RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of sparaig Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 9:17 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of off_world_beings Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 3:08 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?) People here have a total misunderstanding of what Maharishi is saying. He is (and always has said) that Brahman is the Charioteer, every person is Royalty, every person is divine being, every person is the Cosmic Administrator, every person in the Ruler of the Universe, every person is a Maharishi. There are no kings and subjects. He says that, but he doesn't run the movement that way. The movement is very hierarchical. There is a vast difference between the ways people at opposite ends of the social scale are treated. Do you really think that peons get a chance to see the Dali Lama these days, unless it is a publicity gimmick? Past a certain size, organizational structure disallows the boss from getting his hands dirty with the peasants. I'm not talking about getting to see him. I doubt very much that the Dali Lama lavishes jewels and expensive clothes and cushy digs on the important people while treating the little people as expendable commodities.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
On Mar 2, 2007, at 10:46 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you really think that peons get a chance to see the Dali Lama these days, unless it is a publicity gimmick? Uh...Dalai Lama. The Dali Lama was a surrealistic figure in one of Salvador Dali's paintings, this melted guy in ochre robes dripping over a table. :-) Past a certain size, organizational structure disallows the boss from getting his hands dirty with the peasants. The last time the Dalai Lama was in Paris, I (whom one could pretty well class as a peon, since I am not rich and am not a member of any established Tibetan Buddhist sangha) was able to see him in public several times and meet with him privately for a few moments. He didn't ask me for a centime. Same here. He was very accessible.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
On Mar 2, 2007, at 1:56 PM, sparaig wrote: Really? How many people are asking to see him? A crowd of people (about a hundred or so people), dharma bums, various cardinals and religious dignitaries, etc. And to suggest that he doesn't want cash is silly. He has his uses for cash, just as MMY does. He uses pomp and circumstance quite well: http://www.dalailama.com/images/pgallery/printable3.jpg It looks like a formal teaching to me, in which case, he does get all decked out and often is in an environment much like a mandala.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
On Mar 2, 2007, at 1:52 PM, qntmpkt wrote: ---Below (Neo-Advaitin baloney that nothing exists). Factually incorect. You are confusing nothing as the null-set with relative existence which in itself has no independent existence. By using the phrase nothing at all, you fail to discriminate between the two classes of nothings. In fact, the you - in all people, Enlightened or not, is something: some type of biomass AS Consciousness. By focusing only on the Nothingness aspect of Brahman, you are basically a dualist. Did you mean to say Nihilist? --- Mr. Duncan Greenlees, Madanapalli, wrote as follows:- One has at times had vivid flashes of a consciousness whose centre is outside the normal self and which seems to be inclusive. Without concerning the mind with philosophical concepts, how would Bhagavan advise us to work towards getting, retaining and extending those flashes? Does abhyasa in such experiences involve retirement? Sri Bhagavan answered: ‘Outside’ - For whom is inside or outside? They can be only so long as there are the subject and object. For whom are these two again? They both will resolve into the subject only. See who is in the subject. The investigation leads you to pure consciousness beyond the subject. Normal self is the mind. This mind is with limitations. But pure consciousness is beyond limitations and reached by investigation asabove outlined. Getting - Self is always there. One seeks to destroy the obstacles to the revelation of the Self. Retaining - Having once gained the Self it will be understood to be Here and Now. It is never lost. Extending - There is no extending the Self, for it is always without contraction or expansion. Retirement - Abiding in the Self is solitude. Because there is nothing alien to the Self. Retirement must be from some one place to another. There is neither the one nor the other apart from the Self. All being the Self, retirement is impossible and inconsistent. Abhyasa is investigation into the Self. - Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?)
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 11:28 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM'rs are WRONG about democracy (was: Are you with us, or against us?) The last time the Dalai Lama was in Paris, I (whom one could pretty well class as a peon, since I am not rich and am not a member of any established Tibetan Buddhist sangha) was able to see him in public several times and meet with him privately for a few moments. He didn't ask me for a centime. Same here. He was very accessible.
