[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
I believe so, since MMY led people to believe he was celibate. That's like a Scooter Libby lie. I never heard Maharishi say he was a celibate. Have you ? He certainly suggested that celibacy is a help to gain enlightenment, but that is a totally different discussion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe so, since MMY led people to believe he was celibate. That's like a Scooter Libby lie. I never heard Maharishi say he was a celibate. Have you ? He certainly suggested that celibacy is a help to gain enlightenment, but that is a totally different discussion. iwas not like messages i like only photos
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, qntmpkt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --Thanks, Satan is a real being, as real as you, me, Jesus, Bush; etc;...without going into the question of the real substance of things, in essense, if a brilliant holographic image of a person appears in your dream, totally, (almost) blasting you out of your bed, at the very least, such an experience is in a wholly different category than an ordinary dream, or even an ordinary lucid dream. I had such an experience with the Man...yes, Satan himself, on Aug 12, 1998; but I also had an analogous (i.e. comparable in intensity) experience of witnessing the Radiant Form of Jesus on July 17-th, 1996. Uh, cool...I guess. My approach to such things is defined by a metaphor that one of my spiritual teachers used in the early days of his teaching, that of the doorway. He described himself as a portal to the infinite. The idea was to look through him to infinity; he saw his value as a viewer *through which* to look to see what was really important. He *warned* people not to get all hung up on the doorway itself, but to use it *as* a viewer, and focus on that which really *was* important, infinity itself. That teaching has never really been lost on me, and so I really don't *look* for the personified form of any teacher or god or goddess or demon or whatever. Why would I bother? The infinity is...uh...infinite; it's in everything I see and hear and feel and touch and smell. Why would I want to try to force it into some form?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Actually, were Satan a real being, I have no doubt that he'd be *much* more fun to party down with than Jesus or Mohammed or any of those saints we read about in stories of India and Tibet. That's Satan's job, of course, to be more appealing than the good guys. What makes you think that the other guys are good and he is not? Are you believing stuff you've read or been told by someone else again? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Closets are for pussies. Satan and I party down. Actually, were Satan a real being, I have no doubt that he'd be *much* more fun to party down with than Jesus or Mohammed or any of those saints we read about in stories of India and Tibet. The exceptions, of course, are the weirdass guys like Padmasambhava and Ikkyu and the Sixth Dalai Lama and Chogyam Trungpa and the other spiritual teachers who were pretty much off the map. THEY would be fun to party down with. But the holy guys, give me a break. What kinda stories have THEY got to tell when they get a few pints in them? I think Satan would start out as a cool guy to party with, but then he'd just start being a jerk, like drinking all your beer, borrowing cash and not returning it, starting little fires in your house, stealing stuff from you, shit like that...so I'll save myself the trouble and not party with him. You've just described my relationship with most of the TMers I knew during my time in the TMO. I figure that I loaned these people close to $40,000 over the years, not a penny of which I ever saw come back. Satan at least has this thing about paying for his own drinks and his own life. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can dead Gurus kick ass?
Per your thoughtful post below, see my post earlier today on teacher as doorway to the infinite. Just as a question, is it *possible* that what you and others feel when they feel the presence of a dead guru is the presence of *infinity*, and not the finite form of it that they associate with the teacher? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -bdlow: Vaj says Ramana is dead and the neo-Advaitins have created a type of pseudo-religion. Vaj, for once, I agree with most of your statements; and in corroboration, I will offer up a profound statement of Adi Da: Dead Gurus don't kick ass. (an interesting twist on the elder Bush's famous statement). The real question, though, is...: is the statement TRUE? No. Don't have time to go into this in detail, except to say that I've had two extremely powerful inner plane experiences with Ramana; and in support of an opposing viewpoint, much circumstantial evidence points to his being MORE powerful being dead than prior to his physical death in 1950. For example, in the tape Sage of Arunachala, the very last few frames, people are shown leaving Sri Ramanasramam in 1950 after he died. Then the narrator continues by saying that after a brief period had elapsed, people realized that his Presence was not only undiminished, but rather, He (and associated murtis like the Arunachala Hill and the Temple); became MORE powerful with time. The growing numbers of Neo-Advaitins tend to magnify his power, even though only a few of them are still devoted to Ramana. To conclude, Ramana is FAR more powerful than most living Gurus, say Chogyal Namkhai Rinpoche. Also, Guru Dev (SBS) still lives every time a puja is done. His Shakti is probably far more powerful now than in 1957. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Mar 16, 2007, at 2:05 PM, qntmpkt wrote: --I doubt that you'll be able to collect any dirt on Ramana Maharshi. He's impeccable as to moral standardsin the same category as Guru Dev. The only dirt on Ramana is that HE IS DIRT. He's dead. Long gone. My impression of Ramana (having watched his DVD) is that he was an average yogi with a semi-extraordinary life who just happened to awaken at a time when communication systems allowed him to jump to worldwide notoriety. Don't get me wrong, I like Ramana, but in the larger picture he was just a realizer showing up at the right place at the right time. There were hundreds or thousands of realizers we never, ever heard about. He had good interdependent supporting factors. Sadly now his legacy is used support various neo-advaitins. The only with problem Ramana and other dead advaitins is how they are misappropriated by current sadhakas as rationales for their own look at me, I'm enlightened schemes. Not that that was ever anything Ramana supported, but 'dead Ramana' plays poster boy for alotta Pseudo-advaitins who are hangin'out their satsang shingle at Ramana's expense. It's like this poor guy's corpse is hauled out every now and then when someone wants to use him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: snip I think Satan would start out as a cool guy to party with, but then he'd just start being a jerk, like drinking all your beer, borrowing cash and not returning it, starting little fires in your house, stealing stuff from you, shit like that...so I'll save myself the trouble and not party with him. Or perhaps he remains the perfect host, keeping the party so entertaining that it never occurs to you to wonder whether there might be a *better* party going on upstairs. Reminds me of a standout episode of the otherwise late and unlamented TV drama Touched by an Angel, in which Mandy Patinkin plays a Satan figure who tempts the lead angel character with life as a human, complete with adoring husband and kiddies, which she can have if she renounces her faith in God and her angel status. (It's really well done; Patinkin underplays brilliantly. There's a YouTube clip from the episode. If anybody's interested, I'll get the URL.) Not trying to convince you of anything, but just checking... You DO realize, do you not, that what you're saying is the standard party line spouted by religions for centuries about Satan (or the mud of the world, or succumbing to normal, everyday desires, or whatever) having some nefarious intent to *divert* you from the path of righteousness. Think Unity. What is it that would *have* such a nefarious intent that is NOT the infinite? What could it possibly be trying to distract or divert another aspect of that same infinite (you) *from*? The metaphor you're repeating above is a form of Keep 'em on the path *we* consider the best by instilling FEAR in them. Tell them about all the bad things that could happen if they deviate from what we tell 'em to do enough times, and maybe they'll do what we tell 'em to do. Cool, I guess...if what you like is being told what to do. Some of us prefer to pick our own paths through life...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can dead Gurus kick ass?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tanhlnx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --Vaj, you're attempting to divert attention from the real by creating strawmen and bringing up practically unattainable goals. For one thing, Gurus who have attained a Rainbow Light Body are exceedingly rare, and I challenge you to bring up instances in which they regularly appear in people's dreams. OTOH, countless people have experienced the Shakti of MMY, SBS, and Ramana Maharshi. Again, just playing Deva's Advocate here, is it possible that what these countless numbers of people experienced was simple infinity, without form, and they *interpreted* it in the form of the teacher they were most familiar with?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , ffia1120 no_reply@ wrote: Catholic priests have been molesting girls too, for a long, long time. In Avignon, I found an off-duty guide at the Papal Palace there who agreed to take me into the palace when it was closed, and who showed me things that they aren't allowed to show to the tourists. For example, the secret passageways and staircases that lead from the Pope's bedroom to the bedrooms of his mistresses. Plural intentional. Which pope are you talking about? Sometimes you remind me of a spiritual Forrest Gump. Maharishi, Rama, Castaneda, the Pope.. You were there. LOL. I've never met a Pope in this life, but if my past-life memories are accurate (and I don't really know), then I probably met this one. I don't remember offhand what his name was, but he was one of the Avignon Popes, during the period in the Middle Ages in which the seat of the Roman Church moved away from Rome and several Popes lived in Avignon, France. It was a strange and troubled time for the Church. These were the guys who invented the Inquisition. The Pope in question (the one who housed his mistresses in the Palais des Papes) also was known to participate *personally* in the torture of heretics being done in the basement of the palace. Go figure. Only met Castaneda once, almost by accident. He had a fun story about meeting the Pope, though. He was on a book-signing tour in Europe, and his agent had arranged beforehand that he'd have a short audience (in a small group of people, not alone) with the Pope. Carlos told don Juan about this before he left, and asked whether don Juan thought he should kiss the Pope's ring. (All of this is the story that CC told that night, BTW...I don't know whether it's true.) Anyway, Carlos was having problems with this, because he'd been brought up by a lapsed-Catholic Uncle, and didn't feel positively about the Church. According to CC, don Juan told him that he should *definitely* kiss the ring. Upon his return to Mexico, CC said that he met with don Juan and the first thing he asked was whether he'd kissed the ring. Carlos said No, that he had not been able to bring himself to do it. At that point don Juan laughed and said, Oh, you really should have done it. You never KNOW what might work for you. You passed up an opportunity to find out. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe so, since MMY led people to believe he was celibate. That's like a Scooter Libby lie. I never heard Maharishi say he was a celibate. Have you ? I heard him say this in an interview with Larry King: KING: I know, but I'm just asking if you have children from your loins. MAHARISHI: I am a single person. I'm a Purusha. I'm a - what you call it - sanyasi, if you understand the word. I'm a monk, if you understand it... KING: You're a bachelor. MAHARISHI: ...monks.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quote
Saying that a TMer is somone who practices TM is circular logic. peterklutz wrote: TM is form of meditation taught by HH MMY, or by teachers trained by him. Circular logic: TM (Transcendental Meditation) is meditation; a person who meditates is a TMer? Is this going to be your entry at Wiki? What is an HH? And who gets to pronounce who is and who isn't a TMer anyway? So, who who gets to pronounce who is and who isn't a TMer?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
What was the hairdresser doing in a sexual embrace with a female in front of an MMY's open door in India? sinhlnx wrote: The Hairdresser and I both worked at SIMS in L.A. Never heard of a guy named Hairdresser when I was working at SIMS in L.A. But if so, the guy must have been lying, since everyone knows that Marshy was almost bald by then. However, I was at 1015 Gayley Avenue in Westwood one day in 1973 and I walked by an open door and saw Fred Lentz in a sexual embrace with a female. Apparently Fred had rented the space after SIMS was re-located.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Actually, were Satan a real being, I have no doubt that he'd be *much* more fun to party down with than Jesus or Mohammed or any of those saints we read about in stories of India and Tibet. That's Satan's job, of course, to be more appealing than the good guys. What makes you think that the other guys are good and he is not? Are you believing stuff you've read or been told by someone else again? :-) Barry. Relax. I'm talking about the theology, the Christian mythology of Satan.
*****SPAM***** [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
What was the hairdresser doing in a sexual embrace with a female in front of an MMY's open door in India? Rick Archer wrote: As I understand this story, MMY was in the sexual embrace, not the hairdresser. The latter was the observer, not the participant. So, you're thinking that MMY had a hairdresser in India? That's really a stretch, it seems to me, but I guess it's possible. But for what purpose would MMY be having a hairdresser in India? Not to mention why MMY would be in a sexual embrace in front of Satyanand, Ms Pittman and Mr. Nandi Keshore. Not to mention why the hairdresser would later show up and want to work at SIMS in L.A. in 1973 after having seen MMY in a sexual embrace in India. I would think, given the gravity of such a situation, that this would be real news at TMFree Blog - an actual eyewitness who once saw MMY with his dhoti down to his knees in a sexual embrace! But, I may have made a mistake - who said the MMY was in a sexual embrace with a female? It could have been the hairdresser himself who was the recipient of the sexual embrace - that's unclear. Mia in her book didn't say anything about a door in MMY's cave. Do caves have doors? I know they have entrances, at least the ones around here do. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Evil Men Doing Evil Things
In a message dated 3/16/07 10:29:40 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: THE CONSPIRACY Andrew Mellon became Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury and Dupont's primary investor. He appointed his future nephew-in-law, Harry J. Anslinger, to head the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. Secret meetings were held by these financial tycoons. Hemp was declared dangerous and a threat to their billion dollar enterprises. For their dynasties to remain intact, hemp had to go. These men took an obscure Mexican slang word: 'marihuana' and pushed it into the consciousness of America. More conspiracies. It was also legal to pay your taxes with tobacco in the 1600's. ** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
The real question is, what is the implication of all of this, given such incidents are true? Rick Archer wrote: What do you think the implication is? Well, I think that the implications are: 1. MMY wasn't in India in 1973 - he was laying down on a cot in La Antilla, Spain, according to Jennifer. 2. MMY didn't have a hairdresser, according to Tom Anderson. 3. SIMS wasn't hiring hairdressers in 1973, according to Jerry Jarvis. 4. There was no door to MMY's room at Rishikesh - he lived on a porch, according to Nancy. 5. This incident isn't mentioned by Joyce Collin-Smith in her book Call No Man Master.
*****SPAM***** [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
As I understand this story, MMY was in the sexual embrace, not the hairdresser. The latter was the observer, not the participant. sparaig wrote: I've heard the story before, but no-one has explained to me why MMY had a hairdresser... Yeah, that's a good one - MMY in India with a hairdresser, sexually embracing aother sadhu, in plain view of other sadhus visiting from all over the country, but not a single sadhu noticed either a hairdresser or MMY having a sexual embrace. This guy, MMY, is just awesome!
*****SPAM***** [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
I've heard the story before, but no-one has explained to me why MMY had a hairdresser... Rick Archer wrote: He did have his hair and beard trimmed, so presumably we're referring to the guy who did that. Who said the hairdresser was a guy? According to my sources, MMY used to walk into town and have his beard trimmed by a local barber, but I've never heard of MMY having his hair trimmed - for what purpose would a sadhu who was half-bald get his hair trimmed? To impress the other sadhus? Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
sinhlnx wrote: Besides, he was no simple barber. Maybe so, but what was the barber doing in India when MMY was over in Spain and Switzerland? Another question: Why would Jerry need a haircut when Jerry was obviously bald?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
TurquoiseB wrote: I loaned these people close to $40,000... How much do you figure you loaned to Fred Lentz over the years? $100,000? If so, that would explain why you had to move to France to make some more money. Apparently you helped Fred buy a Mercedes at Stonybrook, N.Y. Now you don't even own a car. Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: snip I think Satan would start out as a cool guy to party with, but then he'd just start being a jerk, like drinking all your beer, borrowing cash and not returning it, starting little fires in your house, stealing stuff from you, shit like that...so I'll save myself the trouble and not party with him. Or perhaps he remains the perfect host, keeping the party so entertaining that it never occurs to you to wonder whether there might be a *better* party going on upstairs. Reminds me of a standout episode of the otherwise late and unlamented TV drama Touched by an Angel, in which Mandy Patinkin plays a Satan figure who tempts the lead angel character with life as a human, complete with adoring husband and kiddies, which she can have if she renounces her faith in God and her angel status. (It's really well done; Patinkin underplays brilliantly. There's a YouTube clip from the episode. If anybody's interested, I'll get the URL.) Not trying to convince you of anything, but just checking... You DO realize, do you not, that what you're saying is the standard party line spouted by religions for centuries about Satan (or the mud of the world, or succumbing to normal, everyday desires, or whatever) having some nefarious intent to *divert* you from the path of righteousness. Uh, yes, Barry. Unlike you, I can enjoy a good presentation of a particular mythology without being afraid I'm going to be tainted by it. What I'm touting here is such a presentation, particularly Patinkin's performance, but also the script and other production values. I appreciate it sort of like I'd appreciate a modern version of a Shakespearean conflict, for the inherent human drama. But one of the characteristics of mythology-- as of Shakespeare--is that it usually encapsulates some element of a more abstract quality of human nature and experience, and if one has a flexible mind and imagination, one can translate it into one's own personal mythology and appreciate it on that level. In this case, the conflict in the human being between positive and negative impulses is externalized and personified as the opposing figures of God and Satan, between whom the human being must choose. In your case, it would be parallel to choosing between low and high states of attention. Think Unity. What is it that would *have* such a nefarious intent that is NOT the infinite? What could it possibly be trying to distract or divert another aspect of that same infinite (you) *from*? What's the motivation for choosing high states of attention, in that case? The metaphor you're repeating above is a form of Keep 'em on the path *we* consider the best by instilling FEAR in them. Tell them about all the bad things that could happen if they deviate from what we tell 'em to do enough times, and maybe they'll do what we tell 'em to do. You mean, you've seen the episode of Touched by an Angel you're critiquing here? Cool, I guess...if what you like is being told what to do. Some of us prefer to pick our own paths through life... Ah, apparently you haven't seen it. Because that's exactly the point of the episode: the angel in this presentation has to choose which path to follow. Satan catches her when she's vulnerable; she's just witnessed a terrorist attack in which a building has been bombed and a large number of people killed, including children. She's here on earth in human form to do God's will by *helping* people, and here God has allowed this terrible thing to happen to them, so she quite naturally wonders whether God has been playing her for a fool and deceiving her about His innate goodness. She has to decide whether she'll continue to devote herself to selfless service to humankind, or chuck it and pick what Satan offers her, the fulfillment of her own desires for worldly happiness. There's nothing about bad things happening to her if she makes the latter choice, no hellfire and damnation; it's just that she'll lose the connection with God that was motivating her to the selfless service. In the end, of course, she chooses the higher state of attention--the one that encompasses both good and evil. As TV dramas go, it's pretty sophisticated, archetypal rather than dogmatic, exactly so that the person watching can see their own situation reflected in it regardless of specific belief system, at least if they're secure enough in their own beliefs that they aren't compelled to reduce the universal metaphor to a literal, dogmatic challenge to those beliefs.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
Yes, it's hard to admit that a man and an idea many of us have given the majority of our lives to is pretty much fraudulent bullshit but now is a good time to let it go and look deeper. To crash and burn and die to everything we have held true and good is not the worse thing that can happen. The worse thing is to keep on going, hoping that doing the same thing over and over will have a different effect than in the past. MMY has proven over and over again that he is unworthy of our esteem.
[FairfieldLife] Cardemaister Bullsitting!
Sorry guys, been bullsitting big time about anaadimatparaM brahma. Here's repost of Shankara's comment, translated by Sw. Gambhirananda: 13.13 Pravaksyami, I shall speak of, fully describe just as it is; tat, that; yat, which; is jenyam, to be known. In order to interest the hearer through inducement, the Lord speaks of what its result is: Jnatva, by realizing; yat, which Knowable; asnute, one attains; amrtam, Immortality, i.e.; he does not die again. Anadimat, without beginning-one having a beginning (adi) is adimat; one not having a beginning is anadimat. What is that? The param, supreme, unsurpassable; brahma, Brahman, which is under discussion as the Knowable. Here, some split up the phrase anadimatparam as anadi and matparam because, if the word anadimat is taken as a Bahuvrihi compound, ['That which has no (a), beginning (adi) is anadi.' Matup is used to denote possession. Since the idea of possession is a already implied in anadi, therefore matup, if added after it, becomes redundant.] then the suffix mat (matup) becomes redundant, which is undesirable. And they show a distintive meaning: (Brahman is anadi, beginningless, and is) matparam, that of which I am the supreme (para) power called Vasudeva. Trully, the redundance could be avoided in this way if that meanig were possible. But that meaning is not possible, because what is intended is to make Brahman known only through a negation of all attributes by saying, 'It is called neither being nor non-being.' It is contradictory to show a possession of a distinctive power and to negate attributes. Therefore, although matup and a bahuvrihi compound convey the same meaning of 'possession', its (matup's) use is for completing the verse. [The Commentator accepts anadimat as a nan-tatpurusa compund. If, however, the Bahuvrihi is insisted on, then the mat after anadi should be taken as completing the number of syllables needed for versification. So, nat need not be compounded with param.] Having aroused an interest through inducement by saying, 'The Knowable which has Immortality as its result is beeing spoken of by Me,' the Lord says: Tat, that Knowable; ucyate, is called; na sat, neither being; nor is it called asat, non-being. Objection: After strongly girding up the loins and declaring with a loud voice, 'I shall speak of the Knowable,' is it not incongruous to say, 'That is called neither being nor non-being'? Reply: No. What has been said is surely consistent. Objection: How? Reply: For in all the Upanisads, the Knowable, i.e. Brahman, has been indicated only by negation of all attributes-'Not this, not this' (Br. 4.4.22), 'Not gross, not subtle' (op. cit. 3.3.8), etc.; but not as 'That is this', for It is beyond speech. Objection: Is it not that a thing which cannot be expressed by the word 'being' does not exist? Like-wise, if the Knowable cannot be expressed by the word 'being', It does not exist. And it is contradictory to say, 'It is the Knowable', and 'It cannot be expressed by the word being.' Counterobjection: As to that, no that It does not exist, because It is not the object of the idea, 'It is non-being.' Objection: Do not all cognitions verily involve the idea of being or non-being? This being so, the Knowable should either be an object of a cognition involving the idea of existence, or it should be an object of a cognition involving the idea of non-existence. Reply: No, because, by virtue of Its being supersensuous, It is not an object of cognition involving either, of the two ideas. Indeed, any object perceivable by the senses, such as pot etc., can be either an object of cognition involving the idea of existence, or it can be an object of cognition involving the idea of non-existence. But this Knowable, being supersensuous and known from the scriptures, which are the sole means of (Its) knowledge, is not, like pot etc., an object of cognition involving either of the two ideas. Therefore It is called neither being nor non-being. As for your objection that it is contradictory to say, 'It is the Knowable, but it is neither called being nor non-being,'-it is not contradictory; for the Upanisad says, 'That (Brahman) is surely different from the known and, again, It is above the unknown' (Ke. 1.4). Objection: May it not be that even the Upanisad is contradictory in its meaning? May it not be (contradictory) as it is when, after beginning with the topic of a shed for a sacrifice, [Cf. 'Pracinavamsam karoti, he constructs (i.e. shall construct) (the sacrificial shed) with its supporting beam turned east-ward' (Tai, Sam.; also see Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Monier Williams).-Tr.] it is said, 'Who indeed knows whether there exists anything in the other world or not!' (Tai. Sam. 6.1.1)? Reply: No, since the Upanisad speaking of something that is different from the known and the unknown is meant for establishing an entity that must be realized. [The Upanisadic text is not to be rejected on the ground that it is paradoxical, for it is meant
RE: [FairfieldLife] Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of sinhlnx Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 12:25 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Inner Circle Breakout on Girls -Thanks, (sorry, I can't mention the Hairdresser's name); but in any event, he was MMY's official barber; but individual's persona impressed me more as fitting into the category of Hairdresser. The term just fits better. Besides, he was no simple barber. He was an expert, working on both men and women. I think he also cut Jerry's hair; maybe he even worked on Debbie's. It's been a while but there's no doubt about the facts the Hairdresser conveyed to me. He was quite serious. I might add that I promised the Hairdresser I'd absolutely tell no one what he said. Looks like I lied!. 10 slashes with a wet noodle. Tell me one thing if you can. Was he an Indian or a Westerner. If the latter, I think I know who he is, but I won't say.
RE: [FairfieldLife] TM vs drugs, a 1969 study
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of sinhlnx Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 1:29 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] TM vs drugs, a 1969 study I googled one of the dudes who got me into TM: Tom Winquist, along with Keith Wallace, back in the late 60's. Winquist's name came up Tom is here in FF a good part of the time. May even lurk on FFL.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe so, since MMY led people to believe he was celibate. That's like a Scooter Libby lie. I never heard Maharishi say he was a celibate. Have you ? He certainly suggested that celibacy is a help to gain enlightenment, but that is a totally different discussion. Sure. He referred to himself as a monk. And before he gave himself the Maharishi name he called himself Brahmachari Mahesh.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 3:19 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls I believe so, since MMY led people to believe he was celibate. That's like a Scooter Libby lie. I never heard Maharishi say he was a celibate. Have you ? He certainly suggested that celibacy is a help to gain enlightenment, but that is a totally different discussion. Yes. Whenever the subject of sex came up, he insisted that he was a monk and knew nothing about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The real question is, what is the implication of all of this, given such incidents are true? Rick Archer wrote: What do you think the implication is? Well, I think that the implications are: 1. MMY wasn't in India in 1973 - he was laying down on a cot in La Antilla, Spain, according to Jennifer. 2. MMY didn't have a hairdresser, according to Tom Anderson. 3. SIMS wasn't hiring hairdressers in 1973, according to Jerry Jarvis. 4. There was no door to MMY's room at Rishikesh - he lived on a porch, according to Nancy. 5. This incident isn't mentioned by Joyce Collin-Smith in her book Call No Man Master. Relax Tex. Might be time for your meds. (And I don't mean meditation.) This talk clearly has your dhoti in a twist, so stop trying to figure it all out. You're hopelessly confusing dates, people and places in a desperate attempt to hang on to the fantasy. Keep the fantasy. MMY was as pure and perfect as a clear mountain spring, OK?
RE: *****SPAM***** [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard J. Williams Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 8:51 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: *SPAM* [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls But for what purpose would MMY be having a hairdresser in India? Not to mention why MMY would be in a sexual embrace in front of Satyanand, Ms Pittman and Mr. Nandi Keshore. Who said anything about them being there? Nand Kishore wasn't around when MMY was in Rishikesh. Not to mention why the hairdresser would later show up and want to work at SIMS in L.A. in 1973 after having seen MMY in a sexual embrace in India. There are ladies on Mother Divine who say they had sex with MMY yet are still on MD. I would think, given the gravity of such a situation, that this would be real news at TMFree Blog - an actual eyewitness who once saw MMY with his dhoti down to his knees in a sexual embrace! No one reported those details. You are adding them. But, I may have made a mistake - who said the MMY was in a sexual embrace with a female? It could have been the hairdresser himself who was the recipient of the sexual embrace - that's unclear. You know hairdressers don't embrace females. Mia in her book didn't say anything about a door in MMY's cave. Do caves have doors? I know they have entrances, at least the ones around here do. Go figure. MMY didn't live in a cave in Rishikesh. He had a nice little house. See: http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/view/1653?b=8
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Closets are for pussies. Satan and I party down. Actually, were Satan a real being, I have no doubt that he'd be *much* more fun to party down with than Jesus or Mohammed or any of those saints we read about in stories of India and Tibet. The exceptions, of course, are the weirdass guys like Padmasambhava and Ikkyu and the Sixth Dalai Lama and Chogyam Trungpa and the other spiritual teachers who were pretty much off the map. THEY would be fun to party down with. But the holy guys, give me a break. What kinda stories have THEY got to tell when they get a few pints in them? I think Satan would start out as a cool guy to party with, but then he'd just start being a jerk, like drinking all your beer, borrowing cash and not returning it, starting little fires in your house, stealing stuff from you, shit like that...so I'll save myself the trouble and not party with him. You've just described my relationship with most of the TMers I knew during my time in the TMO. I figure that I loaned these people close to $40,000 over the years, not a penny of which I ever saw come back. Satan at least has this thing about paying for his own drinks and his own life. :-) That's too bad about the TMers- why didn't you quit lending em money after you saw the pattern develop? As far as Satan, we were talking about partying with him- I still think he'd act like a dick...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Why does Tom Anderson call himself Sudarsha? Why take a name other than our birth name? What's the importance to the individual of doing so? Dunno Jim. Why did Mahesh take the name Maharishi. That's easy- Because he is one. If you consider that Mahesh means Shiva, its actually something of a downgrade...
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard J. Williams Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 9:01 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls The real question is, what is the implication of all of this, given such incidents are true? Rick Archer wrote: What do you think the implication is? Well, I think that the implications are: 1. MMY wasn't in India in 1973 - he was laying down on a cot in La Antilla, Spain, according to Jennifer. Are you as confused as you seem, or are you just joking around in order to avoid dealing seriously with a serious issue? As we've said before, the story was told in 1973. The alleged incident happened in Rishikesh, which would have had to be late '60's. 2. MMY didn't have a hairdresser, according to Tom Anderson. There was always someone around who cut people's hair. Ron Nacthway was doing it for years. 3. SIMS wasn't hiring hairdressers in 1973, according to Jerry Jarvis. Ron wasn't employed by SIMS to cut hair. He just did it while on staff, and people paid him. He may have cut MMY's hair too - probably did - or we may be referring to someone else. 4. There was no door to MMY's room at Rishikesh - he lived on a porch, according to Nancy. He lived in a house which had a porch. See http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/view/1653?b=8 5. This incident isn't mentioned by Joyce Collin-Smith in her book Call No Man Master. Is that the final, comprehensive authority on the subject?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can dead Gurus kick ass?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tanhlnx tanhlnx@ wrote: --Vaj, you're attempting to divert attention from the real by creating strawmen and bringing up practically unattainable goals. For one thing, Gurus who have attained a Rainbow Light Body are exceedingly rare, and I challenge you to bring up instances in which they regularly appear in people's dreams. OTOH, countless people have experienced the Shakti of MMY, SBS, and Ramana Maharshi. Again, just playing Deva's Advocate here, is it possible that what these countless numbers of people experienced was simple infinity, without form, and they *interpreted* it in the form of the teacher they were most familiar with? Why are you assuming people are always at the mercy of their subconscious filters? Its a perspective you take a lot.
RE: *****SPAM***** [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard J. Williams Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 9:12 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: *SPAM* [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls As I understand this story, MMY was in the sexual embrace, not the hairdresser. The latter was the observer, not the participant. sparaig wrote: I've heard the story before, but no-one has explained to me why MMY had a hairdresser... Yeah, that's a good one - MMY in India with a hairdresser, sexually embracing aother sadhu, Now the woman was a sadhu? Where did you get that from? in plain view of other sadhus visiting from all over the country, Who said anything about other sadhus visiting from all over the country? but not a single sadhu noticed either a hairdresser or MMY having a sexual embrace. This guy, MMY, is just awesome! He is, but not for the reasons you fabricate.
RE: *****SPAM***** [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard J. Williams Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 9:17 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: *SPAM* [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls I've heard the story before, but no-one has explained to me why MMY had a hairdresser... Rick Archer wrote: He did have his hair and beard trimmed, so presumably we're referring to the guy who did that. Who said the hairdresser was a guy? According to my sources, MMY used to walk into town and have his beard trimmed by a local barber, but I've never heard of MMY having his hair trimmed - for what purpose would a sadhu who was half-bald get his hair trimmed? To impress the other sadhus? Go figure. Maybe he didn't but MMY was very conscious of his appearance. One time I was in a small meeting with him and he accidentally got a small stain from a marker pen on his dhoti. He got right up and went in the other room to change it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: I believe so, since MMY led people to believe he was celibate. That's like a Scooter Libby lie. I never heard Maharishi say he was a celibate. Have you ? I heard him say this in an interview with Larry King: KING: I know, but I'm just asking if you have children from your loins. MAHARISHI: I am a single person. I'm a Purusha. I'm a - what you call it - sanyasi, if you understand the word. I'm a monk, if you understand it... KING: You're a bachelor. MAHARISHI: ...monks. Being a monk speaks to no ownership of anything, including chldren, but not specifically to celibacy. I am not defending MMY, just clarifying what you have quoted he said.
[FairfieldLife] Why some people 'hate' MMY......
Mainly because he robbed them of their ignorance, and you know the old saying, Ignorance is Bliss. Some of these folks were 'happy' in the comfort of their ego-instigated desires and ambitions (sankalpas), and along comes MMY and steals all that 'peace' away by the application of the ointment of knowledge!! This isn't what they had bargained for at all...and NOW, well now, NO peace. Once the light has dawned the darkness and shadows (wickedness) struggle to hold on, and hence the dilemma. What happened to the peace, energy and happiness MMY promised; now I'm miserable in the awareness of my own wickedness, NO, NO, NO, I won't give in, I will fight!! So now you now how TMfree-blog got started:-) P.S. Like MMY use to say, When the majestic Elephant walks thru the village, the dogs start barking.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard J. Williams Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 9:22 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls sinhlnx wrote: Besides, he was no simple barber. Maybe so, but what was the barber doing in India when MMY was over in Spain and Switzerland? Another question: Why would Jerry need a haircut when Jerry was obviously bald? You're nuts. Jerry's hair was thinning on top and he did a careful combover, like Ted Koppel, but he was by no means bald.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why some people 'hate' MMY......
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mainly because he robbed them of their ignorance, and you know the old saying, Ignorance is Bliss. Some of these folks were 'happy' in the comfort of their ego-instigated desires and ambitions (sankalpas), and along comes MMY and steals all that 'peace' away by the application of the ointment of knowledge!! This isn't what they had bargained for at all...and NOW, well now, NO peace. Once the light has dawned the darkness and shadows (wickedness) struggle to hold on, and hence the dilemma. What happened to the peace, energy and happiness MMY promised; now I'm miserable in the awareness of my own wickedness, NO, NO, NO, I won't give in, I will fight!! So now you now how TMfree-blog got started:-) P.S. Like MMY use to say, When the majestic Elephant walks thru the village, the dogs start barking. Hilarious and insightful! I especially like the quote at the end.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shucktipat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, it's hard to admit that a man and an idea many of us have given the majority of our lives to is pretty much fraudulent bullshit but now is a good time to let it go and look deeper. To crash and burn and die to everything we have held true and good is not the worse thing that can happen. The worse thing is to keep on going, hoping that doing the same thing over and over will have a different effect than in the past. MMY has proven over and over again that he is unworthy of our esteem. You sound like a suck up gone bad. SWould've been far easier to enjoy what Maharishi has to offer if you hadn't been a suck up to begin with.
Re: *****SPAM***** [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
On Mar 17, 2007, at 11:58 AM, Rick Archer wrote: Maybe he didn’t but MMY was very conscious of his appearance. One time I was in a small meeting with him and he accidentally got a small stain from a marker pen on his dhoti. He got right up and went in the other room to change it. It sounds like he also is really into makeup and facial creams, etc. Rather unusual for a supposedly renounced ego. Of course the upside of that is he helped produce some of the best Ayurvedic face creams out there.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Why some people 'hate' MMY......
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mr. Magoo Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 11:01 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Why some people 'hate' MMY.. Mainly because he robbed them of their ignorance, and you know the old saying, Ignorance is Bliss. Some of these folks were 'happy' in the comfort of their ego-instigated desires and ambitions (sankalpas), and along comes MMY and steals all that 'peace' away by the application of the ointment of knowledge!! This isn't what they had bargained for at all...and NOW, well now, NO peace. Once the light has dawned the darkness and shadows (wickedness) struggle to hold on, and hence the dilemma. What happened to the peace, energy and happiness MMY promised; now I'm miserable in the awareness of my own wickedness, NO, NO, NO, I won't give in, I will fight!! So now you now how TMfree-blog got started:-) I don't know that those people hate MMY any more than people who oppose the Iraq war hate the troops. What people hate are lies and hypocrisy, which taint both situations.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
Another question: Why would Jerry need a haircut when Jerry was obviously bald? You're nuts. Bingo! Rick, at some point in WillyTex's wild blatherings...and with Curtis and Judy's (yes, strange bedfellows) help, it became clear that rational dialog with this charcter is useless. He's quite crackers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Why does Tom Anderson call himself Sudarsha? Why take a name other than our birth name? What's the importance to the individual of doing so? Dunno Jim. Why did Mahesh take the name Maharishi. That's easy- Because he is one. If you consider that Mahesh means Shiva, its actually something of a downgrade... Uh-huh. Have another gulab jamin, Jim.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another question: Why would Jerry need a haircut when Jerry was obviously bald? You're nuts. Bingo! Rick, at some point in WillyTex's wild blatherings...and with Curtis and Judy's (yes, strange bedfellows) help, it became clear that rational dialog with this charcter is useless. He's quite crackers. FWIW, he knows exactly how crackers the things he says are; they aren't delusional, in other words. It's his motivation for saying them that's genuinely delusional.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
1. MMY wasn't in India in 1973 - he was laying down on a cot in La Antilla, Spain, according to Jennifer. 2. MMY didn't have a hairdresser, according to Tom Anderson. 3. SIMS wasn't hiring hairdressers in 1973, according to Jerry Jarvis. 4. There was no door to MMY's room at Rishikesh - he lived on a porch, according to Nancy. 5. This incident isn't mentioned by Joyce Collin-Smith in her book Call No Man Master. geezerfreak wrote: Keep the fantasy. Well, there is at least one thing that has been established: Jerry Jarvis was bald in 1973 and didn't get no hair cutting by no hairdresser.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why some people 'hate' MMY......
I have had (friendly) emails on the side from quite a few of the posters here, and it is disturbing to see some of you post 'hate' mail against critics of Maharishi. Actually, it is quite possible to be critical of someone without hating him. But anyway, I suspect you are in good company as Maharishi has never been good at dealing with criticism, so I guess he deserves to be represented by you and your ilk. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mainly because he robbed them of their ignorance, and you know the old saying, Ignorance is Bliss. Some of these folks were 'happy' in the comfort of their ego-instigated desires and ambitions (sankalpas), and along comes MMY and steals all that 'peace' away by the application of the ointment of knowledge!! This isn't what they had bargained for at all...and NOW, well now, NO peace. Once the light has dawned the darkness and shadows (wickedness) struggle to hold on, and hence the dilemma. What happened to the peace, energy and happiness MMY promised; now I'm miserable in the awareness of my own wickedness, NO, NO, NO, I won't give in, I will fight!! So now you now how TMfree-blog got started:-) P.S. Like MMY use to say, When the majestic Elephant walks thru the village, the dogs start barking.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why some people 'hate' MMY......
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have had (friendly) emails on the side from quite a few of the posters here, and it is disturbing to see some of you post 'hate' mail against critics of Maharishi. Actually, it is quite possible to be critical of someone without hating him. But anyway, I suspect you are in good company as Maharishi has never been good at dealing with criticism, so I guess he deserves to be represented by you and your ilk. What is an ilk? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo wgm4u@ wrote: Mainly because he robbed them of their ignorance, and you know the old saying, Ignorance is Bliss. Some of these folks were 'happy' in the comfort of their ego-instigated desires and ambitions (sankalpas), and along comes MMY and steals all that 'peace' away by the application of the ointment of knowledge!! This isn't what they had bargained for at all...and NOW, well now, NO peace. Once the light has dawned the darkness and shadows (wickedness) struggle to hold on, and hence the dilemma. What happened to the peace, energy and happiness MMY promised; now I'm miserable in the awareness of my own wickedness, NO, NO, NO, I won't give in, I will fight!! So now you now how TMfree-blog got started:-) P.S. Like MMY use to say, When the majestic Elephant walks thru the village, the dogs start barking.
*****SPAM***** [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
But for what purpose would MMY be having a hairdresser in India? Not to mention why MMY would be in a sexual embrace in front of Satyanand, Ms Pittman and Mr. Nandi Keshore. Rick Archer wrote: Who said anything about them being there? Satyanand, who was there, told me they were there. Nand Kishore wasn't around when MMY was in Rishikesh. According to my sources, Ms. Pittman and Mr. Kishore have been everywhere with MMY including at Rishikesh in 1967 and at MERU in 1973. Not to mention why the hairdresser would later show up and want to work at SIMS in L.A. in 1973 after having seen MMY in a sexual embrace in India. There are ladies on Mother Divine who say they had sex with MMY yet are still on MD. So, you're saying that there are ladies on MD who claim to have had sex with MMY, but they are still allowed inside the womens's dome? Rick, this is just about as far-fetched as I've heard. You are making this stuff up, right? From what I've read, people have been banned from the MUM campus for just visiting Amma when she came to town, much less having sex qith His Holiness. This is preposterous on it's face. I would think, given the gravity of such a situation, that this would be real news at TMFree Blog - an actual eyewitness who once saw MMY with his dhoti down to his knees in a sexual embrace! No one reported those details. You are adding them. So, you're saying that MMY didn't have his dhoti down when he was seen by the hairdresser in a sexual embrace? But, I may have made a mistake - who said the MMY was in a sexual embrace with a female? It could have been the hairdresser himself who was the recipient of the sexual embrace - that's unclear. You know hairdressers don't embrace females. Well, some barbers do. Mia in her book didn't say anything about a door in MMY's cave. Do caves have doors? I know they have entrances, at least the ones around here do. Go figure. MMY didn't live in a cave in Rishikesh. He had a nice little house. So, you're thinking that MMY had a nice little house to embrace in, but that he didn't take Mia down to the cave to embrace her? Mia said he did in her book Not Fade Away' - she didn't say anything about being embraced inside a nice little house. Magic Alex said he saw MMY in a sexual embrace with Linda, not through a doorway, but through a window. Why wouldn't Alex have peeped through the door instead of sneaking up on the porch to peep through a window?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why some people 'hate' MMY......
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have had (friendly) emails on the side from quite a few of the posters here, and it is disturbing to see some of you post 'hate' mail against critics of Maharishi. Actually, it is quite possible to be critical of someone without hating him. Very true, Paul. I wonder, then, why it is that you characterize criticism of MMY's critics as hate mail. But anyway, I suspect you are in good company as Maharishi has never been good at dealing with criticism, so I guess he deserves to be represented by you and your ilk. And what ilk do you deserve to be represented by, Paul? I mean, you wouldn't characterize the following as hate mail, would you? Then Lawson, you are a coward as well as a fool! Interestingly, you are the first and only person I know of who has every attempted to cast aspertions [sic] on the reputation of Guru Dev. In your bid to champion his student Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, you dishonour his guru? You have my utter contempt and scorn 1. for being a coward 2. being so dishonourable.--Paul Mason, February 13, 2007, on FFL (What Lawson had said that so outraged Paul: MMY, though he will never acknowledge the fact, surpassed his Master many decades ago.)
*****SPAM***** [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
Why wouldn't Alex have peeped through the door instead of sneaking up on the porch to peep through a window? Why are the americans so obsessed with this. You made a fool of yourselves to the whole world disgracing Clinton having some sigar-fun in the White House. Now this. People have sex, so what ? Get used to it.
[FairfieldLife] Bravo!!!
March 15, 2007, 11:43PM Richardson unfazed by bill to legalize pot By DEBORAH BAKER Associated Press SANTA FE, N.M. Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson, poised to sign a bill making New Mexico the 12th state to legalize medical marijuana, said Thursday he realizes his action could become an issue in the presidential race. So what if it's risky? It's the right thing to do, said Richardson, one of the candidates in the crowded 2008 field. What we're talking about is 160 people in deep pain. It only affects them. The legislation would create a program under which some patients with a doctor's recommendation could use marijuana provided by the state health department. Lawmakers approved the bill Wednesday. The governor is expected to sign it in the next few weeks. Richardson has supported the proposal since he first ran in 2002. But he pushed especially hard for it this year, leaning on some Democrats to change their votes after the bill initially failed I don't see it as being a big issue, he said. This is for medicinal purpose, for ... people that are suffering. My God, let's be reasonable, he said. The federal government declares marijuana an illegal controlled substance with no medical value. A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled on Wednesday that a woman whose doctor says marijuana is the only medicine keeping her alive can face federal prosecution on drug charges. The Supreme Court ruled against the woman two years ago, saying medical marijuana users and their suppliers could be prosecuted for breaching federal drug laws even if they lived in a state such as California where medical pot is legal.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why some people 'hate' MMY......
I don't know that those people hate MMY any more than people who oppose the Iraq war hate the troops. What people hate are lies and hypocrisy, which taint both situations. What lies are you suggesting ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
1. MMY wasn't in India in 1973 - he was laying down on a cot in La Antilla, Spain, according to Jennifer. Rick Archer wrote: Are you as confused as you seem, or are you just joking around in order to avoid dealing seriously with a serious issue? As we've said before, the story was told in 1973. The alleged incident happened in Rishikesh, which would have had to be late '60's. This is a joke, right? So, Rick, you're thinking that MMY really did have a hairdresser in India in the early '60's, but nobody knows who it was or what year it was, not even Nancy, Jerry, Charlie, Paul, John, Ringo, Paul, or Magic Alex? But you are thinking that MMY got his hair trimmed? For what purpose would MMY want his hair cut off - to impress Ms. Pittman? That's just plain silly. 2. MMY didn't have a hairdresser, according to Tom Anderson. There was always someone around who cut people's hair. Ron Nacthway was doing it for years. Was Ron at Rishikesh TTC? If so, that's news to me. Fer sure the hairdresser didn't trim John's beard! 3. SIMS wasn't hiring hairdressers in 1973, according to Jerry Jarvis. Ron wasn't employed by SIMS to cut hair. He just did it while on staff, and people paid him. He may have cut MMY's hair too - probably did - or we may be referring to someone else. So far as I can tell, MMY never once visited SIMS in L.A. Did Ron work at SIMS in L.A.? I think not - if so, Barry would have mentioned him, would he not? Barry was all over SIMS in those days, passing out leaflets for MMY. You're probably thinking that Ron cut hair at Humboldt TTC. Did Ron ever go to India? 4. There was no door to MMY's room at Rishikesh - he lived on a porch, according to Nancy. He lived in a house which had a porch. See http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/view/1653?b=8 There were no doors in MMY house in Rishikesh - just one big room with a porch. If MMY had a porch AND a cave, why would he be sexually embracing someone in his room in front of an open doorway, where the hairdresser could see? 5. This incident isn't mentioned by Joyce Collin-Smith in her book Call No Man Master. Is that the final, comprehensive authority on the subject? You are supposed to read the book BEFORE you make your comments, Rick. Joyce said that MMY used to lock the door - it's in her book. So, how could the hairdresser see through the closed locked door?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why some people 'hate' MMY......
P.S. Like MMY use to say, When the majestic Elephant walks thru the village, the dogs start barking. Hilarious and insightful! I especially like the quote at the end. Haha, the small barking dogs of FFL will continue to make noise no doubt - as long as they are fed.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard J. Williams Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 12:17 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls 1. MMY wasn't in India in 1973 - he was laying down on a cot in La Antilla, Spain, according to Jennifer. 2. MMY didn't have a hairdresser, according to Tom Anderson. 3. SIMS wasn't hiring hairdressers in 1973, according to Jerry Jarvis. 4. There was no door to MMY's room at Rishikesh - he lived on a porch, according to Nancy. 5. This incident isn't mentioned by Joyce Collin-Smith in her book Call No Man Master. geezerfreak wrote: Keep the fantasy. Well, there is at least one thing that has been established: Jerry Jarvis was bald in 1973 and didn't get no hair cutting by no hairdresser. No such thing has been established. Jerry wasn't bald then and probably isn't bald now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: I believe so, since MMY led people to believe he was celibate. That's like a Scooter Libby lie. I never heard Maharishi say he was a celibate. Have you ? I heard him say this in an interview with Larry King: KING: I know, but I'm just asking if you have children from your loins. MAHARISHI: I am a single person. I'm a Purusha. I'm a - what you call it - sanyasi, if you understand the word. I'm a monk, if you understand it... KING: You're a bachelor. MAHARISHI: ...monks. Being a monk speaks to no ownership of anything, including chldren, but not specifically to celibacy. I am not defending MMY, just clarifying what you have quoted he said. I was a monk on Purusha for 12 years having virtually no posessions. It did not stop me or many of my friends from having sex from time to time. Whats the big deal of someone having sex ? Grow up please. In american slang; get real !
*****SPAM***** [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
sparaig wrote: I've heard the story before, but no-one has explained to me why MMY had a hairdresser... Yeah, that's a good one - MMY in India with a hairdresser, sexually embracing aother sadhu, Rick Archer wrote: Now the woman was a sadhu? Where did you get that from? So, you're thinking that women can't be sadhu's in India? in plain view of other sadhus visiting from all over the country, Who said anything about other sadhus visiting from all over the country? Nancy said there were sadhus all over the place. Satyanand was a sadhu - so was the Shankaracharya who visited. Tatwallah Baba was a sadhu. but not a single sadhu noticed either a hairdresser or MMY having a sexual embrace. This guy, MMY, is just awesome! He is, but not for the reasons you fabricate. He was pretty awesome to be sexualy embracing other sadhu's in open doorways without once having been spotted with his dhoti down around his ankles by Ms. Pittman, Mr. Keshor, Nancy, Charlie, Paul, George, Ringo, or any of their wives, Magic Alex, or Mike, Donovan, Prudence, Elsa, or Mia. But I guess only his unnamed barber knows fer sure.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard J. Williams Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 1:01 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls 1. MMY wasn't in India in 1973 - he was laying down on a cot in La Antilla, Spain, according to Jennifer. Rick Archer wrote: Are you as confused as you seem, or are you just joking around in order to avoid dealing seriously with a serious issue? As we've said before, the story was told in 1973. The alleged incident happened in Rishikesh, which would have had to be late '60's. This is a joke, right? No. MMY was in Rishikesh in the 60's. he was also there in the winter and spring of 1970. Then he went to Italy for an initiators course. Then he came to Poland Spring, Humboldt, etc., and as far as I know, never went back to Rishikesh. So, Rick, you're thinking that MMY really did have a hairdresser in India in the early '60's, but nobody knows who it was or what year it was, not even Nancy, Jerry, Charlie, Paul, John, Ringo, Paul, or Magic Alex? But you are thinking that MMY got his hair trimmed? For what purpose would MMY want his hair cut off - to impress Ms. Pittman? That's just plain silly. Your theory. All I know about this hairdresser story is what someone posted here. I also know that MMY was very conscious of his appearance and it is not unlikely that he had his hair trimmed. 2. MMY didn't have a hairdresser, according to Tom Anderson. There was always someone around who cut people's hair. Ron Nacthway was doing it for years. Was Ron at Rishikesh TTC? If so, that's news to me. Fer sure the hairdresser didn't trim John's beard! Ron was on my TTC - Estes Park. I don't know if he ever went to India. 3. SIMS wasn't hiring hairdressers in 1973, according to Jerry Jarvis. Ron wasn't employed by SIMS to cut hair. He just did it while on staff, and people paid him. He may have cut MMY's hair too - probably did - or we may be referring to someone else. So far as I can tell, MMY never once visited SIMS in L.A. Did Ron work at SIMS in L.A.? I think not - if so, Barry would have mentioned him, would he not? Barry was all over SIMS in those days, passing out leaflets for MMY. You're probably thinking that Ron cut hair at Humboldt TTC. Did Ron ever go to India? Don't know. I just brought up Ron's name because he was the barber when I was around, but I'm not suggesting he was the hairdresser mentioned in the story told here. 4. There was no door to MMY's room at Rishikesh - he lived on a porch, according to Nancy. He lived in a house which had a porch. See http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/view/1653?b=8 There were no doors in MMY house in Rishikesh - just one big room with a porch. How do you know that? If MMY had a porch AND a cave, why would he be sexually embracing someone in his room in front of an open doorway, where the hairdresser could see? How the hell do I know? Conny Larsson said he used to have women on the roof of his bungalow, under a mosquito net. 5. This incident isn't mentioned by Joyce Collin-Smith in her book Call No Man Master. Is that the final, comprehensive authority on the subject? You are supposed to read the book BEFORE you make your comments, Rick. I've read the book. Joyce said that MMY used to lock the door - it's in her book. She was talking about the UK. So, how could the hairdresser see through the closed locked door? Because he used to lock the door with young women as guests in the UK invalidates this very sketchy hairdresser story from Rishikesh? Most people reading this interchange must have reached the conclusion I've reached - that it's ridiculous carrying on like this over such an insubstantial account, and that I must have way too much time on my hands to keep discussing it with you. I don't, so I'm going to stop.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why some people 'hate' MMY......
Paul Mason wrote: I have had (friendly) emails on the side from quite a few of the posters here, and it is disturbing to see some of you post 'hate' mail against critics of Maharishi. Actually, it is quite possible to be critical of someone without hating him. But anyway, I suspect you are in good company as Maharishi has never been good at dealing with criticism, so I guess he deserves to be represented by you and your ilk. One informer here called me crazy, another called me nuts, Paul. Judy lied and said I lived under a bridge. Can you believe that? They really hate me, Paul, but I like your book and I don't care what they say about you. Barry has a nice thread about what these TMers really believe.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Why does Tom Anderson call himself Sudarsha? Why take a name other than our birth name? What's the importance to the individual of doing so? Dunno Jim. Why did Mahesh take the name Maharishi. That's easy- Because he is one. If you consider that Mahesh means Shiva, its actually something of a downgrade... Uh-huh. Have another gulab jamin, Jim. Would someone only be a Maharishi to you if you agreed with everything they said/did? Or that you worshipped them? Is that your criteria?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 3:19 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls I believe so, since MMY led people to believe he was celibate. That's like a Scooter Libby lie. I never heard Maharishi say he was a celibate. Have you ? He certainly suggested that celibacy is a help to gain enlightenment, but that is a totally different discussion. Yes. Whenever the subject of sex came up, he insisted that he was a monk and knew nothing about it. Well, nothing is a relative term. He probably ment he was not an expert on the matter, which makes sense if he only enjoyed it after being 45 or so. If this at all is true. Anyway I think Maharishi wants to make a point about celibacy being a powerful help to gain enlightenment. After enlightenment ? Perhaps celibacy is no longer so important.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why some people 'hate' MMY......
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: I have had (friendly) emails on the side from quite a few of the posters here, and it is disturbing to see some of you post 'hate' mail against critics of Maharishi. Actually, it is quite possible to be critical of someone without hating him. But anyway, I suspect you are in good company as Maharishi has never been good at dealing with criticism, so I guess he deserves to be represented by you and your ilk. milk without the mmm?
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 1:24 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls Yes. Whenever the subject of sex came up, he insisted that he was a monk and knew nothing about it. Well, nothing is a relative term. He probably ment he was not an expert on the matter, which makes sense if he only enjoyed it after being 45 or so. If this at all is true. Anyway I think Maharishi wants to make a point about celibacy being a powerful help to gain enlightenment. After enlightenment ? Perhaps celibacy is no longer so important. I agree with you on that and despite my excessive focus on the topic here on FFL, I'm actually grateful for MMY's inspiration to observe celibacy. At least I think I am. I have no way of knowing how my life would have turned out otherwise. May have been better, but who knows?
*****SPAM***** [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
Why wouldn't Alex have peeped through the door instead of sneaking up on the porch to peep through a window? nablusoss1008 wrote: People have sex, so what? Get used to it. Nobody said that MMY enjoyed servicing those skinny sadhu girls. If he had enjoyed it, he would probably have had a silly grin on his face the next morning. What I can't figure out is why they would want to have sex with MMY in the middle of the night when they just had sex with Ned Wynn after dinner. Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
Well, there is at least one thing that has been established: Jerry Jarvis was bald in 1973 and didn't get no hair cutting by no hairdresser. Rick Archer wrote: No such thing has been established. Jerry wasn't bald then and probably isn't bald now. Apparently you don't even know Jerry Jarvis - I'll post a picture of his bald pate if you want me to.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
nablusoss1008 wrote: I was a monk on Purusha for 12 years having virtually no posessions. It did not stop me or many of my friends from having sex from time to time. But did you enjoy? Whats the big deal of someone having sex? Can't afford contraceptives when you have virtually no posessions?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
There were no doors in MMY house in Rishikesh - just one big room with a porch. Rick Archer wrote: How do you know that? Mike Love told me so - he was there and he said he didn't see no hairdresser. If he had, he said he would have had a beard trim.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why some people 'hate' MMY......
Hi Richard The thing is that quoting facts is better than heresay. My bio of Maharishi many, many verbatim quotes that even many TM teachers had not heard before. However, because there is a lot of frustrated individuals who have yet to offer any original research, they resort to personal attacks. I have read your research on Sri Vidhya the early history of the movement etc and it interests me. But none of the posters who are so prone to vitriolic outbursts have produced any research at all, just billowing hot-air, and sometimes polluted at that. That I produce wodges of quotes from Maharishi, Guru Dev, Satyanand, Charlie Lutes seems to be of no value to these so-called defenders of Maharishi and TM. They seem to think they will earn their laurels by being anti-Paul Mason? Whatever! But at the end of the day, they know they have contributed nothing worthwhile for their cause. So, it is sour grapes, and those who really have something to contribute to the story are happy to exchange cordial emails with me. Jay Gurudev --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul Mason wrote: I have had (friendly) emails on the side from quite a few of the posters here, and it is disturbing to see some of you post 'hate' mail against critics of Maharishi. Actually, it is quite possible to be critical of someone without hating him. But anyway, I suspect you are in good company as Maharishi has never been good at dealing with criticism, so I guess he deserves to be represented by you and your ilk. One informer here called me crazy, another called me nuts, Paul. Judy lied and said I lived under a bridge. Can you believe that? They really hate me, Paul, but I like your book and I don't care what they say about you. Barry has a nice thread about what these TMers really believe.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Why does Tom Anderson call himself Sudarsha? Why take a name other than our birth name? What's the importance to the individual of doing so? Dunno Jim. Why did Mahesh take the name Maharishi. That's easy- Because he is one. If you consider that Mahesh means Shiva, its actually something of a downgrade... Uh-huh. Have another gulab jamin, Jim. Would someone only be a Maharishi to you if you agreed with everything they said/did? Or that you worshipped them? Is that your criteria? I would not have to agree with everything an ideal Maharishi said. But I would expect a level of honesty and integrity that we did not get with this particular self described Maharishi.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard J. Williams Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 1:30 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls Well, there is at least one thing that has been established: Jerry Jarvis was bald in 1973 and didn't get no hair cutting by no hairdresser. Rick Archer wrote: No such thing has been established. Jerry wasn't bald then and probably isn't bald now. Apparently you don't even know Jerry Jarvis - I'll post a picture of his bald pate if you want me to. Please do. I know him well. it would be good to see his photo.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why some people 'hate' MMY......
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Richard The thing is that quoting facts is better than heresay. My bio of Maharishi many, many verbatim quotes that even many TM teachers had not heard before. However, because there is a lot of frustrated individuals who have yet to offer any original research, they resort to personal attacks. I have read your research on Sri Vidhya the early history of the movement etc and it interests me. But none of the posters who are so prone to vitriolic outbursts have produced any research at all, just billowing hot-air, and sometimes polluted at that. So one must produce actual original research before being allowed to criticize a researcher? That I produce wodges of quotes from Maharishi, Guru Dev, Satyanand, Charlie Lutes seems to be of no value to these so-called defenders of Maharishi and TM. They seem to think they will earn their laurels by being anti-Paul Mason? Whatever! But at the end of the day, they know they have contributed nothing worthwhile for their cause. You seem to think that because you've produced wodges of quotes from MMY, Guru Dev, et cetera, that you should therefore be immune from any criticism for any reason. (BTW, I've explicitly said I thought your Guru Dev quotes are a great contribution.) So, it is sour grapes, and those who really have something to contribute to the story are happy to exchange cordial emails with me. Jay Gurudev
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Why does Tom Anderson call himself Sudarsha? Why take a name other than our birth name? What's the importance to the individual of doing so? Dunno Jim. Why did Mahesh take the name Maharishi. That's easy- Because he is one. If you consider that Mahesh means Shiva, its actually something of a downgrade... Uh-huh. Have another gulab jamin, Jim. Would someone only be a Maharishi to you if you agreed with everything they said/did? Or that you worshipped them? Is that your criteria? I would not have to agree with everything an ideal Maharishi said. But I would expect a level of honesty and integrity that we did not get with this particular self described Maharishi. A similar reason some people are atheists. It looks like it depends on your involvement with him. I have been fortunate to benefit from his knowledge without ever having been stung.
*****SPAM***** [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 17, 2007, at 11:58 AM, Rick Archer wrote: Maybe he didn't but MMY was very conscious of his appearance. One time I was in a small meeting with him and he accidentally got a small stain from a marker pen on his dhoti. He got right up and went in the other room to change it. It sounds like he also is really into makeup and facial creams, etc. Rather unusual for a supposedly renounced ego. Of course the upside of that is he helped produce some of the best Ayurvedic face creams out there. and mud packs too, right Vaj?
*****SPAM***** [FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 17, 2007, at 11:58 AM, Rick Archer wrote: Maybe he didn't but MMY was very conscious of his appearance. One time I was in a small meeting with him and he accidentally got a small stain from a marker pen on his dhoti. He got right up and went in the other room to change it. It sounds like he also is really into makeup and facial creams, etc. What sounds like this, Vaj? Rather unusual for a supposedly renounced ego. Of course the upside of that is he helped produce some of the best Ayurvedic face creams out there.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can dead Gurus kick ass?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tanhlnx tanhlnx@ wrote: --Vaj, you're attempting to divert attention from the real by creating strawmen and bringing up practically unattainable goals. For one thing, Gurus who have attained a Rainbow Light Body are exceedingly rare, and I challenge you to bring up instances in which they regularly appear in people's dreams. OTOH, countless people have experienced the Shakti of MMY, SBS, and Ramana Maharshi. Again, just playing Deva's Advocate here, is it possible that what these countless numbers of people experienced was simple infinity, without form, and they *interpreted* it in the form of the teacher they were most familiar with? Why are you assuming people are always at the mercy of their subconscious filters? Its a perspective you take a lot. Uh, possibly because I have never met an individual on this planet, *including* the ones I suspect of being enlightened, who did *not* have their filters firmly in place. It's just part of living.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can dead Gurus kick ass?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tanhlnx tanhlnx@ wrote: --Vaj, you're attempting to divert attention from the real by creating strawmen and bringing up practically unattainable goals. For one thing, Gurus who have attained a Rainbow Light Body are exceedingly rare, and I challenge you to bring up instances in which they regularly appear in people's dreams. OTOH, countless people have experienced the Shakti of MMY, SBS, and Ramana Maharshi. Again, just playing Deva's Advocate here, is it possible that what these countless numbers of people experienced was simple infinity, without form, and they *interpreted* it in the form of the teacher they were most familiar with? Why are you assuming people are always at the mercy of their subconscious filters? Its a perspective you take a lot. Uh, possibly because I have never met an individual on this planet, *including* the ones I suspect of being enlightened, who did *not* have their filters firmly in place. It's just part of living. Granted, though it sounds to me as if you are insinuating that people seeing Masters appearing to them are somehow indulging in wishful thinking.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why some people 'hate' MMY......
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: P.S. Like MMY use to say, When the majestic Elephant walks thru the village, the dogs start barking. Hilarious and insightful! I especially like the quote at the end. Haha, the small barking dogs of FFL will continue to make noise no doubt - as long as they are fed. Or until the majestic Elephant squashes them :-)
[FairfieldLife] Loreena McKennitt in Paris
Loreena McKennitt live at the Grand Rex in Paris, 15 March 2007 The Lady of Shalott hasn't toured in a while. I think it's been ten years. The voice of one of the tours de force of the music world has been pretty much silent all that time. A couple of months ago she released her first new album in all that time, An Ancient Muse, and it was definitely worth waiting for. Most of the musicians who played on it are on tour with her, including Bryan Hughes on guitar, the incredible Hugh Marsh on violin, and seven other top- flight musicians she calls her idling Porsches, because they have bands and albums of their own, and they rarely get to really stretch out when they play with her. But they play with her because they *like* playing with her. Duh. She's a tour de force. Anyway, she's obviously touring in Europe right now, but she'll be heading back to North America soon, and if she's performing near you and the concert isn't already sold out, I would very much recommend that you go. If you're on this forum, I think you'd like it. There really isn't anything in the music world quite like a Loreena McKennitt concert. For those who know her music, here's the set list, which, because of all the sets and the lighting and the incredibly choreographed nature of the show, will probably remain the same throughout the tour: Set I: * She Moved Through The Fair * The Gates Of Istanbul * The Mummer's Dance * Penelope's Song * Marco Polo * The Highwayman * Dante's Prayer * The Bonny Swans * Caravanserai Set II: * The Mystic's Dream * Santiago * Bonny Portmore * Beneath A Phrygian Sky * Kecharitome * The Lady Of Shalott * The Old Ways * Never-Ending Road (Amhrán Duit) The set for this tour is an enormous, ornate Persian doorway. The lighting is so superb that you'll see that doorway -- and what lies on the other side of it -- a thousand different ways before the evening is over. Loreena McKennitt is an old soul stuck in a world that neither she nor her sensibilities fit into gracefully. That's probably something that many of the people here on this forum can identify with. But most of us make do, and find some way to fit in to this new century and this new vibescape we find ourselves in. Some of us even *dig* it here, and have turned living in this Gnarly New World into an artform. Loreena strikes me as an incredibly sensitive old soul who opened her eyes just after being born into this Gnarly New World and really didn't like it much. It just didn't resonate with who she was. So rather than adopt to the Gnarly New World and find a way to fit in, she managed to turn her world into an ongoing anachronism. Loreena is Canadian, of Soct-Irish heritage and with the red hair and the temperament of her bloodline. She's got a remarkably pure voice -- also out of keeping with this time -- and is drawn to songs that tell the stories of True Love, and of doomed romance, and of women like Homer's Penelope, who sit at home waiting for their men who are off at sea. And so what happens? Loreena's beloved fiancé goes off to sea for a pleasant day's sailing and drowns. An old soul who had managed to find a way to fit in with the Gnarly New World might have shrugged that off and gotten on with her life. Loreena McKennitt hasn't recorded or toured for ten years. Thursday night she was still fragile enough and emotional enough when singing the song she'd written for her fiancé to break down in tears and cut the song short. Loreena McKennitt is a woman who, as far as I can tell, was last comfortable in the Middle Ages or the Renaissance. She's out of place in our time, but in her music she's provided us with a portal into hers. It's a pretty wonderful world on the other side of that doorway. For a glimpse of what you'll see if you catch her on this tour: http://www.quinlanroad.com/newsandviews/currentupdates.asp?id=632 To hear more samples of her music: http://www.quinlanroad.com/explorethemusic/index.asp For the tour schedule itself: http://www.quinlanroad.com/performances/performances.asp
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why some people 'hate' MMY......
But none of the posters who are so prone to vitriolic outbursts have produced any research at all, just billowing hot-air, and sometimes polluted at that. Paul Mason, now the selfcreated expert on research and pollution. Well in pollution he is quite good. The Brits can be difficult to understand. But in the business of capitalising on others they are experts. They had an Empire, long time lost. Why did Maharishi kick out the Brits from Purusha ? For good reason. They try to suck the blood out of everyone they meet, it being foreign Nations or Saints. They are a sorry people that will have to pay for their colonization, upression and rascism for generations to come. In Europe they are mostly known as a sorry lot trying desperately to capitalise on others. Read The Sun lately ? This Paul Mason fellow is desperate to drum up any, ANY, socalled scandal. He, like most of the Brits are desperate to make a quick buck because they are morally and financially bankrupt.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can dead Gurus kick ass?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tanhlnx tanhlnx@ wrote: --Vaj, you're attempting to divert attention from the real by creating strawmen and bringing up practically unattainable goals. For one thing, Gurus who have attained a Rainbow Light Body are exceedingly rare, and I challenge you to bring up instances in which they regularly appear in people's dreams. OTOH, countless people have experienced the Shakti of MMY, SBS, and Ramana Maharshi. Again, just playing Deva's Advocate here, is it possible that what these countless numbers of people experienced was simple infinity, without form, and they *interpreted* it in the form of the teacher they were most familiar with? Why are you assuming people are always at the mercy of their subconscious filters? Its a perspective you take a lot. Uh, possibly because I have never met an individual on this planet, *including* the ones I suspect of being enlightened, who did *not* have their filters firmly in place. It's just part of living. Granted, though it sounds to me as if you are insinuating that people seeing Masters appearing to them are somehow indulging in wishful thinking. Or they have an interesting completely abstract experience and, unable to cope with just having had a *completely* abstract experience, convert it to a more structured, finite experience in their minds, to easier get a handle on it. I'm just saying that it's a possibility, one that seems far more likely to me than the Master actually appearing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can dead Gurus kick ass?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tanhlnx tanhlnx@ wrote: --Vaj, you're attempting to divert attention from the real by creating strawmen and bringing up practically unattainable goals. For one thing, Gurus who have attained a Rainbow Light Body are exceedingly rare, and I challenge you to bring up instances in which they regularly appear in people's dreams. OTOH, countless people have experienced the Shakti of MMY, SBS, and Ramana Maharshi. Again, just playing Deva's Advocate here, is it possible that what these countless numbers of people experienced was simple infinity, without form, and they *interpreted* it in the form of the teacher they were most familiar with? Why are you assuming people are always at the mercy of their subconscious filters? Its a perspective you take a lot. Uh, possibly because I have never met an individual on this planet, *including* the ones I suspect of being enlightened, who did *not* have their filters firmly in place. It's just part of living. Granted, though it sounds to me as if you are insinuating that people seeing Masters appearing to them are somehow indulging in wishful thinking. Or they have an interesting completely abstract experience and, unable to cope with just having had a *completely* abstract experience, convert it to a more structured, finite experience in their minds, to easier get a handle on it. I'm just saying that it's a possibility, one that seems far more likely to me than the Master actually appearing. I'd agree with you, except that all the accounts of this I have read about happen as a complete and total surprise, not leaving time for any conversion- the experience itself being mind blowing enough as it is. Were it a completely abstract experience it would be easier to integrate vs a Master appearing in form in front of you. Also just to clarify, when I use Master it means master of reality, not master over me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why some people 'hate' MMY......
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: P.S. Like MMY use to say, When the majestic Elephant walks thru the village, the dogs start barking. Hilarious and insightful! I especially like the quote at the end. Haha, the small barking dogs of FFL will continue to make noise no doubt - as long as they are fed. Or until the majestic Elephant squashes them :-) Now what would that majestic Elephant be ? My take is that it is simply Karma, selfcreated :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Loreena McKennitt in Paris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Loreena McKennitt is a woman who, as far as I can tell, was last comfortable in the Middle Ages or the Renaissance. She's out of place in our time, but in her music she's provided us with a portal into hers. It's a pretty wonderful world on the other side of that doorway. or just someone who happens to write great songs and sing exceptionally well...for whatever reason.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why some people 'hate' MMY......
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: P.S. Like MMY use to say, When the majestic Elephant walks thru the village, the dogs start barking. Hilarious and insightful! I especially like the quote at the end. Haha, the small barking dogs of FFL will continue to make noise no doubt - as long as they are fed. Or until the majestic Elephant squashes them :-) Now what would that majestic Elephant be ? My take is that it is simply Karma, selfcreated :-) Yep, a natural invitation from the barking dogs.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why some people 'hate' MMY......
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: I have had (friendly) emails on the side from quite a few of the posters here, and it is disturbing to see some of you post 'hate' mail against critics of Maharishi. Actually, it is quite possible to be critical of someone without hating him. But anyway, I suspect you are in good company as Maharishi has never been good at dealing with criticism, so I guess he deserves to be represented by you and your ilk. What is an ilk? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ilk --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo wgm4u@ wrote: Mainly because he robbed them of their ignorance, and you know the old saying, Ignorance is Bliss. Some of these folks were 'happy' in the comfort of their ego-instigated desires and ambitions (sankalpas), and along comes MMY and steals all that 'peace' away by the application of the ointment of knowledge!! This isn't what they had bargained for at all...and NOW, well now, NO peace. Once the light has dawned the darkness and shadows (wickedness) struggle to hold on, and hence the dilemma. What happened to the peace, energy and happiness MMY promised; now I'm miserable in the awareness of my own wickedness, NO, NO, NO, I won't give in, I will fight!! So now you now how TMfree-blog got started:-) P.S. Like MMY use to say, When the majestic Elephant walks thru the village, the dogs start barking.
[FairfieldLife] Sorry Rick but maybe I had something to do with FFL going pearshaped
When I first came to FFL it was because I wished to contact Richard Williams (because he seemed the most prominent voice of those looking for answers about Maharishi). Well, I was politely pointed in the direction of AMT. But whilst here I noticed it was a pretty orderly restrained sort of a gentleman's club sort of atmosphere, with some well-reasoned and polite debate going on. I was glad I had found FFL. They marshalled their arguments with information that they had worked hard to find. I cite L B Shriver in particular, not because I agreed with his viewpoint, but he actually bothered to research before he put forward his thoughts. Well, at Google AMT I attempted to level with those who had unfairly criticised my bio, only to find the criticism was founded on ignorance, the critic had not actually read the book, and someone else just assumed they knew what they were talking about, so more uninformed criticism! That was my introduction to TM forums. After a time I mentioned FFL at AMT and Uncle Tantra (Turquoise) migrated to FFL and it seemed that things at FFL were thereby improved, not that they needed to really. However, something else happened, there was a change in the ethos, for the worse. This might have been the time that certain other individuals turned up too, but it soon turned into what AMT had been, a playground without any supervision. That would have been fine of course if things had stayed playful. Interestingly, the deterioration in the standard of debates where the postings are now usually reduced to personal insults, racism, the use of hate vocabulary 'evil','wicked', 'rakshasa' 'dog' etc etc. has meant that there is no longer any real point in contributing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Most people reading this interchange must have reached the conclusion I've reached - that it's ridiculous carrying on like this over such an insubstantial account, and that I must have way too much time on my hands to keep discussing it with you. I don't, so I'm going to stop. You mind reader you. lurk
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Why does Tom Anderson call himself Sudarsha? Why take a name other than our birth name? What's the importance to the individual of doing so? Dunno Jim. Why did Mahesh take the name Maharishi. That's easy- Because he is one. If you consider that Mahesh means Shiva, its actually something of a downgrade... Uh-huh. Have another gulab jamin, Jim. Would someone only be a Maharishi to you if you agreed with everything they said/did? Or that you worshipped them? Is that your criteria? I would not have to agree with everything an ideal Maharishi said. But I would expect a level of honesty and integrity that we did not get with this particular self described Maharishi. A similar reason some people are atheists. It looks like it depends on your involvement with him. I have been fortunate to benefit from his knowledge without ever having been stung. PS with regard to your comment about gulab jamin, I grew up outside the US, in SE Asia, and so am not starry eyed about Indian culture- can't get enough if this one (US) now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why some people 'hate' MMY......
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: I have had (friendly) emails on the side from quite a few of the posters here, and it is disturbing to see some of you post 'hate' mail against critics of Maharishi. Actually, it is quite possible to be critical of someone without hating him. But anyway, I suspect you are in good company as Maharishi has never been good at dealing with criticism, so I guess he deserves to be represented by you and your ilk. What is an ilk? Yeah..it sounds a little hateful to me!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why some people 'hate' MMY......
Perhaps people who are determined to write poison pen letters such as the one you wrote earlier ought first to consider writing under your given name. It appears so cowardly otherwise. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: I have had (friendly) emails on the side from quite a few of the posters here, and it is disturbing to see some of you post 'hate' mail against critics of Maharishi. Actually, it is quite possible to be critical of someone without hating him. But anyway, I suspect you are in good company as Maharishi has never been good at dealing with criticism, so I guess he deserves to be represented by you and your ilk. What is an ilk? Yeah..it sounds a little hateful to me!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Sorry Rick but maybe I had something to do with FFL going pearshaped
I agree with you. Many, not all though, of the AMT people have ruined FFL. Other than my joking posts, I rarely post anymore. --- Paul Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I first came to FFL it was because I wished to contact Richard Williams (because he seemed the most prominent voice of those looking for answers about Maharishi). Well, I was politely pointed in the direction of AMT. But whilst here I noticed it was a pretty orderly restrained sort of a gentleman's club sort of atmosphere, with some well-reasoned and polite debate going on. I was glad I had found FFL. They marshalled their arguments with information that they had worked hard to find. I cite L B Shriver in particular, not because I agreed with his viewpoint, but he actually bothered to research before he put forward his thoughts. Well, at Google AMT I attempted to level with those who had unfairly criticised my bio, only to find the criticism was founded on ignorance, the critic had not actually read the book, and someone else just assumed they knew what they were talking about, so more uninformed criticism! That was my introduction to TM forums. After a time I mentioned FFL at AMT and Uncle Tantra (Turquoise) migrated to FFL and it seemed that things at FFL were thereby improved, not that they needed to really. However, something else happened, there was a change in the ethos, for the worse. This might have been the time that certain other individuals turned up too, but it soon turned into what AMT had been, a playground without any supervision. That would have been fine of course if things had stayed playful. Interestingly, the deterioration in the standard of debates where the postings are now usually reduced to personal insults, racism, the use of hate vocabulary 'evil','wicked', 'rakshasa' 'dog' etc etc. has meant that there is no longer any real point in contributing. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/kOt0.A/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Sorry Rick but maybe I had something to do with FFL going pearshaped
On Mar 17, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Peter wrote: I agree with you. Many, not all though, of the AMT people have ruined FFL. Other than my joking posts, I rarely post anymore. I second that, moderating is needed by someone otherwise this list is down the tubes. Really, that was likely their goal all along. One of them even said she'd do this till she died. That doesn't sound much different from an Islamic terrorist. The list has been destroyed by insurgents, quite literally.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inner Circle Breakout on Girls
--Not true. (Jerry Jarvis). He initiated me in into TM in 1967 and I worked at SIMS with him for several years, until 1973, Dec. I was a paid employe. Willytex, stop trying to nitpick the truth. Just accept it and form your own conclusions!. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, there is at least one thing that has been established: Jerry Jarvis was bald in 1973 and didn't get no hair cutting by no hairdresser. Rick Archer wrote: No such thing has been established. Jerry wasn't bald then and probably isn't bald now. Apparently you don't even know Jerry Jarvis - I'll post a picture of his bald pate if you want me to.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Rick but maybe I had something to do with FFL going pearshaped
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 17, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Peter wrote: I agree with you. Many, not all though, of the AMT people have ruined FFL. Other than my joking posts, I rarely post anymore. I second that, moderating is needed by someone otherwise this list is down the tubes. Really, that was likely their goal all along. One of them even said she'd do this till she died. That doesn't sound much different from an Islamic terrorist. The list has been destroyed by insurgents, quite literally. Vaj, I remember about a year ago when I tried to honestly discuss some significant spiritual experiences on FFL, you were one of the worst at trying to ridicule my attempts. So to see you all templed fingers and reasonableness now makes for a good chuckle, but does nothing to restore what little integrity you may have had. You have shown yourself to be one of the biggest hypocrites on this list.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Sorry Rick but maybe I had something to do with FFL going pearshaped
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 6:06 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Sorry Rick but maybe I had something to do with FFL going pearshaped On Mar 17, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Peter wrote: I agree with you. Many, not all though, of the AMT people have ruined FFL. Other than my joking posts, I rarely post anymore. I second that, moderating is needed by someone otherwise this list is down the tubes. Really, that was likely their goal all along. One of them even said she'd do this till she died. That doesn't sound much different from an Islamic terrorist. The list has been destroyed by insurgents, quite literally. How would you suggest it be moderated? If someone volunteered to do it, what criteria would they follow? How would they be objective?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Rick but maybe I had something to do with FFL going pearshaped
FFL was pleasant because for the most part the people wanted it like that. (Although I did get an email on the side who was trying to poison my mind about Richard. I found it odd at the time. It was the only sign I say that TM forums could be unpleasant. Now who sent that...? He posted at AMT too, in those days. Bob someone or other I believe.) Vaj, I think you are right, the basic motivation of the 'insurgents' seems combative, bombastic. It is almost always confrontational and looking for a fight. There is an inbuilt assumption that one is spoiling for a fight. It doesn't even seem to occur to them that there might be anything to be gained from an exchange of information and opinions, without resorting to unpleasantness. I saw the way Richard was ragged on AMT, but largely it was undeserved, he was just looking for answers. It seemed to me he wasn't getting them on TM forums. But why rag him? I have travelled widely in the Islamic world and NEVER come up against the fundamentalists. They get on underground trains whilst decent people are going off to work, all shades of human skin, all kinds of humanity, and let off bombs. The fundamentalist doesn't have regard for others. The TM-terrorist has no regard for others either. Perhaps it is the Maharishi's fault, with his 'damn democracy' and his 'scorpion nation', he is encouraging rabid behaviour in his shock troops. So perhaps Maharishi was once a saint and then he lost it, but there is no reason for everyone to lose it! Please turn over a new leaf everyone and at least be polite to one another. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 17, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Peter wrote: I agree with you. Many, not all though, of the AMT people have ruined FFL. Other than my joking posts, I rarely post anymore. I second that, moderating is needed by someone otherwise this list is down the tubes. Really, that was likely their goal all along. One of them even said she'd do this till she died. That doesn't sound much different from an Islamic terrorist. The list has been destroyed by insurgents, quite literally.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Sorry Rick but maybe I had something to do with FFL going pearshaped
I agree with you. Many, not all though, of the AMT people have ruined FFL. Other than my joking posts, I rarely post anymore. I hardly do even that anymore. --- Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with you. Many, not all though, of the AMT people have ruined FFL. Other than my joking posts, I rarely post anymore. --- Paul Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I first came to FFL it was because I wished to contact Richard Williams (because he seemed the most prominent voice of those looking for answers about Maharishi). Well, I was politely pointed in the direction of AMT. But whilst here I noticed it was a pretty orderly restrained sort of a gentleman's club sort of atmosphere, with some well-reasoned and polite debate going on. I was glad I had found FFL. They marshalled their arguments with information that they had worked hard to find. I cite L B Shriver in particular, not because I agreed with his viewpoint, but he actually bothered to research before he put forward his thoughts. Well, at Google AMT I attempted to level with those who had unfairly criticised my bio, only to find the criticism was founded on ignorance, the critic had not actually read the book, and someone else just assumed they knew what they were talking about, so more uninformed criticism! That was my introduction to TM forums. After a time I mentioned FFL at AMT and Uncle Tantra (Turquoise) migrated to FFL and it seemed that things at FFL were thereby improved, not that they needed to really. However, something else happened, there was a change in the ethos, for the worse. This might have been the time that certain other individuals turned up too, but it soon turned into what AMT had been, a playground without any supervision. That would have been fine of course if things had stayed playful. Interestingly, the deterioration in the standard of debates where the postings are now usually reduced to personal insults, racism, the use of hate vocabulary 'evil','wicked', 'rakshasa' 'dog' etc etc. has meant that there is no longer any real point in contributing. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/kOt0.A/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/hOt0.A/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Sorry Rick but maybe I had something to do with FFL going pearshaped
On Mar 17, 2007, at 7:22 PM, Rick Archer wrote: I second that, moderating is needed by someone otherwise this list is down the tubes. Really, that was likely their goal all along. One of them even said she'd do this till she died. That doesn't sound much different from an Islamic terrorist. The list has been destroyed by insurgents, quite literally. How would you suggest it be moderated? If someone volunteered to do it, what criteria would they follow? How would they be objective? I seem to remember New Morn came up with some nice ideas that seemed worth implementing. IIRC it was something like first time you're banned for posting a couple of days and then each time thereafter, longer. It seems to me there would have to be a limit, a three strikes and you're out kinda thing. I really don't think it would be hard to implement because it really is a case of 'a couple of bad apples spoiling the whole bunch'.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Rick but maybe I had something to do with FFL going pearshaped
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 17, 2007, at 7:22 PM, Rick Archer wrote: I second that, moderating is needed by someone otherwise this list is down the tubes. Really, that was likely their goal all along. One of them even said she'd do this till she died. That doesn't sound much different from an Islamic terrorist. The list has been destroyed by insurgents, quite literally. How would you suggest it be moderated? If someone volunteered to do it, what criteria would they follow? How would they be objective? I seem to remember New Morn came up with some nice ideas that seemed worth implementing. IIRC it was something like first time you're banned for posting a couple of days and then each time thereafter, longer. It seems to me there would have to be a limit, a three strikes and you're out kinda thing. I really don't think it would be hard to implement because it really is a case of 'a couple of bad apples spoiling the whole bunch'. Someone referred to you and new morn at the time as kiddies who enjoy pulling the wings off flies, as I recall. Who are the bad apples Vaj?
