[FairfieldLife] Jerry Jarvis' website of Maharishi tapes
Hi Everyone, Does anyone know the website that Jerry put up of the old Maharishi tapes? It was Spiritualregeneration.org, but that was taken down and it was put up under a new name which I can't find. Thanks
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dr. Michael Dean Goodman - Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Pseudo-Guru variety)?
I love the fact that when Michael attacks Vaj as a narcissist, Vaj's response is that he was just told by a psychiatrist that he is one of the healthiest people he knows. A classic narcissistic response. (I'm special because I'm not just ordinary healthy, I'm one of the elite of the healthiest people! and this has been verified by a psychiatrist no less, an expert!) Vaj you show your true colors very well. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jul 15, 2010, at 10:29 PM, feste37 wrote: If you are such a mentally healthy person, why are you so roundly disliked on this forum? Why is no one springing to your defense following Micheal's negative characterization of you? Not a single person has offered a single word in your defense. Can you offer any explanation for this odd but undeniable fact? Have you ever stopped to think about how you come across in your posts? Feste I suspect most saw Dr. Michael Dean Goodman's post as so whacky and weird that it's simply not something worth responding to... despite the fact that many have supported me in the past. When someone totally sidesteps the issue: Mahesh's behavior and it's odd parallel in narcissism, and then tries to attack the deliverer of that message; (I can't speak for others) but it's likely perceived as Dr. Michael Dean Goodman's issue rather than mine. Rather embarrassing situation for him, I'm afraid. In fact he never responded to any of Mahesh's issues at all. Very odd. It seems the latest revelation on M's lack of spiritual and personal integrity pushed a few people over the edge. It was just more than they could bear. So instead of addressing the issue at hand, filled with undigested anger and rage, they transfer all that pent up disappointment upon others. Like I said Dr. Michael Dean Goodman's behavior is well known in FF, where they had to seriously readjust a spiritual gathering's rule system because he would literally 'take over' the proceedings as if he were the sole person there! Knowing that, you tend to take Mike's expression of disappointment with the Maharishi in a different light.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Maharishi's Personality Disorders, was Teacher-student sex
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Secrets like that form an intimate bond for the insiders and the master. I can't believe Jerry wasn't conflicted about all this happening under his nose. I beg your pardon ? How can you be sure anything particular was happening under Jerry's nose ? Because some psychic reader wrote a book ? And, even if Judith's book is true, how do we know that Jerry knew about it, and/or knew about it and didn't say or do anything about it. The bottom line is we don't know.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thanks for posting this Michael. Namaste !
Hi Michael, Also a thanks for posting this from me. I don't have the credentials to make a diagnosis of Vaj, but I can say that my dealings with him here have always had me perplexed as to why he can not admit that he is ever wrong about anything. His pattern with me is simply not to deal with subjects that I bring up when he has no way to prove his position and his superiority. Probably the one I remember best is when I once wrote and said that I felt that I have great gratitude toward MMY because I have experienced everything that he promised I would. Vaj's response was that I think I have experienced everything he promised, implying that I hadn't really had the experiences that I have had. And I'm thinking, what kind of egotistic moron is he to believe he knows my experiences better than I do?!! Only someone who seriously has his own ego in need of an overhaul. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_re...@... wrote: One day, when I was showing a whole lot of Vaj's posts to my profes- sional friends, one of them (who is a spiritual man - not on the TM path - currently a Buddhist) took me aside and said Michael - I get the distinct feeling here that we are dealing with something darker than Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Have you considered that we are watching the very clever tactics of a demon, the handiwork of an obstructer of Truth? With Vaj's intense hate of Maharishi, this makes perfect sense. Thank you for posting this very timely post Michael !
[FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
The current shankaracharya of Jyotir Math is Swami Vasudevanand. He is in no way related to Maharishi. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joe Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 1:07 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand Wowthat would explain plenty. But who knows. I wonder if he looks lighter than most Indians. There should be a photo of him online. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote:  I hate to say this, but when I was in India, at Jyotir Math, the friend I was with, swore to me the monk baby sitting the place, told him that the current Shankaracharya, forget his name, was M's son! At the time, I laughed it off as a missunderstanding, but in light of what I've read on FFL, I have to wonder if it's not true. He, the current Shank, does resemble a younger M. What a Soap Opera that would make!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
Mike, I can't say 100% certanty that there is no relation. However, I probably would have heard about it as I am very close friends with a number of his direct disciples. Up until the very end of Maharishi's life, my understanding is that Vasudevanand had very little to do with Maharishi. That did change in the last few years when Maharishi asked him to be involved with the Brahmananda trust. But up until then, there was not a lot of connections except maybe some ceremonial ones here and there. Vaj always likes to say that Vasudevanand was a bought Shankararcharya. But there is little eveidence of that either. My sources tell me that, yes, Maharishi gave Vasudevanand some money, but it was very little. And I do know for a fact that one time after Deepak left the movement, the Shankaracharya came to bless one of Deepak's big courses in India. Maharishi asked Vasudevanand not to go, but Vasudevanand went anyway. If he was truly bought, he never would have gone fearing Maharishi's donations would stop --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@... wrote: Randy, and you know this how? I can't say they are related either, however, I did hear this from the person that claims to have gotten directly from Vasudeva's shishya. As I said earlier, I thought there might be a mis-communication, but this friend swore by it and said in no way was it a misunderstanding. I chose not to believe it, but in the light of what is said here on FFL, I have to realize maybe my friend was right and I have been in denial about it all along. Who knows? I have to take the Beatle's attitude, M wasn't the God I thought he was, he's just a man, maybe a very special man, but a man very good at putting on a show. Still love him though! From: randyanand ra...@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 1:44:13 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand  The current shankaracharya of Jyotir Math is Swami Vasudevanand. He is in no way related to Maharishi. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joe Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 1:07 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand Wowthat would explain plenty. But who knows. I wonder if he looks lighter than most Indians. There should be a photo of him online. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: à I hate to say this,à but when I was in India, at Jyotir Math, the friend I was with, swore to me the monk baby sitting the place, told him that the current Shankaracharya, forget his name, was M's son! At the time, I laughed it off as a missunderstanding, but in light of what I've read on FFL, I have to wonder if it's not true. He, the current Shank, does resemble a younger M. What a Soap Opera that would make!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
When I was visiting Rishikesh a few years ago, I was told that Sattyanand had moved from Rishikesh to Noida and was staying there. It appeared that he was not doing much in Noida, but was looked upon as one of the movemements' elders. He died a few years ago. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfr...@... wrote: Wow...hey, you'll all get old and forgetful too one day! Thanks AlexI had this feeling that I had asked about this before. Unfortunately, the answers don't get any better. Sad. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: All this talk of being (or NOT being) a brahmachari these past few days, has me wondering what became of MMY's two most famous Indian Brahmachari's, Divindra and Sattyanand. I recall reading a sad story about Divindrathat he, after being abandon by MMY, ended up being a waiter in an Indian restaurant in London. Is this correct? And where did I read that story? And how about Bramachary Sattyanand? Here's the same thread, started by you 4 years ago: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/111844
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh YINO
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, vajradhatu108 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, randyanand ra108@ wrote: And he also believes Maharishi poisoned Guru Dev and there is no evidence of this either. Is that what I believe? News to me. Well if you don't believe it, why did you say that Mahrishi poisoned his Guru in a resonse to something I said months ago on this forum. Sorry Vaj, you can lie to yourself and everyone else here and change your story so you can look good, but I know what you said to me. And of course you'll probably never respond to this as you never respond to any specific point when you can't be right. Nothing against you buddy, just get real.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh YINO
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, randyanand ra108@ wrote: Its true. And somehow he thinks he knows everything about Maharishi's time with Guru Dev and is an expert in that area also. He appears to really believe that all Maharishi was during that time was a glorified clerk running errands. NOT to get into the Bash the Maharishi critic rather than deal with the issue fest or anything, but I believe this, too, *based on Maharishi's own accounts*. In my experience he never claimed anything else. Anything else was invented IMO by hanger-ons who were trying to invent justifications for putting MMY up on a pedestal. While it's true that Vaj has a thing for being right, it IS good to remember that only one of the three names in Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is deserved; the rest were invented, to better market to the West, where they have neither the criteria for telling whether a spiritual title is deserved or not, nor the desire to find out. This is all about Protect the importance of the guy I hung out with for so long so that I can cling to *my* importance in having gotten to hang with him IMO. I'd have more respect for the TM crowd *or* those who want to preserve their good feelings about MMY if they just did what Joe suggested -- read the friggin' book and then discuss it rationally, with- out trying to diss the writer or those who believe her vs. the TMO version. My only point so far in all of this is that the *immediate* reaction of some is to try to diss the writer; the *immediate* reaction of others is to try to diss those who believe her. No one's been dealing with the real issues, which are 1) that MMY seems to have crossed an important ethical line in having sex with his own much younger (and admittedly naive and not too bright) students, and 2) that MMY seems to have felt the need to lie about it and cover it up. THOSE are worth discussing in my opinion. I'm in a weird position in all of this because the Rama - Fred Lenz guy was MUCH worse in terms of diddling his disciples than MMY was. The only thing to be said in Lenz's defense on this is that he was open about it. But, having known quite a few of these women and heard their stories, being placed in the position of a disciple having to put out to the person they consider enlightened *and* who had the power to remove them from the study they had come to believe was the highest path to enlightenment for them- selves is a real bitch. It puts you through some shit. Some of the women Fred Lenz did this to have IMO gotten past it and come to a balanced view of both his actions and theirs; others are still fucked up by it 20 years later. IMO diddling one's Western students is a Classically Dumb Idea. It shows 1) how little the teacher under- stands how hung up on sex and sexuality Westerners are, and 2) how little they *care* about their own students. There is meat for meaningful discussions in this book, and in Maharishi's behavior. IMO it would be better to deal with the meat than waste a bunch of time trying to demonize the person(s) who served the dish up. One of my ongoing points on this forum has been to point out this knee-jerk behavior on the part of TMers. I can recognize it because (sadly) I participated in it, too, when I was part of the TMO. I remember in TTC being trained *TO* diss the critic and come up with something to undercut their credibility and cast aspersions on the critics' real motives, and I rem- ember being expected to do that on a regular basis as a State Coordinator or as the temporary Regional Coordinator while Stan was on courses. Somehow I missed the part about being trained to diss the critic and undercut their credibility on my teacher training. Not saying you didn't get this, but I never heard it. Was this from some official movement course leader as part of the curriculum, or was it just people talking??? I think it sucks. I think it's an aspect of Maharishi's personality that got passed along to generations of students as wisdom and the way one should react to criticism, whereas in reality it's just insecurity and the need to stay in control and the even greater need to cling to one's own self importance. The bottom line of whether TM actually *worked* will be revealed by how its long-term followers deal with revelations about the guy who taught it to them. If they can deal with such revelations rationally and calmly and without getting their buttons pushed, then TM can be said to have worked. If they can't, and come off sounding like Spiritual Tea Party Idiots, then it clearly didn't. My only advice in all of this -- not really giving much of a shit myself -- is to pay some attention to your OWN behavior in discussing this book and this matter. THAT is where the rubber meets the road
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh YINO
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, vajradhatu108 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, randyanand ra108@ wrote: News to me. Well if you don't believe it, why did you say that Mahrishi poisoned his Guru in a resonse to something I said months ago on this forum. Randyanand, could you please point me to that post so I'm clear what exactly you are referring to? Thanks. It was in a back and forth posting on Fairifield Life many month ago. I was making the point that you kept referring to Maharishi as Mahesh and it was disrespectful because whatever you think of him, thats his name. You countered with, you would not call him Maharishi because he was not a real guru and he poisoned his guru. Sorry Vaj, first you say he poisoned him to me, then you deny believing that. You are inconsistant. Also I have noticed that you only seem to respond to certan posts here when you can twist them to fit your beliefs. For example, when I repeated twice in two previous posts that just because Maharishi had someone else design his yoga course does not mean that he is or is not a yogi, you made no attempt to respond. When I said in a previous post that there is no way to verify that he did or did not recieve some type of special yogi training from Guru Dev, you again did not respond. Because you make statements that you can not prove. The same with the poisoning of Guru dev. There has never been any evidence of poisoning. Oh and by the way, many months ago we got into a discussion about the Shankaracharya tradition. You stated it was part of the Vaishnava tradition. I disagreed and said it was a Shaivite tradition. We went back and forth on this and I finally realized who I was dealing with. You are not interested in the facts about things, only your opinions. Well, for the record, I have since been to india and visited the Shankaracharya ashram in Allahabad, the Shankaracharya ashram in Kanchipuram and one of the heads of the Juna Akhara of Naga Babas. They all confirmed that the Shankaracharya tradition is not asociated with the Vaishnava tradition, it is in fact a Shaivite tradition. So here I can definitely cite my sources and say, sorry dude, you were wrong. Although knowing you, you'll prpbably come back and say you never said that, or twist your words so you will not appear wrong. You are entitiled to your opinions Vaj. Just realize, that like all of us, you sometime may be wrong.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh YINO
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jul 9, 2010, at 11:34 AM, randyanand wrote: It was in a back and forth posting on Fairifield Life many month ago. I was making the point that you kept referring to Maharishi as Mahesh and it was disrespectful because whatever you think of him, thats his name. You countered with, you would not call him Maharishi because he was not a real guru and he poisoned his guru. Like I said, I don't believe he poisoned his guru, he may have in some way been complicit, I feel it speaks more to his character than to his actual actions. Sorry Vaj, first you say he poisoned him to me, then you deny believing that. You are inconsistant. Please show me the post you're referring to, and then I can better respond to your accusations. I'm just telling you what I've believed for a long time, I really don't care what you chose to think you know I believe! Also I have noticed that you only seem to respond to certan posts here when you can twist them to fit your beliefs. For example, when I repeated twice in two previous posts that just because Maharishi had someone else design his yoga course does not mean that he is or is not a yogi, you made no attempt to respond. When I said in a previous post that there is no way to verify that he did or did not recieve some type of special yogi training from Guru Dev, you again did not respond. Because you make statements that you can not prove. The same with the poisoning of Guru dev. There has never been any evidence of poisoning. You've already decided what you want to believe. Oh and by the way, many months ago we got into a discussion about the Shankaracharya tradition. You stated it was part of the Vaishnava tradition. I disagreed and said it was a Shaivite tradition. We went back and forth on this and I finally realized who I was dealing with. You are not interested in the facts about things, only your opinions. Well, for the record, I have since been to india and visited the Shankaracharya ashram in Allahabad, the Shankaracharya ashram in Kanchipuram and one of the heads of the Juna Akhara of Naga Babas. They all confirmed that the Shankaracharya tradition is not asociated with the Vaishnava tradition, it is in fact a Shaivite tradition. So here I can definitely cite my sources and say, sorry dude, you were wrong. Although knowing you, you'll prpbably come back and say you never said that, or twist your words so you will not appear wrong. You are entitiled to your opinions Vaj. Just realize, that like all of us, you sometime may be wrong. You sound confused. The Shakaracharya tradition is a Vaishnavite tradition but it not from the Vaishnavite tradition. I doubt you'll get what I mean by that. Also be aware many, many sadhus have little knowledge of their own historical origins or place. But I'm glad you found the answer you sought. Just because they worship or accept Shiva would not make them a Shaivite line. It still sounds like you're confusing the two. Again, I recommend you take a look at the TM puja which shows the tradition originating from Vishnu-Narayana. Oh yes, I see. You know more about the Shankaracharya tradition than the Shankaracharya ashrams themselves. If they say they are Shaivite tradition, they must not know what they are talking about, even though its about themselves. You know more than they know about themselves. Got it Vaj. When confronted to with the facts you will twist them to still make yourself right. Your endless egotism never ceases to amaze me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh YINO
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Jul 9, 2010, at 10:34 AM, randyanand wrote: Oh and by the way, many months ago we got into a discussion about the Shankaracharya tradition. You stated it was part of the Vaishnava tradition. I disagreed and said it was a Shaivite tradition. We went back and forth on this and I finally realized who I was dealing with. You are not interested in the facts about things, only your opinions. Well, for the record, I have since been to india and visited the Shankaracharya ashram in Allahabad, the Shankaracharya ashram in Kanchipuram and one of the heads of the Juna Akhara of Naga Babas. And hopefully this long-distance, undoubtedly very-expensive trip was made for a greater purpose than just showing Vaj to be wrong. They all confirmed that the Shankaracharya tradition is not asociated with the Vaishnava tradition, it is in fact a Shaivite tradition. And, like, who gives a crap? These arcane, musty details of something that almost nobody else knows (or cares) anything about will get you exactly what, randy? So here I can definitely cite my sources and say, sorry dude, you were wrong. Although knowing you, you'll prpbably come back and say you never said that, or twist your words so you will not appear wrong. You are entitiled to your opinions Vaj. Just realize, that like all of us, you sometime may be wrong. randy, just out of curiosity, do you actually have a life outside of wallowing in esoteric details that make you feel special? Sal Thanks Sal. My various India trips have nothing to do with proving Vaj to be right or wrong. I don't feel special about knowing esoteric details. As a matter of fact this stuff is from from esoteric. In India its just part of daily life. And as far as who gives a crap, I would have to say that thousands and thousands of sadhus, babas and yogis who live their daily lives based on this crap certanly care about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh YINO
Which Shankaracharya was that? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, vajradhatu108 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: In my understanding, a yogii/yoginii can do just about anything without collecting kriyamaaNa-karma, or whatever. Heck, even kill their relatives! **karmaashuklaakRSnaM** yoginaH... (YS IV 7). Of course if you believe this, the person in question would have to be an *actual* yogi, not a YINO. A Shankaracharya who knew Mahesh has stated that he never knew or studied yoga. Indeed his yoga asana course was designed by someone else! A close examination of his teachings also reveals no signs that he was trained as a yogi.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh YINO
And how and where would you find such evidence if it did exist? It would be very difficult to trace and difficult to prove one way or the other. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, vajradhatu108 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@ wrote: In my understanding, a yogii/yoginii can do just about anything without collecting kriyamaaNa-karma, or whatever... Vaj: Of course if you believe this, the person in question would have to be an *actual* yogi, not a YINO. Apparently the Mahesh Yogi was doing exactly what a tantric yogi is supposed to be doing. But, what is an *actual* yogi? Was your guru the 'Swami Rama of the Himalayas' and *actual* yogi? LOL! Not, my guru was not Swami Rama. A Shankaracharya who knew Mahesh has stated that he never knew or studied yoga. According to the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath, Mr. Varma was a 'yogi' who was trained by a self-realized master - Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, who was considered to be a 'Maha Yogi'. Actually there's no evidence that Mahesh received any special teaching from Brahmananda beyond his public teachings. It should be noted that the Shankaracharya mentioned by Vaj has been arrested and charged with premeditated murder, so Vaj's sources can't be trusted to tell the truth. Not that I'm aware of. It should be noted that Willy apparently owns a Red Herring business. A close examination of his teachings also reveals no signs that he was trained as a yogi. So, you're saying that spending thirteen years at the feet of Yoga Master doesn't count as training to be a 'Yogi'? Go figure. No, I'm saying spending 13 years at a desk or running errands doesn't count as training as a yogi. This ain't Texas, home schooling doesn't count.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh YINO
Vaj, What does that mean to you, special training as a yogi? Whatever that means, this is going to be very difficult to verify, one way or the other. And it is clear that Maharishi was a close disciple of Brahmanandaji's as he is in many of the old photos with him, whereas most of the other disciples are not in these photos. Of course that does not necessarily mean that he recieved any special training, but it does imply that he was more than just a clerk. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, vajradhatu108 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@ wrote: So, you're thinking there is a 'special teaching' involved in being a 'yogi'? What secret teaching would that be? No, I was not thinking that. It should be noted that the Shankaracharya mentioned by Vaj has been arrested and charged with premeditated murder, so Vaj's sources can't be trusted to tell the truth. Not that I'm aware of. Why didn't you tell us that the Shankaracharya is in jail accused of murder? The news was all over the Indian press. It should be noted that Willy apparently owns a Red Herring business. You brought up the Shankaracharya as an information source, not me. As it is, you're looking like you're a dishonest informant to say the least. It's not new information, Karpinski's interview has been around a long time Willy. And there's a new movie you can check out called David Wants to Fly which explains that Mahesh was never actually authorized to teach at all. Go figure, huh. It's really not that much of a surprise that he also lied about being a life long celibate, a monk. I wonder if Larry King will have Judith on? A close examination of his teachings also reveals no signs that he was trained as a yogi. So, you're saying that spending thirteen years at the feet of Yoga Master doesn't count as training to be a 'Yogi'? Go figure. No, I'm saying spending 13 years at a desk or running errands doesn't count as training as a yogi. So, you're saying that anyone who runs errands or sits at a desk at a yoga camp can't be a yogi? You're not making any sense. This ain't Texas, home schooling doesn't count. But, you got your yoga training in Maine, right? Wrong.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
Hey Rick, I am wondering what your take is on Maharishi's sexual escapes. Assuming the stories are true, it appears he was sexually active in the late 60's into the 70's, but then no stories appear. By the time Deepak was around him, he didn't even want a female nurse touching him when he got sick. What do you think may have happenned that he swon from one extreme to the other? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 3:38 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque Is that so ? You're greatly misinformed. Watch the Larry King interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0icNZnUxYo0 . This was taped quite late in his life. King asked him if he had any children, and he said he was a monk. How can you claim that He was not a monk at this time ? That wasn't King's question. He asked whether MMY had any children. They might have been 40 years old for all King knew. MMY's answer was that he was a monk, which implied that he didn't have children for that reason.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh YINO
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sun...@... wrote: vajradhatu108 no_reply@ wrote: A Shankaracharya who knew Mahesh has stated that he never knew or studied yoga. Indeed his yoga asana course was designed by someone else! A close examination of his teachings also reveals no signs that he was trained as a yogi. So his asana course was designed by someone else. Like so what. Did he claim to be an expert in yoga. I never got that impression. As far as being trained as a Yogi. Was Ramakrishna, was Vivekenanda, was Yogananda, Was Ramana Maharishi. Was Amma. Maybe nobody but your beloved teacher if you have one. But perhaps you give much credence to book knowledge. At any rate, is this the best criticism you can muster. And why do you despise the guy so much. Why do you feel the need to hang out and find some find something to counter anything positive that may be said about him. He must have been some kind of powerful dude to exert the influence on you he does to this very day. If you haven't noticed, Vaj has the constant need to be right on his opinions. For some reason, he thinks he is an expert about Indian and Vedic knowledge, even though he clearly isn't. Don't know why he has to feel he is more knowledgeable than so many of us. How come Vaj?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh YINO
Its true. And somehow he thinks he knows everything about Maharishi's time with Guru Dev and is an expert in that area also. He appears to really believe that all Maharishi was during that time was a glorified clerk running errands. Yet there is no evidence of this. And he also believes Maharishi poisoned Guru Dev and there is no evidence of this either. So he formed his opinions based on zero evidence and maintains his stance because of his need to be superior to everyone else here. Go figure. Still waiting for comments from you Vaj... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sun...@... wrote: Vaj could be vactioning in the north pole, and if somebody says something kindly about the Maharishi, like Waldo he's gonna appear. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, randyanand ra108@ wrote: And how and where would you find such evidence if it did exist? It would be very difficult to trace and difficult to prove one way or the other. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, vajradhatu108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@ wrote: In my understanding, a yogii/yoginii can do just about anything without collecting kriyamaaNa-karma, or whatever... Vaj: Of course if you believe this, the person in question would have to be an *actual* yogi, not a YINO. Apparently the Mahesh Yogi was doing exactly what a tantric yogi is supposed to be doing. But, what is an *actual* yogi? Was your guru the 'Swami Rama of the Himalayas' and *actual* yogi? LOL! Not, my guru was not Swami Rama. A Shankaracharya who knew Mahesh has stated that he never knew or studied yoga. According to the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath, Mr. Varma was a 'yogi' who was trained by a self-realized master - Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, who was considered to be a 'Maha Yogi'. Actually there's no evidence that Mahesh received any special teaching from Brahmananda beyond his public teachings. It should be noted that the Shankaracharya mentioned by Vaj has been arrested and charged with premeditated murder, so Vaj's sources can't be trusted to tell the truth. Not that I'm aware of. It should be noted that Willy apparently owns a Red Herring business. A close examination of his teachings also reveals no signs that he was trained as a yogi. So, you're saying that spending thirteen years at the feet of Yoga Master doesn't count as training to be a 'Yogi'? Go figure. No, I'm saying spending 13 years at a desk or running errands doesn't count as training as a yogi. This ain't Texas, home schooling doesn't count.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh YINO
Hey Vaj, Most of the real yogi's that I met in India, never practiced asanas. You should know that yoga means so much than asana. So if Maharishi had someone else who was an expert in that areadesign the course, it just shows that he didn't claim to be a know it all. And it has nothing to do with whether he was a yogi or not --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, vajradhatu108 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: vajradhatu108 no_reply@ wrote: A Shankaracharya who knew Mahesh has stated that he never knew or studied yoga. Indeed his yoga asana course was designed by someone else! A close examination of his teachings also reveals no signs that he was trained as a yogi. So his asana course was designed by someone else. Like so what. Did he claim to be an expert in yoga. Steevo! Next time ya get a chance, check out the last four letters in the Big Reesh's assumed name. I know, I know. You probably missed it. Or you may be from Texas. But usually people who put the four letters Y-O-G-I after their names know a little bit about yoga. Just sayin'. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh YINO
What is it with you vaj. You didn't at all deal with the point I was making. Just because Maharishi was not an expert or even a practitoner of hatha yoga does not mean he was not a yogi. And by the way, in a post you made to me in response to a comment I made several months ago, you specifically said that Maharishi poisoned his guru. You can say whatever you want now, but thats what you said to me some months back. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, vajradhatu108 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, randyanand ra108@ wrote: Hey Vaj, Most of the real yogi's that I met in India, never practiced asanas. You should know that yoga means so much than asana. So if Maharishi had someone else who was an expert in that areadesign the course, it just shows that he didn't claim to be a know it all. And it has nothing to do with whether he was a yogi or not Or, of course, maybe he just added the yogi as his own alias?
