[FairfieldLife] Devotion

[bob_brigante]

MMY commentary on BG, Ch 8, v22

Krishna:
 That Transcendent Purusha, O Partha, 
in whom all beings abide and by whom
all this is pervaded, is attainable
only by unswerving devotion.


MMY:
...
Devotion is a link between our manifested
and unmanifested transcendental form. Devotion
to activity brings us out of our transcendent
nature; devotion to the source of our manifested
nature establishes us back in our transcendent
form.

...
Devotion, agaln, is a part of our
nature. It is our experience in life that our
mind readlly shifts
from a field of lesser
glory to a field of greater glory. Devotlon,
from unmanifested to manifest and, again, devotion
fronc manifest to unmanifest ls spontaneous. We
can say it is the nature of beings. Thus it
is evident that the path of devotlon that we are
shown is nothing other than our own nature; lt
is nothing foreign to us. This leaves us where
we are. The path is within us, the goal is
within us and we are always within ourselves
anyway. Thls is the great teachlng of this
verse. It brings to us not only the hope of enlightenment 
but the state of complete fulfillment.

[FairfieldLife] Gut worms not all bad

[bob_brigante]

"We're part of our environment; we're not separate from
it." It's a simple observation with profound implications that
are changing how scientists view the human organism. The dawning
realization is this: You are not just your genetic self. You are a
community of interacting organisms.  Your ecosystem includes the
bacteria that outnumber your genetic cells by 10 to 1, various fungi,
viruses and just maybe a few parasites as well. Disturb or remove any
key player, and the whole system can come unbalanced.

(more)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29wwln-essay-t.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[lurkernomore20002000]

"authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> This is my 50th. Ta-ta till next Friday. (I'd say,
> "Don't talk about me while I'm gone," but that
> would be silly.)
>
That is pretty funny.

[FairfieldLife] A Saints Life is on the Level of Silence Re: Guru Dev was the most important

[lurkernomore20002000]

 ruthsimplicity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > OK folks, what does this "level of silence" thing mean? 

I have had instances in my life where I wanted, or needed a certain 
outcome.  Nothing outrageous, but important to me.  Instead of 
engaging in a lot of action on the so called "outer" level of 
activity, I had a clear intention of what I wanted to take place.  And 
after a brief interim I was able to get the desired result(s).  

Now of course, this is nothing out of the ordinary, and it likely 
happens to all of us everyday.  What stood out for me, was in one 
case, I needed a very specific outcome, and I got it.  The 
circumstances are rather personal, and that is why I don't go into 
greater detail. 

In another instance, I had a small side business in which the 
suspician arose that I had a dishonest employee. I remember being 
intent mentally to get to the bottom of it immediately and in the 
course of a sleepless night I deduced what was likely the extent and 
method of his dishonesty.  And some of it was rather subtle. The next 
day I was able to confirm all my suspicians and work to get 
restitution, or at least some degree of restitiution. 

This is nothing different than having a well laid plan, but still, in 
my experience, the power of intention seems to be a powerful tool to 
get desired results.

[FairfieldLife] A Saints Life is on the Level of Silence Re: Guru Dev was the most important

[aztjbailey]

> Eckart Tolle has a nice way of telling it...
> He uses the term 'Presence' to describe a person's 'silence'...
> The amount of 'silence' 'stillness' 'no thoughts' 'vertical expansion'
> all of the things which a person developes through meditative
> practices, sports, any exploration of one's consciousness to the
> extent that one begins to realize that the 'silence within' when one
> is silent, with no thought, is a deep and infinite pool of energy and
> intilligence, as MMY used to say in the into and SCI info...
> Buddha and Jesus basically taught the same lessons...
> 'Nothing New Under the Sun'...
>

one begins to realize that the 'silence within' when one
is silent, with no thought, is a deep and infinite pool of energy and
intelligence

Bingo!  Bringing in the energy connection hits true for me. The use of
the word "silence" falls far short of what is

actually happening, IMHO. The state is probably respected because Guru
Dev or whatever master who can get "there"

will vibe out a room of people and make them feel profoundly good,
without saying a word,  and I assume they think any action taken has
strong possibilities of success.

Defining what is actually happening may not currently be possible. Tolle
is attempting a better western vocabulary.

It is an energetic shift (chakra) not just silence in a normal state.

[FairfieldLife] New file uploaded to FairfieldLife

[FairfieldLife]

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the FairfieldLife 
group.

  File: /Fairfield Events/KD poster 2008 color.pdf 
  Uploaded by : rick_archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  Description : Krishna Das July 31st at Sondheim.  $25 in advance 

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/files/Fairfield%20Events/KD%20poster%202008%20color.pdf
 

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles

Regards,

rick_archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016" 
>  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > According to Bevan, Howard Settle in recent days has committed to 
> > > > > > raising 
> > $1Billion 
> > > > for 
> > > > > > the BST (Brahmananda Saraswati Trust).  The BST will support 
> > > > > > efforts in India 
to 
> > > > preserve 
> > > > > > Vedic culture by supporting  Indian Vedic Pandits for perpetuity. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > IOW, Bevan still encourages the Western TMO supporters to send vast 
resources 
> > out 
> > > of 
> > > > > > the West..   When will he get a clue ? 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Someone said that "40% of the money is 'misappropirated'." If that is 
> > > > > true, 
> > > > > its better than most western charities whre 90% of the money goes to 
> > > > > "administrative overhead."
> > > > > 
> > > > > NOt counting things like the American Red Cross, where up to $100 
> > > > > million 
was 
> > > > > embezzled directly at one point, but the former head.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Lawson
> > > > >
> > > > So by your logic Lawson it's OK that this fountainhead of purity, this 
> > > > organization 
> that 
> > is 
> > > > the absolute ground zero force for bringing a new age of bliss and 
> > > > enlightenment 
> to 
> > the 
> > > > worldit's OK that this organization misappropriates money for the 
> > > > purpose of 
> > > enriching 
> > > > members of a particular clan in India?
> > > >
> > > 
> > > No more or less OK than any other organization that does the same thing.
> > > 
> > > Lawson
> > >
> > OK, got it. Your position is crystal clear Lawson.
> >
> 
> Not really. What I meant was that the cost of doing business in INdia often 
> does 
> involve graft. And I remain skeptical that GIrish and borhters are taking as 
> much
> as everyone says they are. FOr example, the "Srivasta family 
> compound"according
> to ColdBlueIce  is the Brahmastan where they are building the pundit housing
> and temples. If you cout all those buildings as belonging to Girish, then he's
> an incredible thief, but does it make sense to count all those buildings as 
> belonging to Girish?
> 
> 
> Lawson
>
No really, I get it Lawson. This cost of doing business for this leading-the 
-way-to -the 
age of enlightenment, this organization that is the cutting edge of Sat-yuga, 
is graft and 
corruption. 

Thanks for the clarification.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak"  
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" 
 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016" 
>  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > According to Bevan, Howard Settle in recent days has 
committed to raising 
> > $1Billion 
> > > > for 
> > > > > > the BST (Brahmananda Saraswati Trust).  The BST will 
support efforts in India to 
> > > > preserve 
> > > > > > Vedic culture by supporting  Indian Vedic Pandits for 
perpetuity. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > IOW, Bevan still encourages the Western TMO supporters to 
send vast resources 
> > out 
> > > of 
> > > > > > the West..   When will he get a clue ? 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Someone said that "40% of the money is 'misappropirated'." 
If that is true, 
> > > > > its better than most western charities whre 90% of the 
money goes to 
> > > > > "administrative overhead."
> > > > > 
> > > > > NOt counting things like the American Red Cross, where up 
to $100 million was 
> > > > > embezzled directly at one point, but the former head.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Lawson
> > > > >
> > > > So by your logic Lawson it's OK that this fountainhead of 
purity, this organization 
> that 
> > is 
> > > > the absolute ground zero force for bringing a new age of 
bliss and enlightenment 
> to 
> > the 
> > > > worldit's OK that this organization misappropriates money 
for the purpose of 
> > > enriching 
> > > > members of a particular clan in India?
> > > >
> > > 
> > > No more or less OK than any other organization that does the 
same thing.
> > > 
> > > Lawson
> > >
> > OK, got it. Your position is crystal clear Lawson.
> >
> 
> Not really. What I meant was that the cost of doing business in 
INdia often does 
> involve graft. And I remain skeptical that GIrish and borhters are 
taking as much
> as everyone says they are. FOr example, the "Srivasta family 
compound"according
> to ColdBlueIce  is the Brahmastan where they are building the 
pundit housing
> and temples. If you cout all those buildings as belonging to 
Girish, then he's
> an incredible thief, but does it make sense to count all those 
buildings as 
> belonging to Girish?
> 
> 
> Lawson
>


If doing business in India "involves graft" as you say, Lawson, then 
any American participating in such endeavors is breaking the law and 
is risking a prison sentence.

Do you not remember the case of an American businessman about 20 
years ago who used the same justification for bribing officials in a 
foreign country?  In response, the U.S. passed a law making it a 
felony, I believe, for any Americans to be involved in graft overseas 
and that the excuse of "well, that's how they do businesss in such 
and such country" could no longer be invoked.  I would hazard a guess 
that since most of the money donated to the TMO is by Americans and 
the money is going to India that not only are the revelations 
jeopardizing the charitable status of the TMO for Americans, Lawson, 
but the ability of the donors to get a tax deduction for their 
donations.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 

> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
> > 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" 
 
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > On Behalf Of shempmcgurk
> > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 10:49 AM
> > > > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > As such, the American cultural predisposition to 
demanding 
> > > > > > > accountability will come forward like it has never done 
> > > > > > before...and 
> > > > > > > the Movement will NOT be successful invoking Maharishi 
or 
> > > > anything 
> > > > > > > else that may have worked in the past to squelch 
> > accountability.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Could be. Trouble is, the TMO hardly reflects American 
> > culture. 
> > > > > > It's a very
> > > > > > > Indianized, Guru-fied sub-culture.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yes, it is.  But it is a culture that is now WITHOUT a 
guru, 
> > > > which is 
> > > > > > the point I'm trying to make.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > One of the reasons we all -- or at least I did -- got 
into TM 
> > was 
> > > > > > because devotion and surrender to a guru was NOT part of 
the 
> > > > > > program.  For whatever reason, many of us if not most of 
us 
> > who 
> > > > > > became active in the movement fell into that very 
> > relationship.  
> > > > Some 
> > > > > > of us, like myself, found ourselves doing it against our 
> > better 
> > > > > > judgement.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I believe that the original non-guru "sense" that 
prevailed 
> > when 
> > > > we 
> > > > > > started TM will now come to the forefront.  In this same 
> > vein, 
> > > > Rick, 
> > > > > > it was with great relief that several years ago Maharishi 
> > came 
> > > > out 
> > > > > > with his recertification program.  Why?  Because I felt 
that 
> > with 
> > > > the 
> > > > > > new requirement to be recertified I had, as a TM teacher, 
> > become 
> > > > > > UNcertified; that is, I was freed from any constraints 
that I 
> > may 
> > > > > > have signed away to be an unquestioning "devotee" when I 
> > signed 
> > > > that 
> > > > > > form (of which I never got a copy so who the hell knows 
> > whether 
> > > > it 
> > > > > > was legal) on the day I became an initiator.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > We're all kinda free of that constraint now with 
Maharishi's 
> > > > death 
> > > > > > and the continued non-compliance with full accountability 
> > simply 
> > > > > > won't pass muster with most any more.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The culture of financial accountability that is attached 
to 
> > > > American 
> > > > > > donations should follow it to every corner of the world 
to 
> > which 
> > > > it 
> > > > > > is sent, including India.  That's that money's "karma", 
so to 
> > > > speak, 
> > > > > > and that's all right with me.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'd venture to say that any 'culture of financial 
> > accountability' in
> > > > > the USA has practically gone the way of the Dodo bird.
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Aside from the anally retentive Swiss and Germanic cultures, 
> > America 
> > > > is probably the most financially accountable country in the 
world.
> > > > 
> > > > I think Bongo Brazil is getting "corruption" mixed up 
> > with "financial 
> > > > accountability".  Assuming that is what he means, I would 
like to 
> > ask 
> > > > him why he believes this.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The Congress and the Bush administration and the Big Money 
corporate
> > > and K Street financial industry behind it that's put the 
country of
> > > regular Americans in it's current fiscal horror story, comes to 
> > mind.
> > > 
> > > The American people [excluding the small percentage of the 
obscenely
> > > wealthy] also seem to have actually developed a status of 
negative
> > > savings. 
> > > 
> > > The only real 'accountability' I see happening is the 
inevitable 
> > cause
> > > and effect results of fiscal irresponsibility disastrously 
coming 
> > home
> > > to roost.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > The accountability system is probably fine; it's whether people 
> > actually read the financial statements and interpret them 
properly 
> > that is lacking.
> > 
> > Enron is a case in point.  Enron didn't "doctor" their financial 
> > statements...they had them coming out of the wazoo!  In fact, 
when 
> > the first business journal articles started coming out 
questioning 
>

[FairfieldLife] Spiritually Hot in Fairfield, Krishna Das

[dhamiltony2k5]

Another summer treat - Krishna Das is returning to Fairfield on July 31 
at the Sondheim.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016" 
 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > According to Bevan, Howard Settle in recent days has committed to 
> > > > > raising 
> $1Billion 
> > > for 
> > > > > the BST (Brahmananda Saraswati Trust).  The BST will support efforts 
> > > > > in India to 
> > > preserve 
> > > > > Vedic culture by supporting  Indian Vedic Pandits for perpetuity. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > IOW, Bevan still encourages the Western TMO supporters to send vast 
> > > > > resources 
> out 
> > of 
> > > > > the West..   When will he get a clue ? 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Someone said that "40% of the money is 'misappropirated'." If that is 
> > > > true, 
> > > > its better than most western charities whre 90% of the money goes to 
> > > > "administrative overhead."
> > > > 
> > > > NOt counting things like the American Red Cross, where up to $100 
> > > > million was 
> > > > embezzled directly at one point, but the former head.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Lawson
> > > >
> > > So by your logic Lawson it's OK that this fountainhead of purity, this 
> > > organization 
that 
> is 
> > > the absolute ground zero force for bringing a new age of bliss and 
> > > enlightenment 
to 
> the 
> > > worldit's OK that this organization misappropriates money for the 
> > > purpose of 
> > enriching 
> > > members of a particular clan in India?
> > >
> > 
> > No more or less OK than any other organization that does the same thing.
> > 
> > Lawson
> >
> OK, got it. Your position is crystal clear Lawson.
>

Not really. What I meant was that the cost of doing business in INdia often 
does 
involve graft. And I remain skeptical that GIrish and borhters are taking as 
much
as everyone says they are. FOr example, the "Srivasta family compound"according
to ColdBlueIce  is the Brahmastan where they are building the pundit housing
and temples. If you cout all those buildings as belonging to Girish, then he's
an incredible thief, but does it make sense to count all those buildings as 
belonging to Girish?


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Someone said that "40% of the money is 'misappropirated'." If that
> > > is true, 
> > > > its better than most western charities whre 90% of the money
> goes to 
> > > > "administrative overhead."
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Lawson, I do not believe this to be true.  Where did you get the 90%
> > > figure?
> > >
> > 
> > If you look at the "donor efficience" figure:
> > 
> > 
> > http://www.forbes.com/2004/11/23/04charityland.html
> > 
> > 
> > You will see that this figure may well be "charitable."
> > 
> > Charities are notably inefficient.
> > 
> > 
> > Lawson
> >
> Lawson, I think you might have misread the Forbes article.  It says:
> 
> "Higher is better. Charitable commitment shows how much of total
> expenses went for the charitable purpose, excluding management,
> overhead and fundraising. Average: 84%, down 1%. Fundraising
> efficiency indicates the share of gifts less fundraising expenses.
> Average: 89%, unchanged."
> 
> So, the average management, overhead and fundraising expenses were 16%
> and expenses for charitable purposes were 84%.
>

Perhaps you are correct. That 90% figure was probalby from 40 years ago
anyway.

Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
 
> I suspect Ruth recognizes she didn't come off very
> well in this discussion and is projecting her own
> embarrassment onto me, attacking my integrity in a
> post that itself showed a serious lack of integrity,
> also very unusual for her. And instead of dealing
> with that when it was pointed out to her, now she's
> "done with" me.

Think so Judy? You need help. I sincerely hope you get it somewhere, somehow 
and return to 
forums like this free from your ridiculous holier than thou POV.

Meanwhile, we'll enjoy the rest of the week since, one again you've posted out 
in under 48 
hours.

Rick FWITW, this 50 post rule was the best thing ever at FFL and the single 
reason I still check 
in.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity  
> > wrote:

> > > You could be interesting Judy.  You meditate and do the
> > > siddhis without being in the movement.  But to have a
> > > conversation with you means walking on eggshells.  Curtis
> > > does it beautifully.  I can't.
> > 
> > Up to you. But there's no need to walk on eggshells
> > with me if your debating/discussion is done with
> > integrity.
> 
> Judy, I am done with you.

I think what really happened here is that Ruth
decided to opine on something she didn't realize
she didn't know enough about. She freaked at
being challenged; she's used to her opinions
being accepted, because she usually *does* know
what she's talking about, more than any of the
rest of us here. But not in this case.

Her counterarguments were very weak. She couldn't
concede she was lacking any significant 
information and failed to address much of what
was provided, simply repeating her original
opinion over and over and citing sources for it
that also lacked the requisite information.

Abduction experiences are ambiguous and troubling,
and at this point we have no good way of knowing
for sure what's involved. Ruth prefers to believe
there are simple explanations, even though they
don't account for the nature of many if not most
of the reports. Rather than going for premature
closure, I'd prefer not to accept any of the
current explanations (including the little-green-
men-from-Alpha-Centauri one) until we have a lot
clearer idea what we're dealing with.

I suspect Ruth recognizes she didn't come off very
well in this discussion and is projecting her own
embarrassment onto me, attacking my integrity in a
post that itself showed a serious lack of integrity,
also very unusual for her. And instead of dealing
with that when it was pointed out to her, now she's
"done with" me.

Very disappointing clay feet for someone for whom
I had had an enormous amount of respect.

This is my 50th. Ta-ta till next Friday. (I'd say,
"Don't talk about me while I'm gone," but that
would be silly.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108"  
> wrote:
[...]
> > I don't know if this is an average, though when charities call you 
> > for money, you can ask them what percent of donations go for 
> > administrative costs. I have personally heard them tell me, "90 
> > percent".
> >
> 
> 
> And they still had the chutzpah to continue working for that 
> organisation?  And solicit you, to boot?
> 
> Boy, they must really have thought you were a sucker...I hope you 
> didn't give to them...
>

Ever give to the REd Cross?

Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[dhamiltony2k5]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" 
 wrote:
> >
> > Om, how many of these people are meditators?  Regularly 
>practicing 
> > meditators? 2x a day meditators?  How many co-ordinate their time 
>of 
> > practice to be in sync with the ME of the dome programs?  Like, 
>truly 
> > practice their, TM?  How many actually write here who are just of 
>the old 
> > secular meditation practitioners, who meditate simply because 
>they 
> > like it or get benefits from it...
> > 
 Just wondering who is writing. 
> > 
> > Jai Guru Dev,
> > -Doug
> > 
> Good question Doug. I no longer do the long Siddhi/A of E thing, 
>haven't for 25 years or so.
> I still do a morning meditation using the last "advanced" technique 
>M gave me. I do it 
> because it feels good, a nice start before my morning coffee, LA 
>Times and Mahler.
>

Yeah, are either meditators or non-meditators. Then there are those 
TB'er-TM'ers.  I figured you for a meditator.

Jai Guru Dev,
-Doug in FF  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 29, 2008, at 7:36 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote:
> 
> > On Jun 29, 2008, at 6:11 PM, authfriend wrote:
> >
> >>> And none of them back up Lawson's ludicrous claim.
> >>
> >> It wasn't Lawson's claim, it was that of his scholar
> >> friend, who is a professor of East Asian Studies at
> >> the University of Arizona.
> >
> > Well I think the guy needs to go back and do a lot
> > more studying if that's the kind of nonsense he's spouting.
> > And anyway, Lawson repeated it.
> >
> > (Cue up for Judy's lecture now on how "Lawson says..."
> > doesn't equal, "What Lawson says he actually believes."
> > I'm guessing this is going to become one more instance
> > of how something just got tossed out for the heck of it,
> > not that either Lawson or Judy actually believe it, since
> > by now it's undoubtedly occurred to both of them how
> > ludicrous it sounds.)
> 
> 
> As probably one of the leading current researchers on SBS, the Dandi  
> sannyasins lineage and Shank. controversy, Dana Sawyer, indicated  
> previously regarding Lawson--it's (like many things with Lawson)  
> beliefs he really wants to believe and obsess about, irregardless of  
> if there is anything remotely truthful or not. Here's Dana's previous  
> comments on Lawson's claims. Not sure, but I believe this Chandoop guy  
> is a TM TB, so also biased and the claim that his comments are  
> relevant are "appeals to authority" (i.e. logical fallacious):
> 
> Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the  
> 20th Century
> 
> Dana's response:
> 
> Rick,
> 
> only time for a moment of response to this guy's nonsense below.
> 
> He isn't offering any compelling argument in support of Vasudevananda's
> claim other than "he said, she said." A comment from Shantananda,  
> whether
> it was made or not, is only one comment in a sea of comments by direct
> disciples of Brahmananda. This fellow finds his "source" compelling
> simply because he wants it to be true, not because when he compares it  
> to
> the large number of comments and other evidence extant he arrives at a
> compelling position.
> 
> my advice, if he shows no real interest in the circumstances of the case
> is to simply let him be,
> 
> Dana
> 
> p.s. if he contacts my friend at "Advaita Vedanta" with a specific
> question about the lineage, he'll quickly discover that his source DOES
> disagree.
>

Anoop Chandola's uncle was a prominent temple priest in Northern India
who helped put SBS on the seat at Jyotirmath, and my impression and direct
knowledge is that some of what he was saying about SBS, MMY, etc., came from
his uncle, while  some of it was him speaking in his capacity as a scholar
of Indian culture. No doubt some of it was colored by the fact that he learned 
mditation from SSS while visiting him in Jyotirmath about 40 years ago (circa 
Beatles era).

And again, look at Anoop's publication record vs Dana Sawyer's to get an idea
for whether or not he could ever speak as an authority on Indian culture.

/shrug.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] The Final Teaching Of Krishna

[Mahesh Subrahmanyam]

>From the Uddhava Gita:
Neither bondage nor liberation is real.
Subject to the gunas- the three bondaries of nature,
The mind thinks of itself now as bond, now as free.
But since these boundaries are themselves illusory
I tell you, there is neither bondage nor liberation.
Krishna


  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > What's crucial to me is for folks to get their facts
> > > > straight, think clearly about issues, and debate with
> > > > integrity.
> > > 
> > > Yes, you have said similar things before.  I no longer believe you. 
> > > Your acts do not match your words.
> > 
> > Well, you know, Ruth, fuck you, as you said to me
> > last week. 
> > 
> > > Judy, I feel compelled to say that you do not debate with 
> > > integrity. 
> > > My raising this issue may very well spell the end of my time
> > > on FFL. After our discussion before my "week off", where you
> > > surprised me with your harsh posts,
> > 
> > Some of my comments were vehement, Ruth, but they were
> > no "harsher" than yours.
> > 
> > But let's talk about debating with integrity, shall we?
> > 
> >  I looked back and read
> > > some prior conversations you have had with others.  I should
> > > not have been surprised. 
> > > 
> > > Your accusations of John Knapp showed no clear thinking about
> > > the issue of whether the movement can be reformed.  It was a
> > > vicious attack on him. That was all it was.   I was shocked.
> > > Your posts did not show integrity.
> > 
> > As I told you, you haven't a clue as to Knapp's
> > history, including recent history. I didn't show
> > *any* thinking about the issue of whether the
> > movement can be reformed. I seriously doubt it
> > can be, but it certainly wasn't anything I had
> > any intention of discussing with John Knapp, who
> > does not have the welfare of the TMO in mind.
> > 
> > What you *should* have looked for is whether I
> > showed clear thinking about Knapp's trustworthiness
> > where the movement is concerned; that's what I was
> > addressing, not movement reform. You don't show much
> > integrity by suggesting I didn't show clear thinking
> > about something I explicitly said I was not going to
> > address with him.
> > 
> > > You called a researcher I mentioned "loathsome" without
> > > reading her research, accepting without question what
> > > her critics said. That does not show integrity.
> > 
> > I did not call her loathesome. I called something
> > loathesome that you quoted her as having said as
> > an explanation for abduction experiences. Big
> > difference. Your misquote of what I said does not
> > show integrity.
> > 
> > I pointed out that the reviewers had found her
> > research sloppy and that she had made many factual
> > errors, both criticisms backed up by specifics. And
> > your response was, "Of course they disagree with
> > her. She has simple straightforward explanations and
> > they don't want simple straightforward explanations."
> > 
> > That obviously does not address what the reviewers
> > were criticizing, and it demeans the reviewers,
> > without providing any evidence that their points
> > weren't on target. It's also mind-reading, BTW.
> > Not much integrity there, either.
> > 
> > > Curtis once said that one thing he liked about FFL was
> > > that people can say anything they want freely.  True, so
> > > long as you do not mind having your words distorted by a
> > > pedantic poster, a master of manipulation and insult.
> > > Form over substance.
> > 
> > This is just a bunch of cheap shots that you can't
> > back up, Ruth.
> > 
> >   And now I am watching you try to
> > > manipulate Sal.  You said you don't care about Guru Dev's
> > > fame, but you sure seem to care about Sal's curiosity, as
> > > if that curiosity is something inappropriate.
> > 
> > "Manipulate Sal"?? To do what?
> > 
> > Sal isn't *curious*, Ruth. If you think that, you're
> > letting yourself be manipulated. Sal is interested
> > only in dispatching what she considers a TMO sacred
> > cow. She gets off on that, as do many if not most of
> > the posters here. Except she doesn't have her facts
> > straight; that's what I care about.
> > 
> > > Judy said: 
> > > 
> > > "I don't jump on people unless
> > > they behave, in Barry's words, less than honorably."
> > > 
> > > If that is the case, you believe I am dishonorable.
> > 
> > I didn't before, but I'm beginning to wonder.
> > You're quoting me *way* out of context there, as
> > I'm pretty sure you're aware.
> > 
> > Here's what I was responding to, from Barry:
> > 
> > > Many are lurkers who have sincere ques-
> > > tions about the stuff they were told by Maharishi or
> > > the TM movement, and have had no forum on which to
> > > talk about it, for fear of being kicked out of the
> > > movement they are part of. And they've been reluctant
> > > to do so even anonymously here on FFL because they knew
> > > from reading the posts that the moment they did, some-
> > > one like Judy Stein or one of the other True Believer
> > > clones would start j

[FairfieldLife] A Saints Life is on the Level of Silence Re: Guru Dev was the most important

[R.G.]

  (snip)
> >> In Maharishi Vedic Science "samadhi" is equated with silence, 
where
> >> the etymological derivation would be "sama", which means silence 
and
> >> "dhi" which means mind. So therefore a person in constant sama-
dhi is
> >> operating from a level of constant silence, or so it's believed 
in  
> >> the
> >> TMO mythos.
 (snip)
Eckart Tolle has a nice way of telling it...
He uses the term 'Presence' to describe a person's 'silence'...
The amount of 'silence' 'stillness' 'no thoughts' 'vertical expansion' 
all of the things which a person developes through meditative 
practices, sports, any exploration of one's consciousness to the 
extent that one begins to realize that the 'silence within' when one 
is silent, with no thought, is a deep and infinite pool of energy and 
intilligence, as MMY used to say in the into and SCI info...
Buddha and Jesus basically taught the same lessons...
'Nothing New Under the Sun'...

[FairfieldLife] A Saints Life is on the Level of Silence Re: Guru Dev was the most important

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >
> > In Maharishi Vedic Science "samadhi" is equated with silence, where  
> > the etymological derivation would be "sama", which means silence and  
> > "dhi" which means mind. So therefore a person in constant sama-dhi
is  
> > operating from a level of constant silence, or so it's believed in
the  
> > TMO mythos.
> 
> "Silence" that I am referring to is not some tm mythos. One can use
> any number of words, but the 'ting' is real.
>

But do you agree that it means operating from a state of
enlightenment? "Silence" as in not speaking is not required?

Re: [FairfieldLife] A Saints Life is on the Level of Silence Re: Guru Dev was the most important

[Vaj]

On Jun 29, 2008, at 9:57 PM, new.morning wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


In Maharishi Vedic Science "samadhi" is equated with silence, where
the etymological derivation would be "sama", which means silence and
"dhi" which means mind. So therefore a person in constant sama-dhi is
operating from a level of constant silence, or so it's believed in  
the

TMO mythos.


"Silence" that I am referring to is not some tm mythos. One can use
any number of words, but the 'ting' is real.



TMO mythos, not TM mythos, although the two are obviously connected.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 29, 2008, at 8:36 PM, authfriend wrote:


  And now I am watching you try to

manipulate Sal.  You said you don't care about Guru Dev's
fame, but you sure seem to care about Sal's curiosity, as
if that curiosity is something inappropriate.


"Manipulate Sal"?? To do what?

Sal isn't *curious*, Ruth.


MInd-reading, Judy.  I most certainly am curious.
I am *not* however, yellow.


If you think that, you're
letting yourself be manipulated. Sal is interested
only in dispatching what she considers a TMO sacred
cow.


Well, I gotta admit,  there is some truth in that last
sentence.  But you say it like it's a bad thing. :)  What, pray tell,
is wrong with dispatching sacred cows?  If there is any
substance there, they will stand on their own, any
dispatching notwithstanding.  And I hardly think Ruth needs
me or anyone else to point out what the facts are.
If the facts involving them have integrity, they should
sure be able to withstand whatever puny assault I might
make, right?  And what does my latest sin
consist of?  If you recall, this all started with the question
of who outside of the the TMO has heard of GD, and what
he did that made him important.  Gosh, that really
sounds ominous, doesn't it?



She gets off on that, as do many if not most of
the posters here. Except she doesn't have her facts
straight; that's what I care about.


Yeah, Ruth, the fact is that GD was "the most important
spiritual leader in India during the first half of the 20th  
Century."  This is the nonsense Judy is defending...still.


Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[geezerfreak]

That's 50 isn't it? Thank god. Judy go. Ruth, please stay.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > 
> > > What's crucial to me is for folks to get their facts
> > > straight, think clearly about issues, and debate with
> > > integrity.
> > 
> > Yes, you have said similar things before.  I no longer believe you. 
> > Your acts do not match your words.
> 
> Well, you know, Ruth, fuck you, as you said to me
> last week. 
> 
> > Judy, I feel compelled to say that you do not debate with 
> > integrity. 
> > My raising this issue may very well spell the end of my time
> > on FFL. After our discussion before my "week off", where you
> > surprised me with your harsh posts,
> 
> Some of my comments were vehement, Ruth, but they were
> no "harsher" than yours.
> 
> But let's talk about debating with integrity, shall we?
> 
>  I looked back and read
> > some prior conversations you have had with others.  I should
> > not have been surprised. 
> > 
> > Your accusations of John Knapp showed no clear thinking about
> > the issue of whether the movement can be reformed.  It was a
> > vicious attack on him. That was all it was.   I was shocked.
> > Your posts did not show integrity.
> 
> As I told you, you haven't a clue as to Knapp's
> history, including recent history. I didn't show
> *any* thinking about the issue of whether the
> movement can be reformed. I seriously doubt it
> can be, but it certainly wasn't anything I had
> any intention of discussing with John Knapp, who
> does not have the welfare of the TMO in mind.
> 
> What you *should* have looked for is whether I
> showed clear thinking about Knapp's trustworthiness
> where the movement is concerned; that's what I was
> addressing, not movement reform. You don't show much
> integrity by suggesting I didn't show clear thinking
> about something I explicitly said I was not going to
> address with him.
> 
> > You called a researcher I mentioned "loathsome" without
> > reading her research, accepting without question what
> > her critics said. That does not show integrity.
> 
> I did not call her loathesome. I called something
> loathesome that you quoted her as having said as
> an explanation for abduction experiences. Big
> difference. Your misquote of what I said does not
> show integrity.
> 
> I pointed out that the reviewers had found her
> research sloppy and that she had made many factual
> errors, both criticisms backed up by specifics. And
> your response was, "Of course they disagree with
> her. She has simple straightforward explanations and
> they don't want simple straightforward explanations."
> 
> That obviously does not address what the reviewers
> were criticizing, and it demeans the reviewers,
> without providing any evidence that their points
> weren't on target. It's also mind-reading, BTW.
> Not much integrity there, either.
> 
> > Curtis once said that one thing he liked about FFL was
> > that people can say anything they want freely.  True, so
> > long as you do not mind having your words distorted by a
> > pedantic poster, a master of manipulation and insult.
> > Form over substance.
> 
> This is just a bunch of cheap shots that you can't
> back up, Ruth.
> 
>   And now I am watching you try to
> > manipulate Sal.  You said you don't care about Guru Dev's
> > fame, but you sure seem to care about Sal's curiosity, as
> > if that curiosity is something inappropriate.
> 
> "Manipulate Sal"?? To do what?
> 
> Sal isn't *curious*, Ruth. If you think that, you're
> letting yourself be manipulated. Sal is interested
> only in dispatching what she considers a TMO sacred
> cow. She gets off on that, as do many if not most of
> the posters here. Except she doesn't have her facts
> straight; that's what I care about.
> 
> > Judy said: 
> > 
> > "I don't jump on people unless
> > they behave, in Barry's words, less than honorably."
> > 
> > If that is the case, you believe I am dishonorable.
> 
> I didn't before, but I'm beginning to wonder.
> You're quoting me *way* out of context there, as
> I'm pretty sure you're aware.
> 
> Here's what I was responding to, from Barry:
> 
> > Many are lurkers who have sincere ques-
> > tions about the stuff they were told by Maharishi or
> > the TM movement, and have had no forum on which to
> > talk about it, for fear of being kicked out of the
> > movement they are part of. And they've been reluctant
> > to do so even anonymously here on FFL because they knew
> > from reading the posts that the moment they did, some-
> > one like Judy Stein or one of the other True Believer
> > clones would start jumping on them and vilifying them
> > as "dishonorable" or "liars" or worse.
> 
> So what's your explanation for the out-of-context
> quote, which obviously doesn't apply to you?
> 
> > You could be interesting Judy.  You meditate and do the
> >

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[Vaj]

On Jun 29, 2008, at 9:36 PM, geezerfreak wrote:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:




What's crucial to me is for folks to get their facts
straight, think clearly about issues, and debate with
integrity.


Yes, you have said similar things before.  I no longer believe you.
Your acts do not match your words.

Judy, I feel compelled to say that you do not debate with integrity.
My raising this issue may very well spell the end of my time on FFL.
After our discussion before my "week off", where you surprised me  
with

your harsh posts, I looked back and read some prior conversations you
have had with others.  I should not have been surprised.

Your accusations of John Knapp showed no clear thinking about the
issue of whether the movement can be reformed.  It was a vicious
attack on him. That was all it was.   I was shocked. Your posts did
not show integrity.

You called a researcher I mentioned "loathsome" without reading her
research, accepting without question what her critics said. That does
not show integrity.

Curtis once said that one thing he liked about FFL was that people  
can

say anything they want freely.  True, so long as you do not mind
having your words distorted by a pedantic poster, a master of
manipulation and insult.  Form over substance.  And now I am watching
you try to manipulate Sal.  You said you don't care about Guru Dev's
fame, but you sure seem to care about Sal's curiosity, as if that
curiosity is something inappropriate.

Judy said:

"I don't jump on people unless
they behave, in Barry's words, less than honorably."

If that is the case, you believe I am dishonorable.

You could be interesting Judy.  You meditate and do the siddhis
without being in the movement.  But to have a conversation with you
means walking on eggshells.  Curtis does it beautifully.  I can't.

I, for one, hope that you stick around Ruth. Your posts I always  
read, even if I have to do a
quick scan due to road time constraints. You have been a hallmark of  
intelligence and
integrity from the very beginning. I don't always agree with you.  
But you are able to post
in a way that always makes me think through my position carefully.  
FFL will be a much

lesser place if you allow  Judy's insanity to drive you away.

Don't do it Ruth. Please.


Yeah, and learning to ignore Judy--once truly mastered--will enable  
you to sit outside and not flinch when flies or mosquitoes land on  
your meditating body...eventually even large reptiles won't bother  
you. :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > What's crucial to me is for folks to get their facts
> > > straight, think clearly about issues, and debate with
> > > integrity.
> > 
> > Yes, you have said similar things before.  I no longer believe you. 
> > Your acts do not match your words. 
> > 
> > Judy, I feel compelled to say that you do not debate with integrity. 
> > My raising this issue may very well spell the end of my time on FFL.
> > After our discussion before my "week off", where you surprised me with
> > your harsh posts, I looked back and read some prior conversations you
> > have had with others.  I should not have been surprised. 
> > 
> > Your accusations of John Knapp showed no clear thinking about the
> > issue of whether the movement can be reformed.  It was a vicious
> > attack on him. That was all it was.   I was shocked. Your posts did
> > not show integrity.
> > 
> > You called a researcher I mentioned "loathsome" without reading her
> > research, accepting without question what her critics said. That does
> > not show integrity.
> > 
> > Curtis once said that one thing he liked about FFL was that people can
> > say anything they want freely.  True, so long as you do not mind 
> > having your words distorted by a pedantic poster, a master of
> > manipulation and insult.  Form over substance.  And now I am watching
> > you try to manipulate Sal.  You said you don't care about Guru Dev's
> > fame, but you sure seem to care about Sal's curiosity, as if that
> > curiosity is something inappropriate.  
> > 
> > Judy said: 
> > 
> > "I don't jump on people unless
> > they behave, in Barry's words, less than honorably."
> > 
> > If that is the case, you believe I am dishonorable. 
> > 
> > You could be interesting Judy.  You meditate and do the siddhis
> > without being in the movement.  But to have a conversation with you
> > means walking on eggshells.  Curtis does it beautifully.  I can't. 
> > 
> I, for one, hope that you stick around Ruth. Your posts I always
read, even if I have to do a 
> quick scan due to road time constraints. You have been a hallmark of
intelligence and 
> integrity from the very beginning. I don't always agree with you.
But you are able to post 
> in a way that always makes me think through my position carefully.
FFL will be a much 
> lesser place if you allow  Judy's insanity to drive you away.
> 
> Don't do it Ruth. Please.
>

Thank you for the kind words.  I almost left in a huff, but I'll give
it a bit and see if I can hang around.  I have learned a lot from many
on this forum.  

[FairfieldLife] A Saints Life is on the Level of Silence Re: Guru Dev was the most important

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In Maharishi Vedic Science "samadhi" is equated with silence, where  
> the etymological derivation would be "sama", which means silence and  
> "dhi" which means mind. So therefore a person in constant sama-dhi is  
> operating from a level of constant silence, or so it's believed in the  
> TMO mythos.

"Silence" that I am referring to is not some tm mythos. One can use
any number of words, but the 'ting' is real.

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Om, how many of these people are meditators?  Regularly practicing 
> meditators? 2x a day meditators?  How many co-ordinate their time of 
> practice to be in sync with the ME of the dome programs?  Like, truly 
> practice their, TM?  How many actually write here who are just old 
> secular meditation practitioners, who meditate simply because they 
> like it or get benefits from it...
> 
> Just wondering who is writing. 
> 
> Jai Guru Dev,
> -Doug
> 
Good question Doug. I no longer do the long Siddhi/A of E thing, haven't for 25 
years or so.
I still do a morning meditation using the last "advanced" technique M gave me. 
I do it 
because it feels good, a nice start before my morning coffee, LA Times and 
Mahler.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > 
> > > What's crucial to me is for folks to get their facts
> > > straight, think clearly about issues, and debate with
> > > integrity.
> > 
> > Yes, you have said similar things before.  I no longer believe you. 
> > Your acts do not match your words.
> 
> Well, you know, Ruth, fuck you, as you said to me
> last week. 
> 
> > Judy, I feel compelled to say that you do not debate with 
> > integrity. 
> > My raising this issue may very well spell the end of my time
> > on FFL. After our discussion before my "week off", where you
> > surprised me with your harsh posts,
> 
> Some of my comments were vehement, Ruth, but they were
> no "harsher" than yours.
> 
> But let's talk about debating with integrity, shall we?
> 
>  I looked back and read
> > some prior conversations you have had with others.  I should
> > not have been surprised. 
> > 
> > Your accusations of John Knapp showed no clear thinking about
> > the issue of whether the movement can be reformed.  It was a
> > vicious attack on him. That was all it was.   I was shocked.
> > Your posts did not show integrity.
> 
> As I told you, you haven't a clue as to Knapp's
> history, including recent history. I didn't show
> *any* thinking about the issue of whether the
> movement can be reformed. I seriously doubt it
> can be, but it certainly wasn't anything I had
> any intention of discussing with John Knapp, who
> does not have the welfare of the TMO in mind.
> 
> What you *should* have looked for is whether I
> showed clear thinking about Knapp's trustworthiness
> where the movement is concerned; that's what I was
> addressing, not movement reform. You don't show much
> integrity by suggesting I didn't show clear thinking
> about something I explicitly said I was not going to
> address with him.
> 
> > You called a researcher I mentioned "loathsome" without
> > reading her research, accepting without question what
> > her critics said. That does not show integrity.
> 
> I did not call her loathesome. I called something
> loathesome that you quoted her as having said as
> an explanation for abduction experiences. Big
> difference. Your misquote of what I said does not
> show integrity.
> 
> I pointed out that the reviewers had found her
> research sloppy and that she had made many factual
> errors, both criticisms backed up by specifics. And
> your response was, "Of course they disagree with
> her. She has simple straightforward explanations and
> they don't want simple straightforward explanations."
> 
> That obviously does not address what the reviewers
> were criticizing, and it demeans the reviewers,
> without providing any evidence that their points
> weren't on target. It's also mind-reading, BTW.
> Not much integrity there, either.
> 
> > Curtis once said that one thing he liked about FFL was
> > that people can say anything they want freely.  True, so
> > long as you do not mind having your words distorted by a
> > pedantic poster, a master of manipulation and insult.
> > Form over substance.
> 
> This is just a bunch of cheap shots that you can't
> back up, Ruth.
> 
>   And now I am watching you try to
> > manipulate Sal.  You said you don't care about Guru Dev's
> > fame, but you sure seem to care about Sal's curiosity, as
> > if that curiosity is something inappropriate.
> 
> "Manipulate Sal"?? To do what?
> 
> Sal isn't *curious*, Ruth. If you think that, you're
> letting yourself be manipulated. Sal is interested
> only in dispatching what she considers a TMO sacred
> cow. She gets off on that, as do many if not most of
> the posters here. Except she doesn't have her facts
> straight; that's what I care about.
> 
> > Judy said: 
> > 
> > "I don't jump on people unless
> > they behave, in Barry's words, less than honorably."
> > 
> > If that is the case, you believe I am dishonorable.
> 
> I didn't before, but I'm beginning to wonder.
> You're quoting me *way* out of context there, as
> I'm pretty sure you're aware.
> 
> Here's what I was responding to, from Barry:
> 
> > Many are lurkers who have sincere ques-
> > tions about the stuff they were told by Maharishi or
> > the TM movement, and have had no forum on which to
> > talk about it, for fear of being kicked out of the
> > movement they are part of. And they've been reluctant
> > to do so even anonymously here on FFL because they knew
> > from reading the posts that the moment they did, some-
> > one like Judy Stein or one of the other True Believer
> > clones would start jumping on them and vilifying them
> > as "dishonorable" or "liars" or worse.
> 
> So what's your explanation for the out-of-context
> quote, which obviously doesn't apply to you?
> 
> > You could be interesting Judy.  You meditate and do the
> > siddhis without being in the movement.  But to have a
> > c

Re: [FairfieldLife] A Saints Life is on the Level of Silence Re: Guru Dev was the most important

[Vaj]

On Jun 29, 2008, at 9:35 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:


On Jun 29, 2008, at 8:20 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning 
wrote:


A Saints life is on the level of silence.


OK folks, what does this "level of silence" thing mean?  Nader
operates from the level of silence.


Ralph Nader?  If only.

Good one!



"> That's the thing--people are exalted in Hinduism for

some vague mental state they're supposedly in that
has nothing whatsoever to do with anything concrete--
for themselves or anyone else.  And the result is
a nation that's been a mess.

Sal


I found this MUM page talking about silence:
http://is1.mum.edu/vedicreserve/gandharva_veda.htm
"With regular practice of Transcendental Meditation the individual
develops Unity Consciousness, which is the ability to function from
the level of silence. This is the development of mastery over Natural
Law — mastery over specific Laws of Nature, which is the level of
Maharishi's Master Management — automation in administration."

So apparently synonymous with unity consciousness.  FWIW.  Hard to
decipher TM speak.  As you say Sal, nothing concrete.


In Maharishi Vedic Science "samadhi" is equated with silence, where  
the etymological derivation would be "sama", which means silence and  
"dhi" which means mind. So therefore a person in constant sama-dhi is  
operating from a level of constant silence, or so it's believed in the  
TMO mythos.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > What's crucial to me is for folks to get their facts
> > straight, think clearly about issues, and debate with
> > integrity.
> 
> Yes, you have said similar things before.  I no longer believe you. 
> Your acts do not match your words. 
> 
> Judy, I feel compelled to say that you do not debate with integrity. 
> My raising this issue may very well spell the end of my time on FFL.
> After our discussion before my "week off", where you surprised me with
> your harsh posts, I looked back and read some prior conversations you
> have had with others.  I should not have been surprised. 
> 
> Your accusations of John Knapp showed no clear thinking about the
> issue of whether the movement can be reformed.  It was a vicious
> attack on him. That was all it was.   I was shocked. Your posts did
> not show integrity.
> 
> You called a researcher I mentioned "loathsome" without reading her
> research, accepting without question what her critics said. That does
> not show integrity.
> 
> Curtis once said that one thing he liked about FFL was that people can
> say anything they want freely.  True, so long as you do not mind 
> having your words distorted by a pedantic poster, a master of
> manipulation and insult.  Form over substance.  And now I am watching
> you try to manipulate Sal.  You said you don't care about Guru Dev's
> fame, but you sure seem to care about Sal's curiosity, as if that
> curiosity is something inappropriate.  
> 
> Judy said: 
> 
> "I don't jump on people unless
> they behave, in Barry's words, less than honorably."
> 
> If that is the case, you believe I am dishonorable. 
> 
> You could be interesting Judy.  You meditate and do the siddhis
> without being in the movement.  But to have a conversation with you
> means walking on eggshells.  Curtis does it beautifully.  I can't. 
> 
I, for one, hope that you stick around Ruth. Your posts I always read, even if 
I have to do a 
quick scan due to road time constraints. You have been a hallmark of 
intelligence and 
integrity from the very beginning. I don't always agree with you. But you are 
able to post 
in a way that always makes me think through my position carefully. FFL will be 
a much 
lesser place if you allow  Judy's insanity to drive you away.

Don't do it Ruth. Please.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > What's crucial to me is for folks to get their facts
> > straight, think clearly about issues, and debate with
> > integrity.
> 
> Yes, you have said similar things before.  I no longer believe you. 
> Your acts do not match your words.

Well, you know, Ruth, fuck you, as you said to me
last week. 

> Judy, I feel compelled to say that you do not debate with 
> integrity. 
> My raising this issue may very well spell the end of my time
> on FFL. After our discussion before my "week off", where you
> surprised me with your harsh posts,

Some of my comments were vehement, Ruth, but they were
no "harsher" than yours.

But let's talk about debating with integrity, shall we?

 I looked back and read
> some prior conversations you have had with others.  I should
> not have been surprised. 
> 
> Your accusations of John Knapp showed no clear thinking about
> the issue of whether the movement can be reformed.  It was a
> vicious attack on him. That was all it was.   I was shocked.
> Your posts did not show integrity.

As I told you, you haven't a clue as to Knapp's
history, including recent history. I didn't show
*any* thinking about the issue of whether the
movement can be reformed. I seriously doubt it
can be, but it certainly wasn't anything I had
any intention of discussing with John Knapp, who
does not have the welfare of the TMO in mind.

What you *should* have looked for is whether I
showed clear thinking about Knapp's trustworthiness
where the movement is concerned; that's what I was
addressing, not movement reform. You don't show much
integrity by suggesting I didn't show clear thinking
about something I explicitly said I was not going to
address with him.

> You called a researcher I mentioned "loathsome" without
> reading her research, accepting without question what
> her critics said. That does not show integrity.

I did not call her loathesome. I called something
loathesome that you quoted her as having said as
an explanation for abduction experiences. Big
difference. Your misquote of what I said does not
show integrity.

I pointed out that the reviewers had found her
research sloppy and that she had made many factual
errors, both criticisms backed up by specifics. And
your response was, "Of course they disagree with
her. She has simple straightforward explanations and
they don't want simple straightforward explanations."

That obviously does not address what the reviewers
were criticizing, and it demeans the reviewers,
without providing any evidence that their points
weren't on target. It's also mind-reading, BTW.
Not much integrity there, either.

> Curtis once said that one thing he liked about FFL was
> that people can say anything they want freely.  True, so
> long as you do not mind having your words distorted by a
> pedantic poster, a master of manipulation and insult.
> Form over substance.

This is just a bunch of cheap shots that you can't
back up, Ruth.

  And now I am watching you try to
> manipulate Sal.  You said you don't care about Guru Dev's
> fame, but you sure seem to care about Sal's curiosity, as
> if that curiosity is something inappropriate.

"Manipulate Sal"?? To do what?

Sal isn't *curious*, Ruth. If you think that, you're
letting yourself be manipulated. Sal is interested
only in dispatching what she considers a TMO sacred
cow. She gets off on that, as do many if not most of
the posters here. Except she doesn't have her facts
straight; that's what I care about.

> Judy said: 
> 
> "I don't jump on people unless
> they behave, in Barry's words, less than honorably."
> 
> If that is the case, you believe I am dishonorable.

I didn't before, but I'm beginning to wonder.
You're quoting me *way* out of context there, as
I'm pretty sure you're aware.

Here's what I was responding to, from Barry:

> Many are lurkers who have sincere ques-
> tions about the stuff they were told by Maharishi or
> the TM movement, and have had no forum on which to
> talk about it, for fear of being kicked out of the
> movement they are part of. And they've been reluctant
> to do so even anonymously here on FFL because they knew
> from reading the posts that the moment they did, some-
> one like Judy Stein or one of the other True Believer
> clones would start jumping on them and vilifying them
> as "dishonorable" or "liars" or worse.

So what's your explanation for the out-of-context
quote, which obviously doesn't apply to you?

> You could be interesting Judy.  You meditate and do the
> siddhis without being in the movement.  But to have a
> conversation with you means walking on eggshells.  Curtis
> does it beautifully.  I can't.

Up to you. But there's no need to walk on eggshells
with me if your debating/discussion is done with
integrity.

[FairfieldLife] A Saints Life is on the Level of Silence Re: Guru Dev was the most important

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Jun 29, 2008, at 8:20 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning   
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> A Saints life is on the level of silence.
> >
> > OK folks, what does this "level of silence" thing mean?  Nader
> > operates from the level of silence.
> 
> Ralph Nader?  If only.
Good one!  
> 
"> That's the thing--people are exalted in Hinduism for
> some vague mental state they're supposedly in that
> has nothing whatsoever to do with anything concrete--
> for themselves or anyone else.  And the result is
> a nation that's been a mess.
> 
> Sal
>
I found this MUM page talking about silence:
http://is1.mum.edu/vedicreserve/gandharva_veda.htm
"With regular practice of Transcendental Meditation the individual
develops Unity Consciousness, which is the ability to function from
the level of silence. This is the development of mastery over Natural
Law — mastery over specific Laws of Nature, which is the level of
Maharishi's Master Management — automation in administration."

So apparently synonymous with unity consciousness.  FWIW.  Hard to
decipher TM speak.  As you say Sal, nothing concrete.

Re: [FairfieldLife] A Saints Life is on the Level of Silence Re: Guru Dev was the most important

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 29, 2008, at 8:20 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:


A Saints life is on the level of silence.


OK folks, what does this "level of silence" thing mean?  Nader
operates from the level of silence.


Ralph Nader?  If only.


New Morning talks about the level
of silence.

I read an autobiography not long ago by a woman who spent a good part
of her life as a cloistered nun.  Living in prayer and silence. She
and her sisters believed in the good they did the world in their
silence.

It is a puzzle because you cannot know whether any good is done and
you have to have a certain kind of faith that I certainly don't have.
 Me, I know saints by what they do.  Give me action.  Give me good
works.


That's the thing--people are exalted in Hinduism for
some vague mental state they're supposedly in that
has nothing whatsoever to do with anything concrete--
for themselves or anyone else.  And the result is
a nation that's been a mess.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[dhamiltony2k5]

Om, how many of these people are meditators?  Regularly practicing 
meditators? 2x a day meditators?  How many co-ordinate their time of 
practice to be in sync with the ME of the dome programs?  Like, truly 
practice their, TM?  How many actually write here who are just old 
secular meditation practitioners, who meditate simply because they 
like it or get benefits from it...

Just wondering who is writing. 

Jai Guru Dev,
-Doug


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Today's gab stats:
> Yahoo Groups Post Counter
> =
> Start Date (UTC): Sat Jun 21 00:00:00 2008
> End Date (UTC): Sat Jun 28 00:00:00 2008
> -- Searching...
> 
> 830 messages as of (UTC) Fri Jun 27 00:32:08 2008
> Member   Posts
> 
> "danfriedman2002" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>59
> "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  50
> "Sunyata" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 50
> TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>48
> "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>47
> "John M. Knapp, LMSW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  43
> Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   37
> "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>33
> "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>32
> nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 30
> off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  26
> Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>25
> "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  22
> "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  22
> Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 19
> "lurkernomore20002000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  18
> Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 18
> "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>17
> "feste37" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>17
> "yifuxero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  16
> cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  15
> "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 14
> "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>13
> bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  12
> "matrixmonitor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>11
> "new.morning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11
> "tertonzeno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  10
> "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  9
> Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>9
> "boo_lives" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>8
> "Kenny H" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   8
> "mrfishey2001" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  8
> "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   6
> "taskcentered" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 5
> "dhamiltony2k5" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>5
> "Alex Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   5
> "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>5
> Louis McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>4
> "amarnath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   4
> satvadude108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  4
> "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>4
> ruthsimplicity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>3
> "george_deforest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>2
> hermandan0 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>2
> FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com2
> "Peter Vogel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2
> "guyfawkes91" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>2
> "mainstream20016" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>2
> "aztjbailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2
> "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   2
> gullible fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1
> Yifu Xero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   1
> "Jeffrey N Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>1
> Dick Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   1
> "Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  1
> "R.G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>1
> okpeachman2000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>1
> "wayback71" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>1
> "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>1
> "jyouells2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   1
> "martyboi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  1
> sgrayatlarge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  1
> posters: 62
> Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
> =
> Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
> US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
> Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
> Standard Time (Winter):
> US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
> Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
> For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
>

[FairfieldLife] A Saints Life is on the Level of Silence Re: Guru Dev was the most important

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> A Saints life is on the level of silence. 

OK folks, what does this "level of silence" thing mean?  Nader
operates from the level of silence.  New Morning talks about the level
of silence.   

I read an autobiography not long ago by a woman who spent a good part
of her life as a cloistered nun.  Living in prayer and silence. She
and her sisters believed in the good they did the world in their
silence.  

It is a puzzle because you cannot know whether any good is done and
you have to have a certain kind of faith that I certainly don't have.
 Me, I know saints by what they do.  Give me action.  Give me good
works.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Reflections on a Man of Peace

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> On Jun 29, 2008, at 6:41 PM, Peter wrote:
> 
> > Bevan told us we should no longer think or talk about the funeral.
> 
> What will happen if we do?  Will we turn into pumpkins? :)
> 
> > This purusha is in violation of natural law. tsk, tsk
> 
> Sal
>
even worse...zucchinis.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> As usual Judy shot her wad in less than 48 hours.
> 
> Anyone else notice how much more enjoyable, interesting and 
entertaining this site is after 
> Judy and Nabby post out? I say that not because I disagree with them 
about most things. I 
> enjoy reading many posts by people I completely disagree with, but 
Judy's are  just 
> endless variations on the "I'm more intelligent than you, you're a 
liar" theme. They are so 
> fucking boring!
> 
I like Nabby's posts, and he has rarely contributed more than about 5 
posts a week. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Reflections on a Man of Peace

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bevan told us we should no longer think or talk about the funeral. This 
> purusha is in 
violation of natural law. tsk, tsk
> 
> 
Is that true Peter? WowI bet this was a directive from the "clan". The 
funeral is evidence 
that MMY aged like any other mortal, and passed on. For the funds to keep 
flowing to the 
family he needs to be thought of as beyond death, and still passing on his 
"wishes" (for more 
money).

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
> 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > On Behalf Of shempmcgurk
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 10:49 AM
> > > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > As such, the American cultural predisposition to demanding 
> > > > > > accountability will come forward like it has never done 
> > > > > before...and 
> > > > > > the Movement will NOT be successful invoking Maharishi or 
> > > anything 
> > > > > > else that may have worked in the past to squelch 
> accountability.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Could be. Trouble is, the TMO hardly reflects American 
> culture. 
> > > > > It's a very
> > > > > > Indianized, Guru-fied sub-culture.
> > > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes, it is.  But it is a culture that is now WITHOUT a guru, 
> > > which is 
> > > > > the point I'm trying to make.
> > > > > 
> > > > > One of the reasons we all -- or at least I did -- got into TM 
> was 
> > > > > because devotion and surrender to a guru was NOT part of the 
> > > > > program.  For whatever reason, many of us if not most of us 
> who 
> > > > > became active in the movement fell into that very 
> relationship.  
> > > Some 
> > > > > of us, like myself, found ourselves doing it against our 
> better 
> > > > > judgement.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I believe that the original non-guru "sense" that prevailed 
> when 
> > > we 
> > > > > started TM will now come to the forefront.  In this same 
> vein, 
> > > Rick, 
> > > > > it was with great relief that several years ago Maharishi 
> came 
> > > out 
> > > > > with his recertification program.  Why?  Because I felt that 
> with 
> > > the 
> > > > > new requirement to be recertified I had, as a TM teacher, 
> become 
> > > > > UNcertified; that is, I was freed from any constraints that I 
> may 
> > > > > have signed away to be an unquestioning "devotee" when I 
> signed 
> > > that 
> > > > > form (of which I never got a copy so who the hell knows 
> whether 
> > > it 
> > > > > was legal) on the day I became an initiator.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We're all kinda free of that constraint now with Maharishi's 
> > > death 
> > > > > and the continued non-compliance with full accountability 
> simply 
> > > > > won't pass muster with most any more.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The culture of financial accountability that is attached to 
> > > American 
> > > > > donations should follow it to every corner of the world to 
> which 
> > > it 
> > > > > is sent, including India.  That's that money's "karma", so to 
> > > speak, 
> > > > > and that's all right with me.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I'd venture to say that any 'culture of financial 
> accountability' in
> > > > the USA has practically gone the way of the Dodo bird.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Aside from the anally retentive Swiss and Germanic cultures, 
> America 
> > > is probably the most financially accountable country in the world.
> > > 
> > > I think Bongo Brazil is getting "corruption" mixed up 
> with "financial 
> > > accountability".  Assuming that is what he means, I would like to 
> ask 
> > > him why he believes this.
> > 
> > 
> > The Congress and the Bush administration and the Big Money corporate
> > and K Street financial industry behind it that's put the country of
> > regular Americans in it's current fiscal horror story, comes to 
> mind.
> > 
> > The American people [excluding the small percentage of the obscenely
> > wealthy] also seem to have actually developed a status of negative
> > savings. 
> > 
> > The only real 'accountability' I see happening is the inevitable 
> cause
> > and effect results of fiscal irresponsibility disastrously coming 
> home
> > to roost.
> >
> 
> 
> The accountability system is probably fine; it's whether people 
> actually read the financial statements and interpret them properly 
> that is lacking.
> 
> Enron is a case in point.  Enron didn't "doctor" their financial 
> statements...they had them coming out of the wazoo!  In fact, when 
> the first business journal articles started coming out questioning 
> whether Enron was a viable business enterprise (and which eventually 
> led to their demise), a team from the Enron accounting department 
> would get on the corporate jet and fly to wherever the reporters were 
> and present them with mountains of financial documents...all 
> legitimate financial documents.
> 
> Indeed, the fact that they fulfilled their acc

[FairfieldLife] A Saints Life is on the Level of Silence Re: Guru Dev was the most important

[new . morning]

A Saints life is on the level of silence. Its not about accomplishment
in any material sense. Even "spiritual accomplishment" is a bit of a
misfit of words. He was silence/wholness. He functioned in
silence/wholneness. He was not anything about accomplishments. Its
like asking, "how much stuff did he accumulate", lets judge him on that.

Perhaps "effect" is what the discussion is about -- what effect did he
have. I am guessing he would get a good laugh at that -- being beyond
cause and effect. However, if minds are seeking to measure an effect,
then what effects blossom from his silence? In my view, probably
everything is "touched" -- so measurement becomes a bit miscast. 

Did his presence, his silence, in the world have an effect? Any? Big,
Small? Certainly this is not easily determined -- or perhaps even
possible to determine. Determining causality of universla silence.

Did his silence have an effect on me? Certainly the silence and shakti
of his pujas did. Certainly the techniques I learned from and via MMY
did -- and MMY says for him, all came for Guru Dev. In other, some
more profound ways too his silence affected and affects me.

Some may say thats not HIS silence -- silence is universal. Precisely.
that what he was. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 

> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > On Behalf Of shempmcgurk
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 10:49 AM
> > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?
> > > > > 
> > > > >  
> > > > > 
> > > > > As such, the American cultural predisposition to demanding 
> > > > > accountability will come forward like it has never done 
> > > > before...and 
> > > > > the Movement will NOT be successful invoking Maharishi or 
> > anything 
> > > > > else that may have worked in the past to squelch 
accountability.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Could be. Trouble is, the TMO hardly reflects American 
culture. 
> > > > It's a very
> > > > > Indianized, Guru-fied sub-culture.
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, it is.  But it is a culture that is now WITHOUT a guru, 
> > which is 
> > > > the point I'm trying to make.
> > > > 
> > > > One of the reasons we all -- or at least I did -- got into TM 
was 
> > > > because devotion and surrender to a guru was NOT part of the 
> > > > program.  For whatever reason, many of us if not most of us 
who 
> > > > became active in the movement fell into that very 
relationship.  
> > Some 
> > > > of us, like myself, found ourselves doing it against our 
better 
> > > > judgement.
> > > > 
> > > > I believe that the original non-guru "sense" that prevailed 
when 
> > we 
> > > > started TM will now come to the forefront.  In this same 
vein, 
> > Rick, 
> > > > it was with great relief that several years ago Maharishi 
came 
> > out 
> > > > with his recertification program.  Why?  Because I felt that 
with 
> > the 
> > > > new requirement to be recertified I had, as a TM teacher, 
become 
> > > > UNcertified; that is, I was freed from any constraints that I 
may 
> > > > have signed away to be an unquestioning "devotee" when I 
signed 
> > that 
> > > > form (of which I never got a copy so who the hell knows 
whether 
> > it 
> > > > was legal) on the day I became an initiator.
> > > > 
> > > > We're all kinda free of that constraint now with Maharishi's 
> > death 
> > > > and the continued non-compliance with full accountability 
simply 
> > > > won't pass muster with most any more.
> > > > 
> > > > The culture of financial accountability that is attached to 
> > American 
> > > > donations should follow it to every corner of the world to 
which 
> > it 
> > > > is sent, including India.  That's that money's "karma", so to 
> > speak, 
> > > > and that's all right with me.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I'd venture to say that any 'culture of financial 
accountability' in
> > > the USA has practically gone the way of the Dodo bird.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > Aside from the anally retentive Swiss and Germanic cultures, 
America 
> > is probably the most financially accountable country in the world.
> > 
> > I think Bongo Brazil is getting "corruption" mixed up 
with "financial 
> > accountability".  Assuming that is what he means, I would like to 
ask 
> > him why he believes this.
> 
> 
> The Congress and the Bush administration and the Big Money corporate
> and K Street financial industry behind it that's put the country of
> regular Americans in it's current fiscal horror story, comes to 
mind.
> 
> The American people [excluding the small percentage of the obscenely
> wealthy] also seem to have actually developed a status of negative
> savings. 
> 
> The only real 'accountability' I see happening is the inevitable 
cause
> and effect results of fiscal irresponsibility disastrously coming 
home
> to roost.
>


The accountability system is probably fine; it's whether people 
actually read the financial statements and interpret them properly 
that is lacking.

Enron is a case in point.  Enron didn't "doctor" their financial 
statements...they had them coming out of the wazoo!  In fact, when 
the first business journal articles started coming out questioning 
whether Enron was a viable business enterprise (and which eventually 
led to their demise), a team from the Enron accounting department 
would get on the corporate jet and fly to wherever the reporters were 
and present them with mountains of financial documents...all 
legitimate financial documents.

Indeed, the fact that they fulfilled their accountability 
responsibilities completely that was part of the problem of their 
downfall.  The special purpose entities that they created in order to 
do business required not thousands of pages of financial statements 
but 100s of thousands of pages of financial statements which were, 
for the most part, all done properly.

But who could read 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016" 
> > >  
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > According to Bevan, Howard Settle in recent days has committed to 
> > > > raising 
$1Billion 
> > for 
> > > > the BST (Brahmananda Saraswati Trust).  The BST will support efforts in 
> > > > India to 
> > preserve 
> > > > Vedic culture by supporting  Indian Vedic Pandits for perpetuity. 
> > > > 
> > > > IOW, Bevan still encourages the Western TMO supporters to send vast 
> > > > resources 
out 
> of 
> > > > the West..   When will he get a clue ? 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Someone said that "40% of the money is 'misappropirated'." If that is 
> > > true, 
> > > its better than most western charities whre 90% of the money goes to 
> > > "administrative overhead."
> > > 
> > > NOt counting things like the American Red Cross, where up to $100 million 
> > > was 
> > > embezzled directly at one point, but the former head.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Lawson
> > >
> > So by your logic Lawson it's OK that this fountainhead of purity, this 
> > organization that 
is 
> > the absolute ground zero force for bringing a new age of bliss and 
> > enlightenment to 
the 
> > worldit's OK that this organization misappropriates money for the 
> > purpose of 
> enriching 
> > members of a particular clan in India?
> >
> 
> No more or less OK than any other organization that does the same thing.
> 
> Lawson
>
OK, got it. Your position is crystal clear Lawson.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[geezerfreak]

As usual Judy shot her wad in less than 48 hours.

Anyone else notice how much more enjoyable, interesting and entertaining this 
site is after 
Judy and Nabby post out? I say that not because I disagree with them about most 
things. I 
enjoy reading many posts by people I completely disagree with, but Judy's are  
just 
endless variations on the "I'm more intelligent than you, you're a liar" theme. 
They are so 
fucking boring!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The daily gabs stats:
> Yahoo Groups Post Counter
> =
> Start Date (UTC): Sat Jun 28 00:00:00 2008
> End Date (UTC): Sat Jul  5 00:00:00 2008
> -- Searching...
> 
> 396 messages as of (UTC) Mon Jun 30 00:11:30 2008
> Member   Posts
> 
> "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  48
> Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 31
> "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>26
> TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>24
> "new.morning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 22
> "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>20
> "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>19
> "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 18
> "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   18
> Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   17
> "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  16
> "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>14
> "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  14
> Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>13
> "lurkernomore20002000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  11
> "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>9
> off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  9
> "Kenny H" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   6
> "guyfawkes91" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>6
> "dhamiltony2k5" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>5
> bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  5
> "yifuxero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  4
> "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>4
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]   4
> ruthsimplicity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>4
> "matrixmonitor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>3
> "R.G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>3
> "jyouells2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   3
> "boo_lives" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>3
> Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3
> cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2
> "Sunyata" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2
> "Alex Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   2
> "mainstream20016" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>2
> Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>1
> "Tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1
> FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com1
> Dick Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   1
> gullible fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1
> film_man_pdx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  1
> posters: 40
> Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
> =
> Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
> US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
> Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
> Standard Time (Winter):
> US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
> Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
> For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> On Jun 29, 2008, at 6:50 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
> 
> > As the palace intrique goes, you wonder where Bevan's allegiences
> > lie.  I peg him as the most true blue of the TB'ers and therefore I
> > would not trust him to put the organiziation's welfare ahead of what
> > he felt M might have wanted for his Indian clan.  In other words
> > Bevan may have a tighter bond and communication back channel with
> > the Shrivastava/Vaarma contingent than the other Rajas.  Sounds like
> > this whole affair may slowly be working up to a boil.
> 
> Are we going to see a Shootout At The Rakmapura Corral...or
> something like it?
> 
> Sal
>

...more like the last few episodes of the Sopranos...

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Someone said that "40% of the money is 'misappropirated'." If that
> > is true, 
> > > its better than most western charities whre 90% of the money
goes to 
> > > "administrative overhead."
> > > 
> > 
> > Lawson, I do not believe this to be true.  Where did you get the 90%
> > figure?
> >
> 
> If you look at the "donor efficience" figure:
> 
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/2004/11/23/04charityland.html
> 
> 
> You will see that this figure may well be "charitable."
> 
> Charities are notably inefficient.
> 
> 
> Lawson
>
Lawson, I think you might have misread the Forbes article.  It says:

"Higher is better. Charitable commitment shows how much of total
expenses went for the charitable purpose, excluding management,
overhead and fundraising. Average: 84%, down 1%. Fundraising
efficiency indicates the share of gifts less fundraising expenses.
Average: 89%, unchanged."

So, the average management, overhead and fundraising expenses were 16%
and expenses for charitable purposes were 84%. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  
wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Someone said that "40% of the money is 'misappropirated'." If 
> that
> > is true, 
> > > its better than most western charities whre 90% of the money 
> goes to 
> > > "administrative overhead."
> > > 
> > 
> > Lawson, I do not believe this to be true.  Where did you get the 
> 90%
> > figure?
> >
> I don't know if this is an average, though when charities call you 
> for money, you can ask them what percent of donations go for 
> administrative costs. I have personally heard them tell me, "90 
> percent".
>


And they still had the chutzpah to continue working for that 
organisation?  And solicit you, to boot?

Boy, they must really have thought you were a sucker...I hope you 
didn't give to them...

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016" 
> >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > According to Bevan, Howard Settle in recent days has 
committed to 
> > raising $1Billion for 
> > > > the BST (Brahmananda Saraswati Trust).  The BST will support 
> > efforts in India to preserve 
> > > > Vedic culture by supporting  Indian Vedic Pandits for 
perpetuity. 
> > > > 
> > > > IOW, Bevan still encourages the Western TMO supporters to 
send 
> > vast resources out of 
> > > > the West..   When will he get a clue ? 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Someone said that "40% of the money is 'misappropirated'." If 
that 
> > is true, 
> > > its better than most western charities whre 90% of the money 
goes 
> > to 
> > > "administrative overhead."
> > > 
> > > NOt counting things like the American Red Cross, where up to 
$100 
> > million was 
> > > embezzled directly at one point, but the former head.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Lawson
> > >
> > 
> > I don't know where you get your "90% of the money goes to 
> > administrative overhead", Spare Egg.  
> > 
> > The average is not 90% but 16%.
> > 
> > The following is from 
> > http://www.forbes.com/2004/11/23/04charityland.html :
> > 
> > "The list shows key efficiency ratios and, if available, the 
trend 
> > from the previous year. Higher is better. Charitable commitment 
shows 
> > how much of total expenses went for the charitable purpose, 
excluding 
> > management, overhead and fundraising. Average: 84%, down 1%. 
> > Fundraising efficiency indicates the share of gifts less 
fundraising 
> > expenses. Average: 89%, unchanged. Donor dependency calculates 
how 
> > much of gifts was needed to make ends meet. A number above 100% 
means 
> > the nonprofit needed it all; a negative number, often due to sale 
of 
> > goods and investment gains, not a dime. This ratio dropped to 89% 
> > from 107%. This year we also note nonprofits that failed one or 
more 
> > standards set by the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance 
or 
> > didn't supply requested information."
> >
> 
> 
> Er, how do you get a refutation of my figures from a figure that 
excludes
> my figure?
> 
> Or do you not think that "management, overhead and fundraising" 
isn't counted
> in "administrative expense?"
> 
> A more interesting figure is: "Donor dependency calculates how much 
of gifts was needed 
> to make ends meet. A number above 100% means the nonprofit needed 
it all"
> 
> Take for example, teh American Red Cross, where 166% of donations 
were required to 
> "make ends meet," even though they had donations of $2.9 billion
> 
> I stand by my claim: the average charity spends 50% of its 
donations for "administrative 
> overhead" as your chart clearly shows.
> 
> 
> 
> Lawson
>

You've just gone from 90% to 50% in two posts...

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[Bhairitu]

The daily gabs stats:
Yahoo Groups Post Counter
=
Start Date (UTC): Sat Jun 28 00:00:00 2008
End Date (UTC): Sat Jul  5 00:00:00 2008
-- Searching...

396 messages as of (UTC) Mon Jun 30 00:11:30 2008
Member   Posts

"authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  48
Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 31
"sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>26
TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>24
"new.morning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 22
"Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>20
"geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>19
"shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 18
"Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   18
Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   17
"do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  16
"sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>14
"curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  14
Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>13
"lurkernomore20002000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  11
"Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>9
off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  9
"Kenny H" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   6
"guyfawkes91" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>6
"dhamiltony2k5" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>5
bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  5
"yifuxero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  4
"Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>4
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   4
ruthsimplicity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>4
"matrixmonitor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>3
"R.G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>3
"jyouells2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   3
"boo_lives" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>3
Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3
cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2
"Sunyata" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2
"Alex Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   2
"mainstream20016" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>2
Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>1
"Tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com1
Dick Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   1
gullible fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1
film_man_pdx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  1
posters: 40
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> 
> What's crucial to me is for folks to get their facts
> straight, think clearly about issues, and debate with
> integrity.

Yes, you have said similar things before.  I no longer believe you. 
Your acts do not match your words. 

Judy, I feel compelled to say that you do not debate with integrity. 
My raising this issue may very well spell the end of my time on FFL.
After our discussion before my "week off", where you surprised me with
your harsh posts, I looked back and read some prior conversations you
have had with others.  I should not have been surprised. 

Your accusations of John Knapp showed no clear thinking about the
issue of whether the movement can be reformed.  It was a vicious
attack on him. That was all it was.   I was shocked. Your posts did
not show integrity.

You called a researcher I mentioned "loathsome" without reading her
research, accepting without question what her critics said. That does
not show integrity.

Curtis once said that one thing he liked about FFL was that people can
say anything they want freely.  True, so long as you do not mind 
having your words distorted by a pedantic poster, a master of
manipulation and insult.  Form over substance.  And now I am watching
you try to manipulate Sal.  You said you don't care about Guru Dev's
fame, but you sure seem to care about Sal's curiosity, as if that
curiosity is something inappropriate.  

Judy said: 

"I don't jump on people unless
they behave, in Barry's words, less than honorably."

If that is the case, you believe I am dishonorable. 

You could be interesting Judy.  You meditate and do the siddhis
without being in the movement.  But to have a conversation with you
means walking on eggshells.  Curtis does it beautifully.  I can't. 

 


>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 29, 2008, at 6:50 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:


As the palace intrique goes, you wonder where Bevan's allegiences
lie.  I peg him as the most true blue of the TB'ers and therefore I
would not trust him to put the organiziation's welfare ahead of what
he felt M might have wanted for his Indian clan.  In other words
Bevan may have a tighter bond and communication back channel with
the Shrivastava/Vaarma contingent than the other Rajas.  Sounds like
this whole affair may slowly be working up to a boil.


Are we going to see a Shootout At The Rakmapura Corral...or
something like it?

Sal

Re: [FairfieldLife] Fwd: Reflections on a Man of Peace

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 29, 2008, at 6:41 PM, Peter wrote:


Bevan told us we should no longer think or talk about the funeral.


What will happen if we do?  Will we turn into pumpkins? :)


This purusha is in violation of natural law. tsk, tsk


Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

oops.  I had incorrectly attributed this remark to Rick:

> So what happens at some point if it is determined that funds have 
> been misappropiated. That is what I would imagine to be the ticking 
> time bomb.  The rajas now, are accountable to the welfare of the 
> organization, and not the Shrivastavas.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 29, 2008, at 6:22 PM, authfriend wrote:


Well, the claim was, I believe, that he was "the most
important Hindu leader of the first half of the 20th C."
And so far, I've seen nothing at all to back that up.


What kind of evidence *would* you accept, that one
would be likely to be able to find on the Web rather
than having to travel to India?


Well, that's the whole point, isn't it, Judy?  The evidence just
doesn't exist, which makes me wonder mightily why you and
Lawson keep defending this silly argument.



If it was simply hyperbole, as Vaj suggests, then fine.


Why is it so crucial to you that he not have been
important?


I never said it was crucial, Judy, you're making that up.


You're fighting the idea that he was important
tooth and nail, so I have to assume it's extremely
crucial.


Well your assumption is full of crap--with all due respect,
of course. :)




I simply asked what it was he actually *did* to earn such
a claim on his behalf.


And you got some good answers, but you refuse to
accept them.


Look, this is getting silly, and you're running out of posts.
There was *nothing* in any of those articles you posted
to back up Lawson's claim--nothing, nada, zip.  He
was a respected Hindu scholar with the title of Shank
for 12 years or so, and several high-ranking
officials came to see him during that time..  That's more
 recognition than most will ever get, of course, but it
 hardly puts him where you and Lawson want to.

I appreciate the info the articles contained,  they're interesting.  But
I read nothing to cause me to doubt the fact that whatever
influence he had was greatly limited, in both time and
distance.  If he was as important as you guys claim, there
should be stuff all over the Web, there shouldn't be
a problem finding info on "the most important Hindu
leader of the first half of the 20th century."  Or even
the second or third most important, for that matter.
In fact there are thousands of mentions of him, most
in relation to MMY, as I already stated.  The ones
that aren't come to around a few thousand, and
many are links to posts here.

My guess is, he was more than a footnote, but that's about it,
and without MMY, he'd be long forgotten just about everywhere
by now.



And one could easily turn that around, and ask why it's
so crucial to you to believe he was


As I said, I could care less whether he was important.
What's crucial to me is for folks to get their facts
straight, think clearly about issues, and debate with
integrity.


Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[lurkernomore20002000]

 "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

snip

Barry got involved in a cult in which he will swear to you to this day 
that he actually witnessed the charismatic leader LEVITATE!  

Lurk:
Just out of curiosity Shemp.  Do you belive that for a body, (as in 
human body) levitation defies the laws of physics and is an 
impossibility?  Are you saying that any/all accouonts of levitation 
are false?  FWIW, I have no follow up question based on this.  I am 
just curious if you feel levitation is flat out impossible, or just 
that this particular individual was not capable of it, and therefor 
the account of this event is false.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[Vaj]

On Jun 29, 2008, at 7:36 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote:


On Jun 29, 2008, at 6:11 PM, authfriend wrote:


And none of them back up Lawson's ludicrous claim.


It wasn't Lawson's claim, it was that of his scholar
friend, who is a professor of East Asian Studies at
the University of Arizona.


Well I think the guy needs to go back and do a lot
more studying if that's the kind of nonsense he's spouting.
And anyway, Lawson repeated it.

(Cue up for Judy's lecture now on how "Lawson says..."
doesn't equal, "What Lawson says he actually believes."
I'm guessing this is going to become one more instance
of how something just got tossed out for the heck of it,
not that either Lawson or Judy actually believe it, since
by now it's undoubtedly occurred to both of them how
ludicrous it sounds.)



As probably one of the leading current researchers on SBS, the Dandi  
sannyasins lineage and Shank. controversy, Dana Sawyer, indicated  
previously regarding Lawson--it's (like many things with Lawson)  
beliefs he really wants to believe and obsess about, irregardless of  
if there is anything remotely truthful or not. Here's Dana's previous  
comments on Lawson's claims. Not sure, but I believe this Chandoop guy  
is a TM TB, so also biased and the claim that his comments are  
relevant are "appeals to authority" (i.e. logical fallacious):


Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the  
20th Century


Dana's response:

Rick,

only time for a moment of response to this guy's nonsense below.

He isn't offering any compelling argument in support of Vasudevananda's
claim other than "he said, she said." A comment from Shantananda,  
whether

it was made or not, is only one comment in a sea of comments by direct
disciples of Brahmananda. This fellow finds his "source" compelling
simply because he wants it to be true, not because when he compares it  
to

the large number of comments and other evidence extant he arrives at a
compelling position.

my advice, if he shows no real interest in the circumstances of the case
is to simply let him be,

Dana

p.s. if he contacts my friend at "Advaita Vedanta" with a specific
question about the lineage, he'll quickly discover that his source DOES
disagree.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

> I think the blowback here is against MMY's primary way of
> describing SBS as being like the pope of hinduism.

Actually the blowback was against the description by
a professor of East Asian studies of Guru Dev as "the
most important spiritual leader in India in the first
half of the 20th century."

 he said
> this time and time again. This is nowhere near the truth.
> Above the discussion says maybe he was more like a Cardinal
> than the pope.  Even this is absurd. Cardinals head up a
> network of established church congregations in large cities.



Above the discussion says, "There's no real parallel in
the West" and "cardinal is probably better than archbishop
as a point of ROUGH COMPARISON" (emphasis added).

Shankaracharyas are at the top of the hierarchy of the
official Hindi institution that promotes Advaita Vedanta.
They teach and go around and make speeches and interact
with people, and they're celibate. Those are the points
of comparison. Obviously there's very little similarity
between the Roman Catholic Church's organization and
that of Advaita Vedanta teaching in Hinduism.

> The cardinal of LA oversees an operation with $785 million
> in assets, $148 in revenues and many millions catholics.
> The cardinals meet at the vatican and help decide official
> church policy.  SBS had and did none of this.

Duh. No Shankaracharya has or does any of this. That
isn't the way things are set up. They couldn't if they
wanted to.

  maybe personally he was a genuine hindu teacher, but his
> ashram, his followers, his influence in hinduism as a whole
> was very small.  the vast majority of hindus had no idea
> there was a shankaracharya of jyotir math during SBS's time
> there.

And we are to believe this why, because you said so?

> The main pt is that MMY lied hugely when describing SBS in
> order to pump up his reputation in the west.

"Pope" is a stretch, certainly. But there are around
200 cardinals, all over the world; there are only
four Shankaracharyas, and they have no pope over them,
so they have an independence that cardinals do not. In
terms of religious authority, they're really kind of
halfway between the pope and the cardinals, and you
could make a case that they're more like popes of
Hinduism. But as noted, there really isn't any good
parallel with religious figures in the West.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[lurkernomore20002000]

As the palace intrique goes, you wonder where Bevan's allegiences 
lie.  I peg him as the most true blue of the TB'ers and therefore I 
would not trust him to put the organiziation's welfare ahead of what 
he felt M might have wanted for his Indian clan.  In other words 
Bevan may have a tighter bond and communication back channel with 
the Shrivastava/Vaarma contingent than the other Rajas.  Sounds like 
this whole affair may slowly be working up to a boil.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> According to Bevan, Howard Settle in recent days has committed to 
raising $1Billion for 
> the BST (Brahmananda Saraswati Trust).  The BST will support 
efforts in India to preserve 
> Vedic culture by supporting  Indian Vedic Pandits for perpetuity. 
> 
> IOW, Bevan still encourages the Western TMO supporters to send 
vast resources out of 
> the West..   When will he get a clue ? 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning  
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  
wrote:
> > >
> > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > On Behalf Of lurkernomore20002000
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 10:29 AM
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > >Howard Settle, who funds the Invincible America course, 
refused to 
> > > >funnel his money through the TMO. He reviews the books each 
month 
> > > >before making the next month's donation. The Dharma 
Foundation, which 
> > > >raises scholarships for MSAE students, does a similar thing.
> > > >
> > 
> > I wonder how much cognitive dissonance these guys experience. 
Along  
> >  the lines of:
> > 
> > "I  think and KNOW M's teaching will greatly purify the world 
and make
> > goodness and truth the prevalent features of world 
consciousness --
> > and I want to use my time and money to make that happen. But M.s'
> > organizations are so corrupt, I  don't dare channel the money 
direcly
> > through them."
> > 
> > If M 40 technologies of the Unified Field have not yet purified 
the
> > TMO, how will they purify the world?
> >
>

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: What is Uo with L.B's book on Guru Devs speachers as reported?

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of new.morning
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 2:15 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What is Uo with L.B's book on Guru Devs
speachers as reported?

 

>What is the difference in the source material that LB is using and the
source material Paul has used? Aren't they the same? 

LB Sez: "They are the same. If you go to Paul's web page you might notice
the acknowledgement at the beginning of the translation."

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> I stand by my claim: the average charity spends 50% of its donations for 
> "administrative 
> overhead" as your chart clearly shows.
> 
> 
> 
> Lawson
>

90%. 


L

Re: [FairfieldLife] Fwd: Reflections on a Man of Peace

[Peter]

Bevan told us we should no longer think or talk about the funeral. This purusha 
is in violation of natural law. tsk, tsk


--- On Sun, 6/29/08, Dick Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Dick Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Fwd: Reflections on a Man of Peace
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, June 29, 2008, 11:37 AM
> From: Ken Chawkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> This is an essay written by a Purusha buddy. He didn't
> try to get it 
> published, but I'm sending it out as if it was because
> it's that good.
> Enjoy!
> Jai Guru Dev
> Ken
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 

  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As I said, I could care less whether he was important.
> What's crucial to me is for folks to get their facts
> straight, think clearly about issues, and debate with
> integrity.

You left out, "...and lie to myself and to all of 
you about why I'm defending the idea that Guru Dev 
was important."

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Someone said that "40% of the money is 'misappropirated'." If that
> is true, 
> > its better than most western charities whre 90% of the money goes to 
> > "administrative overhead."
> > 
> 
> Lawson, I do not believe this to be true.  Where did you get the 90%
> figure?
>

If you look at the "donor efficience" figure:


http://www.forbes.com/2004/11/23/04charityland.html


You will see that this figure may well be "charitable."

Charities are notably inefficient.


Lawson

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 29, 2008, at 6:11 PM, authfriend wrote:


And none of them back up Lawson's ludicrous claim.


It wasn't Lawson's claim, it was that of his scholar
friend, who is a professor of East Asian Studies at
the University of Arizona.


Well I think the guy needs to go back and do a lot
more studying if that's the kind of nonsense he's spouting.
And anyway, Lawson repeated it.

(Cue up for Judy's lecture now on how "Lawson says..."
doesn't equal, "What Lawson says he actually believes."
I'm guessing this is going to become one more instance
of how something just got tossed out for the heck of it,
not that either Lawson or Judy actually believe it, since
by now it's undoubtedly occurred to both of them how
ludicrous it sounds.)




Oh, well, don't say I didn't try. :)


You didn't try. You said, "You guys keep beating
this tired drum over and over. If that was really
the case, how come nobody outside of the TMO has
ever heard of him?"

Well, you certainly now have lots of proof that
many people outside the TMO have heard of him. But
you don't even have the grace to make *that*
concession.


Um, 3 or 4 doesn't equal "many" in my book, Judy. YMMV.
And I actually did appreciate the articles you posted.  But they
don't prove GD's importance let alone his importance
to many.  They purport to describe him as a Hindu scholar,
something that nobody here has really disputed.


Again, this is much more about how to think clearly
and debate with integrity, two qualities that are
sorely missing on this forum, than it is about Guru
Dev's importance as a north Indian spiritual leader
in the first half of the 20th century.


Well, since that was the claim I was disputing, it *is* pretty
important to this discussion, oh ye of crystal clear thought.

I think Ruth probably nailed it--a local phenom, quite possibly.
More than that?  Doesn't seem likely. And boo's point
was well-made too.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Someone said that "40% of the money is 'misappropirated'." If 
that
> is true, 
> > its better than most western charities whre 90% of the money 
goes to 
> > "administrative overhead."
> > 
> 
> Lawson, I do not believe this to be true.  Where did you get the 
90%
> figure?
>
I don't know if this is an average, though when charities call you 
for money, you can ask them what percent of donations go for 
administrative costs. I have personally heard them tell me, "90 
percent".

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  
> wrote:
> 
> > But you know, I've been really amazed by the
> > tepid  responses I've been getting.  Basically, they all
> > boil down to one thing: "Guru Dev was super-important
> > because so-and-so says so.'  And that's it. No newspaper
> > accounts, no eyewitness accounts, no accounts even by
> > other Shanks or government officials.  We're told this and
> > that official came to see him, but no accounts exist
> > of what they got from it.
> 
> Sal, you'd be unlikely to find anything of this
> nature on the Web from 60+ years ago (as I keep
> saying and you keep ignoring).
> 
> You do have an "eyewitness" account from Swami
> Rama. And you do have at least one account by a
> government official that I quoted in one of my
> posts, which apparently you managed to avoid
> reading, as well as independent corroboration
> from the advaita-vedanta.org Web site, which
> you refuse to acknowledge as such.
> 
> > And none of them back up Lawson's ludicrous claim.
> 
> It wasn't Lawson's claim, it was that of his scholar
> friend, who is a professor of East Asian Studies at
> the University of Arizona.


http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-
author=Anoop%20Chandola&page=1


http://tinyurl.com/5qqbcc


Interesting to do a search on "dana sawyer" on Amazon or google scholar vs 
"anoop 
chandola" and see what pops up.

Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> Someone said that "40% of the money is 'misappropirated'." If that
is true, 
> its better than most western charities whre 90% of the money goes to 
> "administrative overhead."
> 

Lawson, I do not believe this to be true.  Where did you get the 90%
figure?  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > The entire TM movement is based upon "So-and-
> > so said so, so it's true." The trumped-up
> > science was merely an attempt to "prove" to
> > doubters that so-and-so was correct.
> > 
> and this is *news* to you? So let's just be real clear about this-- 
> Maharishi started the Movement and taught lots and lots of people to 
> meditate. He said all along that both components of knowledge are 
> necessary for realization; the intellectual understanding, and the 
> experience (provided by the TM technique), and you have just, after 
> 30+ years figured this out?
> 
> Just one question, for your sake, do I laugh, or do I cry?
>

He said intellectual understanding is necessary for Unity, and explicitly, NOT 
for CC.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> On Jun 29, 2008, at 4:14 PM, authfriend wrote:
> 
> > From 60 years ago, on the Web, in English? Quite
> > probably not.  As I pointed out earlier (I guess
> > you're not reading most of what I write), you'd
> > probably have to travel to India and research the
> > archives of various newspapers and magazines to
> > find that sort of account (and it would likely be
> > in Hindi anyway).
> 
> Yes, I did read that, Judy, as well as everything else.  And no,
> I don't expect you or anyone else to go that far or anything
> close, and it wasn't what I was suggesting.
> 
> > I mean, I'm sure you'll be able to explain away
> > any evidence you're presented with. But at a certain
> > point, trying to argue that Guru Dev was *not* an
> > important spiritual figure becomes a lot more
> > complicated and fraught with difficulty than simply
> > accepting that he was one.
> 
> Well, the claim was, I believe, that he was "the most
> important Hindu leader of the first half of the 20th C."
> And so far, I've seen nothing at all to back that up.

What kind of evidence *would* you accept, that one
would be likely to be able to find on the Web rather
than having to travel to India?

> If it was simply hyperbole, as Vaj suggests, then fine.
> 
> > Why is it so crucial to you that he not have been
> > important?
> 
> I never said it was crucial, Judy, you're making that up.

You're fighting the idea that he was important
tooth and nail, so I have to assume it's extremely
crucial.

> I simply asked what it was he actually *did* to earn such
> a claim on his behalf.

And you got some good answers, but you refuse to
accept them.

> And one could easily turn that around, and ask why it's
> so crucial to you to believe he was

As I said, I could care less whether he was important.
What's crucial to me is for folks to get their facts
straight, think clearly about issues, and debate with
integrity.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016" 
>  wrote:
> > >
> > > According to Bevan, Howard Settle in recent days has committed to 
> raising $1Billion for 
> > > the BST (Brahmananda Saraswati Trust).  The BST will support 
> efforts in India to preserve 
> > > Vedic culture by supporting  Indian Vedic Pandits for perpetuity. 
> > > 
> > > IOW, Bevan still encourages the Western TMO supporters to send 
> vast resources out of 
> > > the West..   When will he get a clue ? 
> > > 
> > 
> > Someone said that "40% of the money is 'misappropirated'." If that 
> is true, 
> > its better than most western charities whre 90% of the money goes 
> to 
> > "administrative overhead."
> > 
> > NOt counting things like the American Red Cross, where up to $100 
> million was 
> > embezzled directly at one point, but the former head.
> > 
> > 
> > Lawson
> >
> 
> I don't know where you get your "90% of the money goes to 
> administrative overhead", Spare Egg.  
> 
> The average is not 90% but 16%.
> 
> The following is from 
> http://www.forbes.com/2004/11/23/04charityland.html :
> 
> "The list shows key efficiency ratios and, if available, the trend 
> from the previous year. Higher is better. Charitable commitment shows 
> how much of total expenses went for the charitable purpose, excluding 
> management, overhead and fundraising. Average: 84%, down 1%. 
> Fundraising efficiency indicates the share of gifts less fundraising 
> expenses. Average: 89%, unchanged. Donor dependency calculates how 
> much of gifts was needed to make ends meet. A number above 100% means 
> the nonprofit needed it all; a negative number, often due to sale of 
> goods and investment gains, not a dime. This ratio dropped to 89% 
> from 107%. This year we also note nonprofits that failed one or more 
> standards set by the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance or 
> didn't supply requested information."
>


Er, how do you get a refutation of my figures from a figure that excludes
my figure?

Or do you not think that "management, overhead and fundraising" isn't counted
in "administrative expense?"

A more interesting figure is: "Donor dependency calculates how much of gifts 
was needed 
to make ends meet. A number above 100% means the nonprofit needed it all"

Take for example, teh American Red Cross, where 166% of donations were required 
to 
"make ends meet," even though they had donations of $2.9 billion

I stand by my claim: the average charity spends 50% of its donations for 
"administrative 
overhead" as your chart clearly shows.



Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
So what happens at some point if it is determined that funds have 
been misappropiated. That is what I would imagine to be the ticking 
time bomb.  The rajas now, are accountable to the welfare of the 
organization, and not the Shrivastavas.

  
> 
> >Howard Settle, who funds the Invincible America course, refused 
to 
> >funnel his money through the TMO. He reviews the books each month 
> >before making the next month's donation. The Dharma Foundation, 
which 
> >raises scholarships for MSAE students, does a similar thing.
> >
> 
> So someone, at some point stood up to the power brokers, and by 
> implication Maharishi, and said, "I don't have confidence in this 
> organization, and if you want this money, it is going to be on MY 
> terms"
> 
> So the Raja dicatated the terms to M, and not the other way 
around. 
> That doesn't seem typical. (but rather like someone was using 
their 
> common sense) 
> 
> I guess you have to have a fair amount of common sense to amass 
the kind of
> fortune that would enable you to donate $1+ million monthly.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

> But you know, I've been really amazed by the
> tepid  responses I've been getting.  Basically, they all
> boil down to one thing: "Guru Dev was super-important
> because so-and-so says so.'  And that's it. No newspaper
> accounts, no eyewitness accounts, no accounts even by
> other Shanks or government officials.  We're told this and
> that official came to see him, but no accounts exist
> of what they got from it.

Sal, you'd be unlikely to find anything of this
nature on the Web from 60+ years ago (as I keep
saying and you keep ignoring).

You do have an "eyewitness" account from Swami
Rama. And you do have at least one account by a
government official that I quoted in one of my
posts, which apparently you managed to avoid
reading, as well as independent corroboration
from the advaita-vedanta.org Web site, which
you refuse to acknowledge as such.

> And none of them back up Lawson's ludicrous claim.

It wasn't Lawson's claim, it was that of his scholar
friend, who is a professor of East Asian Studies at
the University of Arizona.

> Oh, well, don't say I didn't try. :)

You didn't try. You said, "You guys keep beating 
this tired drum over and over. If that was really
the case, how come nobody outside of the TMO has
ever heard of him?"

Well, you certainly now have lots of proof that
many people outside the TMO have heard of him. But
you don't even have the grace to make *that*
concession.

Again, this is much more about how to think clearly
and debate with integrity, two qualities that are
sorely missing on this forum, than it is about Guru
Dev's importance as a north Indian spiritual leader
in the first half of the 20th century.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> 
> I mean, I'm sure you'll be able to explain away
> any evidence you're presented with. But at a certain
> point, trying to argue that Guru Dev was *not* an
> important spiritual figure becomes a lot more
> complicated and fraught with difficulty than simply
> accepting that he was one.
> 
> Why is it so crucial to you that he not have been
> important?
>

I think the objection is to the "most" part of "most important."


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> TurquoiseB wrote:
> > Sal was IMO the only one to nail what was really
> > going down yesterday during the "Guru Dev really
> > WAS the most important spiritual figure in India"
> > fest. It was all about self importance. *TMers'*
> > self importance.
> Maybe Rick ought to rename this forum "The Dead Horse Beaters 
Group."  :D
> 
> Yawn.
>
lol- Is there even any horse left?

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016"  
> wrote:
> > >
> > > According to Bevan, Howard Settle in recent days has committed to raising 
> > > $1Billion 
> for 
> > > the BST (Brahmananda Saraswati Trust).  The BST will support efforts in 
> > > India to 
> preserve 
> > > Vedic culture by supporting  Indian Vedic Pandits for perpetuity. 
> > > 
> > > IOW, Bevan still encourages the Western TMO supporters to send vast 
> > > resources out 
of 
> > > the West..   When will he get a clue ? 
> > > 
> > 
> > Someone said that "40% of the money is 'misappropirated'." If that is true, 
> > its better than most western charities whre 90% of the money goes to 
> > "administrative overhead."
> > 
> > NOt counting things like the American Red Cross, where up to $100 million 
> > was 
> > embezzled directly at one point, but the former head.
> > 
> > 
> > Lawson
> >
> So by your logic Lawson it's OK that this fountainhead of purity, this 
> organization that is 
> the absolute ground zero force for bringing a new age of bliss and 
> enlightenment to the 
> worldit's OK that this organization misappropriates money for the purpose 
> of 
enriching 
> members of a particular clan in India?
>

No more or less OK than any other organization that does the same thing.

Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The entire TM movement is based upon "So-and-
> so said so, so it's true." The trumped-up
> science was merely an attempt to "prove" to
> doubters that so-and-so was correct.
> 
and this is *news* to you? So let's just be real clear about this-- 
Maharishi started the Movement and taught lots and lots of people to 
meditate. He said all along that both components of knowledge are 
necessary for realization; the intellectual understanding, and the 
experience (provided by the TM technique), and you have just, after 
30+ years figured this out?

Just one question, for your sake, do I laugh, or do I cry?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jun 29, 2008, at 2:56 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:
> 
> >> With all this, I've still heard nothing to indicate what, if  
> >> anything, made GD the "most important Hindu leader" of the first  
> >> half of the 20th C, and I imagine I won't.
> >
> > The reason, Sal, is that you are not looking
> > desperately enough TO see him as the "most
> > important Hindu leader of the first half of
> > the 20th century," as if you already knew
> > that it was true because Maharishi said it
> > was true, and all you were doing was seeking
> > corroboration. You know, the way the TMO does
> > science.
> >
> > As Nabby would say, you need a checking.  :-)
> 
> No doubt, and if anyone should know, it's Nabs.
> 
> But you know, I've been really amazed by the
> tepid  responses I've been getting.  Basically, they all
> boil down to one thing: "Guru Dev was super-important
> because so-and-so says so.'  And that's it. No newspaper
> accounts, no eyewitness accounts, no accounts even by
>   other Shanks or government officials.  We're told this and
> that official came to see him, but no accounts exist
> of what they got from it.  And none of them back up Lawson's
> ludicrous claim.
> 
> Oh, well, don't say I didn't try. :)

I was repeating what Anoop Chandola told me, fwiw.


Lawson

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 29, 2008, at 5:55 PM, boo_lives wrote:

The main pt is that MMY lied hugely when describing SBS in order to  
pump up his reputation in the west.


Well that's my feeling also.  I only mentioned cardinals in response
to Judy's mention of archbishops and because
they are the only part of the Church with which I am even
remotely familiar, not because I was trying to draw any other
kind of comparison, which I agree would be ludicrous.

Judy was, however, trying to do just that, IMO. :)

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  Where else would MMY have gotten so much
> > shakti?
> 
> From us!

Interesting thread.  Just when I thought I done with with y'all, you
pull me back in again!

Pre-television, rural India, my bet Guru Dev was a local phenom if a
phenomenon at all.  

Shakti?  I tend to think it is a self fulfilling belief.  I never but
ever found MMY charimatic or filled with sacred force or any such
thing.  I'll fall asleep during his lecture tapes.

Twinkling eyes, symmetrical features, self confidence (above all self
confidence),  and you have a recipe for shakti.  

I have been an expert witness on occasion and have been asked many
times to testify.  Why?  Partly because I know the subject matter but
so do many others.  A lawyer told me it is because people look and
listen to me and want to believe me.  I have a pleasant well modulated
voice.  I am used to public speaking so I project self confidence.  

On the other side of the coin, people tend to dislike unattractive
people and overweight people.  They tend to think they don't know what
they are talking about and tend to think they are not very smart.

 








  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 29, 2008, at 2:35 PM, Vaj wrote:
> > 
> > > On Jun 29, 2008, at 3:04 PM, authfriend wrote:
> > >
> > > > Unfortunately it doesn't say what the "accomplishments"
> > > > were, but at least it describes the result.
> > >
> > > "Accomplishment" was a translation of the Sankrit 
word "siddhi"  
> > > in the  English of that day.
> > 
> > With all this, I've still heard nothing to indicate what, if 
> > anything, made GD the "most important Hindu leader" of the 
> > first half of the 20th C, and I imagine I won't.
> 
> The reason, Sal, is that you are not looking
> desperately enough TO see him as the "most
> important Hindu leader of the first half of
> the 20th century," as if you already knew
> that it was true because Maharishi said it
> was true

Wasn't Maharishi who said it, sorry. It's a good
idea to, you know, read the threads you're
commenting on.


, and all you were doing was seeking 
> corroboration. You know, the way the TMO does
> science. 
> 
> As Nabby would say, you need a checking.  :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 29, 2008, at 3:04 PM, authfriend wrote:
> 
> > Unfortunately it doesn't say what the "accomplishments"
> > were, but at least it describes the result.
> 
> "Accomplishment" was a translation of the Sankrit word
> "siddhi" in the English of that day.

Uh, yeah, but this wasn't written in Sanskrit and
it wasn't written "in the day," it's quite recent.

And given the context--

"The appointment was made by a committee of pundits from
Varanasi, and SrI brahmAnanda's accomplishments helped
re-establish the Jyotirmath as an important center of
traditional advaita teaching in northern India."

--it doesn't seem likely that siddhis are what is meant
by "accomplishments." I guess you didn't read the whole
post, huh?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[boo_lives]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  
> wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 29, 2008, at 2:04 PM, authfriend wrote:
> 
> {quoting advaita-vedanta.org:)
> The appointment
> > > was made by a committee of pundits from Varanasi, and SrI
> > > brahmAnanda's accomplishments helped re-establish the
> > > Jyotirmath as an important center of traditional advaita
> > > teaching in northern India."
> > >
> > > Unfortunately it doesn't say what the "accomplishments"
> > > were,
> > 
> > No, it doesn't.
> > 
> > > but at least it describes the result.
> > 
> > And the result of this result was...what exactly?
> 
> Uh, that Jyotirmath was reestablished as an
> important center of traditional advaita teaching
> in northern India. (See above.)
> 
> > Note he doesn't say how this was accomplished.  We're
> > just supposed to take his word for it that it happened.  And
> > it very well might have, but where's the independent
> > corroboration, for this or any of this other stuff?
> 
> As I said to start with, this is from the 
> advaita-vedanta.org Web site, which is not associated
> with the TMO in any way. In other words, it *is*
> independent corroboration.
> 
> 
> > > Once Guru Dev was installed as the Shankaracharya of
> > > Jyotir Math, he was automatically a spiritual
> > > leader; that's what the position *is*.
> > 
> > So he "led" by default, by simply accepting the position.  OK.
> 
> Well, that was the start. Every Shankaracharya is a
> spiritual leader by default in this sense. But of
> course not any old Hindu dude can be a Shankaracharya;
> there are qualifications they have to fulfill,
> including extensive knowledge of the spiritual
> literature and scriptures. They also, I would imagine,
> need to be of good character. I don't know what else
> is taken into account--certainly their spiritual
> training and who their own teacher was.
> 
> But as I went on to point out, Guru Dev, by all
> accounts I've seen, appears to have done a particularly
> good job of fulfilling the role of Shankaracharya.
> 
> > > (There's
> > > no real parallel in the West; the closest, maybe,
> > > would be a Catholic archbishop, except there's
> > > no Hindu pope.) At any rate, Guru Dev appears to
> > > have been particularly good at what
> > > Shankaracharyas traditionally do, reclusive
> > > tendencies or no.
> > 
> > But as far as I know, archbishops aren't monks.
> 
> Yes, I believe I just said there's no real parallel.
> 
> In any case, I'm not sure Western-type monks and
> Hindu-type monks are that close in terms of lifestye,
> although celibacy is common to both. The archbishop
> comparison was in terms of spiritual and teaching
> duties and authority and promoting the interests of
> the institution, not lifestyle.
> 
>   Don't know
> > much about them, and not being Catholic the closest I can
> > come are to the Cardinals, who are very much seen, take
> > lots of steps to communicate with their respective communities,
> > and are usually in the thick of things in many ways.
> 
> Yes, cardinal is probably better than archbishop
> as a point of rough comparison. What you describe
> seems to be very much along the same lines as what 
> Shankaracharyas do.
> 
> > Besides  which, where is the independent corroboration for
> > any of this--people who don't have a vested interest in putting
> > the most positive spin on things--like reporters, or even ordinary
> > citizens' accounts of what GD accomplished?  This account from
> > Coplin is interesting, but he's hardly an objective observer.
> 
> As noted, Sal, the first quote is from a Web site
> that's completely independent of the TMO.
> 
> Coplin is probably not totally objective, but he
> doesn't seem to be part of the TMO, and his
> dissertation clearly involved a lot of research
> and is well documented, i.e., with references, if
> you want to look at the original pages on the Web
> site.
> 
> We also have Swami Rama's account that Vaj just
> posted, which confirms both these reports.
> 
> > Since supposedly throngs showed up to either listen to, look at,
> > or worship him, shouldn't it be possible to find at least one or two
> > accounts written by otherwise disinterested observers?
> 
> From 60 years ago, on the Web, in English? Quite
> probably not.  As I pointed out earlier (I guess 
> you're not reading most of what I write), you'd
> probably have to travel to India and research the
> archives of various newspapers and magazines to
> find that sort of account (and it would likely be
> in Hindi anyway).
> 
> I mean, I'm sure you'll be able to explain away
> any evidence you're presented with. But at a certain
> point, trying to argue that Guru Dev was *not* an
> important spiritual figure becomes a lot more
> complicated and fraught with difficulty than simply
> accepting that he was one.
> 
> Why is it so crucial to you that he not have been
> important?
>
I think the blowback here is ag

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[boo_lives]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016"
>  wrote:
> > >
> > > According to Bevan, Howard Settle in recent days has committed to
> raising $1Billion for 
> > > the BST (Brahmananda Saraswati Trust).  The BST will support
> efforts in India to preserve 
> > > Vedic culture by supporting  Indian Vedic Pandits for perpetuity. 
> > > 
settle has wanted to raise a $billion for mmy for yrs, that's been his
goal for awhile.  that doesn't mean he has it or has recently upped
his commitment for some reason. settle believes the more he gives or
raises for the tmo the more support of nature he will have in his
business.  you get status in the tmo by giving money and i'm sure
there are quite a few guys who dream of raising a $billion.  i think
by bringing this up now bevan is just reassuring everyone that settle
is not questioning sponsoring the invincibility course given current
lack of in iowa and US. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > On Behalf Of shempmcgurk
> > > > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 10:49 AM
> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > As such, the American cultural predisposition to demanding 
> > > > accountability will come forward like it has never done 
> > > before...and 
> > > > the Movement will NOT be successful invoking Maharishi or 
> anything 
> > > > else that may have worked in the past to squelch accountability.
> > > > 
> > > > Could be. Trouble is, the TMO hardly reflects American culture. 
> > > It's a very
> > > > Indianized, Guru-fied sub-culture.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Yes, it is.  But it is a culture that is now WITHOUT a guru, 
> which is 
> > > the point I'm trying to make.
> > > 
> > > One of the reasons we all -- or at least I did -- got into TM was 
> > > because devotion and surrender to a guru was NOT part of the 
> > > program.  For whatever reason, many of us if not most of us who 
> > > became active in the movement fell into that very relationship.  
> Some 
> > > of us, like myself, found ourselves doing it against our better 
> > > judgement.
> > > 
> > > I believe that the original non-guru "sense" that prevailed when 
> we 
> > > started TM will now come to the forefront.  In this same vein, 
> Rick, 
> > > it was with great relief that several years ago Maharishi came 
> out 
> > > with his recertification program.  Why?  Because I felt that with 
> the 
> > > new requirement to be recertified I had, as a TM teacher, become 
> > > UNcertified; that is, I was freed from any constraints that I may 
> > > have signed away to be an unquestioning "devotee" when I signed 
> that 
> > > form (of which I never got a copy so who the hell knows whether 
> it 
> > > was legal) on the day I became an initiator.
> > > 
> > > We're all kinda free of that constraint now with Maharishi's 
> death 
> > > and the continued non-compliance with full accountability simply 
> > > won't pass muster with most any more.
> > > 
> > > The culture of financial accountability that is attached to 
> American 
> > > donations should follow it to every corner of the world to which 
> it 
> > > is sent, including India.  That's that money's "karma", so to 
> speak, 
> > > and that's all right with me.
> > 
> > 
> > I'd venture to say that any 'culture of financial accountability' in
> > the USA has practically gone the way of the Dodo bird.
> >
> 
> 
> Aside from the anally retentive Swiss and Germanic cultures, America 
> is probably the most financially accountable country in the world.
> 
> I think Bongo Brazil is getting "corruption" mixed up with "financial 
> accountability".  Assuming that is what he means, I would like to ask 
> him why he believes this.


The Congress and the Bush administration and the Big Money corporate
and K Street financial industry behind it that's put the country of
regular Americans in it's current fiscal horror story, comes to mind.

The American people [excluding the small percentage of the obscenely
wealthy] also seem to have actually developed a status of negative
savings. 

The only real 'accountability' I see happening is the inevitable cause
and effect results of fiscal irresponsibility disastrously coming home
to roost.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 29, 2008, at 4:45 PM, new.morning wrote:


By what evidence, othr than someone claiming it to be so, do you fel
that Jyotirmath was reestablished as an
important center of traditional advaita teaching
in northern India.

Have you been there, to Jyotirmath? I have not. But the pictures that
I have seen are of quite primative and small building(s). They look
even more basic than the maths at  Puri and Kanchi which I have been
to -- an they are not very impressive, nor major centers of learning.)

 The main teaching ashram for the seat of the north is in Allahabad  
isn't it.


Here's a URL for some neat pictures.  Some of it looks primitive,
some looks fairly well-cared for.  Most of it looks fascinating,
definitely the kind of place you won't find on many itineraries.

http://tinyurl.com/3p9jt7

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016"
 wrote:
> >
> > According to Bevan, Howard Settle in recent days has committed to
raising $1Billion for 
> > the BST (Brahmananda Saraswati Trust).  The BST will support
efforts in India to preserve 
> > Vedic culture by supporting  Indian Vedic Pandits for perpetuity. 
> > 
> > IOW, Bevan still encourages the Western TMO supporters to send
vast resources out of 
> > the West..   When will he get a clue ? 
> > 
> 
> Someone said that "40% of the money is 'misappropirated'." If that
is true, 
> its better than most western charities whre 90% of the money goes to 
> "administrative overhead."


Doesn't say much for Maharishi's personal integrity or his 'creative
intelligence', does it?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  
> wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 29, 2008, at 2:04 PM, authfriend wrote:
> 
> {quoting advaita-vedanta.org:)
> The appointment
> > > was made by a committee of pundits from Varanasi, and SrI
> > > brahmAnanda's accomplishments helped re-establish the
> > > Jyotirmath as an important center of traditional advaita
> > > teaching in northern India."
> > >
> > > Unfortunately it doesn't say what the "accomplishments"
> > > were,
> > 
> > No, it doesn't.
> > 
> > > but at least it describes the result.
> > 
> > And the result of this result was...what exactly?
> 
> Uh, that Jyotirmath was reestablished as an
> important center of traditional advaita teaching
> in northern India. (See above.)

By what evidence, othr than someone claiming it to be so, do you fel
that Jyotirmath was reestablished as an
important center of traditional advaita teaching
in northern India.

Have you been there, to Jyotirmath? I have not. But the pictures that
I have seen are of quite primative and small building(s). They look
even more basic than the maths at  Puri and Kanchi which I have been
to -- an they are not very impressive, nor major centers of learning.)

 The main teaching ashram for the seat of the north is in Allahabad
isn't it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > The entire TM movement is based upon "So-and-
> > so said so, so it's true." The trumped-up
> > science was merely an attempt to "prove" to
> > doubters that so-and-so was correct.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> The entire TM movement was based upon, built upon, and financed on 
> the basis of people who subscribed to the EXACT OPPOSITE of "So-and-
> so said so, so it's true."  Yes, I agree that it morphed into what 
> Barry describes above, unfortunately, but that is NOT what it was 
> originally based upon or it wouldn't have attracted people like me.
> 
> That's why I fight the cult it has grown into with a vengeance.
> 
> The reason why Barry Wright believes it is so is that he, Barry 
> Wright, is predisposed to joining cults and following messianic 
> leaders, as he did for years after his TM involvement...Barry got 
> involved in a cult in which he will swear to you to this day that 
> he actually witnessed the charismatic leader LEVITATE!  Indeed, 
> he has been out of that particular cult for years yet their 
> influence was so pervasive into his psyche that he still actually 
> believes it (just ask him and, despite the profound embarrassment 
> that you'd think this would cause any normal, rational person, he 
> will attest to it readily, like a Roswell-pilgrimaging true 
> believer will never ever believe that it was actually Air Force 
> dummies that fell from the sky that fateful day).
> 
> So Barry got involved in the TMO for all the wrong reasons: he 
> probably THOUGHT he WAS joining a cult. So that is what he is 
> familiar with and that is what he brings to the table whenever he 
> discusses TM.  And as been documented here quite well on a number 
> of occasions, Barry in all likelihood never practised TM properly. 
> He simply hasn't a clue how it's supposed to be done.


This is Shemp's idea of how to react when 
I make a point he agrees with.

:-)

I'm sorry that your life was empty, Shemp.
Mine wasn't, and isn't.

[FairfieldLife] Confirmation and Diagnostic Bias -- Samskaras, Cult Methods and Ruts

[new . morning]

Recent discussion, as well as some themes of the past, illustrate
strong examples of these two quite strong, pervasive and interrelated
biases.  

In a nutshell confirmation bias occurs when one has a fixed mental
framework or model as to how things are -- and unconsciously select
observations and examples (data) in our lives that support the
"hypothesis" -- the ingrained mental framework. And a tendency to
neglect or discount contrary data. On a research level, the common
problems cited for TMO research are parallel: finding extraordinary
significance in data that supports the current claim, and disregarding
data that counters it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
"In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency
to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms
one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which
contradict prior beliefs."

Diagnosis bias is sort of "first impressions" rule -- and remain
fixed, hard to change. More broadly, it may not be the "first"
impression, but that once a working model is established in our minds,
that model tends to stay fixed, more than a stake in the ground --
rather a cornerstone, of our views. The bias is that we are reluctant
to change our original diagnosis. Unexamined assumptions --
irrespective of the cautions of the FFL masthead -- often rule our lives. 

The latter bias feeds into the former. We often have old, unexamined
assumptions, which then unconsciously guide our selection of life
observations and experiences -- endorsing those that fit the
unexamined assumptions -- strengthening them, and unconsciously
ignoring other pertinent data.

Tie this to several points in the quite insightful IMO article I
posted yesterday from the NYT: 

1) Over time remember things as true even when we knew the information
was from a shaky or false source when we took it in.

2) Memories, including, and especially the "false" ones, are enhanced
and perhaps cemented in when strong emotions are involved. Examples in
the TMO abound -- for example, pertinent to the SBS discussion, almost
all discussion of SBS in the TMO is in a highly charged emotional
framework. Nothing was more dear to TTC audiences that to have MMY
talk about Guru Dev. 

These four factors (two biases and two memory characteristics) it
would appear could make powerful indoctrination tools to shape and
reinforce world views and values. "Cults" in a broad sense of the
term, groups that have strong indoctrination imprints on their members
-- which could including ones university, the army, ones professional
organizations, political parties, as well as spiritual organizations,
etc -- indeed, do appear to use such, perhaps unconsciously, to shape
their members world views and values.

An independent of organizational shaping, just by ourselves, in our
lives, we can get in to quite deep ruts, due to the interplay of these
four factors.

"Liberation", freedom from the binding influence of deep conditioning,
memories and past events would seem to be a great antidote to these
four factors. However, what I observe in the TMO, FFL, and other
spiritual groups (sometimes second hand) is that confirmation and
diagnostic biases, an false memory imprinting, appear as vibrant and
lively as in other organizations and spheres of life. 

Why is that the case? As mentioned above, it would seem that
liberation technologies and practices, which root out the deepest of
the binding influence of memory, and the stuck in deep goo patterns of
congnative biases, should, in my view, reduce such. It leads to two
primary evaluations (there are more I am sure, though they do not
readily come to mind): i) not all, perhaps not many "liberation"
practices actually do root out deep samskaras even after decades of
practice, or, ii) even smaskara free ones are still quite susceptible
to false memory imprint, being bound to weak, false or fuzzy 
unexamined assumptions at the core of their world views, and the
tendency to unconsciously and selectively accept data that supports
those models an rejecting data that does not. 

Many claiming liberation don't appear immune to this. OTOH, some not
explicitly claiming anything, do IME, have a quite reference-free,
clean slate, fresh way of looking things. SSRS an Dali Lama come to
mind for various reasons and observations (possibly unconsciously
selectively chosen).

Appreciative of any and all insights on this, I would be particularly
interested in those with experience with cult issues, and/or things
like NLP.



   

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 29, 2008, at 4:14 PM, authfriend wrote:


From 60 years ago, on the Web, in English? Quite
probably not.  As I pointed out earlier (I guess
you're not reading most of what I write), you'd
probably have to travel to India and research the
archives of various newspapers and magazines to
find that sort of account (and it would likely be
in Hindi anyway).


Yes, I did read that, Judy, as well as everything else.  And no,
I don't expect you or anyone else to go that far or anything
close, and it wasn't what I was suggesting.


I mean, I'm sure you'll be able to explain away
any evidence you're presented with. But at a certain
point, trying to argue that Guru Dev was *not* an
important spiritual figure becomes a lot more
complicated and fraught with difficulty than simply
accepting that he was one.


Well, the claim was, I believe, that he was "the most
important Hindu leader of the first half of the 20th C."
And so far, I've seen nothing at all to back that up.
If it was simply hyperbole, as Vaj suggests, then fine.


Why is it so crucial to you that he not have been
important?


I never said it was crucial, Judy, you're making that up.  I simply  
asked

what it was he actually *did* to earn such a claim on his behalf.

And one could easily turn that around, and ask why it's so crucial
to you to believe he was--not that there's anything wrong with that. :)

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


[snip]

> The entire TM movement is based upon "So-and-
> so said so, so it's true." The trumped-up
> science was merely an attempt to "prove" to
> doubters that so-and-so was correct.

[snip]

The entire TM movement was based upon, built upon, and financed on 
the basis of people who subscribed to the EXACT OPPOSITE of "So-and-
so said so, so it's true."  Yes, I agree that it morphed into what 
Barry describes above, unfortunately, but that is NOT what it was 
originally based upon or it wouldn't have attracted people like me.

That's why I fight the cult it has grown into with a vengeance.

The reason why Barry Wright believes it is so is that he, Barry 
Wright, is predisposed to joining cults and following messianic 
leaders, as he did for years after his TM involvement...Barry got 
involved in a cult in which he will swear to you to this day that he 
actually witnessed the charismatic leader LEVITATE!  Indeed, he has 
been out of that particular cult for years yet their influence was so 
pervasive into his psyche that he still actually believes it (just 
ask him and, despite the profound embarrassment that you'd think this 
would cause any normal, rational person, he will attest to it 
readily, like a Roswell-pilgrimaging true believer will never ever 
believe that it was actually Air Force dummies that fell from the sky 
that fateful day).

So Barry got involved in the TMO for all the wrong reasons: he 
probably THOUGHT he WAS joining a cult. So that is what he is 
familiar with and that is what he brings to the table whenever he 
discusses TM.  And as been documented here quite well on a number of 
occasions, Barry in all likelihood never practised TM properly. He 
simply hasn't a clue how it's supposed to be done.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Jun 29, 2008, at 3:22 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:
> 
> >> But you know, I've been really amazed by the
> >> tepid  responses I've been getting. Basically, they all
> >> boil down to one thing: "Guru Dev was super-important
> >> because so-and-so says so." And that's it.
> >
> > Sal, with all due respect, you are talking
> > about an entire spiritual movement whose dogma
> > boils down to "This is true because so-and-so
> > says so."
> 
> Yeah, I'm finally catching on--takes me a while sometimes.

Hell, it took me all these years to come up
with that short description, but now that I
have, I suspect that it's right on.

The entire TM movement is based upon "So-and-
so said so, so it's true." The trumped-up
science was merely an attempt to "prove" to
doubters that so-and-so was correct.

> > People believe that they can fly and
> > change the weather and the affect the stock
> > market and create world peace and bring back
> > the age of Sat Yuga because so-and-so said so.
> >
> > Why would they need more proof than "somebody
> > says so" for something as trivial as Guru Dev
> > being super-important?
> 
> Sal
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > >
> > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > On Behalf Of shempmcgurk
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 10:49 AM
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > As such, the American cultural predisposition to demanding 
> > > accountability will come forward like it has never done 
> > before...and 
> > > the Movement will NOT be successful invoking Maharishi or 
anything 
> > > else that may have worked in the past to squelch accountability.
> > > 
> > > Could be. Trouble is, the TMO hardly reflects American culture. 
> > It's a very
> > > Indianized, Guru-fied sub-culture.
> > >
> > 
> > Yes, it is.  But it is a culture that is now WITHOUT a guru, 
which is 
> > the point I'm trying to make.
> > 
> > One of the reasons we all -- or at least I did -- got into TM was 
> > because devotion and surrender to a guru was NOT part of the 
> > program.  For whatever reason, many of us if not most of us who 
> > became active in the movement fell into that very relationship.  
Some 
> > of us, like myself, found ourselves doing it against our better 
> > judgement.
> > 
> > I believe that the original non-guru "sense" that prevailed when 
we 
> > started TM will now come to the forefront.  In this same vein, 
Rick, 
> > it was with great relief that several years ago Maharishi came 
out 
> > with his recertification program.  Why?  Because I felt that with 
the 
> > new requirement to be recertified I had, as a TM teacher, become 
> > UNcertified; that is, I was freed from any constraints that I may 
> > have signed away to be an unquestioning "devotee" when I signed 
that 
> > form (of which I never got a copy so who the hell knows whether 
it 
> > was legal) on the day I became an initiator.
> > 
> > We're all kinda free of that constraint now with Maharishi's 
death 
> > and the continued non-compliance with full accountability simply 
> > won't pass muster with most any more.
> > 
> > The culture of financial accountability that is attached to 
American 
> > donations should follow it to every corner of the world to which 
it 
> > is sent, including India.  That's that money's "karma", so to 
speak, 
> > and that's all right with me.
> 
> 
> I'd venture to say that any 'culture of financial accountability' in
> the USA has practically gone the way of the Dodo bird.
>


Aside from the anally retentive Swiss and Germanic cultures, America 
is probably the most financially accountable country in the world.

I think Bongo Brazil is getting "corruption" mixed up with "financial 
accountability".  Assuming that is what he means, I would like to ask 
him why he believes this.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016" 
 wrote:
> >
> > According to Bevan, Howard Settle in recent days has committed to 
raising $1Billion for 
> > the BST (Brahmananda Saraswati Trust).  The BST will support 
efforts in India to preserve 
> > Vedic culture by supporting  Indian Vedic Pandits for perpetuity. 
> > 
> > IOW, Bevan still encourages the Western TMO supporters to send 
vast resources out of 
> > the West..   When will he get a clue ? 
> > 
> 
> Someone said that "40% of the money is 'misappropirated'." If that 
is true, 
> its better than most western charities whre 90% of the money goes 
to 
> "administrative overhead."
> 
> NOt counting things like the American Red Cross, where up to $100 
million was 
> embezzled directly at one point, but the former head.
> 
> 
> Lawson
>

I don't know where you get your "90% of the money goes to 
administrative overhead", Spare Egg.  

The average is not 90% but 16%.

The following is from 
http://www.forbes.com/2004/11/23/04charityland.html :

"The list shows key efficiency ratios and, if available, the trend 
from the previous year. Higher is better. Charitable commitment shows 
how much of total expenses went for the charitable purpose, excluding 
management, overhead and fundraising. Average: 84%, down 1%. 
Fundraising efficiency indicates the share of gifts less fundraising 
expenses. Average: 89%, unchanged. Donor dependency calculates how 
much of gifts was needed to make ends meet. A number above 100% means 
the nonprofit needed it all; a negative number, often due to sale of 
goods and investment gains, not a dime. This ratio dropped to 89% 
from 107%. This year we also note nonprofits that failed one or more 
standards set by the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance or 
didn't supply requested information."

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> On Jun 29, 2008, at 2:04 PM, authfriend wrote:

{quoting advaita-vedanta.org:)
The appointment
> > was made by a committee of pundits from Varanasi, and SrI
> > brahmAnanda's accomplishments helped re-establish the
> > Jyotirmath as an important center of traditional advaita
> > teaching in northern India."
> >
> > Unfortunately it doesn't say what the "accomplishments"
> > were,
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> 
> > but at least it describes the result.
> 
> And the result of this result was...what exactly?

Uh, that Jyotirmath was reestablished as an
important center of traditional advaita teaching
in northern India. (See above.)

> Note he doesn't say how this was accomplished.  We're
> just supposed to take his word for it that it happened.  And
> it very well might have, but where's the independent
> corroboration, for this or any of this other stuff?

As I said to start with, this is from the 
advaita-vedanta.org Web site, which is not associated
with the TMO in any way. In other words, it *is*
independent corroboration.


> > Once Guru Dev was installed as the Shankaracharya of
> > Jyotir Math, he was automatically a spiritual
> > leader; that's what the position *is*.
> 
> So he "led" by default, by simply accepting the position.  OK.

Well, that was the start. Every Shankaracharya is a
spiritual leader by default in this sense. But of
course not any old Hindu dude can be a Shankaracharya;
there are qualifications they have to fulfill,
including extensive knowledge of the spiritual
literature and scriptures. They also, I would imagine,
need to be of good character. I don't know what else
is taken into account--certainly their spiritual
training and who their own teacher was.

But as I went on to point out, Guru Dev, by all
accounts I've seen, appears to have done a particularly
good job of fulfilling the role of Shankaracharya.

> > (There's
> > no real parallel in the West; the closest, maybe,
> > would be a Catholic archbishop, except there's
> > no Hindu pope.) At any rate, Guru Dev appears to
> > have been particularly good at what
> > Shankaracharyas traditionally do, reclusive
> > tendencies or no.
> 
> But as far as I know, archbishops aren't monks.

Yes, I believe I just said there's no real parallel.

In any case, I'm not sure Western-type monks and
Hindu-type monks are that close in terms of lifestye,
although celibacy is common to both. The archbishop
comparison was in terms of spiritual and teaching
duties and authority and promoting the interests of
the institution, not lifestyle.

  Don't know
> much about them, and not being Catholic the closest I can
> come are to the Cardinals, who are very much seen, take
> lots of steps to communicate with their respective communities,
> and are usually in the thick of things in many ways.

Yes, cardinal is probably better than archbishop
as a point of rough comparison. What you describe
seems to be very much along the same lines as what 
Shankaracharyas do.

> Besides  which, where is the independent corroboration for
> any of this--people who don't have a vested interest in putting
> the most positive spin on things--like reporters, or even ordinary
> citizens' accounts of what GD accomplished?  This account from
> Coplin is interesting, but he's hardly an objective observer.

As noted, Sal, the first quote is from a Web site
that's completely independent of the TMO.

Coplin is probably not totally objective, but he
doesn't seem to be part of the TMO, and his
dissertation clearly involved a lot of research
and is well documented, i.e., with references, if
you want to look at the original pages on the Web
site.

We also have Swami Rama's account that Vaj just
posted, which confirms both these reports.

> Since supposedly throngs showed up to either listen to, look at,
> or worship him, shouldn't it be possible to find at least one or two
> accounts written by otherwise disinterested observers?

>From 60 years ago, on the Web, in English? Quite
probably not.  As I pointed out earlier (I guess 
you're not reading most of what I write), you'd
probably have to travel to India and research the
archives of various newspapers and magazines to
find that sort of account (and it would likely be
in Hindi anyway).

I mean, I'm sure you'll be able to explain away
any evidence you're presented with. But at a certain
point, trying to argue that Guru Dev was *not* an
important spiritual figure becomes a lot more
complicated and fraught with difficulty than simply
accepting that he was one.

Why is it so crucial to you that he not have been
important?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev was the most important = *I* am the most important

[Vaj]

On Jun 29, 2008, at 4:22 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:


No doubt, and if anyone should know, it's Nabs.

But you know, I've been really amazed by the
tepid  responses I've been getting. Basically, they all
boil down to one thing: "Guru Dev was super-important
because so-and-so says so." And that's it.


Sal, with all due respect, you are talking
about an entire spiritual movement whose dogma
boils down to "This is true because so-and-so
says so." People believe that they can fly and
change the weather and the affect the stock
market and create world peace and bring back
the age of Sat Yuga because so-and-so said so.

Why would they need more proof than "somebody
says so" for something as trivial as Guru Dev
being super-important?



Even if his rather minor impact didn't mean much, any tradition could  
have reasonably claimed to have an important teaching if they had  
actually passed on SBS's teaching and created realizers of his  
calibre, but clearly that was not the case with TM and the TMO which  
ended up becoming some bizarre sentimental, pseudoscientific and  
superstitious neo-Hindu trip.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016"  
wrote:
> >
> > According to Bevan, Howard Settle in recent days has committed to raising 
> > $1Billion 
for 
> > the BST (Brahmananda Saraswati Trust).  The BST will support efforts in 
> > India to 
preserve 
> > Vedic culture by supporting  Indian Vedic Pandits for perpetuity. 
> > 
> > IOW, Bevan still encourages the Western TMO supporters to send vast 
> > resources out of 
> > the West..   When will he get a clue ? 
> > 
> 
> Someone said that "40% of the money is 'misappropirated'." If that is true, 
> its better than most western charities whre 90% of the money goes to 
> "administrative overhead."
> 
> NOt counting things like the American Red Cross, where up to $100 million was 
> embezzled directly at one point, but the former head.
> 
> 
> Lawson
>
So by your logic Lawson it's OK that this fountainhead of purity, this 
organization that is 
the absolute ground zero force for bringing a new age of bliss and 
enlightenment to the 
worldit's OK that this organization misappropriates money for the purpose 
of enriching 
members of a particular clan in India?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Today is Curtis "DeltaBlues" Mailloux's birthday

[film_man_pdx]

-I got dem old Robert Johnson Sidha Birthday Blues!

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jyouells2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016"
>  wrote:
> >
> > According to Bevan, Howard Settle in recent days has committed to
> raising $1Billion for
> > the BST (Brahmananda Saraswati Trust).  The BST will support efforts
> in India to preserve
> > Vedic culture by supporting  Indian Vedic Pandits for perpetuity.
> >
> > IOW, Bevan still encourages the Western TMO supporters to send vast
> resources out of
> > the West..   When will he get a clue ?
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > On Behalf Of lurkernomore20002000
> > > > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 10:29 AM
> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >Howard Settle, who funds the Invincible America course, refused
> to
> > > > >funnel his money through the TMO. He reviews the books each month
> > > > >before making the next month's donation. The Dharma Foundation,
> which
> > > > >raises scholarships for MSAE students, does a similar thing.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > I wonder how much cognitive dissonance these guys experience. Along
> > >  the lines of:
> > >
> > > "I  think and KNOW M's teaching will greatly purify the world and
> make
> > > goodness and truth the prevalent features of world consciousness --
> > > and I want to use my time and money to make that happen. But M.s'
> > > organizations are so corrupt, I  don't dare channel the money
> direcly
> > > through them."
> > >
> > > If M 40 technologies of the Unified Field have not yet purified the
> > > TMO, how will they purify the world?
> > >
> >
> 
> "If M 40 technologies of the Unified Field have not yet purified the
> TMO, how will they purify the world?"
> 
> 
> Bingo!
> Now, that's  THE question.   Isn't  it?
> 
> JohnY
>
In addition to being THE answer!

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Trial Balance?

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> According to Bevan, Howard Settle in recent days has committed to raising 
> $1Billion for 
> the BST (Brahmananda Saraswati Trust).  The BST will support efforts in India 
> to preserve 
> Vedic culture by supporting  Indian Vedic Pandits for perpetuity. 
> 
> IOW, Bevan still encourages the Western TMO supporters to send vast resources 
> out of 
> the West..   When will he get a clue ? 
> 

Someone said that "40% of the money is 'misappropirated'." If that is true, 
its better than most western charities whre 90% of the money goes to 
"administrative overhead."

NOt counting things like the American Red Cross, where up to $100 million was 
embezzled directly at one point, but the former head.


Lawson