from those who agree with him. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanleyj_alexander_stanley@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4uanitaoaks4u@ wrote: I had my sister order it on Netflix, but I doubt they have it, and you can't find a pirated copy anywhere. Vaj's post, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/289864 contains a link to a pirated copy via BitTorrent.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
On 09/20/2011 08:40 AM, Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bhairitu Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 2:19 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly On Netflix it is still in the Saved queue which means they don't have any copies yet and are waiting for an NTSC version. The version sold on Amazon is PAL (Europe's video standard) and most people interested wouldn't know what to do with it nor own a PAL playing DVD player (I have a couple of them). They need to author an NTSC Region 1 DVD. In most cases that's just a remux of the VOB files as the streams are usually just 24fps streams sped up for 25fps. NTSC players take care of the conversion from 24fps to 30. A 1000 DVD in the US cost $790 to replicate for D-9 (dual layer) discs. This includes the glass master which can be used for another run. There is a regular version, playable on US DVD players, floating around. There are copies in FF. It is possible to re-author a PAL DVD to NTSC. However so many players can play MP4 and Xvid files just rips are all that is needed. And of course those can also just be watchend on a computer. I actually don't own any PAL DVDs even though I asked some friends who were in Europe to bring some back they never did. I tested my players by authoring a PAL DVD with my DVD authoring software and they played fine. Some required a hack to run but I think my AVeL Linkplayer played them with no hack. It also upscaled DVDs to HD without a hack. I did have to avoid a firmware upgrade that took all that away.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
Those are one offs. A few years back it was easy to find duplication machines at a good price (sub $500). People did their own duplication. However most publishers go for pressings which require a glass master and cost far less per copy. Here's a Bay Area company that does that and also Bluray discs: http://www.sfvideo.com/ This will give an idea of the COG involved in publishing videos. On 09/20/2011 10:22 AM, whynotnow7 wrote: Agreed that the audience is a specialized one. Perhaps a good model would be to go with a publishing and distribution company, similar to the one I use for my music. That way, once someone decides they want to see the film, they have access to a link for purchase or streaming. I googled an outfit, www.createspace.com, but looks like they are just getting started. Actually I am shocked that Vaj, out of dedication and spite, has not purchased thousands of copies to freely distribute to further his jihad against Maharishi. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@... wrote: This is what happens when you don't have your distribution together. The US is a big market and probably the best channel to promote the DVD is through political sites where people express concerns about cults, etc. I don't know how well it would go over at holistic expos but that is another possibility. Many people don't want to buy though and would prefer to just rent the DVD or see it streaming. We don't know the back story but the little company could be terrified that the TMO might come after them in the US. But that would also be bad publicity for the TMO and picked up by news sites that do stories on things like Scientology. On 09/20/2011 08:06 AM, whynotnow7 wrote: Nice - Vaj encourages his Bash Maharishi view by stealing from those who agree with him. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanleyj_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4uanitaoaks4u@ wrote: I had my sister order it on Netflix, but I doubt they have it, and you can't find a pirated copy anywhere. Vaj's post, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/289864 contains a link to a pirated copy via BitTorrent.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
A company like the one that does the DVD would do it this way because they have their own distribution. But they probably prefer to license to a distributor in the US. If you read around the Facebook page, Netfix, IMDB you'll find the DVD has been on sale for some time all over Europe. When you are one person trying to do it the budget way then yes the one offs make sense but when you have a stable of titles like the German company it's bigger fish to fry. ;-) On 09/20/2011 01:52 PM, whynotnow7 wrote: If you do it this way, you'd still have to provide your own distribution and payment processing, marketing, etc. I guess it depends on the potential market -- If it's huge, set up shop, otherwise I'd go with someone handling distro and payment. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@... wrote: Those are one offs. A few years back it was easy to find duplication machines at a good price (sub $500). People did their own duplication. However most publishers go for pressings which require a glass master and cost far less per copy. Here's a Bay Area company that does that and also Bluray discs: http://www.sfvideo.com/ This will give an idea of the COG involved in publishing videos. On 09/20/2011 10:22 AM, whynotnow7 wrote: Agreed that the audience is a specialized one. Perhaps a good model would be to go with a publishing and distribution company, similar to the one I use for my music. That way, once someone decides they want to see the film, they have access to a link for purchase or streaming. I googled an outfit, www.createspace.com, but looks like they are just getting started. Actually I am shocked that Vaj, out of dedication and spite, has not purchased thousands of copies to freely distribute to further his jihad against Maharishi. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@ wrote: This is what happens when you don't have your distribution together. The US is a big market and probably the best channel to promote the DVD is through political sites where people express concerns about cults, etc. I don't know how well it would go over at holistic expos but that is another possibility. Many people don't want to buy though and would prefer to just rent the DVD or see it streaming. We don't know the back story but the little company could be terrified that the TMO might come after them in the US. But that would also be bad publicity for the TMO and picked up by news sites that do stories on things like Scientology. On 09/20/2011 08:06 AM, whynotnow7 wrote: Nice - Vaj encourages his Bash Maharishi view by stealing from those who agree with him. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanleyj_alexander_stanley@wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4uanitaoaks4u@wrote: I had my sister order it on Netflix, but I doubt they have it, and you can't find a pirated copy anywhere. Vaj's post, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/289864 contains a link to a pirated copy via BitTorrent.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
On Netflix it is still in the Saved queue which means they don't have any copies yet and are waiting for an NTSC version. The version sold on Amazon is PAL (Europe's video standard) and most people interested wouldn't know what to do with it nor own a PAL playing DVD player (I have a couple of them). They need to author an NTSC Region 1 DVD. In most cases that's just a remux of the VOB files as the streams are usually just 24fps streams sped up for 25fps. NTSC players take care of the conversion from 24fps to 30. A 1000 DVD in the US cost $790 to replicate for D-9 (dual layer) discs. This includes the glass master which can be used for another run. On 09/19/2011 11:54 AM, wgm4u wrote: I had my sister order it on Netflix, but I doubt they have it, and you can't find a pirated copy anywhere. On Amazon it's over $35. (domestically) if you want to purchase it.. http://www.amazon.com/David-Wants-Fly-Lynch/dp/B004PRT15E/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tvie=UTF8qid=1316458373sr=1-1 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@... wrote: On 09/19/2011 10:31 AM, Vaj wrote: On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:16 PM, Bhairitu wrote: On 09/18/2011 04:31 PM, Vaj wrote: http://www.demonoid.me/files/details/2729828/15672248/ Movies : Documentary : DVD Rip : English Documentary about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and the TM movement, focusing on Fairfield, IA and the religious nature of the group. Film has not been released to the public but did well at film festivals. http://www.davidwantstofly.com/ I wonder why it is having problems finding a US distributor? Lynch said he wouldn't interfere. I'm guessing Lichblick Film doesn't know what to do with it or it's potential sales. Even doing a limited run NTSC DVD (about 2000 copies) and placed on Amazon in the US might work. Otherwise either license it to Netflix streaming or Vudu if they think they might make more money with the latter. Thing is the movie Tucker and Dale vs Evil which was shown at Sundance back January 2010, played Europe and Asia and now available on DVD and Bluray was in US distribution limbo until Magnet (owned by Mark Cuban) picked it up. It went pre-theatrical VOD on August 30th (Comcast, Vudu, etc) and limited run in theaters on the 30th of September. It will only be playing at the Shattuck in Berkeley around here. When it goes in theaters the price will drop for VOD so will watching then on Vudu. The only thing I can guess is that the subject matter is so specialized and TM so passe. The guru expose theme may have worn thin as well. There's no market to warrant a release. Can you imagine a film on Est or ISKCON? I did rent a documentary about ISKCON years ago that was made in Australia. I rented it VOD and watched it on the computer. Later I found it available at stores. Now that was back in the day when people bought DVDs (FYI, DVD sales are way down). I've bought one-offs DVDs at the big Holistic Expo in SF. I even bought Gabriel Over the White House as a one-off from Warner Brothers. I've thought the VOD route would be the way to go. What's going to happen? The TMO boycotting Walmart because Vudu licensed it? There is very little risk on a VOD. You can hit that small target audience. They could license it to Netflix streaming for a few months. But as I mentioned as well as you and Turq that the perceived market is probably too small. Perceived is the active word there, who knows what it will do. Would you watch a documentary on the building of Steinway pianos? It sound dull too but I put it in my queue and it was very good. I didn't know they were entirely built by hand by really skilled craftsmen that have come from all over the world. Many pianos are built in automated factories these days and even Steinway feels they may need to do that but they want to figure out how automate the same level of craftsmanship. Unfortunately many of those expensive pianos that take a year to build go as trophy items into homes of the wealthy who can barely play Chopsticks. You'd also think that the original Danish The Killing would be available on NF streaming? There are far more obscure films than that there. I just think a lot of people in the content acquisition business aren't very good at it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
I believe they had a showing. I'd be very surprised if the library had a copy, it vindicates many of the long-time naysayers of the movement: from sexual to the fact that Mahesh is not a yogi. IOW it wouldn't be the type of movie they would want to have at all. Persinger's testimony on the use of TM with children I found particularly chilling. One's always reluctant to say evil in cases like this, esp. for myself as I had mostly good experiences, but the undertone I run into again and again suggests something darker. On Sep 19, 2011, at 3:30 PM, obbajeeba wrote: I thought I read somewhere on this board that MIU had a copy for the students or a student copy in the library?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
Rick mentioned that the film had been shown to the MUM students when he was lamenting the fact that he hadn't seen it yet. On Sep 19, 2011, at 3:36 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@... wrote: I thought I read somewhere on this board that MIU had a copy for the students or a student copy in the library? Are you maybe thinking of Judith Bourque's book? I believe that was the town library, not the MUM library. We did have some discussion of that awhile back. It took the librarian awhile to read the book and decide to put it on the shelves, which was seen as a huge *scandale* by many on FFL.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
On Sep 19, 2011, at 6:53 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote: Perhaps they are not into watching trash much. So you've seen it Nabby?
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly on MUM Campus
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of wayback71 Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 9:14 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly on MUM Campus Are you kidding about this? The TMO deciders were going to allow this film to be shown on campus? Have they seen it? Someone assured me that the posters went up, but then came down. I suspect that the students organized a viewing and the administration quashed it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer r...@... wrote: The film was going to be shown. Official posters were up in the Student Union. But it got cancelled, ostensibly because there was some disagreement with the producers over how funds from such a showing were to be dispersed.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'David Wants to Fly'
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 3:21 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'David Wants to Fly' I admire that his obsession focuses on the basic TM technique and teaching it. I wish he didn't have to work through the TM movement to teach it. But he does, and thus he is placed in the position of using his idealized good intentions to try to legitimize an organization that does not deserve to be legitimized. I think he's given a fairly long leash, because he's really having an impact. And Bobby Roth, his right hand man, is one of the most heartsy and creative guys I've ever met. Check out this photo on his blog: http://insidedlf.wordpress.com/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'David Wants to Fly'
Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 3:21 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'David Wants to Fly' I admire that his obsession focuses on the basic TM technique and teaching it. I wish he didn't have to work through the TM movement to teach it. But he does, and thus he is placed in the position of using his idealized good intentions to try to legitimize an organization that does not deserve to be legitimized. I think he's given a fairly long leash, because he's really having an impact. And Bobby Roth, his right hand man, is one of the most heartsy and creative guys I've ever met. Check out this photo on his blog: http://insidedlf.wordpress.com/ But still lost in the maya of yoga lite. People who were truly interested in enlightenment have moved on.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'David Wants to Fly'
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bhairitu Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 11:28 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'David Wants to Fly' Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 3:21 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'David Wants to Fly' I admire that his obsession focuses on the basic TM technique and teaching it. I wish he didn't have to work through the TM movement to teach it. But he does, and thus he is placed in the position of using his idealized good intentions to try to legitimize an organization that does not deserve to be legitimized. I think he's given a fairly long leash, because he's really having an impact. And Bobby Roth, his right hand man, is one of the most heartsy and creative guys I've ever met. Check out this photo on his blog: http://insidedlf.wordpress.com/ But still lost in the maya of yoga lite. People who were truly interested in enlightenment have moved on. I have, for the most part, but I wouldn't make that judgment. I think there are plenty of people in the TM movement who are sincerely interested in enlightenment, and are actually attaining it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'David Wants to Fly'
Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bhairitu Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 11:28 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'David Wants to Fly' Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 3:21 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'David Wants to Fly' I admire that his obsession focuses on the basic TM technique and teaching it. I wish he didn't have to work through the TM movement to teach it. But he does, and thus he is placed in the position of using his idealized good intentions to try to legitimize an organization that does not deserve to be legitimized. I think he's given a fairly long leash, because he's really having an impact. And Bobby Roth, his right hand man, is one of the most heartsy and creative guys I've ever met. Check out this photo on his blog: http://insidedlf.wordpress.com/ But still lost in the maya of yoga lite. People who were truly interested in enlightenment have moved on. I have, for the most part, but I wouldn't make that judgment. I think there are plenty of people in the TM movement who are sincerely interested in enlightenment, and are actually attaining it. The problem is what are they going to do with it? TM is yoga lite and very limited in its teaching. Yes some people would have only needed the stirring of about any mantra to finish off their evolution. My first experience with meditation out of book caused my kundalini to rise to the crown chakra. Obviously I had been messing with this stuff in prior lifetimes. And I know people who claim to attain enlightenment from TM but still moved on and not to mention people very connected with the TMO who still investigated other paths (just didn't tell anyone else in the TMO). Some of them visited and got instruction from my teacher Swami Abhayanand. I think a few changes could have kept the movement very worthy. It was great fun when I started TM in 1973 and still fun when I came back from TTC and taught a few people. But then after the Sidhis program became widespread some teachers got a stick up their butt and started acting like Nazis. That really helped kill the movement. And for the record I never got in trouble with those people but know people who did. I also think the meditation technique that Muktananda taught was probably better for people than TM. His movement just went south though. But many other paths teach the same thing.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'David Wants to Fly'
WillyTex wrote: The other Barry says fourteen years, Curtis says twelve, Edg says twenty-five and John Manning claims he scammed over 5,000 people out of their money. What's up with that? Joe: I didn't find your name on the list of TM Teachers in good standing in Fairfield. Because I'm not a TM Teacher? When were you last in Fairfield? I was there on two occasions, once in 1972 and again in 2003. I didn't see an 'Joe' on the approved list of TM Teachers. What's up with all the secrecy? Did you get kicked out of the TMO? Just be honest. What were you doing in Fairfield in 1972? It was still Parson's College then. I may be wrong but I don't think the movement bought it until later because I was following that after I learned TM in 1973 and remember it being announced on my SCI course. On of the member of the class said her mother attended Parson's College.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'David Wants to Fly'
off_world_beings wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: Vaj wrote: On Feb 17, 2010, at 5:40 AM, Premanand wrote: Has anyone seen a preview of this movie by David Sieveking yet? It was shown last weekend, and reviewed in Variety:- http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117942181.html?categoryid=31cs=1 http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117942181.html?categoryid=31cs=1 I notice Judith Bourque is listed as appearing, I wonder what she had to say? I wonder if it will air in FF or Skelm? Looks like it may be a tad too honest for the TM crowd, claiming to out Mahesh's avaricious ways, his multiple affairs and he's even blasted by the Good Shank of the North (and fellow Guru Dev ghost worshipper). Hopefully they'll have boxes of tissues and a cadre of exit counsellors waiting in the wings. Back in Germany, Sieveking signs up for TM lessons. On the first day, he's required to bring some unusual items -- plus a check for E2,380. While covering the Maharashi's funeral in India and a subsequent convening of his successors (the Maharajah and Rajas) in the Netherlands, Sieveking witnesses a battle for power within the TM empire. He also spotlights some of the organization's questionable plans for world peace (for which they raise millions of dollars) including the fascist-sounding Invincible German and Bramasthan, where 10,000 pandits are supposed to be chanting 24/7. However, it's when he begins talking to renegade former TMers who spill the beans about the Maharashi's multiple affairs and the way he bled followers for cash (e.g., raja training is available for $1 million), that emails start to fly and lawsuits are threatened. Pic's best moments include visits to the much-vaunted Bramasthan, which turns out to be a ghost town, and to Swami Swaroopanand, successor to Guru Dev, in a village near Tibet. The swami tells Sieveking that the Maharashi, from a trader caste, was merely Dev's bookkeeper and has no right to give mantras or teach meditation. Besides, he notes, Gurus don't sell their knowledge, they share it. I'm surprised that David Lynch has stayed with TM this long. If he thinks Hollywood has too many rules then maybe he ought to look at the TM movement. One would think he would wake up to the scam It appears he got enlightened through TM. He admires Maharishi and TM so much, and is very blissful about it. OffWorld I doubt that. I just think he thinks TM is a neat thing and hasn't look much further than his nose.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'David Wants to Fly'
WillyTex wrote: Bhairitu: I'm surprised that David Lynch has stayed with TM this long. If he thinks Hollywood has too many rules then maybe he ought to look at the TM movement. One would think he would wake up to the scam. I'm sure many film cohorts have mentioned other meditation courses far less expensive and not scams. So, I wonder how many years you spent 'scamming' the public? The other Barry says fourteen years, Curtis says twelve, Edg says twenty-five and John Manning claims he scammed over 5,000 people out of their money. What's up with that? At a max of $125 a pop I don't think any of us scammed anyone. That was a reasonable price and if people didn't like the meditation they weren't out much. But at $2400 or whatever the going rate is they would be. You don't charge for the meditation but for the time the teacher has to take. It could be condensed into a weekend workshop which is probably more convenient for most people. Many other meditation schools do this and keep the fee down so people can afford it. The teachers get paid for their time unless it is a monastic outfit where the teachers are monks and needs taken care of by the ashram. And westerners do feel that charging for meditation makes it seem worthy. That is as long as the fee is reasonable. And for the record I only taught about 20 people as MMY then wanted the MIU graduates to do the teaching. About then is when the movement began falling apart because these kids had no real experience in life and many potential meditation students couldn't stand them and would ask where is so and so? I want to learn from them.
