[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
Hi all, I couldn't agree more with what you say here. If Adiraj, Maharaj, whatever is anything close to a Maharishi successor, he should go out and make a lecture tour about TM, or whatever they think they have to offer. He should be able to publicly stand for the program, embody it to everyone. This is what the Maharishi did. TM started out as a client cult, that is to say, it was not based on membership, discipleship, but rather directed to the general public, you simply could sign up for courses. The same was true for Ayurveda, which did not require TM membership, and many other programs that followed. Now TM is more and more like a membership club, more like a traditional religion. Compare that 'badge' approach to, lets say Ammachi, Karunamayi, Mother Meera and others, where anyone can come, anyone has access. Now that openess is the new style. TM at it's time was new style, client centered, but has sort of regressed into more of a membership cult. The new thing in this time is something completely open, there are too many things out there, too many meditations which you can pick. Any kind of elitism will not work. People select from different sources and pick what suits them best. And that is how it should be. And for me, openness, like open source is a precondition. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Sounds really good - glad you were able to go. Yep, I have to thank Raja John Hagelin for granting me an exemption to attend the meeting. It was very nice . Thank you for providing this information, Buck. I was going to ask how someone who was recently turned down for a dome pass got to attend. And I'm happy that you *got* to attend, if you found it valuable or meaningful. Really. But doesn't it just say it all that a knowledge meeting, the purpose of which is to supposedly disseminate Maharishi's wisdom (second-hand though it may be) to those who could benefit from it, could be or should ever be conceived of as only for those we deem worthy of it? And then having that concept *enforced*? I mean, this is spiritual elitism taken to a whole new level. Y'know...just speaking to Doug here, not Buck, the thing I used to enjoy more than anything else when I was still into the spiritual teacher thang was seeing them face the toughest test any teacher could ever face. That is, giving an intro lecture. Spiritual teachers get LAZY when they've been surrounded by adoring followers for years, or decades. They give knowledge talks LAZILY, forgetting to dot the i's and cross the t's. They don't *need* to. They know that they are speaking to an audience composed of people who have all drunk the Kool-Aid, and are going to believe *anything* the teacher says. I used to love seeing teachers who had large organizations full of people whose duty it was to give the intro lectures to the great unwashed step away from the pomp and circumstance and do it themselves. That is, give a talk to an audience composed largely of people who *hadn't* drunk the Kool-Aid, who *didn't* believe all the things that the True Believers in the audience did. And pull it off. Almost as if they *remembered* what it was like to talk to such an audience. That's a tough audience. The one created in an environment that says by definition the only people allowed into the room are the ones we deem 'worthy' of being there, in that they already pre- agree with everything that's going to be said, that's an easy audience. I have very little interest in hearing what King Tony has to say to any easy audience. But I'd actually be interested to hear what he says to a tough audience. No entry requirements. No badges to be shown. Just people, filing in to fill the seats and hear how the supposed leader of a supposedly still-important spiritual move- ment talks its talk. In my not so humble opinion, someone willing to expose themselves to the public only in situations in which he gets to predetermine the loyalty factor or pre-programming of the audience just isn't worth listening to. I'm gonna hold out for those who will talk to anyone...no preconditions, no expectations. But, that said, was there anything *in particular* he said that resonated with you? You are often WAY too vague on this forum. Just as I'd like to see King Tony deal with a real world audience for once, I'd like to see you get real with us for once and tell us what still gets you off about the TM dogma.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: It is a blending of sciency and vedic TM nomenclature. As a course it has been piloted on campus here, at Vlodrop and movement facilities. Bevan at the lecture mentioned that over 200 have taken the course here. Taking the course features an electronic audio-visual gizmo which Nadaraam and Maharishi devised that leads the meditation through the physiology. It is good, it will ground a lot of people in their subtle system bodies and probably improve a lot of health in people who can be bright on their top registers but dull and not hardly embodied otherwise. It provides something spiritually that was missing for TM virgins that will be good. And that's the reason you were admitted. They may want to punish you, with the programs you already learned, but didn't sign you off as a potential customer. It reminds me of the Age of Enlightenment-technique, done somewhat differently. Yep, old wine in new vessels.
[FairfieldLife] Mystic Mayan Power Cloak
The ancient Mayans predicted the world as we know it will end on December 21st 2012 What will you do about it? How will you protect your loved ones? BE A 2012 SURVIVOR! Wearing the Invisible Mystic Mayan Power Cloak gives you guaranteed immunity from the 2012 apocalypse. Survive the Apocalypse in style! Raise your Spiritual Vibration! Begin an Exciting New Life! Master the Power of the Ancients! Harness Unlimited Love, Money Power! Marvel at the Anti-fungal, Anti-bacterial fabric that makes bathing deodorant use obsolete! Enjoy Instantaneous Enlightenment! *Please note, some people have reported that they cannot actually see the cloaks depicted in the photos shown. This can happen when one's spiritual vibration hasn't been raised to the level of AWARENESS necessary to see this magical garment. Please don't be alarmed or ashamed... it only means that you NEED THIS CLOAK NOW! Your AWARENESS needs to be raised on a spiritual, etheric level and this cloak is the perfect tool for that!. http://soul2soultreasures.com/mayan_cloak/index.htm After this, read http://www.superradiance.us/ about superradiance and gambling, a true eye opener.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mystic Mayan Power Cloak
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@... wrote: The ancient Mayans predicted the world as we know it will end on December 21st 2012 What will you do about it? How will you protect your loved ones? BE A 2012 SURVIVOR! Wearing the Invisible Mystic Mayan Power Cloak gives you guaranteed immunity from the 2012 apocalypse. Survive the Apocalypse in style! Raise your Spiritual Vibration! Begin an Exciting New Life! Master the Power of the Ancients! Harness Unlimited Love, Money Power! Marvel at the Anti-fungal, Anti-bacterial fabric that makes bathing deodorant use obsolete! Enjoy Instantaneous Enlightenment! *Please note, some people have reported that they cannot actually see the cloaks depicted in the photos shown. This can happen when one's spiritual vibration hasn't been raised to the level of AWARENESS necessary to see this magical garment. Please don't be alarmed or ashamed... it only means that you NEED THIS CLOAK NOW! Your AWARENESS needs to be raised on a spiritual, etheric level and this cloak is the perfect tool for that!. http://soul2soultreasures.com/mayan_cloak/index.htm After this, read http://www.superradiance.us/ about superradiance and gambling, a true eye opener. Here is another great indian mystic giving instructions on (jumping on the bandwagon) how to protect yourself from 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O68SCfXgBo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Zarzari786 excellent critique here. And, welcome too to FFL. Fairfieldlife is proly the best place to give input to the TMO from the outside as it does get read and digested by everybody inside. -Buck Thank you Buck for the warm welcome. Even more so, since I heard that this is a very tough group. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: Hi all, I couldn't agree more with what you say here. If Adiraj, Maharaj, whatever is anything close to a Maharishi successor, he should go out and make a lecture tour about TM, or whatever they think they have to offer. He should be able to publicly stand for the program, embody it to everyone. This is what the Maharishi did. TM started out as a client cult, that is to say, it was not based on membership, discipleship, but rather directed to the general public, you simply could sign up for courses. The same was true for Ayurveda, which did not require TM membership, and many other programs that followed. Now TM is more and more like a membership club, more like a traditional religion. Compare that 'badge' approach to, lets say Ammachi, Karunamayi, Mother Meera and others, where anyone can come, anyone has access. Now that openess is the new style. TM at it's time was new style, client centered, but has sort of regressed into more of a membership cult. The new thing in this time is something completely open, there are too many things out there, too many meditations which you can pick. Any kind of elitism will not work. People select from different sources and pick what suits them best. And that is how it should be. And for me, openness, like open source is a precondition. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Sounds really good - glad you were able to go. Yep, I have to thank Raja John Hagelin for granting me an exemption to attend the meeting. It was very nice . Thank you for providing this information, Buck. I was going to ask how someone who was recently turned down for a dome pass got to attend. And I'm happy that you *got* to attend, if you found it valuable or meaningful. Really. But doesn't it just say it all that a knowledge meeting, the purpose of which is to supposedly disseminate Maharishi's wisdom (second-hand though it may be) to those who could benefit from it, could be or should ever be conceived of as only for those we deem worthy of it? And then having that concept *enforced*? I mean, this is spiritual elitism taken to a whole new level. Y'know...just speaking to Buck, the thing I used to enjoy more than anything else when I was still into the spiritual teacher thang was seeing them face the toughest test any teacher could ever face. That is, giving an intro lecture. Spiritual teachers get LAZY when they've been surrounded by adoring followers for years, or decades. They give knowledge talks LAZILY, forgetting to dot the i's and cross the t's. They don't *need* to. They know that they are speaking to an audience composed of people who have all drunk the Kool-Aid, and are going to believe *anything* the teacher says. I used to love seeing teachers who had large organizations full of people whose duty it was to give the intro lectures to the great unwashed step away from the pomp and circumstance and do it themselves. That is, give a talk to an audience composed largely of people who *hadn't* drunk the Kool-Aid, who *didn't* believe all the things that the True Believers in the audience did. And pull it off. Almost as if they *remembered* what it was like to talk to such an audience. That's a tough audience. The one created in an environment that says by definition the only people allowed into the room are the ones we deem 'worthy' of being there, in that they already pre- agree with everything that's going to be said, that's an easy audience. I have very little interest in hearing what King Tony has to say to any easy audience. But I'd actually be interested to hear what he says to a tough audience. No entry requirements. No badges to be shown. Just people, filing in to fill the seats and hear how the supposed leader of a supposedly still-important spiritual move- ment talks its talk. In my not so humble opinion, someone willing to expose themselves to the public only in situations in which he gets to predetermine the loyalty factor or pre-programming of the audience just isn't worth listening to. I'm gonna hold out for those who will talk to anyone...no preconditions
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: What I'm wondering, though, is whether you have to keep going back every so often to get another hit off the bong...uh...I mean idol. :-) I wondered that too. It least for now, it does not seem like a regular technique, like the AE technique or mindfulness, it's more like a walk through you can repeat a few times, and maybe feel good about it. But, hey, with blinking lights it's more like a mind machine. So get out all your body thetans now!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: What do you mean IF sucessfull, Morten? I am already unstressing like mad. I think the next technique after this one will be the black hole technique with Bevan. New course: the Law of Attraction. Sounds nice ! And if sucessfull it will make the nay-sayers here unstress even more heavy than they already do; Voila, double effect ! :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Zarzari786, I have just come through a long and arduous interview probing process in re-applying for a dome badge. Was it like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOPXgBflM8I (I heard this came out from this group, maybe even you? Very funny.) Much of the consideration was around this client-centered vs. membership-cult as you frame it. It was very much around the difference between client practitioners and membership devotee types. It doesn't mean that clients couldn't be devotees. This is one of the biggest misunderstanings I think: devotion cannot be enforced. Devotion comes from the soul, and there are no role models for it. There is nothing like being a good boy, and then you are more devoted. That is a fair distinction within TM. On the one hand we got some more progressive people who tend to be more over in the Hagelin camp who would like to see it work out for practitioners, while on the other hand are the more strict preservationists around Bevan. Hagelin can easily represent the TM in a good way. I know quite a few people, who have nothing to do with TM, but like the way Hagelin talks. Bevan sounds like a cult leader. Nader is more or less not present. Some of these later conservatives are like the Taliban in that they are ruthless in their position. The progressives are more sympathetic towards working it out for practitioner-clients. Right now the Bevan-ista doctrinaire disciples have more power than the Hagelin-ites. -Buck Interesting. I think in many movements, when the leader dies, there is a tendency towards dogmatism, you can observe this everywhere. There is always a group of people who want to freeze the old ideals, and take control over it. Also, as you mentioned, you are not being told the reasons, or the way the discussion went, and the people who make the decisions about you stay anonymous, invisble to you. Something similar happens in other spritual movements as well, and is a sign of becoming more of a religious cult. Just read what Raja Emmanuel said to Joerg, it is typical of the frozen dogmatism of a cult. The TM can honestly only survive if the more liberal group wins, which I doubt at this moment. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Zarzari786 excellent critique here. And, welcome too to FFL. Fairfieldlife is proly the best place to give input to the TMO from the outside as it does get read and digested by everybody inside. -Buck --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: Hi all, I couldn't agree more with what you say here. If Adiraj, Maharaj, whatever is anything close to a Maharishi successor, he should go out and make a lecture tour about TM, or whatever they think they have to offer. He should be able to publicly stand for the program, embody it to everyone. This is what the Maharishi did. TM started out as a client cult, that is to say, it was not based on membership, discipleship, but rather directed to the general public, you simply could sign up for courses. The same was true for Ayurveda, which did not require TM membership, and many other programs that followed. Now TM is more and more like a membership club, more like a traditional religion. Compare that 'badge' approach to, lets say Ammachi, Karunamayi, Mother Meera and others, where anyone can come, anyone has access. Now that openess is the new style. TM at it's time was new style, client centered, but has sort of regressed into more of a membership cult. The new thing in this time is something completely open, there are too many things out there, too many meditations which you can pick. Any kind of elitism will not work. People select from different sources and pick what suits them best. And that is how it should be. And for me, openness, like open source is a precondition. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Sounds really good - glad you were able to go. Yep, I have to thank Raja John Hagelin for granting me an exemption to attend the meeting. It was very nice . Thank you for providing this information, Buck. I was going to ask how someone who was recently turned down for a dome pass got to attend. And I'm happy that you *got* to attend, if you found it valuable or meaningful. Really. But doesn't it just say it all that a knowledge meeting, the purpose of which is to supposedly disseminate Maharishi's wisdom (second-hand though it may be) to those who could benefit from it, could be or should ever be conceived of as only for those we deem worthy
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: uck Zarzari, they do play hardball at this and there is lots of yelling going on. My god! A risk is that if anybody wanting/needing to be on the inside would really persuasively argue for progressive change in the movement guidelines along the lines of a client-centered hosting as you describe, the Bevan-istas could just pack the bags of those people and 'out' them. There is still a web of dependence this way that gets pulled. Within this the preservationists at all costs is really where the cult is. That doesn't sound very good. It seems there is a lot of fear within the TM movement. Especially as people are getting older, and don't know where to turn to. And then you have to listen to the Gestapo.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Ravi How the FUCK are ya?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: Edg, I suspect he is the least read poster here. I haven't read his posts for probably two or three years. tl;dr --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Steve, I wasn't targeting you. If you want to think you're always honest and true to all you meet on your path, go for it. Actually, I didn't communicate all that well, cuz I was pointing to the fact that everyone has invested in the ego -- the primal mask. The Universal Spirit insists it is to be considered a mere and horribly limited individual. As if. That Mother Divinesuch a kidder and always wanting to throw another masquerade ball. I think that if certain FFL folks have a right to get all upset and make rules about the level of abusiveness that's allowed here, then those someones better explain the logic used to determine that a crass sexual-blurb put-down is far more serious, as an issue, than that of a war-monger openly espousing the murder of most of the world's people. Oh, geeze, someone was told to suck a cock, and it came off as homophobic and so un-PC. Can't have homophobia here at FFL, cuz we'z gots us a good guy moderator who's gay, and it wouldn't do to upset him what with his hard-wired sensibilities. And I would agree, but... But, whoa, I'm here with MY hard-wired sensibilities. See? I have this utter revulsion for even the concept genocide. And yet, Rick is just fine letting someone espouse this kind of evil here. Don't I get to be upset and make rules against anyone harming my peace of mind? Don't I get to complain about my heart being constantly be tasered by the hatred that we see brandished so often here? It's not censorship that's wanted by me, but instead I want a pleasant place where there's lots of pleasant conversations with pleasant people. To allow such an obvious troll with such a bitter racist hatred to come here and piss on everyone every day in every way possible that his psychosis can come up with is an issue that Rick has not addressed. What? A homosexual slur's triggering of negativity in someone's nervous system is some sort of extra specialsooperdooper really bad emotion to have to process, but my emotional disgust is small potatoes, and I don't feel as deeply as others do? What? Rick? Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: . . . .it's been my observation that Edg also has his own problems with always dealing straight up with people. Oh come on Steve, Hee hee. Really? Who is straight with all the people all the time? Ed, please provide some examples of how and when I have not been straight with people here. I'll even take some hypotheticals as an example, or even instances when you suspect I haven't been straight. I don't expect you look anything up. Just give me some idea of a situation when it would be to my advantage not to be straight up with people. You? I am a 29 year true-believer meditator who lived in FF and attended every single function and pot luck and, gee, somehow I never got comfortable with the people I was meetinggo figure. (No wait, just in case Rick is reading this, I meant to say, GO FUCKING FIGURE YOU ROTTEN ASSHOLE!) Was it just me or something about the MINDFUL falsities of every true believer that so irks the part of the mind that embodies integrity? This FFL group has such a goofy-assed mix -- who wouldn't be circumspect or having a strategy about how much about themselves they should express here? Look at the FFL SHITHEELS who beat on any newcomer for the least infraction in philosophical argument. You've got to fight your way into FFL like it was a street gang. You've got to post here knowing that truly sick and crazy people will put their minds to work to come up with something that hurts, something that cuts, something that atomically blasts the tender feeling level. But Mr. Party Hardy Rick doesn't care about the tender feeling level. He cares about the list of words that George Carlin couldn't say on TV. Ed, are you afraid to address the issue straight on. Just read the post again. Or maybe you didn't read it all. It wasn't about swear words, and it's really not that big a deal. But you might as well try to be straight on your facts. Is that an unreasonable request? Oh, I know it wasn't the words, it was the tender feeling level that Rick was defending. Ravi got harsh. Oh my. Yet all my best efforts to get Rick to punt that mofo racist out of here have failed EVEN THOUGH THAT DOG-ASS LICKIN' TEXAN WAS CONSTANTLY PISSING ME OFF
[FairfieldLife] Re: From Joerg Dao
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: I'd say that anyone, like the character here, who takes the bubble diagram literally shouldn't have been made a teacher in the first place. You misunderstand. You don't have to take the bubble diagram literally, you can very well take it as an analogy, but there are two things about it: One, how far an analogy goes, and second the suggestive power of it. Both are very limiting. I have seen this in discussions with dogmatic TMers. For example the bubble diagram suggest, that a mantra has to get refined, and ultimately 'burst' (get lost), and unless that happens you cannot transcend. Hence the rejection of any technique that is not exactly like TM. Therefore, with reasoning supported by a simple analogy, you get pure dogma. The same is true with the definition of states of consciousness, like CC, GC and UC, which Joerg mentions. It is used as a universal scheme of judging meditation techniques, spiritual movements, just the whole lot of it. For example, any mindfulness technique will be charactericed as leading only to CC. Naturally the definitions are simple, if not simplistic, and too categorical. These analogies give the whole story a certain drift. As my favorate quote of last month says:'there is nothing outside the text' (Derrida) That is to say: everything you feel, do, think, you do within a certain context, framework of thoughts etc. You can transcend, but once you start thinking again, you are again within a certain framework. There is nothing objective about this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 shukra69@... wrote: its not mindfulness So what is it according to you? Really a kind of a technique, or just a knowledge presentation? Tell us, what do TMers feel that it is?
[FairfieldLife] The LED Visible Man Technique (was Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: I see it as almost a purely intellectual technique, similar to Kabbalists gazing at and focusing on that study's intricate diagrams of *their* fundamentalist theories of How Everything Works. Or Westerners doing the same gazing/focusing on cards from the tarot. Kabbalah is what came to my mind too. You really cover almost all of the points. I wouldn't go quite as far as saying it is only there to make you feel special /elite, but see it definitely there as a side effect. I do not believe in the correspondences between vedas and physiology, or cosmic 'correlations' as given by Nader Ram, the actual reason he was made king. But, Bhairatu might update us here, all the tantras are full at corelations between the (subtle) body and the cosmos. I think that the examples given by Nader Ram are simply analogies. For example, an organ has a certain form, maybe looking like the head of a horse, then there is a reference of horses in the vedas somewhere horses are mentioned, and viola. It's a belief-system, as so many others, and most belief systems, if they are not shared by too many people, tent to make them feel special in one way or the other. I for example compare the TM movement to the Sri Aurobindo Ashram, where the last leader died about 40 years ago. I just met an old lady, who works there in the Ashram since 40 years, is now 75 years old, and to my opinion, has the typical TB mindset. She still experienced the master (Mira Alfassa) about 3 years, if so, from a distance (balcony darshans). And I just read a book by Peter Heehs on Sri Aurobindo, and as I thought it was actually a very positive review of his life. But it stirred up the whole Ashram, lead to a huge controversy, the book is actually forbidden in India (the lives of Sri Aurobindo), while most ashramites have read photocopies. The book is published by the cambridge universtity press, and directed to academics, not devotees. Yet it is in no way deferrential, but it happens to mention certain biographic facts, seen as a no no by the ashramites. Now the funny thing is, that the ashram leadership, might actually have inspired the book, and is not really against it. (they don't endorse it either) That in itself is the reason for controversy, as it seems there is a group of fundamentalists who want to overtake the Ashram. Right now there are efforts on the way, to deprive Heehs of his visa, he lives since decades in India, and was one of the main Ashram archivars, the book was originally approved by the ashram leadership (without reading it) before it was published. Also, the philospophy of Aurobindo is elitary, by definition, he says that nobody before embarked on this type of yoga or knowledge. So, for Ashramites, anybody practicing a more traditional form of yoga misses out on the new yoga. (The old yoga has its basis in the 'overmind', with all its gods, which is something like 'supermind' gone wrong) And the only way is to be devoted to SA and / or Mirra Alfassa. There is a similar idea like in TM, that 'we are the ones doing the transformation for the world, unprecedented, for all times to come' And it's all there in the writings of SA.
[FairfieldLife] Awakening the LED Purusha within You
A new video by the TM movement showing how the technique really works http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvjUWIZolFAfeature=share
[FairfieldLife] Re: From Joerg Dao
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: I'd say that anyone, like the character here, who takes the bubble diagram literally shouldn't have been made a teacher in the first place. You misunderstand. You don't have to take the bubble diagram literally, you can very well take it as an analogy, but there are two things about it: One, how far an analogy goes, and second the suggestive power of it. Both are very limiting. Indeed. Maharishi even told us the bubble diagram might not even be true, but it gave an idea. During lectures I always said that this diagram is just an idea. Exactly, Morten. But also realize that all the definitions of TM depend on this idea. For example what transcendnce is. The definition of transcendence in TM is technical, geared toward explaining the TM process. And that is not even 100% true. I have seen this in discussions with dogmatic TMers. For example the bubble diagram suggest, that a mantra has to get refined, and ultimately 'burst' (get lost), and unless that happens you cannot transcend. Hence the rejection of any technique that is not exactly like TM. Therefore, with reasoning supported by a simple analogy, you get pure dogma. Or a simple fact. You prove my point. Dogma means like saying, you can only transcend once you loose the mantra. The same is true with the definition of states of consciousness, like CC, GC and UC, which Joerg mentions. It is used as a universal scheme of judging meditation techniques, spiritual movements, just the whole lot of it. For example, any mindfulness technique will be charactericed as leading only to CC. That's new to me. The argument would be somewhat like this: Mindfulness techniques initiate a process of witnessing, which is the TM definition of CC, meaning it would not allow unity. But witnessing and unity are not mutually exclusive, right?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: I am not a TMer, but my impression is that the course is conducted in a group as was shown, and various parts of the physiology of the model are simply pulsed on and off, to the sounds of the Veda. Rather than being something up in the mind, the participants are probably instructed to simply place their attention on the blinking body part, which is synchronized to the particular Vedic hymn being played at the time. This then promotes healing or at least waking up that particular area of the body by the attendee's own attention, enlivened by the Vedic vibrations. Well, that sounds like a guided meditation to me. You could easily imagine that this can be put DVD and with the instructions of where to place your attention to, you simply listen to the vedic hymns. You could also select the organs you want to attend to, or just go through the main ones. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 shukra69@ wrote: its not mindfulness So what is it according to you? Really a kind of a technique, or just a knowledge presentation? Tell us, what do TMers feel that it is?
[FairfieldLife] The LED Visible Man Technique (was Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 8, 2011, at 5:35 AM, zarzari_786 wrote: I for example compare the TM movement to the Sri Aurobindo Ashram, where the last leader died about 40 years ago. I just met an old lady, who works there in the Ashram since 40 years, is now 75 years old, and to my opinion, has the typical TB mindset. She still experienced the master (Mira Alfassa) about 3 years, if so, from a distance (balcony darshans). And I just read a book by Peter Heehs on Sri Aurobindo, and as I thought it was actually a very positive review of his life. But it stirred up the whole Ashram, lead to a huge controversy, the book is actually forbidden in India (the lives of Sri Aurobindo), while most ashramites have read photocopies. The book is published by the cambridge universtity press, and directed to academics, not devotees. Yet it is in no way deferrential, but it happens to mention certain biographic facts, seen as a no no by the ashramites. Now the funny thing is, that the ashram leadership, might actually have inspired the book, and is not really against it. (they don't endorse it either) That in itself is the reason for controversy, as it seems there is a group of fundamentalists who want to overtake the Ashram. Right now there are efforts on the way, to deprive Heehs of his visa, he lives since decades in India, and was one of the main Ashram archivars, the book was originally approved by the ashram leadership (without reading it) before it was published. Also, the philospophy of Aurobindo is elitary, by definition, he says that nobody before embarked on this type of yoga or knowledge. So, for Ashramites, anybody practicing a more traditional form of yoga misses out on the new yoga. (The old yoga has its basis in the 'overmind', with all its gods, which is something like 'supermind' gone wrong) And the only way is to be devoted to SA and / or Mirra Alfassa. There is a similar idea like in TM, that 'we are the ones doing the transformation for the world, unprecedented, for all times to come' And it's all there in the writings of SA. You have to wonder how much of this is part of their caste mindsets, as both Mahesh and Aurobindo come from the same caste. Really? I didn't know that. Caste always plays a role in India, but bear in mind that SA was educated in England. While I think that it plays a definte role with MMY, I don't think that SA would subscribe to it. But it may be there subconsciously, go to SA Ashram, most Indians there are from either Bengal or Orissa, but the local Tamils there are like the servants, same in Auroville, not present in the leadership. Yet SA was already a star much before he became a guru, after he was imprisoned in Alipur by the English, he was an independence fighter around 1906-1910, much before Gandhi appeared on the scene in the 1930ies, he actually coined the words 'passive resisitence', which was finally popularised by Gandhi (in a different, more exclusive way). People saw in him a guru before he became a spiritual figure. He was always used to being looked up to and attracted masses.
[FairfieldLife] The LED Visible Man Technique (was Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 8, 2011, at 5:35 AM, zarzari_786 wrote: I for example compare the TM movement to the Sri Aurobindo Ashram, where the last leader died about 40 years ago. I just met an old lady, who works there in the Ashram since 40 years, is now 75 years old, and to my opinion, has the typical TB mindset. She still experienced the master (Mira Alfassa) about 3 years, if so, from a distance (balcony darshans). And I just read a book by Peter Heehs on Sri Aurobindo, and as I thought it was actually a very positive review of his life. But it stirred up the whole Ashram, lead to a huge controversy, the book is actually forbidden in India (the lives of Sri Aurobindo), while most ashramites have read photocopies. The book is published by the cambridge universtity press, and directed to academics, not devotees. Yet it is in no way deferrential, but it happens to mention certain biographic facts, seen as a no no by the ashramites. Now the funny thing is, that the ashram leadership, might actually have inspired the book, and is not really against it. (they don't endorse it either) That in itself is the reason for controversy, as it seems there is a group of fundamentalists who want to overtake the Ashram. Right now there are efforts on the way, to deprive Heehs of his visa, he lives since decades in India, and was one of the main Ashram archivars, the book was originally approved by the ashram leadership (without reading it) before it was published. Also, the philospophy of Aurobindo is elitary, by definition, he says that nobody before embarked on this type of yoga or knowledge. So, for Ashramites, anybody practicing a more traditional form of yoga misses out on the new yoga. (The old yoga has its basis in the 'overmind', with all its gods, which is something like 'supermind' gone wrong) And the only way is to be devoted to SA and / or Mirra Alfassa. There is a similar idea like in TM, that 'we are the ones doing the transformation for the world, unprecedented, for all times to come' And it's all there in the writings of SA. You have to wonder how much of this is part of their caste mindsets, as both Mahesh and Aurobindo come from the same caste. Really? I didn't know that. Caste always plays a role in India, but bear in mind that SA was educated in England. While I think that it plays a definte role with MMY, I don't think that SA would subscribe to it. But it may be there subconsciously, go to SA Ashram, most Indians there are from either Bengal or Orissa, but the local Tamils there are like the servants, same in Auroville, not present in the leadership. Yet SA was already a star much before he became a guru, after he was imprisoned in Alipur by the English, he was an independence fighter around 1906-1910, much before Gandhi appeared on the scene in the 1930ies, he actually coined the words 'passive resisitence', which was finally popularised by Gandhi (in a different, more exclusive way). People saw in him a guru before he became a spiritual figure. He was always used to being looked up to and attracted masses. Coming to think of it, given the time frame, it is likely MMY was influenced to some degree by SA. SA, when the topic came up, somebody wanted to popularize his teachings in the US, saying that he should offer some courses, something like a formula, as this was sucessfull with Vivekanada and Yogananda, simply refused. MMY was at Aurobindo Ashram, I heard trying to persuade some Ashramite to join him. So his project of transforming world consciousness may well have been informed by SA. Also, the whole story about absolute body, sounds a lot like SA's supramental body. Creating a new man was really SA's project. SA regarded himself as a tantric yogi. So MMY may have taken the 'uniqueness' and 'rediscovery of a lost knowledge' as a traditionalists version of the new yoga.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: I am not a TMer, but my impression is that the course is conducted in a group as was shown, and various parts of the physiology of the model are simply pulsed on and off, to the sounds of the Veda. Rather than being something up in the mind, the participants are probably instructed to simply place their attention on the blinking body part, which is synchronized to the particular Vedic hymn being played at the time. This then promotes healing or at least waking up that particular area of the body by the attendee's own attention, enlivened by the Vedic vibrations. Whynot, Yep, you got it. It is very Buddhistic like in practice. The teachers introduce it telling how to use the 'attention' then turn on the gizmo that conducts the meditation. Then you keep eyes open? On the video it says: visualizing Brahm, that's another new element. Also they may play a Maharishi or Tony tape. People are there experientially for the technique. The point is to sit through the guided meditation. It is a type of samyama when you get the hang of it. That is my experience being there. Best Regards, -Buck in FF
[FairfieldLife] Re: Extraordinary Results from Course on Vedic Physiology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: But I may be wrong, who knows what genetic resetting is and how we know mental processes accomplish this. I don't even remember any TM research that approaches this level of fantasy claim. Curtis, you just don't understand it because your intellect is underdeveloped, but this can be rectified by attending the course, and it will be clear to you beyond proof that every word said about it is not only true but 100% scientific. Only its future science, and your intellect has to be higher intellect, if you know what I mean. Meanwhile I am pondering, who is seen left and right of the Purusha mandala, in the cosmos at about minute 5:35 to 5:50 of the video, see here (url with timecoding) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSMrAB4vV_c#t=5m50s My guess is its Captain Kirk and Lieutenant Uhura.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Extraordinary Results from Course on Vedic Physiology
Curtis, this is all very funny, hilarious. Regarding this 'DNA resetting', just the thought came to me of something Vaj had mentioned in another post (knowing a little bit of the Indian mindset): caste! For Indians, its all in the blood. For Indians, being vegetarian is no much good unless your father, grandfather has been, because then your 'blood' (DNA) is pure, and you are more or less like a Brahmin. So DNA resetting is something like aligning to your proper caste position, maybe you get a better catse, maybe you advance from ST to SC with one reset, and with another reset from SC to OBC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Backward_Class). Maybe, with 8 resets, you could advance to somewhere in the middle of the Indian caste system. At least you are already allowed to listen to the Vedas. To become a Brahmin, you have to take a rebirth, there is no way around that, but with a few more resets, your chances grow! But you should consider how many resets you really want! Because as an SC (Scheduled Caste = Dalits) or OBC you get quota for certain professions. So think about it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: But I may be wrong, who knows what genetic resetting is and how we know mental processes accomplish this. I don't even remember any TM research that approaches this level of fantasy claim. Curtis, you just don't understand it because your intellect is underdeveloped, Hey, I'm doing the best I can with my genes all akimbo like they are without having been reset. I needs ma genes reset man! but this can be rectified by attending the course, and it will be clear to you beyond proof that every word said about it is not only true but 100% scientific. Hey, they had me at better tummy. Only its future science, and your intellect has to be higher intellect, if you know what I mean. Do I ever! I got a PHD in what you mean in my misspent youth. Meanwhile I am pondering, who is seen left and right of the Purusha mandala, in the cosmos at about minute 5:35 to 5:50 of the video, see here (url with timecoding) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSMrAB4vV_c#t=5m50s My guess is its Captain Kirk and Lieutenant Uhura. Thanks for the heads up on the apparitions, excellent catch! I had assumed that it was my late Uncle Merle and Aunt Kitty back from the grave to let their favorite nephew know that there IS life after death and its just like those big resorts in the Catskills with the wonderful pillow soft Portuguese dinner rolls and a crab-stuffed flounder to die for covered with capers and browned butter with a wedge of lemon in one of those cheese cloths that keep the seeds out of your fish. (How thoughtful is that?) Now isn't that heaven? Not yet? Well perhaps when they bring out the baked Alaska in a conga line of waiters all aflame with the lights turned off we'll turn that frown upside down!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: And that's the reason you were admitted. They may want to punish you, with the programs you already learned, but didn't sign you off as a potential customer. It is true, there is an ambient aspect of fear there over 'place'. As I interview people folks do speak to that bad feeling of fear in the dome as a thing that gets pointed to as a reason by people who don't like meditating in the domes who are not going to the domes. It is a feeling. Yes! Quite honest, - I am out of TM since a long time -, I wouldn't want to meditate there either. In my case it wouldn't be the fear, - I don't belong there any more -, it is more the restricted, 'cultic' mindset which I despise. The same would be true for meditating with any TMer today - of course it depends on the person and the situation. But, if some TM people would invite me to group meditation, thinking I am still one of them, I would definitely feel uneasy about it. If it would be anonymous, lets say in a train, it would be okay. That there is an ambient fear in the place because of the essential culture of the movement administration for so long. Yes, and it is also in the heads of the people there. They are proud to be TMers. They feel special about it. In addition, as you describe, there is an alienation of many people with the movement. Quite honestly, with all your desires for group program that I can surely understand, I don't see how you fit in there any more. You are already too much of a free spirit, just like myself, and many here. It would be hard to hang out with dogmatic types. The way people describe it, fear is like a marination in the meditation. That is sad and evidently an old problem as the dome numbers with the community show. That culture has been established there, it is ultimately Maharishi who defended it - the fear, citing the Upanishads. So, with people like Bevan on the top, how will this change? I can understand, that people, who have never been exposed to the internal workings of the movement, like Ophra, don't perceive it, and are enthusiastic about it, but if she would be in the movement longer, without special treatment, she would perceive it as well.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: And that's the reason you were admitted. They may want to punish you, with the programs you already learned, but didn't sign you off as a potential customer. It is true, there is an ambient aspect of fear there over 'place'. As I interview people folks do speak to that bad feeling of fear in the dome as a thing that gets pointed to as a reason by people who don't like meditating in the domes who are not going to the domes. It is a feeling. That there is an ambient fear in the place because of the essential culture of the movement administration for so long. The way people describe it, fear is like a marination in the meditation. That is sad and evidently an old problem as the dome numbers with the community show. The other evening, I was struck by noticing the hundreds of people there in the dome who have dome badges in defiance of the Rajas' anti-saint policy. At the Maharaja lecture which ostensibly was a 'badge-only' meeting, there are a lot of people who are much worse than I ever have been in seeing saints. I think it's a good thing. They just don't care and let the movement policies be movement policies. Maybe you are just too honest and upfront. Why do you play along their game?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: And that's the reason you were admitted. They may want to punish you, with the programs you already learned, but didn't sign you off as a potential customer. It is true, there is an ambient aspect of fear there over 'place'. As I interview people folks do speak to that bad feeling of fear in the dome as a thing that gets pointed to as a reason by people who don't like meditating in the domes who are not going to the domes. It is a feeling. That there is an ambient fear in the place because of the essential culture of the movement administration for so long. The way people describe it, fear is like a marination in the meditation. That is sad and evidently an old problem as the dome numbers with the community show. The other evening, I was struck by noticing the hundreds of people there in the dome who have dome badges in defiance of the Rajas' anti-saint policy. At the Maharaja lecture which ostensibly was a 'badge-only' meeting, there are a lot of people who are much worse than I ever have been in seeing saints. I think it's a good thing. They just don't care and let the movement policies be movement policies. Maybe you are just too honest and upfront. Why do you play along their game? In the end of the day, they are punishing you for all the others they cannot get hold of. You are the scapegoat. If you were alone in this, and would keep your mouth shut, nobody would care.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Extraordinary Results from Course on Vedic Physiology
Nobody spoke of blood type. Think of idioms like `its in the blood` http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=in+the+blood --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardatrwilliamsdotus richard@... wrote: zarzari: ...caste! For Indians, its all in the blood. The Indian 'caste' system is based on birth-curcumstances, 'jati', not on skin color or blood type. Jati pertains to class - social and economic conditions in clans, tribes, communities and sub-communities and linguistics.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Extraordinary Results from Course on Vedic Physiology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 12/09/2011 09:52 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786no_reply@ wrote: Curtis, this is all very funny, hilarious. Regarding this 'DNA resetting', just the thought came to me of something Vaj had mentioned in another post (knowing a little bit of the Indian mindset): caste! For Indians, its all in the blood. For Indians, being vegetarian is no much good unless your father, grandfather has been, because then your 'blood' (DNA) is pure, and you are more or less like a Brahmin. So DNA resetting is something like aligning to your proper caste position, maybe you get a better catse, maybe you advance from ST to SC with one reset, and with another reset from SC to OBC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Backward_Class). Maybe, with 8 resets, you could advance to somewhere in the middle of the Indian caste system. At least you are already allowed to listen to the Vedas. To become a Brahmin, you have to take a rebirth, there is no way around that, but with a few more resets, your chances grow! But you should consider how many resets you really want! Because as an SC (Scheduled Caste = Dalits) or OBC you get quota for certain professions. So think about it. Yes you are definitely on to something. In India in 1980 Maharishi told us in a discussion about the shakkas descended from the 7 original Rishis who come out with creation (and hang out with dinosaurs for a really long time presumably) that Americans are what he called the mix-ups and that we would require more purification than Indians to get enlightened. And we just sat there and took it! Reacting to his ethnocentric superiority rap like a bunch of grinn'n skin heads at a we hate everyone else rally! Exactly Curtis! Maharishi came from one of the most conservative traditions in India. He would never teach us the Gayatri mantra, would he? Look, there are lots of Indian gurus teaching westerners and women the Gayatri, Sai Baba included. But for him its Veda, we aren't Brahmins, so it's a no no. And for him everything is just about the veda, so what we are left with? By definition, can't do the real thingie. There are many less orthodox movements in India, the naths, the sufis, the tantrics, many of the bhakti movements. I recall when the Earl Kaplan letter came out and he mentioned that on his trip to India he found that enlightenment was not that uncommon and not so difficult to achieve. Incidentaly, just recently I found a post of him in one of the mailboxes I survey, he was looking for a friend, so I forwarded it. After all it is just to experience of having pure consciousness co-exist throughout the day in your awareness along with activity. It is a conditioning of the nervous system. To measure enlightenment is of course difficult. But, in rural areas, you do find a lot of village (or town) saints, avadhutas. Maybe it was that what he meant, among Hindus and Muslims. One analogy which is accurate is the dying the cloth one (you'll find a lot of these kinds of analogies in various books such as the Puranas). Interesting. Do you know in which Purana this analogy occurs, and also in which exact context? The nervous system finds pure consciousness pleasing and once experiencing it begins to rewire itself to have more and more of it. It's a natural process aided by the sadhana. Just as there are plenty of westerners just as good at computer engineering as Indians so are many westerners just as good at achieving enlightenment. Exactly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Extraordinary Results from Course on Vedic Physiology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardatrwilliamsdotus richard@... wrote: zarzari: Nobody spoke of blood type. Think of idioms like `its in the blood`... The 'caste system' in India is a foreign idea, imported into South Asia with the arrival of the Arya-speakers from the Caucasus area. The native inhabitants did not have a social system based on skin color or 'caste', which is a word from Portugeuse meaning 'color'. So, the caste system is not apparently 'in their blood', but in the blood of the immigrants who supported class distinctions before their arrival in 1500 BC. The indigenous people of South Asia do not base their social system on race, since they are mostly made up of Dravidian clans and tribes of mixed ethnicity with linguistic distinctions. The tribal people in India, are not Dravidian in origin, they predate the Dravidians. Those have been fully and totally integrated into the caste system that is mentioned in Rig Veda and the Bhagavad Gita. The Tribals (ST) 7% and Dalits (SC)15% are among the lowest of the low in Indian society, and it is an embarresment. The expression blood, in european languages, has been associated with here hereditary, like in the example I gave, and for example 'blue blood'. Genetics would be the more modern term, but it means the same. There is obviously the idea in India, that heredity can be influenced by behavioural patterns, and you could therefore have 'pure' genes. That was my point.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: In order to even access those levels of subtlety one needs to complete the piercing of the bindu (bindu-bhedana) and master further levels of practice. Yes! You have to pierce the knots to really transcend.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardnelson108 richardnelson108@... wrote: Hey Vaj, Just got sround to reading your post on this. I continue to amazed (I guess I shouldn't be at this point) about how egocentric you are. I mean there you are sitting in your ivory tower making your high and mighty statements about how much you know about transcending and everything else you talk about regarding buddhism, the hindu and shankaracharya tradition etc., and you really believe you know more about this stuff than Maharishi did. I don't know about Vaj, what he thinks about Maharishi is not necessarily my opinion. Yet Maharishi himself called the transcendence in TM only 'hazy', not final, what Vaj is saying is just the same from a different perspective. It is also true, that TM, through the use of the mantra, is substituting negative with positive samskaras, something alluded to in the Yogasutras. Maharishi greatly simplified all the teachings. It's okay if you take it like that, but it's also okay for some others to try looking a little further, and see the whole thing in a larger context, alluding to the traditions from which he drew. Listen, we all know that MMY was far from perfect, but yet he was respected and loved by some of the greatest saints of India including Lakshmanjoo, Ananda Moy MA and Muktananda and yet according to you he is a know nothing charlatan. Again, I do not necessarily share Vaj's judgement of Maharishi, but in the vicinity of his disciples, usually these saints will make statements, that encourage the bhakti to the guru. There are other statements, Muktananda made, and other Gurus made, which are in fact more critical. So you can turn it either way, you will get a balance. Maybe you can explain why they all seemed to be very happy with him? Oh wait, I forgot ...you never deal with any criticism. You just disappear for a while until you can jump in again all high and mighty with your superior knowledge to enlighten us. OK, I'll just wait for more pearls of wisdom coming oour way from you --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 9, 2011, at 10:29 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:04 AM, seventhray1 wrote: Oh, good. I'll just have to revise my experience so it conforms with your analysis. Actually we've all already been pre-programmed to believe in the stress release, unstressing, model is factually correct. Each time we transcend we're chipping away at those stresses in our nervous system. So I believe most of us who were indoctrinated into TM would chose as you did. Actually, the current theory of how TM works is that it sets up a situation in the thalamus that inhibits the thalamo-coritical feedback loops that scientists believe are what we experience as thoughts. This allows the brain to relax into a default mode of functioning where it is still alert, but literally not thinking about much of anything. The stronger the inhibition, the less thinking tha is done. Coincidentally, the default mode of functioning that results is where the front part of the brain and the back part of the brain are most easily able to communicate with each other. This is the exact opposite of stress, which tends to interfere with the communication between the front and back parts of the brain. The only problem with such theories is Lawson that TM is really only an elementary practice of mantra meditation. From the POV of the actual mantra tradition, the subtlest level of mantra in TM - the point where one still has some abstract feeling of the mantra before reaching what TMers believe is the transcendent - is 512 times more gross than the subtlest level of mantra reached before the mind is actually transcended - what is known as the unmana stage. In order to even access those levels of subtlety one needs to complete the piercing of the bindu (bindu-bhedana) and master further levels of practice. This level of subtlety simply does not exist in TM. So theories that are in effect based on iterations of the grossest levels of mind are not really, ultimately, of much value except to the indoctrinated TM crowd, and those they can still fool. As I've said many times, you need to transcend the transcendent (what's believed to be transcendent in TM) to even begin to approach the actual full transcendence of mind. Once that level is attained, then some interesting research could be done. However since the 'canon of awakening in TM' was effectively frozen with the death of MMY, that point will never be reached. It's also therefore a fact that all TM research can only ever be of minor interest to serious consciousness researchers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 hanumandaz@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardnelson108 richardnelson108@ wrote: Hey Vaj, Just got sround to reading your post on this. I continue to amazed (I guess I shouldn't be at this point) about how egocentric you are. I mean there you are sitting in your ivory tower making your high and mighty statements about how much you know about transcending and everything else you talk about regarding buddhism, the hindu and shankaracharya tradition etc., and you really believe you know more about this stuff than Maharishi did. I don't know about Vaj, what he thinks about Maharishi is not necessarily my opinion. Yet Maharishi himself called the transcendence in TM only 'hazy', not final, what Vaj is saying is just the same from a different perspective. It is also true, that TM, through the use of the mantra, is substituting negative with positive samskaras, something alluded to in the Yogasutras. Maharishi greatly simplified all the teachings. It's okay if you take it like that, but it's also okay for some others to try looking a little further, and see the whole thing in a larger context, alluding to the traditions from which he drew. Listen, we all know that MMY was far from perfect, but yet he was respected and loved by some of the greatest saints of India including Lakshmanjoo, Ananda Moy MA and Muktananda and yet according to you he is a know nothing charlatan. Again, I do not necessarily share Vaj's judgement of Maharishi, but in the vicinity of his disciples, usually these saints will make statements, that encourage the bhakti to the guru. There are other statements, Muktananda made, and other Gurus made, which are in fact more critical. So you can turn it either way, you will get a balance. For example, after Muktananda left Seelisberg, on the way out touching a few TMers, thereby giving them Shaktipath, so that they would follow him, is reported to have said: Everybody is talking about enlightenment there, but nobody knows what they are talking about. Then you forgot to mention Krishnamurti or Osho. Bottomline is: whatever so called enlightened say is not always in agreement with each other, they say it for various reasons, and it cannot be used like Hollywood namedropping. That all enlightened agree with Maharishi and say how great he is, is only a sweet illusion for TB's Maybe you can explain why they all seemed to be very happy with him? Oh wait, I forgot ...you never deal with any criticism. You just disappear for a while until you can jump in again all high and mighty with your superior knowledge to enlighten us. OK, I'll just wait for more pearls of wisdom coming oour way from you --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 9, 2011, at 10:29 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:04 AM, seventhray1 wrote: Oh, good. I'll just have to revise my experience so it conforms with your analysis. Actually we've all already been pre-programmed to believe in the stress release, unstressing, model is factually correct. Each time we transcend we're chipping away at those stresses in our nervous system. So I believe most of us who were indoctrinated into TM would chose as you did. Actually, the current theory of how TM works is that it sets up a situation in the thalamus that inhibits the thalamo-coritical feedback loops that scientists believe are what we experience as thoughts. This allows the brain to relax into a default mode of functioning where it is still alert, but literally not thinking about much of anything. The stronger the inhibition, the less thinking tha is done. Coincidentally, the default mode of functioning that results is where the front part of the brain and the back part of the brain are most easily able to communicate with each other. This is the exact opposite of stress, which tends to interfere with the communication between the front and back parts of the brain. The only problem with such theories is Lawson that TM is really only an elementary practice of mantra meditation. From the POV of the actual mantra tradition, the subtlest level of mantra in TM - the point where one still has some abstract feeling of the mantra before reaching what TMers believe is the transcendent - is 512 times more gross than the subtlest level of mantra reached before the mind is actually transcended - what is known as the unmana stage. In order to even access those levels of subtlety one needs to complete the piercing of the bindu (bindu-bhedana) and master further levels of practice. This level of subtlety simply does not exist in TM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Extraordinary Results from Course on Vedic Physiology
Thanks, Bhairatu, I have a friend who is (or was) heavy into Shiva puranas, I will ask him. I was especially interested in the cloth thing. I think, in the beginning Maharishi probably took more things from scripture, or 'translated' it into western terms, then maybe later. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: The Shiva Purana has the water the root to enjoy the fruit thing (some claim to have found it elsewhere too, not surprised). The cloth analogy may have been there too but that was in the late 1970s when I read it. MMY didn't invent a lot of stuff, he just repeated things that were found in many traditional texts and there is nothing wrong with that. Just to westerners it was new. Somehow people here got sidetracked into the idea of the nervous system adapting to the influence of mantras as a way to measure enlightenment. I never said that. I just said that the nervous system adapts to stimuli (like duh!). Science is just beginning to understand how the brain and nervous system modifies itself given certain stimuli. The experience is important not the measurement of it. On 12/09/2011 03:52 PM, zarzari_786 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@ wrote: On 12/09/2011 09:52 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786no_reply@ wrote: Curtis, this is all very funny, hilarious. Regarding this 'DNA resetting', just the thought came to me of something Vaj had mentioned in another post (knowing a little bit of the Indian mindset): caste! For Indians, its all in the blood. For Indians, being vegetarian is no much good unless your father, grandfather has been, because then your 'blood' (DNA) is pure, and you are more or less like a Brahmin. So DNA resetting is something like aligning to your proper caste position, maybe you get a better catse, maybe you advance from ST to SC with one reset, and with another reset from SC to OBC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Backward_Class). Maybe, with 8 resets, you could advance to somewhere in the middle of the Indian caste system. At least you are already allowed to listen to the Vedas. To become a Brahmin, you have to take a rebirth, there is no way around that, but with a few more resets, your chances grow! But you should consider how many resets you really want! Because as an SC (Scheduled Caste = Dalits) or OBC you get quota for certain professions. So think about it. Yes you are definitely on to something. In India in 1980 Maharishi told us in a discussion about the shakkas descended from the 7 original Rishis who come out with creation (and hang out with dinosaurs for a really long time presumably) that Americans are what he called the mix-ups and that we would require more purification than Indians to get enlightened. And we just sat there and took it! Reacting to his ethnocentric superiority rap like a bunch of grinn'n skin heads at a we hate everyone else rally! Exactly Curtis! Maharishi came from one of the most conservative traditions in India. He would never teach us the Gayatri mantra, would he? Look, there are lots of Indian gurus teaching westerners and women the Gayatri, Sai Baba included. But for him its Veda, we aren't Brahmins, so it's a no no. And for him everything is just about the veda, so what we are left with? By definition, can't do the real thingie. There are many less orthodox movements in India, the naths, the sufis, the tantrics, many of the bhakti movements. I recall when the Earl Kaplan letter came out and he mentioned that on his trip to India he found that enlightenment was not that uncommon and not so difficult to achieve. Incidentaly, just recently I found a post of him in one of the mailboxes I survey, he was looking for a friend, so I forwarded it. After all it is just to experience of having pure consciousness co-exist throughout the day in your awareness along with activity. It is a conditioning of the nervous system. To measure enlightenment is of course difficult. But, in rural areas, you do find a lot of village (or town) saints, avadhutas. Maybe it was that what he meant, among Hindus and Muslims. One analogy which is accurate is the dying the cloth one (you'll find a lot of these kinds of analogies in various books such as the Puranas). Interesting. Do you know in which Purana this analogy occurs, and also in which exact context? The nervous system finds pure consciousness pleasing and once experiencing it begins to rewire itself to have more and more of it. It's a natural process aided by the sadhana. Just as there are plenty of westerners just as good at computer engineering as Indians so are many westerners just as good at achieving enlightenment. Exactly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Ya see. Hypocrisy is one of my big things also.  One one hand, this forum is full of the most amazing people.  I am stunned over and over again.  It's hard for me to believe.  This forum is helping me.  Why?  How did they get here?  Is it because so many have been meditating, most/many doing TM? Many have been involved into TM, some still are, some left many years ago, but it played a big part in their lives once. It has left a mark, and that is why most are here.  Is it about global peace?  I want to drink whatever Koolaid ya'll are drinking. But...then there are videos like this, vouched by more than one.  I cannot hold both visions in my palm - I don't know why. The video is a kind of a satire. It is also true that these things happen, as Buck says, if people get wind you have been involved with going to saints. Maybe this is for you, you won't run into problems with the admin, maybe you will even get a grant for joining. There are a lot of things changed since I left, and there is a time for everything. There is a time for everything, and everybody has to make his own experiences, there is no way around it. Maybe if many new people join, there will come a different spirit, just like in this group. The situation depicted in this video, exists obviously, but it most probably does not relate to you, so why worry?  I can hold a lot of different fantasies in place, but not this one.  And, the way I'm feeling...I want to go straight to the Dome.  Maybe I can hook up with Oprah.  I'm not sure I would pass the test...I've seen Ammachi.  But, I *love* Ellen Degeneres.  Her endorsement alone is almost worth it.  Except, I will *not* sit around in the presence of a man in a golden crown and robe.  Please.  So, how to reconcile.  Don't think I can...but I'm about 20 years behind ya'll. From: Buck dhamiltony2k5@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 9, 2011 8:40 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Zarzari786, I have just come through a long and arduous interview probing process in re-applying for a dome badge. Was it like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOPXgBflM8I (I heard this came out from this group, maybe even you? Very funny.) Zarzari, Accurate? Yep, well if the dome application investigators catch any wind that you've seen saints it could go like that. It is pretty accurate. I don't know who put this video together but it is quite good. Nope I didn't have nothing to do with that video. It is brilliant in its way too. -Buck Much of the consideration was around this client-centered vs. membership-cult as you frame it. It was very much around the difference between client practitioners and membership devotee types. It doesn't mean that clients couldn't be devotees. This is one of the biggest misunderstanings I think: devotion cannot be enforced. Devotion comes from the soul, and there are no role models for it. There is nothing like being a good boy, and then you are more devoted. That is a fair distinction within TM. On the one hand we got some more progressive people who tend to be more over in the Hagelin camp who would like to see it work out for practitioners, while on the other hand are the more strict preservationists around Bevan. Hagelin can easily represent the TM in a good way. I know quite a few people, who have nothing to do with TM, but like the way Hagelin talks. Bevan sounds like a cult leader. Nader is more or less not present. Some of these later conservatives are like the Taliban in that they are ruthless in their position. The progressives are more sympathetic towards working it out for practitioner-clients. Right now the Bevan-ista doctrinaire disciples have more power than the Hagelin-ites. -Buck Interesting. I think in many movements, when the leader dies, there is a tendency towards dogmatism, you can observe this everywhere. There is always a group of people who want to freeze the old ideals, and take control over it. Also, as you mentioned, you are not being told the reasons, or the way the discussion went, and the people who make the decisions about you stay anonymous, invisble to you. Something similar happens in other spritual movements as well, and is a sign of becoming more of a religious cult. Just read what Raja Emmanuel said to Joerg, it is typical of the frozen dogmatism of a cult. The TM can honestly only survive if the more liberal group wins, which I doubt at this moment. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Whoa. Why? What I said is deeply personal. It relates to me, my experiences. Anyway, I regularly meditate in groups, but not TM groups, mixed groups, who come together being empowered. But this is also something that happens. I once left big groups to come to a place where my heart is, but now there are groups there too. Now TM in my country is rather small - things change in an unpredictable way. The groups I once dreamed of, don't exist anymore, and I wouldn't want to join them anymore under the same conditions. I feel it becomes a trap after some time, but I still believe it is good for some time. I think it's part of becoming mature. I also like to go to 'spiritual' places of different dnominations, just recently to a sufi place, a hindu temple, and a jain temple, within an hour or so. I felt extremely empowered. But 'why'? Three things at least, 1. I live here and this is in my neighborhood, it effects me. Obviously. But you came there because of the group, right? Now there is a problem, you aren't allowed in anymore, at least not without constantly chanting 'mea culpa'? Is this a good situation? 2. I'd like to see them succeed for large and small reasons. Because you believe in their spiel, I don't. To clearly differentiate: I believe (and experienced) that group meditations can be very empowering - for the individual. This is true, but there are also other strategies to empower yourself, for example visiting holy places that are more open, that do not require to join a certain program, or behavioural codex. But I don't believe in the overall effect on the world at large. You can go to India and see the remains, in some cases ruins of old movements, go to the theosophic headquarter in Madras, go to Auroville,(btw the Matri Mandir is very powerfull) see those visionary projects. Mostly they have become refuges of single people, who still believe in this vision, or in some cases study them as a relict of the past times. And 3. How they behave affects a lot of my friends here. It is about that simple. -Buck I also have friends in the TM movement from the old times. I respect their dedication to the movement and Maharishi. I respect their devotional attitude, it is fundamental to me too, but I don't believe in the movement tschick anymore. The point for anybody is, go where your heart is. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: And that's the reason you were admitted. They may want to punish you, with the programs you already learned, but didn't sign you off as a potential customer. It is true, there is an ambient aspect of fear there over 'place'. As I interview people folks do speak to that bad feeling of fear in the dome as a thing that gets pointed to as a reason by people who don't like meditating in the domes who are not going to the domes. It is a feeling. Yes! Quite honest, - I am out of TM since a long time -, I wouldn't want to meditate there either. In my case it wouldn't be the fear, - I don't belong there any more -, it is more the restricted, 'cultic' mindset which I despise. The same would be true for meditating with any TMer today - of course it depends on the person and the situation. But, if some TM people would invite me to group meditation, thinking I am still one of them, I would definitely feel uneasy about it. If it would be anonymous, lets say in a train, it would be okay. That there is an ambient fear in the place because of the essential culture of the movement administration for so long. Yes, and it is also in the heads of the people there. They are proud to be TMers. They feel special about it. In addition, as you describe, there is an alienation of many people with the movement. Quite honestly, with all your desires for group program that I can surely understand, I don't see how you fit in there any more. You are already too much of a free spirit, just like myself, and many here. It would be hard to hang out with dogmatic types. The way people describe it, fear is like a marination in the meditation. That is sad and evidently an old problem as the dome numbers with the community show. That culture has been established there, it is ultimately Maharishi who defended it - the fear, citing the Upanishads. So, with people like Bevan on the top, how will this change? I can understand, that people, who have never been exposed to the internal workings of the movement, like Ophra, don't perceive it, and are enthusiastic about it, but if she would be in the movement longer, without special treatment, she would perceive it as well.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 hanumandaz@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: 2. I'd like to see them succeed for large and small reasons. Because you believe in their spiel, I don't. To follow up here: I do not only believe in their vison - I don't want it to be materialized in this way. To think that if enough people only do the 'correct' meditation - TM + Sidhis - will save the world is extremely arrogant. Why could not everyone do the meditation he likes? After I had a certain kundalini developement, my meditation was never the same again. I still remember receiving an advanced technique from Nandkishore, requiring to put your attention at a certain spot. I douldn't do it, as the shakti was moving in its own way, and my attention would be led to different spots automatically, in fact this was my meditation. Yet he insisted on the 'correct' technique. I never practised it. I automatically despise any techique that things its the cure all for everything, the salvation of the world as it is. Be that TM, Jehovas witness, Sri Aurobindo, Kalki, 2012 or whatever. This is not the way, and should never be the way. Amen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Whoa. Why? But 'why'? Three things at least, 1. I live here and this is in my neighborhood, it effects me. 2. I'd like to see them succeed for large and small reasons. And 3. How they behave affects a lot of my friends here. It is about that simple. -Buck Nothing is as simple as not doing something. Don't see saints. Very simple, your problem solved. Or, don't go to the domes. Problem solved.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@... wrote: As has been said before, many times, Maharishi himself is the person who established this link between seeing other saints or teachers and being banned from TM courses and Domes and advanced programs. This is true and cannot be denied. But it is also true that Maharishi had several policies with this regard over the time, for example Muktananda was even invited to Seelisberg, he also send many people to see saints in the past, not just to Anandamayi Ma and Lakshmanjoo. And even when his policy hardened, he kept it still liberal at certain places, like in Lelystad, Holland, where he gave siddhas explicit permission to see Mother Meera for example, something that led to being banned in Skelmersdale at the same time. And it is also true, that he said, that a governor can do anything, he should just keep his mouth shut about it. And then finally the Rajas are okay if Sidhas go to the Dome who saw other saints, unless they are involved in organizing for them, and unless they are teachers (albeit even inactive ones).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 9, 2011, at 7:56 PM, zarzari_786 wrote: For example, after Muktananda left Seelisberg, on the way out touching a few TMers, thereby giving them Shaktipath, so that they would follow him, is reported to have said: Everybody is talking about enlightenment there, but nobody knows what they are talking about. snip Very interesting. It would be nice to have a more direct quote of Muktananda. Is that possible? Has it survived? Not that I know of. I heard it at the time, but didn't write down the exact quote: Something like: there (in Seelisberg) everyone talks about enlightenment, but nobody knows what it is. [Foto]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: I find the manner in which a number of people post here (referring to the form, not the content) quite irritating, but I rarely complain about it. Everyone's entitled to their own style. But Buck's Burma-Shave approach, in which he responds to his own posts over and over, quoting everything he's said each time and then adding a new line or two--often one post right after another with no time in between--is really beyond irritating. It's insulting because it's manipulative: he wants to force us to read every word he writes, and we might not do that if he put it all in a single post. How do you know what he *wants*? Maybe he does, but do you really know his intention? Maybe he just has a sort of creative stroke, so he posts one sentence after the other. But it wastes our time and wastes space. I read the posts on the Web site, but I should think those who get them by email would find this flooding of their inboxes particularly annoying. Maybe you are not as neutral on the topic, as you want it to look like. Compare this to your defense of Lawson at the time: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/241921 Lawson was notorious for shooting out TM defending one-liners, not always witty, sometimes seemingly witty (if you like, no so for everybody), here is the thread: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/135627 Now the group has a posting limit, to handle cases like this. Why not leave at that? Buck, if you're afraid we're going to lose interest and not read to the end of a longer post, *make the post more compelling*. If it weren't for the fact that you do occasionally say something I find of interest, I'd start skipping all your posts. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Whoa. Why? But 'why'? Three things at least, 1. I live here and this is in my neighborhood, it effects me. 2. I'd like to see them succeed for large and small reasons. And 3. How they behave affects a lot of my friends here. It is about that simple. -Buck Nothing is as simple as not doing something. Don't see saints. Very simple, your problem solved. Except that *it* is become a communal problem because the Rajas link their anti-saint policy with meditating in the dome. Theirs is simply a bad corrosive policy for communal success with the dome numbers. That their policy has bled the dome of numbers should be a concern of everyone here. Even the Fairfield Chamber of Commerce too really ought to step in to mediate the situation. Linking that old anti-saint policy with getting in to the group meditation has always been a long-term problem with getting sufficient numbers meditating in the domes. It is more than past time to change it. It is time come to de-link the sitting with saints from meditating in the domes. Like, they even teach the little children in the Maharishi School to keep the company of wise people. As has been said before, many times, Maharishi himself is the person who established this link between seeing other saints or teachers and being banned from TM courses and Domes and advanced programs. The Rajas did not think up this policy - it came straight from MMY and he enforced it his entire life - and they have decided to stick with the Master's policy. To change this, they will have to be honest about that and then make a decision that it is okay to modify what Maharishi himself set up. Not sure that will happen anytime soon. Not with Bevan around. Of course with Oprah interested and also seeing other saints and being very ecumenical indeed, that may push things a bit. THe Rajas could announce that in this day and age of rising enlightenment globally, it is okay to be more open and less restrictive. If they wanted to they could figure out how to change this. Like Jeesus, even Guru Dev told people to sit with saints, mahatmas and the wise. Any of us who know the TM initiation puja have done the puja to Guru Dev a
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I find the manner in which a number of people post here (referring to the form, not the content) quite irritating, but I rarely complain about it. Everyone's entitled to their own style. But Buck's Burma-Shave approach, in which he responds to his own posts over and over, quoting everything he's said each time and then adding a new line or two--often one post right after another with no time in between--is really beyond irritating. It's insulting because it's manipulative: he wants to force us to read every word he writes, and we might not do that if he put it all in a single post. How do you know what he *wants*? Maybe he does, but do you really know his intention? Maybe he just has a sort of creative stroke, so he posts one sentence after the other. Then he ought to start a post and save it in Notepad or whatever and add to it, not posting it until he finishes his train of thought. Provided he knows when his train of thought finishes. In my oipinion, he is just having an emotional moment here, right? This is a topic, which really touches his life essentially. He has been just challenged by Susan, and myself in opposite ways. You must understand, that for him, and to many others, this, living in Fairfield, and being able or unable of doing the group program is essential to his life there. For others it may be a mere intellectual exercise, both defenders and opponents of the group program. So while I agree, that it is an 'irritating' way of posting, and while I agree, that with a little more discipline, he should save his thoughts to a notepad (or the editor of his choice), and then wait a little till posting it. But the same can be said of many people here, who seem to need a post for every link they give, I don't see any malign intent at manipulation here. I can really understand how unsettling this is to him. He actually has to appear before a board, they sort of test his religious convictions, how truthful he is to the movement etc. etc, its a little bit like the inquisition, don't you think? He is still very much for all the TM ideas the group program to create world peace, he was giving an enhusiastic report, new to most of us, about the new course. I can really understand his disappointment, and quite honestly, if the movement keeps putting off their most faithful adherents, they are just being stupid, my opinion. He's done this kind of thing before with Sanskrit phrases one at a time when there was no question of his having a creative stroke, since he was copying the phrases in order from a longer text. It looks like he's using the same technique here on his own posts. 'It looks like', but it's actually not the same. Here he is having an idea, then the next and the next, you can see how his thinking unfolds. If he gave a whole vedic chant in this way in the past, he must have been playful, and maybe it is both annoying, yet I don't see any malicious intent. If he has something different in mind, he's more than welcome to explain it. If he wants to. But I understand if he doesn't like to be summoned to another council to judge his actions, just saying. But it wastes our time and wastes space. I read the posts on the Web site, but I should think those who get them by email would find this flooding of their inboxes particularly annoying. Maybe you are not as neutral on the topic, as you want it to look like. Compare this to your defense of Lawson at the time: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/241921 Lawson never did what I'm complaining about with Buck. Nice try, no cigar. A whole box of cigars, indeed, as it both 'wastes our time and wastes space.' Only if you find the content appealing, you don't mind. And BTW, it isn't a matter of neutrality. I agree with a lot of what Buck says. I'd just like to be able to read it in one go. Well, I agree that it's annoying. Yet I don't see malicious intent, nor an intent at manipulation. I may be wrong, but so may be you. And I think that it is really a minor thingie, as all you have to do, is to click at the last post, and viola, you get it all together as one post, actually easy to read. Or else, you even see it in the message view, even more easy. Lawson was notorious for shooting out TM defending one-liners, not always witty, sometimes seemingly witty (if you like, no so for everybody), here is the thread: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/135627 I have nothing against one-liners per se, as long as they contribute something, which Lawson's usually did. Sometimes they were witty, sometimes they were succinct statements of a specific point that would have
[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Rama: Our Tradition
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: Our Tradition snip Vaj, I think it is good you provide the sources for the points you just made. Among many other things, I like this last paragraph of Swami Rama especially. It also touches on the thing you just mentioned, which is typical of indian sages, as they may have taken vows not to talk negative about other religions or masters. I have learned this point especially by coming across a Jain teaching, who places great emphasis on non-violence, exactly in the way as described below. This teaching of non-violence, with respect to religion means that you will not condemn any religious teaching or insult anybody like a nun or a monk from a different sect. It is an important mindset to cultivate, which does not mean that one has to agree with everything, any religion says, quite obviously, but it means accepting the reality of different believers as different facets of one greater truth. If you hurt somebodies emotions, with regard to his deepest convictions, is like a physical agression. It creates karma, and will continue to do so. 15. Of great importance is the practice of non-violence with mind, action, and speech. The knowledge that is imparted by the sages and masters of the Himalayas guides the aspirant like a light in the darkness. The purpose of this message is to awaken the divine flame that resides in the reservoir of every human being.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Rama: Our Tradition
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: They weren't intended as sources per se, but as examples. Fortunately such examples exist, because there's much that cannot be spoken of due to vows. Okay. Well, there is a dark side to such beliefs and one is that molestations and criminal behavior can go on unreported. Satya Sai Baba is a great example. So is Swami Rama for that matter. So for situations like this HH the Dalai Lama says when a practioner is involved in such egregious behavior, it needs to be made known via the media. Well, agreed. Still, its a good thing to keep in mind on a more general basis. This applies to religions in general, but of course I have my own preferences. It also applies to TMers here for me, even though I might get sarcastic at times. But then this is a forum dedicated to a critical view of TM.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
Judy, this is an example of Buck piling onto his own comments in a progression as his thoughts develop over a course of several days. I just want to point this out as another example of self-commenting, where I don't really see any attempt at manipulation. I do think that Buck is giving us some valuable information about the internal workings of the movement at present. As I also have, occasionally, other sources of information, my feeling is that his assessments are quite correct. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: The TM-conservative element inside evidently has the stronger hand over the progressive TM'ers. The progressives get tolerated as much as they are in that they are productive at teaching TM through Hagelin's work over with David Lynch Foundation. Lynch is interesting in this because his works are extra-territorial in his foundation. Lynch does not have to go through Bevan so much; yet, Hagelin can't just do things by himself without bringing the TM0 conservatives along. So as you say, mode is in a range between membership that is practitioner-client based on the one hand and discipleship-cult on the other. It's a good analysis. -Buck in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Zarzari786, I have just come through a long and arduous interview probing process in re-applying for a dome badge. Much of the consideration was around this client-centered vs. membership-cult as you frame it. It was very much around the difference between client practitioners and membership devotee types. That is a fair distinction within TM. On the one hand we got some more progressive people who tend to be more over in the Hagelin camp who would like to see it work out for practitioners, while on the other hand are the more strict preservationists around Bevan. Some of these later conservatives are like the Taliban in that they are ruthless in their position. The progressives are more sympathetic towards working it out for practitioner-clients. Right now the Bevan-ista doctrinaire disciples have more power than the Hagelin-ites. -Buck Zarzari, they do play hardball at this and there is lots of yelling going on. A risk is that if anybody wanting/needing to be on the inside would really persuasively argue for progressive change in the movement guidelines along the lines of a client-centered hosting as you describe, the Bevan-istas could just pack the bags of those people and 'out' them. There is still a web of dependence this way that gets pulled. Within this the preservationists at all costs is really where the cult is. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Zarzari786 excellent critique here. And, welcome too to FFL. Fairfieldlife is proly the best place to give input to the TMO from the outside as it does get read and digested by everybody inside. -Buck --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: Hi all, I couldn't agree more with what you say here. If Adiraj, Maharaj, whatever is anything close to a Maharishi successor, he should go out and make a lecture tour about TM, or whatever they think they have to offer. He should be able to publicly stand for the program, embody it to everyone. This is what the Maharishi did. TM started out as a client cult, that is to say, it was not based on membership, discipleship, but rather directed to the general public, you simply could sign up for courses. The same was true for Ayurveda, which did not require TM membership, and many other programs that followed. Now TM is more and more like a membership club, more like a traditional religion. Compare that 'badge' approach to, lets say Ammachi, Karunamayi, Mother Meera and others, where anyone can come, anyone has access. Now that openess is the new style. TM at it's time was new style, client centered, but has sort of regressed into more of a membership cult. The new thing in this time is something completely open, there are too many things out there, too many meditations which you can pick. Any kind of elitism will not work. People select from different sources and pick what suits them best. And that is how it should be. And for me, openness, like open source is a precondition. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Sounds really good - glad you were able to go. Yep, I have to thank Raja John Hagelin for granting me an exemption to attend the meeting. It was very nice
[FairfieldLife] Re: Aggressive-Passive - Are conversations something to win?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Does anyone here remember Maharishi ever having admitted to being wrong about something? Anything? Raised hand here: Yes I do! For example, after this whole episode, when he used to send sidhas to spots of world crisis, like a 'fire-police', and after this whole thing with the Iran failed big time, he said, how could we have got into this thinking? We like to prevent, not play fire police. He quite obviously wondered aloud, for anyone to hear in the lecture hall about his own mistake of sending groups abroad, announcing that there would only be 'remote-control' action from now on. Saying this, I admit that Maharishi, like almost all orientals, does not like to admit mistakes. At least not in public. In dealing with orientals, you always led the other side save its face.They understand mistakes, but they don't like to admit it directly. They have a lot of subtle ways of admitting. It's the whole point of orientals, that their whole way of communication, dealing with each other, is so completely different from ours.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating Facts About Smiles - mindful smiling
Well, if I want to see myself smile, I just look into the mirror and turn my head upside down. :-(-: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: From one of the TED talks, a series of amazing scientific facts about the human smile. Did you know that your smile can predict how long you live, or the length and happiness of your marriage? Did you know that one smile produces the same level of brain pleasure center feel good activity as 2000 bars of chocolate? And smiling doesn't make you fat. :-) What these facts suggest to me is that adding a few smiles to your day will probably do more to expand the level of happiness in the world -- both yours and others -- than any amount of buttbouncing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9cGdRNMdQQ Just to follow up, I was completely serious in my last sentence. I was quite taken by the research cited by Ron Gutman that seemed to indicate that the physical act of smiling has a profound effect on the areas of the brain that generate our sense of happiness or well-being. If this is true, it kinda flips a commonly-assumed assumption on its ass. What if smiling is not the effect of a feeling of happiness and well-being, but one of the causes of it? In other words, could something as simple as smiling more, intentionally actually *bring about* changes in one's blood chemistry that one associates with happiness and well-being? Well, I can attest that it does (in my subjective opinion, the worth of which plus a buck fifty will get you a bad cup of Starbucks coffee) . Since watching this TED clip, I've been practicing mindful smiling. That is, every time during the day I realize that I am not smiling, I smile. Call it coming back to the smile mantra if you like. :-) What I've been noticing is that -- for me -- this seems to subtly shift my state of attention, into a slightly more happy mindstate. And, as the speaker in the clip said, it's evolutionarily contagious. I just got back from a walk around my town, during which I turned smiling into a spiritual practice, and smiled non-stop. I feel great. And, interestingly enough, even in Holland, even on a cold, dreary December day, my smiles were con- tagious. Many people smiled back. Based on some of the research that Ron Gutman presented in his talk, that simple act of smiling back gave their brains a boost of feel-good endorphins stronger than 2000 bars of chocolate would have done. And all it took to trigger it was some stranger smiling at them. Good deal. Win-win in my book. So...those of you still reading at this point :-), and still living on the ground in Fairfield, what do you think of this whole smiling thing? What's the story at the domes? Do those exiting from the domes smile a lot, or not? I really don't know, so I'm really asking.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Aggressive-Passive - Are conversations something to win?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: So what does the *opposite* of this allow the other person to save face mindset say about people for whom it seems to be a recurring pattern? That is, coming back to the subject of my post, what is the point of winning in a discussion, such that one feels that the conversation somehow wasn't complete if the other person doesn't admit defeat and do his or her mea culpas? What's up with that? I don't know. It's a game maybe. People argue, here and everywhere. It probably has to do with the common need of people to be achnowledged, a general need for confirmation. In friendship relations, people present their POV to be accepted, to get a confirmation, that they are 'right', that they belong to the group. Or else its genetically programmed, we want to win, we want to be better, no idea. In the TM context its probably a kind of mutual confirmation that you are doing the right thing, or even a demonstration, that you belong to the group. Somebody attacks your group, you defend it, flash your teeth, a sort of confirmation ritual. In the more historical context, Shankara, Nagarjuna and others, it was a specific culture of intellectual combats. It would be a means to test how your theories are logically sound, a means to actually train your intellect, to be able to present what you think in an intellectual meaningful way. And to elaborate pros and cons of a given issue. It's like little dogs bite, just to train their teeth. It's keeping your synaptic gaps active. I personally see it as the later, a way to train yourself, and explore different avenues of a topic.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Today is Barry Wright's Birthday
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: Nabby? Judy? Ravi? Robin? Now's your chance to shower him with love and kisses. * http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://seeinnerbeauty.files.wordpres\ s.com/2011/07/smile.jpgimgrefurl=http://seeinnerbeauty.wordpress.com/20\ 11/07/09/beauty-begins-with-a-smile/usg=__bgagtay4HwUXbBzwqnimrYXqGpA=\ h=960w=1280sz=84hl=destart=11zoom=1tbnid=XKG69zxuhNdf7M:tbnh=113\ tbnw=150ei=mbLkTtiFLJHFtAaJvsXICQprev=/search%3Fq%3Dsmile%26hl%3Dde%26\ sa%3DX%26biw%3D800%26bih%3D394%26tbm%3Disch%26prmd%3Dimvnsitbs=1 Wishing you many smiles in the new year.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: Has anyone ever explained to the saints that visit Fairfield that the issue exists, The issue, that many are not allowed to visit them? They know since a long time. and why it exists in the first place? Well, it would be hard for me to explain this, because I don't understand it myself. Do you mean Rick should step up to Ammachi, and say something like: 'Amma, you should not visit Fairfield anymore, TM Rajas don't like it, and you are having a bad influence on TB TMers.'? I think, that if you feel chosen, why don't you visit them and explain, after all you stand behind it. Go, see Ammachi and tell her, that is if you dare. It is like the Vatican explaining to the TM people they should stay away from Rome, because it's their territory. I have a funny feeling that a lot of the visiting saints would be very incensed with the people who invite them to Fairfield if they learned that they were at the heart of the controversy without being informed of the whole story... You mean incensed by the TM people who invite them (how you know it's 'TM-people'?) or the TM Rajas? Quite honestly neither. Their approach is that anyone can see them who has a desire and need to do so. No badches needed and direct access possible.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: Has anyone ever explained to the saints that visit Fairfield that the issue exists, The issue, that many are not allowed to visit them? They know since a long time. and why it exists in the first place? snip I don't live in Fairfield, but the ban, as far as I know, goes back to Robin Carlsen's antics. snip And do they know why there is the issue and what the result is? L. Look, the baby has fallen into the water a long time ago. I don't know who Robin Carlsen is, and his antics, and I don't want to know, and if you are telling me now, it comes sort of 20 years too late. What a joker!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Roja - Rukmini
Maybe you like this song too, same composer, oscar winning Rahman, one of his best http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOYN9qNXmAw --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: Very cool. Loved the bare feet dancing in the sand. Denise, just for the heck of it I opened two windows for the song. I hit play for the first window and about a second, (give or take a tenth of a second) I hit play for the second window. It accentuates the call response, Kirtan, style of music. Try it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZvnov_ytzcfeature=related
[FairfieldLife] Re: Roja - Rukmini
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: Maybe you like this song too, same composer, oscar winning Rahman, one of his best http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOYN9qNXmAw Party Train. They must have had a blast making the video. It's a famous scene: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaiyya_Chaiyya#Music_video The video was filmed on top of the Ooty train (the Nilgiri Mountain Railway) in mountainous Tamil Nadu, southern India while actor Shahrukh Khan dances with model/actress Malaika Arora and other dancers. The film was directed by Mani Ratnam and photographed by Santosh Sivan. The choreography was completed in four and half days by Farah Khan.[4] No major back projections or post-production special effects were used in the music video. Malaika Arora, one of the performer recalls: Would you believe it? Well, the Chaiya Chaiya song was shot exactly as you see it on the screen: No camera tricks, no back projection, no post-production special effects![5] She also said that ...One of the unit members tripped and hurt himself. Other than that, things were safe.[6] Mani Ratnam was inspired by Kittu Puttu - Kaalavannu Thadeyoru Yaaru Illa, a 1977 Kannada movie song video, which used a similar atop the train sequence, and was directed by his friend, C.V. Rajendran. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Very cool. Loved the bare feet dancing in the sand. Denise, just for the heck of it I opened two windows for the song. I hit play for the first window and about a second, (give or take a tenth of a second) I hit play for the second window. It accentuates the call response, Kirtan, style of music. Try it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZvnov_ytzcfeature=related
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sometimes crazy wisdom is just crazy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: I think part of it is the belief in crazy wisdom that shows up in many spiritual traditions and cults. Once a group of cultists have decided that the teacher or holy guy they fixate on is enlightened or whatever, they *start making excuses for his or her crazy behavior*. Because, according to the dogma, a person can't be both enlightened AND crazy. Good topic Barry. I wouldn't subscribe to the last sentence, I think there is a considerable overlap between, what is generally considered crazy by society (and doctors) and enlightenment. Not that both are the same, but the overlap is striking! This is also a major part of the controversy about the Peter Heehs book about Aurobindo: he doesn't say anywhere that Aurobindo was 'crazy' or psychotic, but he alludes to the fact that his Mother had mental problems and was treated I think, and also to the fact that there exists many parallels between what he considers Aurobindos enlightenment, and psychosis. (He just mentions it, while making clear that SA showed an amazing intellectual clarity through his writings, so he takes clear sides that SA was NOT psychotic). In India itself it is just too obvious: Many 'saints', avadhootas, are considered crazy by a majority of local people, they are simply 'out of their mind', there will be devotees, who consider them holy, here in the west, most of them would be closed away in a mental institution and pumped full of drugs.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: Those irritate me as well, as it happens. I don't see any malign intent at manipulation here. An intent to manipulate isn't necessarily malign, and I wasn't suggesting malice on his part. He just wants folks to read everything he writes, and he's willing to inconvenience us to make that happen. Well, he is at it again, so you clearly have a point there. I am not sure, but he seems rather emotional about this issue, so it is as if he wants to 'shout' it into the world. Maybe he really is fed up with the Rajas and thinks this way he will be heard. snip Lawson happens to be here again, BTW. Not sure you're aware of that. He pops in from time to time, stays for awhile, then pops out. I am aware of him. BTW, thanks for not conducting this disagreement in a disrespectful manner. That's all too rare around here. Well, thank you too. I'll try to keep it that way, but I can't promise I'm always able to.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: May I ask about your TM background? I'm in every way a longtime Ex. How did you get here? Through the net. snip I do wonder a bit, BTW, about his assertion that the TMO insiders all read and ponder FFL. I am too long away, and have never been on that administrative level. So much of what goes on here isn't even remotely relevant to their concerns. I know that they keep lists of people, for example TM teachers, and carefully screen in what relationship they are to the TM movement. They have a file of everyone, who once was a teacher, and probably the same about sidhas. According to this, they determine if somebody is eligable for courses or not. They would know somebody is an indepenend teacher for example, if somebody is associated with other teachers, etc, as far as they can get hold of such information. I don't know exactly, how they gather information, but if they are somewhat similar to any secret service, it would be obvious to screen the internet, to look at the facebook sites, to look at forums like this. It is also clear since some time now, that they consciously use the internet now, to post comments to journals, use twitter a lot for announcing movement events etc. For them to screen a forum like this would be essential in several ways: See what's going on in public opinion, it of course doesn't mean they react to it directly..But also to keep watch at their 'sheep', to see who is critical, or negative, to update their black lists. I also don't think, that top decission makers read it all directly, I am sure that Bevan wants to keep a distance about all the negative stuff that is written about him, but there are enough others who can do that IOW i don't know if and how the observe this forum, it would be logical to do it on some level, but I know they are keeping files about everyone, and that there is more in those files than just your last movement contact. One of them would have to go through and pick out only the posts of TMO interest and then circulate them to the others. Search functions exist. I have noticed that some Purushas spend quite some time on the net. That may be completely private, but there are no frontiers in the net, I guess there is a natural curiosity as well. Possible, I suppose, but I'm not sure it's all that likely. When has the conservative element, in particular, in the TMO ever cared about what a bunch of renegades think? Just to know who those renegades are.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sometimes crazy wisdom is just crazy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: I know nothing of Sri Aurobindo, but didn't Ramakrishna spend years dressing in women's clothing and spend some time living in a tree as a monkey? Crazy wisdom, or just crazy? Well yes, there is a book about that out as well, not half as 'positive' as Heehs book. But for dressing with womens cloth, there is a cultural format in India, especially in the Krishna Bhakti (all souls except Krishna are considered female). HWL Poonja, father of the satsang movement did the same. As for intellectual clarity, have you ever read any of the books by Chogyam Trungpa? Some are utterly brilliant, despite the fact (as we know now) that he was totally in the bag (meaning falling down drunk) while writing most of them. I know him mainly through the writings of others, which is about exactly this topic. Go figure. I guess my point is that while one may admire Trungpa's writing and its clarity on the one hand, you wouldn't really want him driving you anywhere or making decisions that strongly affected your life, would you? He's never been my cup of tea. I guess I bring this up because I see an increasingly disturbing trend here on FFL. Many people seem to have lost any sense of perspective on the things that happen here. It's just a chat forum; maybe a total of 40 people interact on it regularly. But for some it seems to have become a deadly serious business. They regularly LOSE IT over -- let's face it -- minor insults or petty affronts that a sane person would hardly notice. Some develop grudges and then recruit teams to help them obsess on their common grudgees. Yes, agreed. This is part of the usenetization of the internet, not uncommon at all. The mechanics has nothing to do with TM or spiritual movements per se. People just lose it as they get involved, you could say it is a lack of detachment. THIS is what 30 to 40 years of TM does for a person? Or doesn't do. I get your point is, that TM ers were supposed to be more detached than the average internet user, but obviously they aren't. Another issue, I think is old age. With some people, reaching a certain age, mental abilities start to fail. Then there is the issue of lonliness, isolation. But worse, IMO, some of the folks whom I think have lost perspective don't seem to know what they're messing with when they start trying to recruit people with borderline personality disorders into their petty grudge wars I think that in doing this they're playing with fire, and I hope that it doesn't escalate into something a lot more serious, or tragic. I know exactly what you mean here. I have been watching the soap opera that is going on here with bewilderment, but I simply fail to get it. I am not sure what is ironic or serious. Most posts are simply tl;dr http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tl%3Bdr I guess some people, are simply fed up with the overly intelectual culture of these boards, and they just like to get emotionally turned on. Otherwise, I am just clueless myself. But for me, any enlightened, crazy or not, should show a level of detachment, which I simply expect, which includes not boasting about ones own enlightenment. Among crazy saints, I prefer the type, who go in rags, if at all, stare at you in the streets of India, live outside, talk if anything gibberish not comprehensible to anyone, and don't know where America or Europe is, and yes, get food from the trashbin. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Yes, it is really quite incredible that these TM Rajas should even be going against Guru Dev's very certain spiritual advice to make use of our time on earth particularly by being with saints. Oh Please! They are not going against Guru Dev, they are trying to follow the guidelines set up by Maharishi himself long ago. Now, leave Guru Dev out of this, we don't know what he would have said. MMY was entirely clear about all of this and never ever budged from his position. Maharishi was clear, at times. This policy, I know, has consolitated during the final period of his life, but it wasn't always the same. And Maharishi could make exceptions to this rule, as I already said, for example in Lelystad. I don't blame you if you don't know that, but he did budge from his position. But in setting up 'rules', he would have to teach the administration, and usually was strong about it, I agree. The Rajas have to decide to make changes that MMY never did He did. The rules before were different (for example before the Muktananda event), and he would make exceptions himself. Now, maybe Maharishi would have changed this rule by now, but don't blame the Rajas or anyone else. This rule came from Maharishi and he was BLUNT about it. I am sure he was blunt to the administration. Yet, as you say yourself, it may be time for a change. The Rajas had no problem skipping the always-wear-a-crown thing, or inviting Beatles back, and even more so, use them for publicity, something unthinkable when Maharishi was still alive. And they even loosened the saints rule a bit, don't forget, but what I suggest is, keep these changes logical and transparent. What is illogical? There is a common belief in India, that once you have found your Guru, you don't need anybody else, right? We have Maharishi, we don't need Ammachi (or whoever), thats what you would hear in private conversations. That is to say, a Guru-Disciple relationship is assumed. The problem here is, that the TM movement is not at all upfront that this is the case. They are not telling, that Maharishi is our guru, but he is supposed only to be the founder of TM, at least publicly. Now, hence the confusion. Now, with regard to Maharishi being 'Guru', if he is a Guru to the TM people involved, to what people exactly? All TM teachers? Also TM teachers who are not really teachers anymore? And: Do they know this? Next: if we assume, that Maharishi is a guru to the people, which is not publicly said, it would be still possible, that people see different saints, as long as they don't take teaching from them, or rather as long as they don't become their disciples *simultaneausly*. There is an example often cited within TM, referring to Guru Dev, not seeing another saint or speaker, who comes to town, while all the Gurubhais go there. He stays in the Ashram, as his heart is completely filled with his master. Now a guest comes, nobody is in the Ashram to receive him, except Guru Dev, taking care of him, and finally the master finds out about the story, and viola, GD is just the most dedicated and devoted disciple. When citing this story, to TM teachers or sidhas, they usually forget to say: GD was having a relationship with his master that was personal throughout, he lived with him, he watched him daily, and he lived in his vibration. He had a PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP to his master. But most people concerned from these policies, may even never have seen Maharishi, or any enlightened at all! That is what Buck is pointing out completely rightly: GD says it is very important to seek the company of saints! But, not being able to see Maharishi anymore, or even ever, the people are deprived from this. And then: in the example cited above, GD was so devoted that he stayed in the Ashram, while all others saw the saint/speaker. Do you notice two things? There was NO RULE in the Ashram to not see other saints, they did so with permission. And second, when GD stayed, he did so OUT OF HIS OWN WILL, out of his spontaneous devotion, not an IMPOSED SHOW OF DEVOTION. Two elements are present here: sponatneity of devotion, and I think that is the only devotion worth considering, and a real and lively guru-disciple relationship. Now, consider yourself: is this the case in TM? Obviously not for most people, obviously less so for more and more people since Maharishi withdrew in Holland, and since time passes ofter his demiss. There will come a time, not too far away, where there will be nobody anymore, who has a living memory of Maharishi. If you keep the rules up like this, you will be just a cult.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sometimes crazy wisdom is just crazy
Judy, your post was brilliant, and I never had a doubt that your intellect is among the sharpest here, and that's why I can say to you, I have the clear feeling, there is some love-bombing going on here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_bombing I can understand that this is luring, especially when one has been through very dry online discussions, with mostly men. Besides that, the whole culture in the TM movement isn't really geared toward the heart, so I can understand, if somebody comes, and touches you on a wholly differnt level, it is a kind of transcending itself. Yet, it is the same effect, if you simply fall in love - it can be as simple as that. This mingling of ideas about love, and spiritual ideas is quite common in the spiritual field, it does happen a lot, with gurus and their disciples, ladies - of all ages -fall in love with their male gurus, and men fall in love with their lady Matajis. But it does not substitue discrimination and real discernment about the ultimate state of enlightenment. And I know about it - yes I do know about it - only in real life, not on internet forums. You rightly say, that it is not possible to judge an enlightened according to his behaviour, especially not on the net, because how would you know? Because the internet puts a layer between us, that doesn't exist in real life. And that's exactly the point: As you are not in the physical proximity of the other person, it is more difficult to make a judgement, and therefore, what's the whole point of such a connection then? It's like internet love. Somebody says he is enlightened, and you either believe or don't believe. I have been with real enlightened people in my life, so I have a rough idea of how they are, what they have in common. One very striking feature is the sense of non-attachment you get with them. They are totally different in certain ways. The other point that I have got to know is their utter lack of need of self-explanation, a great sense of humility and a lack of self-glorification. They just keep their mouth shut most of the time, no small talks, nothing. No need to defend oneself. If somebody has a need to start every thread with his own name, praises only people who agree with him, and abuses those who don't, I don't believe he is in any way close to enlightenment in my book. Period. I have myself kundalini, do I need to go from house to house with that, so what, it is not enlightenment. The Upanishad, therefore rightly and wisely says: Those who say they know, they don't know, they who say they don't know, they know it. I go with that. Besides that, it is in the best interest of a yogi who has developing experiences not to seek a big audience. Ramana Maharshi was silent for 16 years AFTER his initial enlightenment experience. Many sadhaks are therefore directed by their masters towards solitude, to avoid spoiling their own Sadhana. Usually, traditionally, if you have a master, the master has to tell you to teach, before that you shouldn't teach. Then, if you teach, is your teaching just an attempt of emotionally involving people with you, or to teach real wisdom? So looking at it like this, you judge. Anyway, if you are having, a nice experience with this, for whatever reason, I am happy for you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: Dear Judy, No. 49 for you. I can only say wow. That clear intellect again, I don't want to sound patronizing but this is your best post ever that I have read. I know you were standing alone bravely facing the metaphorical demons of ignorance and deception caused by deep emotional wounds - the Curtis's, Barry's - piled on by naive idiots like Rick, Steve who wanted to be always on the right side of these intellectually deceptive bastards with their layers of POV's and these MF'ers even reduced *truth* to *opinion*. Then some retarded conspiracy theorists like Barry 2, disciples of their equally reatrded Gurus like the Abhayanandas, the crooks, fraud Gurus from India. What to say about my Uncle Kamsa, Vaj, the liar - luckily we had Sadhak emptybill to balance him. I salute the warrior, the divine Mother Judy for battling the demons for so long. You will surely be rewarded since you are the epitome of dharma, Kshatriya dharma, the spiritual warrior. Yes with Bob, Obba, Denise started the heart centered approach. Bob and Obba are all heart. Then Robin, Judy with his intellect and heart, Alex, Raunchy Love - Ravi. On Dec 12, 2011, at 8:48 AM, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: snip As for intellectual clarity, have you ever read any of the books by Chogyam Trungpa? Some are utterly brilliant, despite the fact (as we know now) that he was totally in the bag (meaning falling down
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sometimes crazy wisdom is just crazy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: Judy, already there was so much praise about this post of yours, and I agree with that! that I hardly dare to answer you, so I started from bottom up, I write this here last (almost) Couple things. First, any addiction that constitutes a self-destructive behavior (e.g., gambling) is classified as a psychiatric condition because doing harm to oneself isn't considered normal. But an alcoholic isn't crazy simply on the basis of his or her addiction. Some alcoholics may be seriously mentally ill as well as addicted, but others may not be. It's a matter of degree. Absolutely true. So, crazy wisdom is actually a term, that alludes the word 'crazy' to a couple of things, like crazy, strange behaviour (but not necessarily psychotic or medically crazy), consciously orchestrated sometimes, or being sponateous or simply being a lack of control, and real borderline craziness, or downright psychosis. Second, alcoholism is by no means unknown among some of our most greatest writers. It almost seems to be an occupational hazard: http://listverse.com/2008/01/22/top-15-great-alcoholic-writers/ Again right, same is true for drugs. Third, intellectual clarity or coherence is generally a pretty good sign that a person isn't crazy in the sense of psychotic. Obviously you wouldn't want an alcoholic to drive you anywhere, and letting somebody make decisions that would strongly affect your life isn't a great idea no matter who they are. But that doesn't mean an alcoholic can't have significant insights about Life, the Universe, and Everything that are worth one's attention. Right. Bottom line, Trungpa isn't a very relevant example in the context of the unusual behavior on FFL recently that Barry's complaining about. Yes, right. I think he just wanted to point out the discrepancy between behaviour and the written word, the writing skills. Barry might attribute Narzism with Trungpa. But in order to determine psychosis, intellectual clarity does matter. But then I am not a psychologist and don't know. But all this was with reference to the book about Aurobindo, and Peter Heehs assesment. snip ...if by detachment you mean what is generally referred to in the context of enlightenment as nonattachment, it's not necessarily obvious at all on the basis of behavior. Nonattachment is a subjective quality that may or may not be evident from behavior (especially when the only behavior one sees is the words a person writes in an electronic forum). Exactly! What I mean is that you can not make watertight rules.But I do think that the quality is bound to express itself in some way, I have seen that clearly with the sages I know. There is some very big difference, visible to anyone who spends time with them. But please you or Barry update me about the difference of detachment and non-attachment. I always thought detachment expresses that well. Another issue, I think is old age. With some people, reaching a certain age, mental abilities start to fail. True. But again, intellectual clarity in a person's writing would tend to rule that out. Yes. But with some people here, not you, this clarity isn't there. They are swept away by emotions, romantic phantasies, exaggerated to cosmic dimensions. Then there is the issue of lonliness, isolation. Also true. But in many if not most cases, you can't tell whether a person is isolated or lonely on the basis of what they write on an electronic forum (unless they tell you). The speculation, or even the assertion, that a person whose posts one doesn't like is lonely is often used as a cheap putdown to avoid addressing what the person says, but in most cases one doesn't know whether that's true. This is not my intention to point out who is what. I just enumerate possible reasons. Definitely we know that these situations exist. And it's only honest to say so. snip I know exactly what you mean here. I have been watching the soap opera that is going on here with bewilderment, but I simply fail to get it. I am not sure what is ironic or serious. Most posts are simply tl;dr http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tl%3Bdr Well, some posts are. Most posts are actually fairly short, shorter than the post you're responding to, in fact. Yes true. But here we are talking not an inside topic, not what Ravi said last week or what MaskedZebra said two days ago, we just say things every sensible person can understand. I guess some people, are simply fed up with the overly intelectual culture of these boards, and they just like to get emotionally turned on. With regard to what's been going on recently, I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Arguments have been a staple of FFL virtually since it began, but they've been primarily intellectually based arguments. They sometimes get heated and folks may take sides and even
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sometimes crazy wisdom is just crazy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: Gotta laugh at that right off the bat, zarzari. The Wikipedia article begins: Love bombing is the deliberate show of affection or friendship by an individual or a group of people toward another individual. Critics have asserted that this action may be motivated in part by the desire to recruit, convert or otherwise influence. Haha, very funny. That's the first time I am accused fo doing something like love bombing, and I see your point. But, even if I disagree at times, I can simply appreciate and agree with what others have said here before. I wouldn't say the same thing to others. Now have another look at your first paragraph. I'm sure the irony was inadvertent, but it really is pretty funny. Yes In any case, thanks for the kind words. I found the rest of your post rather amusing as well. I know you mean well, but you're just WAY off target. As far as Ravi is concerned, I'm very fond of him but not *remotely* in love with him, not even on the level of a crush. Well I'm happy to hear that. Actually, most of what I wrote then is off target with you, but it maybe on target with someone else here. I probably got mixed up here, since I don't follow all the treads, and I also get confused with names, real and screen names, but just before I wrote this, kind of free and unprepared, I just had read another rather long letter by maskedzebra (Robin?), and probably my whole spin was an that. So sorry, it hit the wrong person, but again you are the right one, as you have enough distance yourself to understand the issue. I just saw too many females having a crush on their respective gurus, which always led to big melodramas. Nor do I for a nanosecond consider him to be my guru. I'm not in the market for one, and if I were, he wouldn't be a candidate. I do find him fascinating and perplexing. I don't believe, however, that I've ever expressed an opinion as to whether he is or isn't enlightened. I don't know and wouldn't care to take a guess. That issue doesn't really enter into my take on him. Okay, point taken. To be honest, I cannot know either. I feel very similarly about Robin, as it happens, if for different reasons considering how very different their personalities are. And I felt that way about both of them well before either had had occasion to make posts that were complimentary to me (which occurred before I'd ever complimented either of them). It's nice to be complimented, of course, and I appreciate their good opinions of me. But that doesn't have much if any effect on how I feel toward them, other than, you know, friendly. You may have missed my criticisms of Ravi for his attacks on raunchy and Alex, BTW. Yes, I did not really follow up. I can understand that this is luring, especially when one has been through very dry online discussions, with mostly men. Besides that, the whole culture in the TM movement isn't really geared toward the heart, so I can understand, if somebody comes, and touches you on a wholly differnt level, it is a kind of transcending itself. Yes, it is. In my case, however, it comes from Robin and Denise and obbajeeba and Bob Price and raunchy and Steve and even Alex, as well as others, not just Ravi. It's their interactions and emotional honesty that get to me. Yes, it's luring, but you seem to be putting a negative spin on those qualities which I don't think really belongs there. Non, not in this case. It is good if you get out of this very unwholesome rigit atmosphere that dominated here in the past. Again with regard to Ravi, I don't make any judgments about his state of consciousness. I'm just very dubious that behavior can ever tell you for sure one way or another. The fact that you've seen certain qualities (or their absence) in the enlightened folks you've known doesn't convince me that one can't be enlightened and have the opposite of those qualities (or their absence). I don't think enlightenment has a set of rules about how it manifests itself to other people; I strongly suspect just about anything goes. Well yes - and no. I answered this in another post. While I acknowledge that principally, in practical life, we have to take a stand, anyway it will happen, und you will have 'beliefs' about certain persons. While I agree that there is no fixed rule, I believe that there are differences to the others, that show somehow. And then, I have my preferences, it's as simple as that. snip
[FairfieldLife] Re: Turq's kinda woman
http://www.tanja-askani.de/ta_ueber.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Over the years, admittedly often because I provoked it, there has been speculation on this forum as to my taste in women. Most of it has been so off as to be ludicrous. For the record, this is the first video or photo I have seen in ages that left me thinking, Wow. I am in love. This is just SO my kinda woman. We'd get along. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emKY2AbC3L8 The wolves can come, too.
[FairfieldLife] For Curtis and Barry
Not really my topic, but I came across it in my searches, I thought you might like it. [cult-poster.jpg (251×299)]
[FairfieldLife] To Love Bomber Ravi(Was: Ode to my beloved and Robin)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Steve, I'm sorry to hurt you publicly. I knew you would eventually understand. I love you, I never forgot your phone call. Love bombing Critics of cults http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-cult_movement use the phrase with the implication that the love http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love is feigned and the practice is manipulative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation . Love bombing is often cited by critics as one of the methods used by some cults and religions to recruit and retain members. Abusers in romantic relationships http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence also do this to victims in the early stages of a relationship, showering their partners with praise, gifts, and affection.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_bombing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_bombing I just wanted to show that you didn't have to be ashamed of your innocent heart and use caustic wit to hurt. Please forgive me. And Curtis I hope you read this. You will like it since you are so fascinated my younger women. [File:Little Flirty Fishy-TK-02.jpg] http://www.xfamily.org/images/5/5d/Little_Flirty_Fishy-TK-02.jpg You will like this - I will be 41 next month but my Rukmini is only 27. Unlike you who cover your lust for younger women with your 7 layered deception, I was ashamed with myself that I had compromised my integrity by asking a 27 year old for a date. I didn't realize she was that young when I fell in love. I was looking for someone in 34-36 range. Because though I'm full of sexual energy, this Krishna has no perverted sexual energy. And being the epitome of honesty I have confessed all my sins and have been purified by Mother Ganges. [File:Little Flirty Fishy-TK-08.jpg] http://www.xfamily.org/images/4/4c/Little_Flirty_Fishy-TK-08.jpg Examples of cults using focused attention include love bombing in Rev. Moon'sUnification Church http://www.unification.org/ and training routines and auditing in Scientology http://www.xenu.net/ . An explanation consistent with evolutionary psychology for the propagation of the hard-to-explain memes at the top of this article is that successful memes of this class induce focused attention between those infected with the memes. That attention in turn results in the release of pleasure inducing chemicals into the reward system of the brain. This release of chemicals results in the reinforcement of behaviours that led to the attention--identical to the process we see in addicts. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the behaviour of people under the influence of cults is similar to that we observe in addicts. http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.html http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.html Steve are you listening? You don't have to go to Varanasi, it's just metaphorical. Robin - got that? Liberals get it? Your fascination with Church of Liberalism results either in intellectually enlightened like Jim, Adyashanti or sexual perverts in the guise of renunciation like Muktananda or Maharishi. Rick get it? Robin get it? Only Ravi can criticize other Gurus. http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_tcHkx0spt8\ k/TIzd9zQuzeI/APg/b1hiBeujS5Y/s1600/bombing%252520love.jpgimgre\ furl=http://stencildump.blogspot.com/2010/09/no-21.htmlusg=__yauskbGqnq\ LYSsi1UXfW7ZU9zK8=h=800w=1011sz=53hl=destart=18sig2=too5r6sM969pEp\ _Gfg5s5wzoom=1tbnid=HGElVoX-zwhywM:tbnh=119tbnw=150ei=Fz3pTr_9IY3Mt\ AaDpZm5Bwprev=/search%3Fq%3Dlove%2Bbombing%26hl%3Dde%26sa%3DX%26biw%3D8\ 00%26bih%3D394%26tbm%3Disch%26prmd%3Dimvnsitbs=1 Rick, so you can continue to be ashamed of you heart centeredness and hide it by pretending as a wannabe intellectual, interviewing intellectually enlightened on your stupid show, getting conned day in and day out. I took it as the will of the existence that I was going to get a younger partner, after all Rukmini has to be much younger than Krishna. And I'm in no hurry, remember I have the whole of eternity. [187] http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://hinduexistence.files.wordpres\ s.com/2009/12/lj2.jpgimgrefurl=http://hinduexistence.wordpress.com/2009\ /12/10/love-jihad-is-real-says-kerala-high-court-islamic-love-racket-in-\ india-for-conversion/usg=__gpJ3pXU-mEJX5lBeFvl4PXAYEhU=h=849w=588sz=\ 79hl=destart=0sig2=KHE3fKjmGUBGN4cihwCHCwzoom=1tbnid=RyzE7_2MW_kktM\ :tbnh=90tbnw=62ei=Dz7pToKLFI3DtAbeioWuBwprev=/search%3Fq%3Dlove%2Bji\ had%26num%3D10%26hl%3Dde%26biw%3D800%26bih%3D394%26tbm%3Dischitbs=1iac\ t=hcvpx=486vpy=-2dur=1466hovh=270hovw=187tx=6ty=169sig=111941457\ 107007985577sqi=2page=1ndsp=12ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0 Love Jihad also called Romeo Jihad, is an alleged activity under which some young Muslim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim boys and men reportedly target college girls belonging to non-Muslim communities for conversion to Islam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam by feigning love.
[FairfieldLife] Re: To Love Bomber Ravi(Was: Ode to my beloved and Robin)
Excuse me if I hurt anybody, but my ZMRF - Zarzari Magnetic Resonance Field - caused me to do this against my will! Everbody will be angry on me now. Can you forgive me? Yes? No? Love you all yours in 786 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Steve, I'm sorry to hurt you publicly. I knew you would eventually understand. I love you, I never forgot your phone call. Love bombing Critics of cults http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-cult_movement use the phrase with the implication that the love http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love is feigned and the practice is manipulative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation . Love bombing is often cited by critics as one of the methods used by some cults and religions to recruit and retain members. Abusers in romantic relationships http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence also do this to victims in the early stages of a relationship, showering their partners with praise, gifts, and affection.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_bombing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_bombing I just wanted to show that you didn't have to be ashamed of your innocent heart and use caustic wit to hurt. Please forgive me. And Curtis I hope you read this. You will like it since you are so fascinated my younger women. [File:Little Flirty Fishy-TK-02.jpg] http://www.xfamily.org/images/5/5d/Little_Flirty_Fishy-TK-02.jpg You will like this - I will be 41 next month but my Rukmini is only 27. Unlike you who cover your lust for younger women with your 7 layered deception, I was ashamed with myself that I had compromised my integrity by asking a 27 year old for a date. I didn't realize she was that young when I fell in love. I was looking for someone in 34-36 range. Because though I'm full of sexual energy, this Krishna has no perverted sexual energy. And being the epitome of honesty I have confessed all my sins and have been purified by Mother Ganges. [File:Little Flirty Fishy-TK-08.jpg] http://www.xfamily.org/images/4/4c/Little_Flirty_Fishy-TK-08.jpg Examples of cults using focused attention include love bombing in Rev. Moon'sUnification Church http://www.unification.org/ and training routines and auditing in Scientology http://www.xenu.net/ . An explanation consistent with evolutionary psychology for the propagation of the hard-to-explain memes at the top of this article is that successful memes of this class induce focused attention between those infected with the memes. That attention in turn results in the release of pleasure inducing chemicals into the reward system of the brain. This release of chemicals results in the reinforcement of behaviours that led to the attention--identical to the process we see in addicts. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the behaviour of people under the influence of cults is similar to that we observe in addicts. http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.html http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.html Steve are you listening? You don't have to go to Varanasi, it's just metaphorical. Robin - got that? Liberals get it? Your fascination with Church of Liberalism results either in intellectually enlightened like Jim, Adyashanti or sexual perverts in the guise of renunciation like Muktananda or Maharishi. Rick get it? Robin get it? Only Ravi can criticize other Gurus. http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_tcHkx0spt8\ k/TIzd9zQuzeI/APg/b1hiBeujS5Y/s1600/bombing%252520love.jpgimgre\ furl=http://stencildump.blogspot.com/2010/09/no-21.htmlusg=__yauskbGqnq\ LYSsi1UXfW7ZU9zK8=h=800w=1011sz=53hl=destart=18sig2=too5r6sM969pEp\ _Gfg5s5wzoom=1tbnid=HGElVoX-zwhywM:tbnh=119tbnw=150ei=Fz3pTr_9IY3Mt\ AaDpZm5Bwprev=/search%3Fq%3Dlove%2Bbombing%26hl%3Dde%26sa%3DX%26biw%3D8\ 00%26bih%3D394%26tbm%3Disch%26prmd%3Dimvnsitbs=1 Rick, so you can continue to be ashamed of you heart centeredness and hide it by pretending as a wannabe intellectual, interviewing intellectually enlightened on your stupid show, getting conned day in and day out. I took it as the will of the existence that I was going to get a younger partner, after all Rukmini has to be much younger than Krishna. And I'm in no hurry, remember I have the whole of eternity. [187] http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://hinduexistence.files.wordpres\ s.com/2009/12/lj2.jpgimgrefurl=http://hinduexistence.wordpress.com/2009\ /12/10/love-jihad-is-real-says-kerala-high-court-islamic-love-racket-in-\ india-for-conversion/usg=__gpJ3pXU-mEJX5lBeFvl4PXAYEhU=h=849w=588sz=\ 79hl=destart=0sig2=KHE3fKjmGUBGN4cihwCHCwzoom=1tbnid=RyzE7_2MW_kktM\ :tbnh=90tbnw=62ei=Dz7pToKLFI3DtAbeioWuBwprev=/search%3Fq%3Dlove%2Bji\ had%26num%3D10%26hl%3Dde%26biw%3D800%26bih%3D394%26tbm%3Dischitbs=1iac\ t=hcvpx=486vpy=-2dur=1466hovh=270hovw=187tx=6ty
[FairfieldLife] Re: To Love Bomber Ravi(Was: Ode to my beloved and Robin)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: Excuse me if I hurt anybody, but my ZMRF - Zarzari Magnetic Resonance Field - caused me to do this against my will! Everbody will be angry on me now. Can you forgive me? Yes? No? Yes, but from now on, you will only be referred to as Zar Zar Binks. Okay,Alex, I think I can take that, 8-| (Google suggests you mean Jar Jar Binks).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Arunachala Dhyanam
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote: try this one instead if (below) doesn't work: http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/videosflv/arunadhyanam.html Nice video. Deepam was just 5 days ago, so the fire must be still burning. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: click on: http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/videosflv/aruna_dhyanam.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid State Drives
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote: Thanks for the advice. FFL played a very important role in my evolution. 70% of indians in india are below the age of 30.! So are you Indian? I feel I have now become one among the senior citizens of this planet. When I first joined this forum you all seemed like Giants and I had this need to address people by some Title. The TM-org with their 'HIS EXCELLENCY' culture also brainwashed me. I was addressing Bevan Morris excellency for a long time. I think Shemp called me on it and put an end to it. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 3:22 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solid State Drives -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: BTW, I reached the age of 40 this month. I don't think there is any need for me to address anybody as 'Sir' or 'Madam' anymore. I hope there is no misunderstanding regarding this in this forum. Speaking only for myself, I feel no need to be referred to as either 'Sir' or 'Madam.' There may be some on this forum who wish to be called 'His Holiness' or 'Her Correctness' or even 'His Awesomeness,' but I think such titles are optional. As always, honorary titles such as 'King Such- And-Such,' 'Doofus,' 'REEEAAALLY REEEAAALLY STOOPID,' 'Lowlife,' 'Pondscum,' 'War Monger, or 'Idiot' are up to you, and the impression you wish to create both of the person you apply such honorifics to, and to yourself for using them. Just trying to help. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: More proactively, it seems to me that this would be the basis for a successful class action lawsuit. *No one* was ever told before learning the TM-Sidhis (a *huge* component of which is being able to practice them in a group) that they would be banned from such groups if they saw other spiritual teachers. I don't know about american law,and if this constitutes a fraud in the eyes of the law. But if anyone wants to sue the TM for this, they better hurry up, as long as there is still a TMO around. I don't know if the leading class of the TMO knows how late it is. Fast, very fast the current administration is approching ultimate nirvana, with not much coming behind.Think 10 or 15 years ahead of time, there won't be much of the TMO left, there are very few youngsters, and - well the school kids, but exactly where will they be, and how much they will stand behind the whole project has to be still seen. Therefore, to make TM again acceptable to a broader audience is not an issue that has a lot of time to wait for. I am not saying, that if you resolve the whole saint issue, the TM movement will be saved, of course not. But it is one of those symptomatic things, where the TMO has to change, in order to be again more accessable, and less cultish, if it wants to ever survive. This oversight, combined with a present-day policy that says and enforces just that, could probably be seen as constituting fraud on the part of the TMO. My bet is if anyone has the balls to file such a lawsuit, you could find any number of lawyers willing to take it on. Heck, ACLU lawyers would probably do it for free. And my bet is that if such a suit were filed, the policy would go away overnight. There is no way that the TMO could conceivably win such a suit, and they'd be terrified to allow it to reach court, and thus the eyes and ears of the press and potential big-name shills like Oprah and Ellen. Yes, the policy would go overnight. It is already clear, that to the TMO, not the single sidha/governor matters, who sits in the dome and has just seen a saint. No, it is the talking about it, that matters to them. If you lie and keep quiet, you are a good boy/girl, the problem is really the effect it has on the others, who get to know about it. They are fearing this kind of collective thing. But then, if they could be more liberal, more grandious, more self-aware, they would do much better. I doubt this will be the case, and nobody on the top position has the guts to change anything. They are busy, but they just keep themselves busy like any administration.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid State Drives
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote: Yep. You sound familiar. Were you posting here with another handle? I had a previous incarnation, yes. From: zarzari_786 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 9:12 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solid State Drives --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: Thanks for the advice. FFL played a very important role in my evolution. 70% of indians in india are below the age of 30.! So are you Indian? I feel I have now become one among the senior citizens of this planet. When I first joined this forum you all seemed like Giants and I had this need to address people by some Title. The TM-org with their 'HIS EXCELLENCY' culture also brainwashed me. I was addressing Bevan Morris excellency for a long time. I think Shemp called me on it and put an end to it. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 3:22 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solid State Drives -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: BTW, I reached the age of 40 this month. I don't think there is any need for me to address anybody as 'Sir' or 'Madam' anymore. I hope there is no misunderstanding regarding this in this forum. Speaking only for myself, I feel no need to be referred to as either 'Sir' or 'Madam.' There may be some on this forum who wish to be called 'His Holiness' or 'Her Correctness' or even 'His Awesomeness,' but I think such titles are optional. As always, honorary titles such as 'King Such- And-Such,' 'Doofus,' 'REEEAAALLY REEEAAALLY STOOPID,' 'Lowlife,' 'Pondscum,' 'War Monger, or 'Idiot' are up to you, and the impression you wish to create both of the person you apply such honorifics to, and to yourself for using them. Just trying to help. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: another question for MZ, and maybe William of Occam
I must say, that until now, I was quite clueless of what is going on here at FFL. I mean to say, I can of course read the threads, but I was puzzled by the melodramas that seem to be going on here. I was especially puzzled by one voice, which seemd to me full of contradictions, romanticising, and endless self-reflections. I at first thought that this was all somehow related to Ravi, which I had encountered before here, till somebody gave me hints, and I finally heard the background story, as far as it can be told, and I was led to this post here, to an old post of last june, I was abroad at the time, didn't lurk here, was very busy. I find the following post, which was here discussed quite intensely, and most of my thoughts about it, as much as I can evaluate it at all, have already been covered here by other commenters, especially Rory, Ravi, but also Barry. It's a fascinating post, somehow crazy, disturbing, and I surely don't have a final answer,but I certainly do have opinions,and also ideas I feel inspired to share. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: snip What I reject about Unity Consciousness is its correspondence with reality. Reality being defined as what really is the case. Have you heard about Edmund Husserl, the founder of phenomenology? Now what this means is that although a person can experience the objective and empirically undeniable state of Unity Consciousness, this does not mean that such a state of consciousness is true to life. That is, ontologically valid. How could anyone decide that? Also empirical reality IS reality. Unity Consciousness does NOT mean one is the embodiment of reality. Reality obviously permits persons to have the experienceeven to function perfectly in the physiological and mechanical modeof Unity Consciousness. What reality does NOT endorse is the idea that Unity Consciousness is a truthful representation of either itself (reality: Unity Consciousness as a microcosm of what reality is) Reality is represented by what is real. or of the highest state that a human being is capable of achieving spiritually. Highest or lowest are relative terms, they cannot be the ultimate definition of reality. Indeed, as I found out even more convincingly than how I discovered myself in Unity Consciousness, Unity Consciousness is a form of mystical deceit, a metaphysically false state of consciousness. There can be no metaphysical false state of consciousness. States of consciousness are simply states of consciousness. Remember: it is very real, it is an objective state of consciousness; but, for all that, NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH REALITY. That is a self-contradicting statement. Somehow you have defined 'Reality' before the investigation. It is a statement by definition. snip Being in Unity Consciousness meant, for me, being INCAPABLE of being bested in a one-on-one encounter with another human being. And by this, I mean that being enlightened meant one was grounded (evidently) in a state of consciousness which was deeper, more versatile, more creative, more attuned, more commandingwithout even the faintest effort to BE thisthan the consciousness of any person who was still in waking state consciousness. Others have alraedy pointed out, how problematic it is to define unity by a comparision with others, especially by a superiority you felt to others. The very first thing present in unity should be the very absense of an 'I' consciousness, the idea, that it is you being better than others. In fact, if you are truly enlightened, you would perceive everybody else as enlightened as well, you would in fact see no differences. That is what unity is supposed to be about. Otherwise it would be a one-upmanship. You would see existence as the actor, not yourself, and it does not matter if existence acts through you or somebody else. snip And yet I eventually arbitrarily decided that even though my enlightenment could not, as it were, 'go down to defeat'from ANY opposition, including MaharishiI knew that it HAD to be rejected and dismantled. Reality, existence does not depend on an act. It cannot be rejected or dismantled, it is always there, but can be veiled or revealed. snip Well, because essentially I had exposed myself intellectually to another paradigm of reality other than Maharishi's, other than the Eastern paradigm of spirituality. This is another BIG misunderstanding: In fact you are equating eastern, and I'll be nice to you and only refer to indian as eastern, spirituality with advaita vedanta, and again advaita vedanta with the consciousness model of Maharishi. Both is false. Most of indian spirituality is not advaita, and also, advaita is not represented by the consciousness model of Maharishi (which is a simplification, as others have pointed out already). Therefore, the conclusions of indian spirituality are not the same
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@ wrote: Yes, time is very limited for the TMO. They would also need to change other things. If they want to bring in new and somewhat normal younger people to the practice of TM, I think they would have to do away with the whole raja and crowns thing as well. Also the expensive pricing of some courses. These folks have been locked in the unreal world of TM culture for so long, they don't really know how these policies and practices come across. O'Great Being, O'Susan Who Knows Everything, May You Alone Rule All Spiritual Organizations Now and For Eternity ! Nabby, I know you have a knack for old outdated organizations, but would you also like to offer Susan Chair International?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: With their fear, they've shot way too many innocent people. It is just bad PR the way they do it. They got to look at their anti-saint policy differently. I hope you're not suggesting that they shoot the saints themselves. That might be considered even more of an overkill situation than banning those with a still-intact natural tendency of the mind to seek more. :-) They should be aware, that the Mother Superior shoots back: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTRO3cSFUcE
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 12/17/2011 11:08 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriendjstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltabluescurtisdeltablues@ wrote: After spending over an hour responding to your responses last night I was attacked by a virus which has now eaten up 3 hours of my morning. It is a pernacious bastard that uses popups to pretend it is an aniti virus program that you must buy. No matter how I attack it it comes back. Still swinging. The advice on the internet is also dubious and often incomplete but I am learning stuff I didn't think I would have to know. So glad I can bang out short posts on the ipad. That's why I run Linux (Ubuntu 10.04). I guess if your REALLY need Windows you could a) run a dual boot or b) run Linux or Windows as a Virtual Machine. Now Stevie is gone maybe Apple will get the balls to release iOS for any PC. I'd love to see Redmond freak out at that. People would switch in a minute. I can only second that. I run Ubuntu and different Linuxes since many years, there are simply no viruses. Run Apple at work, but love the open systems. I also have a XP on a partition, but probably delete it, as it is old, and I never use it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Happy Calvin and Hobbes Christmas
So, happy birthday again Barry. And remember, the good thing about the catholic faith is, you can join it at the last moment of your life, when you get the absolution, all your sins will be forgiven, so you can still mess around now! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Goin' out on my birthday to participating and lurking FFLers everywhere, in the hopes that your Christmas is as cheerful as Calvin's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq8iyhMFLYE
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Christmas haiku from Whole Foods...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: I maintain my animus against all things Eastern, because that is how I got out from under the hallucination of my enlightenment. As soon as someone quotes some Guru (who lived in my lifetimeother than Maharishi Mahesh Yogi who is very differenteven with all his problems), the universeor so it seems to merefuses to lend any kind of support; so one is suddenly on one's own. I think Bob Price quite brilliant [see my eulogy when he had unsubscribed]; but as soon as he turned in the direction of Sri Chinmoy he diminishedat least for that momenthis credibility. Although not necessarily in the minds of FFL readers; but in the mind of the intelligence behind creation [IMO]. Aren't there a lot of scandals in the catholic church as well,maybe many more? I don't see anything especially eastern about transgressions like these. And, the eastern philosophy is as diverse as it can be, something you haven't taken into account yet. As for my sins of the past to which you refer, I have paid for them, I am still paying for them, and I will pay for them. I think it not a particularly valid form of argument to bring in the business of what someone said in their notorious and disavowed past, when quite clearly that person (who allegedly acted in some way which can be seen to have been wrong) has radically changed their philosophyand has stated quite publicly that they were in an hallucinatory state at the time. Yes, you admission of a hallucinatory past does not mean, that we would all believe you now, that your present conclusions are without hallicunation. The very way you describe your present philosophy here, and I think you anticipate this, will not be followed by many people here, if by anyone at all. That may or may not be your purpose, but then your whole approach to basically any topic here, your whole value system is built on this foundation, some of us think is not too solid. You will get a lot of credit though, for the way you express yourself, and by your admissions.
[FairfieldLife] Bhagavad Gita
About Death: 9.23 Even those devotees who worship other gods sincerely and steadfastly, they too worship Me only , O Kaunteya, though improperly and inappropriately. 9.25 Those who worship gods go to gods. Those who worship ancestors go their ancestors. Those who worship the elements go to the elements. But those who worship Me come to Me only. And my favorate 2.16 Asat (unreality) knows nothing about existence while Sat (reality) of non-existence. The seers who had the vision of both concluded thus about the two.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Christmas haiku from Whole Foods...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: Aren't there a lot of scandals in the catholic church as well,maybe many more? I don't see anything especially eastern about transgressions like these. And, the eastern philosophy is as diverse as it can be, something you haven't taken into account yet. Esp. considering one of the few actual living lineal descents of one of Yeshua of Nazareth's disciples is in southern India and attached to an ancient maritime trade route. Exactly! When in Chennai, there is St Thomas Mount near the airport, obviously where he was assasinated. On the beach is a beautiful cathedral where he was buried. I think I walked be the cathedral on the beach on marine drive. Since I'm not big into christianity, I never bothered to go there, but since reading these articles, I might go there next time I have an opportunity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Thomas_Mount http://www.stthomasmount.org/aboutus.htm Something worth considering is the large and ancient history of Dark Yogis. Despite the long history of Christofascism, torture, genocide and child sexual abuse among the gurus (priests) of Roman Catholicism, India with it's huge population and traditions extending into the remotest antiquity may have the upper hand in sheer numbers, if not in raw ferocity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Hmm, since there are so many TM teachers on this board, nay even 'enlightened' ones, of what importance is it, that Vaj did TM or not? We have enough information about TM right? There are, just to cite an example many TMers here, who will swear that TM is the best spiritual technique, without ever trying all the others, so judging other techniques on the basis of what one has studied oneself, is at least not such an unusual business it seems. I say all this without actually *knowing* Vaj's involvement or non-involvement in TM. I never thought he was a TM teacher, and, in the past, have myself expressed doubt about his involvement. And yet, that does not mean that all he says is invalid, in fact I find several points -on TM - where I agree with him, and he exhibits knowledge, obviously others are missing out. Not the type of internal knowledge about TM, that initiators have, but knowledge about other things, that do bring the TM experience into a certain perspective which I find valid. And he is actually the only one who brings in this perspective, so it is rare, crucial. I do not join his overall judgement on TM or all things Maharishi, as I think he is going clearly overboard here, but it is a matter of judgement, where I see the whole thing in an overall positive light - with all criticsim, and he chooses to see it negative - but so what? Do not other's here adore and eulogize TM and Maharishi in an overly romantic way, while stating simultaneausly it is the most deceptive way, the devil invented? Or did I misread something here? How honest and serious can a person be, making simultaneously such contradictory statements? Talking of integrity. Just sayin' --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: This message following from the archive seems to be a reference to Vaj's TM knowledge. As I have been on the forum for only less than a year, this is before my knowledge of who what writing what about whom. So doubt about Vaj seems to go back some time, more than half a decade. I have removed some personal references from the message (indicated by *). It seems as if one of the posters also does not appear as there are three levels of posts in the message, but only two posters mentioned. I do not know who they are. [FairfieldLife] Re: The Kaplan Money t3rinity Tue, 17 May 2005 07:14:40 -0700 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TM is just meditation with supports. The support is the mantra. Supports are like training wheels. Eventually you drop the training wheels. You really don't seem to have ever learned TM. It is as if you never learned it. I'm not being sarcastic. Any TM'r reading your posts, it is as if you really don't understand the technique. How would he? If he ever learned TM he must have forgotten it completely. * Not, that it is wrong to have many interests. But I wonder, how you can be a Nathist, as he claims he is initiated into the Nath order, and a Shri Vidhya practitionar, of the Shankara order, and a Tibetan Buddhist at the same time. That's just like if you are a Mormon, a Catholic priest, and a Babtist simultaneausly, while just 2-3 years ago he was a Freemasonic brother. I think it's relatively easy to just gather info's from the net, read some books, watch some discussion. It's quite another thing to follow a path committedly over decades. So I think Vaj aka Vajranatha aka * aka * just wants to show up. - TM involves some cultish jargon, and anyone involved therein tends to pick that up - it is hard to disguise habit. Vaj never seems to me to 'sound' or 'feel' like a TMer. That is not a proof, but his explanation that he just does not want to use those expressions seems a bit lame, since he does not seem to be able to translate them to different language in a way that they are still recognisable. For example in the 1960s Maharishi said TM 'lures the mind'. That is not common today in TM-speak, but the intent is recognisable as a feature of how TM works. He seems well versed in other things not related directly to TM; I think he would have a stronger presence here if he just owned up that he was not a teacher, and maybe not even a TM meditator, and played to his strong points. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: It is entirely possible that Vaj could have gleaned or picked up particulars about TM and Robin's group from reading materials or from discussing these particulars with other people. And in light what he mentioned a short time ago, it may be that this the case. What I am saying is that Vaj, has for the most part come across as credible to me on the topics in which he opines,
[FairfieldLife] Re: another question for MZ, and maybe William of Occam
should know about stones resembling, and representing GOD, don't they have stone statues, being sanctified (through prana pradishta) as God? I think you would know about it. The whole point about unity is of course not to feel at one with stones or other objects. The first question you have to ask yourself is, who is feeling at one? Unity implies at least two to be united, but if there is nobody there to be united in the first place, how can that be? There is no 'you' anymore, so the whole experience was delusional to start with. Unity, these are just suggestive words, but if there is unity, to whom will you talk? These are lifeless objects..there isn't any underlying Reality that permeates these lifeless objects! To even persist in that debate is comptelety insane! Some burned out x-hippy's fascination with 40 year old acid trip! Even to a God-realized Saint like Sri Brahmananda the lifeless objects were just that..part and parcel of Maya..inantimate and lifeless.. Sri Brahmananda did not lecture about oness or unity with the material universe or Maya!!, and neither did Sri Adi Shankar!! They taught Aham Brahmasmi,right. And even to this day in all of Sri Shankar's Ashram the teaching is unity of HEART with God/Ishtdevata through the path of Bhakti!! Because of the dual approach to knowledge. There isn't any teaching of Sri Adi Shankar regarding intellectual discerment and mental repeatition of a meaningless sound to achieve unity consciouness with a rock or automobile!! See if you can find that nonsense of Mahesh Yogi in any Ashram of Sri Adi Shankar! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: I must say, that until now, I was quite clueless of what is going on here at FFL. I mean to say, I can of course read the threads, but I was puzzled by the melodramas that seem to be going on here. I was especially puzzled by one voice, which seemd to me full of contradictions, romanticising, and endless self-reflections. I at first thought that this was all somehow related to Ravi, which I had encountered before here, till somebody gave me hints, and I finally heard the background story, as far as it can be told, and I was led to this post here, to an old post of last june, I was abroad at the time, didn't lurk here, was very busy. I find the following post, which was here discussed quite intensely, and most of my thoughts about it, as much as I can evaluate it at all, have already been covered here by other commenters, especially Rory, Ravi, but also Barry. It's a fascinating post, somehow crazy, disturbing, and I surely don't have a final answer,but I certainly do have opinions,and also ideas I feel inspired to share. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: snip What I reject about Unity Consciousness is its correspondence with reality. Reality being defined as what really is the case. Have you heard about Edmund Husserl, the founder of phenomenology? Now what this means is that although a person can experience the objective and empirically undeniable state of Unity Consciousness, this does not mean that such a state of consciousness is true to life. That is, ontologically valid. How could anyone decide that? Also empirical reality IS reality. Unity Consciousness does NOT mean one is the embodiment of reality. Reality obviously permits persons to have the experienceeven to function perfectly in the physiological and mechanical modeof Unity Consciousness. What reality does NOT endorse is the idea that Unity Consciousness is a truthful representation of either itself (reality: Unity Consciousness as a microcosm of what reality is) Reality is represented by what is real. or of the highest state that a human being is capable of achieving spiritually. Highest or lowest are relative terms, they cannot be the ultimate definition of reality. Indeed, as I found out even more convincingly than how I discovered myself in Unity Consciousness, Unity Consciousness is a form of mystical deceit, a metaphysically false state of consciousness. There can be no metaphysical false state of consciousness. States of consciousness are simply states of consciousness. Remember: it is very real, it is an objective state of consciousness; but, for all that, NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH REALITY. That is a self-contradicting statement. Somehow you have defined 'Reality' before the investigation. It is a statement by definition. snip Being in Unity Consciousness meant, for me, being INCAPABLE of being bested in a one-on-one encounter with another human being. And by this, I mean that being enlightened meant one was grounded (evidently) in a state of consciousness which was deeper, more versatile, more creative, more
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: Why not just get off the fence? It'll feel like a new morning.;-) Haha, I am not 'new morning' (nice guess, I liked new morning). There are reasons I like to stay anonymous. And in this case, it also means to not give away old screen names. But I don't mind if somebody figures out himself. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: Hmm, since there are so many TM teachers on this board, nay even 'enlightened' ones, of what importance is it, that Vaj did TM or not? We have enough information about TM right? There are, just to cite an example many TMers here, who will swear that TM is the best spiritual technique, without ever trying all the others, so judging other techniques on the basis of what one has studied oneself, is at least not such an unusual business it seems. I say all this without actually *knowing* Vaj's involvement or non-involvement in TM. I never thought he was a TM teacher, and, in the past, have myself expressed doubt about his involvement. And yet, that does not mean that all he says is invalid, in fact I find several points -on TM - where I agree with him, and he exhibits knowledge, obviously others are missing out. Not the type of internal knowledge about TM, that initiators have, but knowledge about other things, that do bring the TM experience into a certain perspective which I find valid. And he is actually the only one who brings in this perspective, so it is rare, crucial. I do not join his overall judgement on TM or all things Maharishi, as I think he is going clearly overboard here, but it is a matter of judgement, where I see the whole thing in an overall positive light - with all criticsim, and he chooses to see it negative - but so what? Do not other's here adore and eulogize TM and Maharishi in an overly romantic way, while stating simultaneausly it is the most deceptive way, the devil invented? Or did I misread something here? How honest and serious can a person be, making simultaneously such contradictory statements? Talking of integrity. Just sayin' --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: This message following from the archive seems to be a reference to Vaj's TM knowledge. As I have been on the forum for only less than a year, this is before my knowledge of who what writing what about whom. So doubt about Vaj seems to go back some time, more than half a decade. I have removed some personal references from the message (indicated by *). It seems as if one of the posters also does not appear as there are three levels of posts in the message, but only two posters mentioned. I do not know who they are. [FairfieldLife] Re: The Kaplan Money t3rinity Tue, 17 May 2005 07:14:40 -0700 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TM is just meditation with supports. The support is the mantra. Supports are like training wheels. Eventually you drop the training wheels. You really don't seem to have ever learned TM. It is as if you never learned it. I'm not being sarcastic. Any TM'r reading your posts, it is as if you really don't understand the technique. How would he? If he ever learned TM he must have forgotten it completely. * Not, that it is wrong to have many interests. But I wonder, how you can be a Nathist, as he claims he is initiated into the Nath order, and a Shri Vidhya practitionar, of the Shankara order, and a Tibetan Buddhist at the same time. That's just like if you are a Mormon, a Catholic priest, and a Babtist simultaneausly, while just 2-3 years ago he was a Freemasonic brother. I think it's relatively easy to just gather info's from the net, read some books, watch some discussion. It's quite another thing to follow a path committedly over decades. So I think Vaj aka Vajranatha aka * aka * just wants to show up. - TM involves some cultish jargon, and anyone involved therein tends to pick that up - it is hard to disguise habit. Vaj never seems to me to 'sound' or 'feel' like a TMer. That is not a proof, but his explanation that he just does not want to use those expressions seems a bit lame, since he does not seem to be able to translate them to different language in a way that they are still recognisable. For example in the 1960s Maharishi said TM 'lures the mind'. That is not common today in TM-speak, but the intent is recognisable as a feature of how TM works. He seems well versed in other things not related directly to TM; I think he would have a stronger presence here if he just owned up that he
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: Hmm, since there are so many TM teachers on this board, nay even 'enlightened' ones, of what importance is it, that Vaj did TM or not? We have enough information about TM right? There are, just to cite an example many TMers here, who will swear that TM is the best spiritual technique, without ever trying all the others, so judging other techniques on the basis of what one has studied oneself, is at least not such an unusual business it seems. However, those people do not present themselves on forums dedicated to other techniques as having been practitioners and teachers of those techniques in an attempt to give themselves credibility when they compare the other techniques unfavorably to TM. Yes, right, but I am not trying to defend Vaj in case he lied - he just stated that he learned TM in 1974, which I think totally possible. But my statement was about the whole discussion being sort of unnecessary. Please note that most of all our cherrished knowledge is second hand knowledge. So people like to cite scientific research as a proof, or take any biographical detail of Maharishis life, any reference to Guru Dev (for example Robin makes matter of factly statements about Guru Dev, as if he knew, TM directly came from him etc.) And another point is, what I learned during my TM time, TM, due to its flexibility, as it is stated in some intro lectures, is even a different technique to different folks, as it gives different experiences to different people. So your TM is not my TM or Vajs TM for that matter. This is the 101 of TM, no two experiences are alike. Furthermore, all of the claims about the uniqueness of TM and anything Maharishi, which actually forms the basis of this discussion, is all second hand knowledge, as people have hardly tried out enough methods to really make this assertion. This is the whole basis of the discussion: TM is unique, so anybody not having done TM cannot have a similar experience, lets say of transcending (as it is stated here many times). But of course this statement is based on belief and hear-say. I say all this without actually *knowing* Vaj's involvement or non-involvement in TM. I never thought he was a TM teacher, and, in the past, have myself expressed doubt about his involvement. And yet, that does not mean that all he says is invalid, in fact I find several points -on TM - where I agree with him, and he exhibits knowledge, obviously others are missing out. Perfectly fine for him to share his vast knowledge with us, as Xeno suggested: He seems well versed in other things not related directly to TM; I think he would have a stronger presence here if he just owned up that he was not a teacher, and maybe not even a TM meditator, and played to his strong points. Yes, point taken. snip I do not join his overall judgement on TM or all things Maharishi, as I think he is going clearly overboard here, but it is a matter of judgement, where I see the whole thing in an overall positive light - with all criticsim, and he chooses to see it negative - but so what? So do many others here choose to see it as negative. But their involvement with TM is not in question. Right. There's a meme that's frequently invoked by Vaj and other critics that TMers go after the critics simply because of their negative views of TM/MMY/the TMO. But that isn't the case; plenty of negative views are expressed without that kind of response from TM defenders. We may disagree, but we don't accuse them of deception. (On the other hand, Vaj and a couple of the other critics have a particularly nasty and unpleasant way of voicing their negative views that's totally unnecessary, including personal insults to TMers, and they come in for some well-deserved flak on that account as well.) I just stated that I think in his judgement he goes too far, oveboard IMO, but it doesn't make all he says invalid. Do not other's here adore and eulogize TM and Maharishi in an overly romantic way, while stating simultaneausly it is the most deceptive way, the devil invented? Only Robin has done that. Yes, I was polemic about Robin. I do not want to insult or hurt Robin btw., I am just stating something I see as a contradiction. Or did I misread something here? How honest and serious can a person be, making simultaneously such contradictory statements? Talking of integrity. Just sayin' If you read carefully, they aren't contradictory. As I see it, Robin had to force himself to give up something that had meant the world to him because he found it to be *ultimately*--in the full meaning of the term--deceptive. Which is a deceptive perception IMO- Whether or not one is inclined to agree with him, it must have been extraordinarily painful, and it's
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 18, 2011, at 7:29 PM, zarzari_786 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: I find several points -on TM - where I agree with him, and he exhibits knowledge, obviously others are missing out. What points would those be? For example points about the nature of transcendence, that TC is hazy in TM, about the nature of 'effortlessness', about the clear pathways in the chakra sytem that have to be created, just things we spoke about recently. The funny thing is, I can agree with many things you or Barry say, I know them from my own experience. But I also share many of the observations of Judy. While I may be more inclined to be pro-TM than any of you, experientially, I have many things in common with you or Barry. When we are in unity, aren't we supposed to be everyone? (Not just stones BlueIce, even those statues of Govinda)
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 18, 2011, at 7:29 PM, zarzari_786 wrote: since there are so many TM teachers on this board, nay even 'enlightened' ones, of what importance is it, that Vaj did TM or not? We have enough information about TM right? When a major disruption comes up, like the recent national airing of David Wants to Fly, where the truth was laid bare on Mahesh, they go into frenzies like this. Funnily, it seems I am on this film, somewhere in the crowd. A friend not connected to TM recognized me. When I saw the man making the film, he had this hat on, and was always having a big grin on his face, as this was some kind of happening, I was wondering where he belonged to. He seemed to be a TMer and then again he seemed not. Now I know why. It never seems to dawn on them the possibility of growing out of something and moving on. They'll likely remain happily stuck in the same rut for the rest of their lives. I know I had enough information - directly - so it's rather bizarre to watch all this thrashing over my 35 USD mantra purchase in 1974...
[FairfieldLife] The vedic gods
The 'vedic gods' have been stated to be the origin of advaita vedanta by some here. I do not believe in the origin of advaita in the Vedic gods, but rather a recast of Yogacara Buddhism. There is not much about vedic gods in advaita. Advaita is based on the upanishads, who again, don't deal with ritual and gods, but with the knowledge portion of the vedas, those hints and implications, that have nothing to do with gods. But talking about 'vedic gods', I believe researchers know now, that the whole canon of gods, and hymns to them is a later synthesis, that orignially there were simply different tribes, worshipping mainly one or two gods (as their main deities), with a few other subdeities. Thus there were different 'highest gods' with different tribes. Later this was synthesized into collection of hymns, now known as the Rig Veda. It is commonly believed that pahao Akhenaten, was the first monotheist, substituting the egyptian canon of deities with the single God Aton, symbolized by the golden disc of the sun. He tried to instill a spiritual revolution in egypt, but he failed, there was a counter revolution later, installing the old gods again. But it is thought that we have here the origin of the jewish christian monotheism, as it is written in the Bible that Moses was educated in egypt. The famous 'Hymn to Aton', the most prolific praise by Akhenaten, figures again in the Bible as psalm 104, only that the words for Aton, or the disc of the sun are now substituted by the words Jawhe. It also know that Nefertiti, Akhenaten's wife belonged to the people of Mitanni, and that even Akhenaten's mother had Mitanni blood. The Mitanni were people originating in India, who had Surya, the Sun god as their major object of worship. In fact certain lines in one of Rig vedas hymns to Surya, are almost identical to the Hymn to Aton, and psalm 104. You can read the whole story in this PDF http://www.drishtikone.com/files/Akhenaten,%20Surya,%20and%20the%20Rigveda.pdf Conclusion: Anybody trying to construct a major antagonism between the Christian/Jewish God, and so-called 'Vedic gods' is doomed for failure, as there is no such thing as a uniformity of vedic gods, and at least one of these vedic gods, so it seems is at the origin of christian/jewish monotheism. Characteristics of other prominent gods, like Mitra/varuna had definite cultural impact on the mesopotanean area, and have thus indirectly influenced the whole theology of the Bible. I' am not going any further from here, as everybody knows that the whole christian religion is a mishmash of roman and greek religious ideas, which have very little resemblence in the bible otherwise. Greetings from Santa to everybody!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The vedic gods
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@... wrote: In Yahoo English that's Svetashvatara Upanishad. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Sorry but you need to go back and look at the ÅvetÄÅvatara Upanishad. You assertions do not agree with these ancient deity-bhakti teachings. Sure, there are some theistic Upanishads. But Hara wasn't known in the Rig Veda. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: The 'vedic gods' have been stated to be the origin of advaita vedanta by some here. I do not believe in the origin of advaita in the Vedic gods, but rather a recast of Yogacara Buddhism. There is not much about vedic gods in advaita. Advaita is based on the upanishads, who again, don't deal with ritual and gods, but with the knowledge portion of the vedas, those hints and implications, that have nothing to do with gods. But talking about 'vedic gods', I believe researchers know now, that the whole canon of gods, and hymns to them is a later synthesis, that orignially there were simply different tribes, worshipping mainly one or two gods (as their main deities), with a few other subdeities. Thus there were different 'highest gods' with different tribes. Later this was synthesized into collection of hymns, now known as the Rig Veda. It is commonly believed that pahao Akhenaten, was the first monotheist, substituting the egyptian canon of deities with the single God Aton, symbolized by the golden disc of the sun. He tried to instill a spiritual revolution in egypt, but he failed, there was a counter revolution later, installing the old gods again. But it is thought that we have here the origin of the jewish christian monotheism, as it is written in the Bible that Moses was educated in egypt. The famous 'Hymn to Aton', the most prolific praise by Akhenaten, figures again in the Bible as psalm 104, only that the words for Aton, or the disc of the sun are now substituted by the words Jawhe. It also know that Nefertiti, Akhenaten's wife belonged to the people of Mitanni, and that even Akhenaten's mother had Mitanni blood. The Mitanni were people originating in India, who had Surya, the Sun god as their major object of worship. In fact certain lines in one of Rig vedas hymns to Surya, are almost identical to the Hymn to Aton, and psalm 104. You can read the whole story in this PDF http://www.drishtikone.com/files/Akhenaten,%20Surya,%20and%20the%20Rigve\ \ da.pdf Conclusion: Anybody trying to construct a major antagonism between the Christian/Jewish God, and so-called 'Vedic gods' is doomed for failure, as there is no such thing as a uniformity of vedic gods, and at least one of these vedic gods, so it seems is at the origin of christian/jewish monotheism. Characteristics of other prominent gods, like Mitra/varuna had definite cultural impact on the mesopotanean area, and have thus indirectly influenced the whole theology of the Bible. I' am not going any further from here, as everybody knows that the whole christian religion is a mishmash of roman and greek religious ideas, which have very little resemblence in the bible otherwise. Greetings from Santa to everybody!
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: snip As I see it, Robin had to force himself to give up something that had meant the world to him because he found it to be *ultimately*--in the full meaning of the term--deceptive. Which is a deceptive perception IMO- I'm not arguing for its validity. It seems very strange to me as well, but I don't doubt his sincerity in expressing it. Deception is deception. I don't have to doubt that he believes in it. Is that what you mean, that he 'sincerly' believes? Yet sincerity would also imply to have a willingness to investigate things really. Whether or not one is inclined to agree with him, it must have been extraordinarily painful, and it's reflected in his posts about what was for him a profound loss. Yes, this is understood. It is so for many people who were heavily involved, myself included, but it is the normal process, many are going through. None of them, however, have had the same huge challenges to deal with. You really can't call what Robin has had to go through a normal process. I hope with the word 'normal' process no pun is intended. snip Sure, that kind of relationship can be compared, and it is really like a divorce, (I think, as I have never been divorced). But there is a difference: If I cut a relationship with my wife, I am not making assumptions about anybody elses relationship to my wife having to be equal, otherwise I couldn't take him serious. If I do that I am a pimp, who is trying to sell my wife. It is these kind of statements I am arguing about. If somebody says as if he is betraying Guru Dev, because of whatever he says, not knowing about Guru Dev from any type of first hand account etc. I'm not getting what you're after here. Could you give it another shot? If you are in love, it is a private thing. You don't use it as a model how others have to see things. I mean statements like these: Now, if you did, Vaj, it would cause me to have a criterion to prove to you that you lie about TM, Maharishi, and being an initiator. Because, you see, in divulging what your real and genuine take on Ravi Chivukula was, you would be acting in a manner and inside a context contrary to how you act when you write about TM, Maharishi, and being an initiator. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/298522 This was one of the first posts I read of Robin, I am not studying like you do, Judy, and it made me stumble at how a person could make such an absurd statement. It is full of emotional hyperbole. What would a statement Vaj makes about Ravi have to do with TM/MMY etc? Or from the same post, again to Vaj: Your insinuation that you have, remains just an invisible simulacrum of reality: you have no conviction about Ravi that you would submit as the truthsay, on point of death. Judy, if you don't get what I mean, then I can't help you, I am simply missing the words. I mean, he asks Vaj to make his statement of 'truth', 'at the point of death.' Don't get the drama? Then I can't help. What puzzles me, nay what I really don't like is, the matter of factly voice he wants to impose his own emotions on to someone else as a moral rule. I have no excuse for this, it is deeply manipulative. That's totally different from a person who lost his love, and is still mourning. I mean these typical TB statements, which as you rightly point out, almost don't occure on this forum anymore, and then unexpected out of the mouth of a person who makes the most outrageous claims with regard to all knowledge eastern. Again, the bit about Eastern knowledge doesn't work for me, but I'm not sure why that should somehow *negate* his sincerity regarding the TB stuff, given that he's made it very clear that what he's describing is his perspective before he renounced it all. It's still vivid in his mind; you would hardly expect it to be otherwise. So you don't think that his demonizing this path, his own path, and simultaneausly eulogizing it, is completely normal, not somehow schizophrenic? Btw. time usually heals wounds, when did this happen, when did he leave TM, or his 'unity-reality', I mean it wasn't yesterday, right? Maybe 10 years gone? How could you truly love somebody and at the same time demonize that person? Sorry, I pass here. And who are you, pray tell, to call someone's expression of their adoration overly romantic? Do you know? How doyou know? Do I know what? Who are you is just a figure of speech, if that's what you're asking. It's shorthand for, Why do you think you're in a position to decide what is 'overly' romantic for anyone besides yourself? Give me a break, that's my healthy judgment. snip I don't remember exactly what you said, but it doesn't have anything to do with believing you or not believing you. I used falling in love to mean the kind of intense personal devotion some,
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: zarzari, I'm getting a little uncomfortable discussing Robin behind his back in public, as it were. I shouldn't be trying to represent him, so I'm going to quit and let him deal with your challenges if he's so inclined. Okay, fair enough. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: snip Robin's mind-state isn't easy to grok, and it's *really* difficult to grok in bits and pieces. Even if you have the stamina to read every word he's written here, there's so *much* of it that it's tough to keep it all in mind. If you don't have a photographic memory, to some extent you're dealing with bits and pieces willy-nilly simply because you can't remember everything on the whole epic canvas he's been laying out (and even that isn't complete). Judy, I think if you really want to understand him, you have to be him. Oddly enough, I just got done saying very much the same thing to him. I personally prefer if you stay who you are. Thanks, I hadn't been planning to become anyone else. snip He seems to welcome challenges as long as they're not in-your-face disrespectful. I don't know if he saw your earlier post addressing him directly, but I suspect he'd be responsive if you could get his attention. Such an exchange would be so much more interesting than the current personal snipe-fests! What's a snipe-fest? Petty personal attacks back and forth. (Not referring to you.) Anyway, I don't share the same interest / fascination as you do. I mean there is no way for me to even remotely considering RC. My spiritual samskaras are just not in this direction. Certainly up to you. But you did put rather a lot of energy into this series of posts complaining about him. I should think you'd be willing to hear him out if he chose to respond. If he feels so inclined, till now he didn't and that's okay too. Sure. But it's not my purpose challenging him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
, and the expansion of my mind, and I realize that I enjoyed the highest romance anyone could ever have. Just because I have rejected Maharishi, does not mean that I must jettison those memories of what it was like to be around him, and what he projected of the majesty of his consciousness.To be around Maharishi say between 1972 and 1976 was to be in the presence of a spectacularly beautiful being, and that being made menot in a sensual or erotic sensefeel as if there could be no greater love. I believe Maharishi's feelings for his own Master were the same, and if he understood the term Romance in its fullest sense, he would concur that the greatest romance of his life was his relationship to Guru Dev. Where the deceitfulness comes in is these cosmic intelligences which Maharishi openly discusses and describes as being instrumental in the spiritual progress of someone doing Transcendental Meditation. For Aquinas and the Catholic Church to be right [before Vatican II] must mean that these intelligences, however much bliss and power and mastery they effect in one, ultimately are not working for the well-being of the individual. They are deceitful; ergo, Maharishi is deceitfulalthough eventually I came to see him even in his own individual life as a divided and conflicted personor so it seemed when he began to lose some of his beauty and integrityhis consciousness remained infinite I believe right to the end of his life. Thus you have the Romance and the Deceit. Since you are not interested in pursuing this matter (see the end of your post) with me, I will leave it at this. I loved Maharishi Mahesh Yogi more than I have ever loved any human beingI am sure there are hundreds, if not thousands of us former TM initiators who felt similarly. I also believe that Maharishi, to be what he wasat the height of his influence and powerwas even a more perfect victim of these same cosmic intelligences than I was. Eventually, it would seem, these intelligences began to cause Maharishi to lose the colossal grace that had supported him since he came out of India. And then the disillusionment set in. This plus the fact that TM did not, in the long-term, produce the effect that had the nature of an intrinsic promise in that first experience of transcending. Bevan Morris, Tony Nader, and John Hagelin should be, by my reckoning based upon what happened to me between 1969 and 1976 (under the brilliant influence of Maharishi), the most beautiful human beings on the earth. They are not. This tends to suggest that their own sense of the spiritual romance with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is fraught with something that arguably takes the form of deceit. That said, I believe that no human beings since Christ have had the quality of experience we initiators had in the physical presence of Maharishi in the early and mid-seventies. If any one of us were suddenly transported back in time and forced to inhabit our own personal consciousness at that time, we would not even question the notion that this was the best experience anyone has had since Christ. Probably better. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip As I see it, Robin had to force himself to give up something that had meant the world to him because he found it to be *ultimately*--in the full meaning of the term--deceptive. Which is a deceptive perception IMO- I'm not arguing for its validity. It seems very strange to me as well, but I don't doubt his sincerity in expressing it. Deception is deception. I don't have to doubt that he believes in it. Is that what you mean, that he 'sincerly' believes? Yet sincerity would also imply to have a willingness to investigate things really. Whether or not one is inclined to agree with him, it must have been extraordinarily painful, and it's reflected in his posts about what was for him a profound loss. Yes, this is understood. It is so for many people who were heavily involved, myself included, but it is the normal process, many are going through. None of them, however, have had the same huge challenges to deal with. You really can't call what Robin has had to go through a normal process. I hope with the word 'normal' process no pun is intended. snip Sure, that kind of relationship can be compared, and it is really like a divorce, (I think, as I have never been divorced). But there is a difference: If I cut a relationship with my wife, I am not making assumptions about anybody elses relationship to my wife having to be equal, otherwise I couldn't take him serious. If I do that I am a pimp, who is trying to sell my wife. It is these kind of statements I am arguing about. If somebody says
[FairfieldLife] Re: India the Finnish cell phone maker's last hope??
In India Nokia is very big, it has a good reputation, they have plants in Chennai I saw. I lost a phone in India, so I bought a cheap Indian Nokia, low end, all Indian phones have dual sim, flash-light, and a bigger loudspeaker, as Indians, especially the poor, use it like a radio, and hear music with it all day. The flash light is very cute do, it's not in the display, but all Indian phones seem to have it. But with all the good reputation it has, it is probably a bit more classy to have one, there is competition, there are several new Indian manufacturors, Karbonn comes to mind, but also other's, and there are especially many chinese brands, gfive is one, who make cheap Nokia clones. I can imagine that the new lumia could become big in India as a high end phone. Generally internet by phone is not yet very big in India, so smart phones are still rare. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: http://mynokiablog.com/2011/12/18/video-lumia-800-continues-to-get-thrashed-with-multiple-drop-tests/ Prasenjit Bist says [*seems* like a Bhaarataname -- card] December 19, 2011 at 4:28 pm How does it matters after all its a NOKIA and they lived up to the reputation of NOKIA brand. Congrats Team NOKIA for the awesome phone. By the way guys I have got my Lumia 800 a bit disapponted mine is black one wanted the blue one but no issues the device rocks. I aam sure taht I have never ever touched anything so beautiful its an art I mean i dont have words to describe it. I put my mom's sim she is currently using a Nokia 5233, she is loving it the UI is super fluid I mean she was not comfortable with s60 5th edition UI, although I had no problem with that UI and absolutely love my symbian 3 UI on Nokia N* but the fact that my mother can use it easily with out much mentoring is awesome. guys Nokia Music is not here, Nokia Store rep told me it will start in india in 2012 Q1. okay I can wait and u know the navigation is in hindi too and some xtra free apps too installed. I mean forget the OS UI the design is so classy even after 10 yrs the device will feel fresh its classic man. the phone is a fun. still xploring Nokia congratulation and thank u very much.
[FairfieldLife] Babajan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R39x-0MiyGA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazrat_Babajan
[FairfieldLife] Re: The vedic gods
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote: Your assertions do not agree with these ancient deity-bhakti teachings... zarzari: Sure, there are some theistic Upanishads. But Hara wasn't known in the Rig Veda. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardatrwilliamsdotus richard@ wrote: History in India begins with the historical Buddha (Shakya the Muni, 563 BC). Before that, there was no writing, so everything before the Ashokan Pillars is considered to be pre-history - the oral tradition. The language of the Indus Valley Civilization has not been deciphered. So, about all we have in the way of historical evidence is the edifice architecture such as stone inscriptions. The first known instance of writing occurs in India around around the time of the building of Sarnath. So, if there were any deity-bhakti teachings in South Asia they wouod have been mentioned by the Buddha. But in fact, the bhati teachings came much later during the Gupta Age, after the formation of the sects. Apparently there are no indigenous population in the Asian Subcontinent. If the inhabitants came from outside India, where and when did they come to India and why? Most reasonable people accept the timelines and chronologies of both Indian and western scholarship based on the historical evidence, not on any Indian traditions. For example, all the evidence supports the conclusion that the Vedas were composed after the invention of the spoked wheel and the use of the horse as a conveyance - there is no evidence for the use of either before 1700 B.C. in India. According to modern scholarship, based on historical evidence, the Aryan speakers entered into India around 1700 B.C., just as the Indus Civilization was declining. The evidence is linguistic, archaeological, and textual. Historians agree that there is no mention of the Indus Valley Civilization in the Vedas, therefore the Vedas must have been composed after 1700 B.C. While there is no mention of the Indus Valley Civilization, the Rig Veda mentions the use of iron, which was not smelted in India until after 1500 B.C. In contrast, according to Indian tradition, the Aryans were a race of people who spoke an eternal language called Sanskrit over a million years ago on Mt. Meru, before homo sapiens sapiens came out of Africa, before the dawn of civilization, before the invention of the wheel, before writing and the invention of agriculture. Frawley thinks the Aryans came OUT OF INDIA and then invented all the Indo-European languages, up to and including Finnish! Go figure. Willy, this Frawley is too vedic-centric and looks at other evidence only if it fits the vedas. Scientific evidence that does not fit the vedic world-view are swept under the carpet. I guess not too different from the TM-org. [;)] This is all from the hindutva fanatics. I agree with both of you. Even worse, the tamil nationalists, who would appropriate the whole Indian/Hindu/ Vedic culture for their purposes, speaking of the 'prana veda'
[FairfieldLife] Tawakkal Mastan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTTPCo4z6ng Sit there, bring roses..
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tawakkal Mastan
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTTPCo4z6ng Sit there, bring roses.. What do we take from these videos of shrines, zarzari? They look nice, but what else? Sufi muslims go there, but hindus too, usually for prayer and for the fulfillment of wishes. Great saints are buried there. You've been to both of them, I assume? No, only this one. That's in Bangalore. The other, I'm reading a book about Babajan. What was your experience? Mindblowing. I went to this Dargah, had breakfast, to a Durga Hindu temple, and then to a Jain temple. The Dargah was strongest. It opens the heart. Good thing about Dargahs is, they are more silent then Hindu temples, very open, good places to meditate. Nobody will disturb you, and they are everywhere in India. This one is very famous and was the best for me till now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tawakkal Mastan
And they are not asking for dome badges, and its much more powerful. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTTPCo4z6ng Sit there, bring roses.. What do we take from these videos of shrines, zarzari? They look nice, but what else? Sufi muslims go there, but hindus too, usually for prayer and for the fulfillment of wishes. Great saints are buried there. You've been to both of them, I assume? No, only this one. That's in Bangalore. The other, I'm reading a book about Babajan. What was your experience? Mindblowing. I went to this Dargah, had breakfast, to a Durga Hindu temple, and then to a Jain temple. The Dargah was strongest. It opens the heart. Good thing about Dargahs is, they are more silent then Hindu temples, very open, good places to meditate. Nobody will disturb you, and they are everywhere in India. This one is very famous and was the best for me till now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tawakkal Mastan
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTTPCo4z6ng Sit there, bring roses.. What do we take from these videos of shrines, zarzari? They look nice, but what else? Sufi muslims go there, but hindus too, usually for prayer and for the fulfillment of wishes. Great saints are buried there. Are Hindus generally more tolerant of Sufi Islam? If so, is it because the Sufis are more tolerant of Hindus? Most of indian muslims are sufis! About 2/3. And yes, the sufis, the saints of sufism, always stressed tolerance and universality towards other faith, they converted by the heart and not by sword, by attending and helping the poor. Many sufi saints (Babas) are therefor recognized also by hindus. You can read these two articles: http://ignca.nic.in/cd_09019.htm http://www.indianetzone.com/37/the_chishti_order_sufism.htm I'm assuming there's generally tension between Islam and Hinduism in India, but perhaps I'm wrong. What's been your observation? My observation is that they get along together well, better than anywhere else in the world. India really is the land of religious tolerance, giving refuge to religions persecuted in their own countries, think of Jews who settled in Kerala, of Parsis, (Zorastrians) who settled in Gujerat and around Bombay, and of course the Tibetan buddhists, who were given sepcial shelter by the indian government. But there is a minority of muslims, the deobandis a movement that was e founded in India, representing a form of Wahhabism there, which tries to counteract sufi islam in India. This is basically the type of islam Bin Laden follows, these are the fundamentalists, and there are also, more recently also fundamentalists of the hindu order, the hindutvas of the RSS. These people do not represent the majority, but they are politically more active. As an opposition to the foramtion of the Deobandis, the Barelvis have formed, representing sufism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barelvi You've been to both of them, I assume? No, only this one. That's in Bangalore. The other, I'm reading a book about Babajan. What was your experience? Mindblowing. I went to this Dargah, had breakfast, to a Durga Hindu temple, and then to a Jain temple. The Dargah was strongest. It opens the heart. Good thing about Dargahs is, they are more silent then Hindu temples, very open, good places to meditate. Nobody will disturb you, and they are everywhere in India. This one is very famous and was the best for me till now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tawakkal Mastan
You can see here, how the most famous actor in India ever, Amitabh Bachachan, vists a very famous Dargah in Ajmer. He is a Hindu. He worships there like anyone else. As hindus visit dargahs, or get their babys blessed there, so do sufi muslims participate in hindu festivals like desserahu. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rBQYUOP_ho --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTTPCo4z6ng Sit there, bring roses.. What do we take from these videos of shrines, zarzari? They look nice, but what else? Sufi muslims go there, but hindus too, usually for prayer and for the fulfillment of wishes. Great saints are buried there. Are Hindus generally more tolerant of Sufi Islam? If so, is it because the Sufis are more tolerant of Hindus? Most of indian muslims are sufis! About 2/3. And yes, the sufis, the saints of sufism, always stressed tolerance and universality towards other faith, they converted by the heart and not by sword, by attending and helping the poor. Many sufi saints (Babas) are therefor recognized also by hindus. You can read these two articles: http://ignca.nic.in/cd_09019.htm http://www.indianetzone.com/37/the_chishti_order_sufism.htm I'm assuming there's generally tension between Islam and Hinduism in India, but perhaps I'm wrong. What's been your observation? My observation is that they get along together well, better than anywhere else in the world. India really is the land of religious tolerance, giving refuge to religions persecuted in their own countries, think of Jews who settled in Kerala, of Parsis, (Zorastrians) who settled in Gujerat and around Bombay, and of course the Tibetan buddhists, who were given sepcial shelter by the indian government. But there is a minority of muslims, the deobandis a movement that was e founded in India, representing a form of Wahhabism there, which tries to counteract sufi islam in India. This is basically the type of islam Bin Laden follows, these are the fundamentalists, and there are also, more recently also fundamentalists of the hindu order, the hindutvas of the RSS. These people do not represent the majority, but they are politically more active. As an opposition to the foramtion of the Deobandis, the Barelvis have formed, representing sufism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barelvi You've been to both of them, I assume? No, only this one. That's in Bangalore. The other, I'm reading a book about Babajan. What was your experience? Mindblowing. I went to this Dargah, had breakfast, to a Durga Hindu temple, and then to a Jain temple. The Dargah was strongest. It opens the heart. Good thing about Dargahs is, they are more silent then Hindu temples, very open, good places to meditate. Nobody will disturb you, and they are everywhere in India. This one is very famous and was the best for me till now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: What did Vaj really do on TTC? Where? When? How? You could at least reveal to us your age of enlightenment number. Each teacher has an enlightenment number .Don't you know? Why didn't anyone here point this out? Are you all fake? And please give the exact date of your initiation and all your advanced techniques, this is requested by each application form, so you must know it by heart now. And how was the weather on these day? Did it rain? How old was your teacher, and how many initiations did your teacher have at the time? Curious minds want to know.
[FairfieldLife] Re: And now for something completely different
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Jagit Singh's voice is very soothing..I like this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzLFFwq-uucfeature=related Emily, it's nice you bring him up, I'm a big fan of him, this album, sajda - together with Lata, is my favorate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7IUm8iXoTU He was called King of Ghazal, a persian type of poetry related to sufism. Many TMers probably are more aware of his Krishna Bhajans, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSwgJYc6v08 He passed away 10. Oct this year. RIP
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: Robin2: This reflection of yours prompted me to write a post to zarzar; to which he responded surprisingly graciously. Indeed, I was surprised as well. He's a good guy, very smart, and clearly a serious seeker, but temperamentally so different from you that points of commonality in your respective approaches are elusive, to say the least. Thank you Judy, but I don't think of myself as a seeker. I may be an eclectic universalist.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dangers of Tibetan meditation practices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Interesting though. Sitting around recently with adept people who work with and can see people's energy fields comparatively, the comment was that the Ravi Shankar AOL kriya people tend to have coarser chakra systems from the rawer kundalini that their pranayams give. The SRF (Yogananda) have sweeter cultivated systems and don't have that kind of evident coarseness at all with their kriyas, they seem to get nicer energy systems to work with. Ammachi people too have nicer working systems top to bottom. The TM people, are characteristically top lit while not connected much to the energy fields in their subtle bodies otherwise. Sometimes tremendous upper registers of their upper mental fields but not lit or home (integrated) much at all below that. Often the TM'ers seem not well embodied spiritually and often carry stuck flows in their energy fields. That's the comparing experience with it. That's actually true, it's the same kind of feedback I was getting when I moved out of TM. Later, through the spiritual work going on, that changed. It also corresponds with my experience.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: The deal is, Vajihad, snip I'll have to ask Judy, if her invention of Vajihad was inspired by my use of 'Love Jihad'? I will now refer to Vaj as Vaji or better Vaj Ji.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: Thank you Judy, but I don't think of myself as a seeker. I may be an eclectic universalist. How are you defining seeker? Somebody who seeks a path in this case, I am not looking for a path. Seeker and eclectic universalist aren't mutually exclusive as I would define the terms. Neither are they identical. Being a non-seeker and an eclectic universalist aren't mutually exclusive. Please understand this: This is what Buck and me are all about, when we say that the TMorg should allow people to see saints - not that they are seeking a different path, or adopting different techniques, or a different guru, or a different world view. They are simply taking the darshan, the blessings, the shakti - and it is good to widen your horizon and have an experience - out of the box. Would you call Purushas seekers? Many of them do the very same thing, and why not? Seeker is nonspecific regarding one's path (or nonpath), no? Depends on the context. In this context I just don't like the word. How about serious explorer of spirituality, would that work better for you? It's too serious! I just take the things that 'happen' to me. For example, I am not exploring sufism, with the exception of Irina Tweedies 'daughter of fire' I read no sufi books. I am not even into the poetry of Rumi. I just go to dargahs, I stumbled into them so to say. So it is with many things. I may go to the St Thomas cathedral in Chennai, if the opportunity arises, but I am not studying Christianity. I visit small chapels when I go for a run, just for a restful mini-meditation.
