Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing reply 2 Xeno
Xeno, I've been wanting to reply and tell you that I enjoyed this post and as usual, because it made me think. I actually think that it's the job of other people, the world, etc. to fall very short of imagined ideals. Maybe that's the only way we can learn to love unconditionally. Fascinating what Russell says about morality and geography. Maybe will google. As for being average, I think being ordinary is maybe the most relaxing state of all (-: From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 7:14 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing *MY* Guru is the greatest guru. No guru is greater than *MINE*. When one says this it is an attempt to puff up oneself by basking in the apparent glory of another, like having oneself photographed with celebrities. No one in the attempt to preserve their ego tends to say, 'My guru was the dumbest, sleaziest bastard I have ever had the misfortune to meet'. All human teachers are human beings; they have what we would in ourselves call faults. Look at how scientists have changed the world and made us so much more comfortable; no one calls them saints. A teacher's wares are what we want, what they can show us to improve our situation; that is the part we take with us. If they are successful, we move beyond our need for them. What they are as people may or may not correspond with what we would call enlightened. That is not what enlightenment is about. Enlightenment is about seeing the world for what it is, ultimate reality, or a ultimate as it is humanly possible to perceive. As for morality (a function of geography according to Bertrand Russell), seeing that religious leaders, gurus, politicians all seem to fall very short of some imagined ideal, is there any tangible evidence that enlightenment or spiritual advancement has anything to do with morality, or can influence it more than in just a passing shot? If this game has to do with seeing the world as it is, how does morality fit into this and why? Why is it that gurus and their students always seem to fall very short of imagined ideals? Look at the lot of us here. The 'average', so to speak, of all of us here, is what gurus have wrought. That, I think, would indicate we are missing something here.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing
I think 'universal ego' is an oxymoron. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Good one, Mr. Soss and so happy to see that Nabby brain was not addled by recent pic of Russell and Dalai Lama whose initials btw happen to be the exact same as David Lynch. I think it's a sign (-: Anyway, also thanks for recent crop circle offering. It was beautiful. From: nablusoss1008 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 4:53 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@ wrote: there are nothing when compared to Maharishi and what he has done. Let me guess.. creating the biggest spiritual egos? Correct, universal egos :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing
Good for oxes and morons? Well I'm not an Ox in Chinese astrology. So that only leaves...(-: From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 3:46 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing I think 'universal ego' is an oxymoron. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Good one, Mr. Soss and so happy to see that Nabby brain was not addled by recent pic of Russell and Dalai Lama whose initials btw happen to be the exact same as David Lynch. I think it's a sign (-: Anyway, also thanks for recent crop circle offering. It was beautiful. From: nablusoss1008 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 4:53 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@ wrote: there are nothing when compared to Maharishi and what he has done. Let me guess.. creating the biggest spiritual egos? Correct, universal egos :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Good for oxes and morons? Well I'm not an Ox in Chinese astrology. So that only leaves...(-: Cosmic ego, maybe? I think that was actually Maharishis expression, was it? Or was that cosmic accident? Share, for all what I know of you - I rather see your comment as lighthearted and humorous - I don't group you with the dogmatic and fundies. That was srijau and he already got some flak. I guess his 'opinion' is something that grows in a spiritual mono-culture. For me, being out of it for decades now, this is rather some curious strange phenomenon, which I still remember, but I wonder at that sort of spiritual naivety, the almost innocent exhibition of ego. Is it really like this? Are there really many people in the movement, who believe this? I guess there are. But to anybody outside the mono-culture of the movement, this will only lead to eye-rolling. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate Maharishi for what he did, I appreciate his role in popularizing meditation for the mainstream in the west, at our generation, I admire how he helped many people to make a major turn toward spirituality, again in our generation, lots of stories of a lot of people, myself included. But then I wonder at the unreflected exhibition of ego as in srijaus remark. ANY belief of 'My Guru/Hero/Avatar is the greatest of all time, far greater than any known historic person' is just that: plain materialistic ego projected on a spiritual ideal. Ego is something we cannot avoid, even if you are enlightened, there will be still a relative ego to take care of your body and survival. That I comment on this, I couldn't do without ego as well. But the ego in the enlightened will be one, where there is detachment from it. Once the ego claims the spiritual progress as it's own, it leads to a spiritual Super-Ego. It instrumentalizes the spiritual rather than surrendering to it. Now that's the critical point, where I think a lot of people fail. Just think of those posts of supposedly enlightened egos here who shout I AM ENLIGHTENED, GET IT!! Well, IMHO that is spiritual superego. Contrast that with the comment of Anandamayi Ma which was recently posted here about unity consciousness. Does this make sense to you? From: navashok To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 3:46 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing  I think 'universal ego' is an oxymoron. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Good one, Mr. Soss and so happy to see that Nabby brain was not addled by recent pic of Russell and Dalai Lama whose initials btw happen to be the exact same as David Lynch.àI think it's a sign (-: Anyway, also thanks for recent crop circle offering.àIt was beautiful. From: nablusoss1008 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 4:53 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@ wrote: there are nothing when compared to Maharishi and what he has done. Let me guess.. creating the biggest spiritual egos? Correct, universal egos :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing
Just think of those posts of supposedly enlightened egos here who shout I AM ENLIGHTENED, GET IT!! Well, IMHO that is spiritual superego. Um, my *exact* phrase, was, I AM ENLIGHTENED AND DON'T YOU EVER FORGET IT, BARRY! Pushed his buttons good! LOL, and possibly yours...:-) Have a nice day! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Good for oxes and morons? Well I'm not an Ox in Chinese astrology. So that only leaves...(-: Cosmic ego, maybe? I think that was actually Maharishis expression, was it? Or was that cosmic accident? Share, for all what I know of you - I rather see your comment as lighthearted and humorous - I don't group you with the dogmatic and fundies. That was srijau and he already got some flak. I guess his 'opinion' is something that grows in a spiritual mono-culture. For me, being out of it for decades now, this is rather some curious strange phenomenon, which I still remember, but I wonder at that sort of spiritual naivety, the almost innocent exhibition of ego. Is it really like this? Are there really many people in the movement, who believe this? I guess there are. But to anybody outside the mono-culture of the movement, this will only lead to eye-rolling. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate Maharishi for what he did, I appreciate his role in popularizing meditation for the mainstream in the west, at our generation, I admire how he helped many people to make a major turn toward spirituality, again in our generation, lots of stories of a lot of people, myself included. But then I wonder at the unreflected exhibition of ego as in srijaus remark. ANY belief of 'My Guru/Hero/Avatar is the greatest of all time, far greater than any known historic person' is just that: plain materialistic ego projected on a spiritual ideal. Ego is something we cannot avoid, even if you are enlightened, there will be still a relative ego to take care of your body and survival. That I comment on this, I couldn't do without ego as well. But the ego in the enlightened will be one, where there is detachment from it. Once the ego claims the spiritual progress as it's own, it leads to a spiritual Super-Ego. It instrumentalizes the spiritual rather than surrendering to it. Now that's the critical point, where I think a lot of people fail. Just think of those posts of supposedly enlightened egos here who shout I AM ENLIGHTENED, GET IT!! Well, IMHO that is spiritual superego. Contrast that with the comment of Anandamayi Ma which was recently posted here about unity consciousness. Does this make sense to you? From: navashok To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 3:46 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing  I think 'universal ego' is an oxymoron. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Good one, Mr. Soss and so happy to see that Nabby brain was not addled by recent pic of Russell and Dalai Lama whose initials btw happen to be the exact same as David Lynch.àI think it's a sign (-: Anyway, also thanks for recent crop circle offering.àIt was beautiful. From: nablusoss1008 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 4:53 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@ wrote: there are nothing when compared to Maharishi and what he has done. Let me guess.. creating the biggest spiritual egos? Correct, universal egos :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing
It's ok, navashok, you often make tons of sense and I don't mind being a moron. It's actually quite liberating (-: Yes, that post on Unity from Anandamayi Ma was so beautiful. Between that and the Lady Keshe writing, I'm giving up on the whole enlightenment thing. Which I was pathetic at anyway, being the rajasic person I am. Srijau posted something beautiful about Krishna and the gopis. That that's what I mainly remember of his. But this is what people do, tend to remember the positive according to an article on happiness that I read recently, . Very perplexing in light of evidence to the contrary. I think people like to honor the person who helped so much to liberate them. I understand that gratitude though I don't think mine is as profound as Srijau's. And it's so difficult I think to grok a person's intention online. However, Srijau does seem very innocent to me. OTOH, from my own experience I'd say little ego is about the slipperyest thing on the planet. I'm strapping those cleats for walking on ice onto my snow boots now! Praying for grace. Do you know, even the Lady Keshe suffered from pride? Her guru told her that she was proud of being his consort and that was her only stumbling block. From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 8:05 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Good for oxes and morons? Well I'm not an Ox in Chinese astrology. So that only leaves...(-: Cosmic ego, maybe? I think that was actually Maharishis expression, was it? Or was that cosmic accident? Share, for all what I know of you - I rather see your comment as lighthearted and humorous - I don't group you with the dogmatic and fundies. That was srijau and he already got some flak. I guess his 'opinion' is something that grows in a spiritual mono-culture. For me, being out of it for decades now, this is rather some curious strange phenomenon, which I still remember, but I wonder at that sort of spiritual naivety, the almost innocent exhibition of ego. Is it really like this? Are there really many people in the movement, who believe this? I guess there are. But to anybody outside the mono-culture of the movement, this will only lead to eye-rolling. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate Maharishi for what he did, I appreciate his role in popularizing meditation for the mainstream in the west, at our generation, I admire how he helped many people to make a major turn toward spirituality, again in our generation, lots of stories of a lot of people, myself included. But then I wonder at the unreflected exhibition of ego as in srijaus remark. ANY belief of 'My Guru/Hero/Avatar is the greatest of all time, far greater than any known historic person' is just that: plain materialistic ego projected on a spiritual ideal. Ego is something we cannot avoid, even if you are enlightened, there will be still a relative ego to take care of your body and survival. That I comment on this, I couldn't do without ego as well. But the ego in the enlightened will be one, where there is detachment from it. Once the ego claims the spiritual progress as it's own, it leads to a spiritual Super-Ego. It instrumentalizes the spiritual rather than surrendering to it. Now that's the critical point, where I think a lot of people fail. Just think of those posts of supposedly enlightened egos here who shout I AM ENLIGHTENED, GET IT!! Well, IMHO that is spiritual superego. Contrast that with the comment of Anandamayi Ma which was recently posted here about unity consciousness. Does this make sense to you? From: navashok To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 3:46 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing  I think 'universal ego' is an oxymoron. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Good one, Mr. Soss and so happy to see that Nabby brain was not addled by recent pic of Russell and Dalai Lama whose initials btw happen to be the exact same as David Lynch. I think it's a sign (-: Anyway, also thanks for recent crop circle offering. It was beautiful. From: nablusoss1008 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 4:53 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@ wrote: there are nothing when compared to Maharishi and what he has done. Let me guess.. creating the biggest spiritual egos? Correct, universal egos :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Good for oxes and morons? Well I'm not an Ox in Chinese astrology. So that only leaves...(-: Cosmic ego, maybe? I think that was actually Maharishis expression, was it? Or was that cosmic accident? Share, for all what I know of you - I rather see your comment as lighthearted and humorous - I don't group you with the dogmatic and fundies. That was srijau and he already got some flak. I guess his 'opinion' is something that grows in a spiritual mono-culture. For me, being out of it for decades now, this is rather some curious strange phenomenon, which I still remember, but I wonder at that sort of spiritual naivety, the almost innocent exhibition of ego. Is it really like this? Are there really many people in the movement, who believe this? I guess there are. But to anybody outside the mono-culture of the movement, this will only lead to eye-rolling. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate Maharishi for what he did, I appreciate his role in popularizing meditation for the mainstream in the west, at our generation, I admire how he helped many people to make a major turn toward spirituality, again in our generation, lots of stories of a lot of people, myself included. But then I wonder at the unreflected exhibition of ego as in srijaus remark. ANY belief of 'My Guru/Hero/Avatar is the greatest of all time, far greater than any known historic person' is just that: plain materialistic ego projected on a spiritual ideal. It's just strong love, nothing wrong with that. Maharishi never ever indicated that he was great, let alone the greatest. The teaching yes, himself, no. The greatest for him was Guru Dev, a notion strongly supported by Benjamin Creme who places Guru Dev at 6,0, one of the most senior and highest in evolution of all the Masters of Wisdom now guiding this planet.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing
No, didn't push buttons, just making a point and giving an opinion. For me, what you say there and now is just pure ego. Why would you even need to push buttons? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: Just think of those posts of supposedly enlightened egos here who shout I AM ENLIGHTENED, GET IT!! Well, IMHO that is spiritual superego. Um, my *exact* phrase, was, I AM ENLIGHTENED AND DON'T YOU EVER FORGET IT, BARRY! Pushed his buttons good! LOL, and possibly yours...:-) Have a nice day! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Good for oxes and morons? Well I'm not an Ox in Chinese astrology. So that only leaves...(-: Cosmic ego, maybe? I think that was actually Maharishis expression, was it? Or was that cosmic accident? Share, for all what I know of you - I rather see your comment as lighthearted and humorous - I don't group you with the dogmatic and fundies. That was srijau and he already got some flak. I guess his 'opinion' is something that grows in a spiritual mono-culture. For me, being out of it for decades now, this is rather some curious strange phenomenon, which I still remember, but I wonder at that sort of spiritual naivety, the almost innocent exhibition of ego. Is it really like this? Are there really many people in the movement, who believe this? I guess there are. But to anybody outside the mono-culture of the movement, this will only lead to eye-rolling. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate Maharishi for what he did, I appreciate his role in popularizing meditation for the mainstream in the west, at our generation, I admire how he helped many people to make a major turn toward spirituality, again in our generation, lots of stories of a lot of people, myself included. But then I wonder at the unreflected exhibition of ego as in srijaus remark. ANY belief of 'My Guru/Hero/Avatar is the greatest of all time, far greater than any known historic person' is just that: plain materialistic ego projected on a spiritual ideal. Ego is something we cannot avoid, even if you are enlightened, there will be still a relative ego to take care of your body and survival. That I comment on this, I couldn't do without ego as well. But the ego in the enlightened will be one, where there is detachment from it. Once the ego claims the spiritual progress as it's own, it leads to a spiritual Super-Ego. It instrumentalizes the spiritual rather than surrendering to it. Now that's the critical point, where I think a lot of people fail. Just think of those posts of supposedly enlightened egos here who shout I AM ENLIGHTENED, GET IT!! Well, IMHO that is spiritual superego. Contrast that with the comment of Anandamayi Ma which was recently posted here about unity consciousness. Does this make sense to you? From: navashok To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 3:46 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing  I think 'universal ego' is an oxymoron. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Good one, Mr. Soss and so happy to see that Nabby brain was not addled by recent pic of Russell and Dalai Lama whose initials btw happen to be the exact same as David Lynch.àI think it's a sign (-: Anyway, also thanks for recent crop circle offering.àIt was beautiful. From: nablusoss1008 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 4:53 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@ wrote: there are nothing when compared to Maharishi and what he has done. Let me guess.. creating the biggest spiritual egos? Correct, universal egos :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing
Who said I *needed* to? Why do you eat vanilla ice cream, instead of chocolate? It was FUN, dude!!! Here was an arrogant jackass crowing over people's buttons being pushed, so I set him up - It worked beautifully! Awesome!! High five, jive! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: No, didn't push buttons, just making a point and giving an opinion. For me, what you say there and now is just pure ego. Why would you even need to push buttons? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: Just think of those posts of supposedly enlightened egos here who shout I AM ENLIGHTENED, GET IT!! Well, IMHO that is spiritual superego. Um, my *exact* phrase, was, I AM ENLIGHTENED AND DON'T YOU EVER FORGET IT, BARRY! Pushed his buttons good! LOL, and possibly yours...:-) Have a nice day! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Good for oxes and morons? Well I'm not an Ox in Chinese astrology. So that only leaves...(-: Cosmic ego, maybe? I think that was actually Maharishis expression, was it? Or was that cosmic accident? Share, for all what I know of you - I rather see your comment as lighthearted and humorous - I don't group you with the dogmatic and fundies. That was srijau and he already got some flak. I guess his 'opinion' is something that grows in a spiritual mono-culture. For me, being out of it for decades now, this is rather some curious strange phenomenon, which I still remember, but I wonder at that sort of spiritual naivety, the almost innocent exhibition of ego. Is it really like this? Are there really many people in the movement, who believe this? I guess there are. But to anybody outside the mono-culture of the movement, this will only lead to eye-rolling. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate Maharishi for what he did, I appreciate his role in popularizing meditation for the mainstream in the west, at our generation, I admire how he helped many people to make a major turn toward spirituality, again in our generation, lots of stories of a lot of people, myself included. But then I wonder at the unreflected exhibition of ego as in srijaus remark. ANY belief of 'My Guru/Hero/Avatar is the greatest of all time, far greater than any known historic person' is just that: plain materialistic ego projected on a spiritual ideal. Ego is something we cannot avoid, even if you are enlightened, there will be still a relative ego to take care of your body and survival. That I comment on this, I couldn't do without ego as well. But the ego in the enlightened will be one, where there is detachment from it. Once the ego claims the spiritual progress as it's own, it leads to a spiritual Super-Ego. It instrumentalizes the spiritual rather than surrendering to it. Now that's the critical point, where I think a lot of people fail. Just think of those posts of supposedly enlightened egos here who shout I AM ENLIGHTENED, GET IT!! Well, IMHO that is spiritual superego. Contrast that with the comment of Anandamayi Ma which was recently posted here about unity consciousness. Does this make sense to you? From: navashok To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 3:46 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing  I think 'universal ego' is an oxymoron. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Good one, Mr. Soss and so happy to see that Nabby brain was not addled by recent pic of Russell and Dalai Lama whose initials btw happen to be the exact same as David Lynch.àI think it's a sign (-: Anyway, also thanks for recent crop circle offering.àIt was beautiful. From: nablusoss1008 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 4:53 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@ wrote: there are nothing when compared to Maharishi and what he has done. Let me guess.. creating the biggest spiritual egos? Correct, universal egos :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@... wrote: there are nothing when compared to Maharishi and what he has done. Maharishi's mission is unique because he had the power, love and dedication and was sent in a moment of human history when mankind was on the verge of the big leap forward. He made mankind take the jump, but not singlehandedly, without the work of other Masters preceding him mankind would not be ready.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@... wrote: there are nothing when compared to Maharishi and what he has done. Let me guess.. creating the biggest spiritual egos?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@ wrote: there [sic] are nothing when compared to Maharishi and what he has done. Maharishi's mission is unique because he had the power, love and dedication and was sent in a moment of human history when mankind was on the verge of the big leap forward. He made mankind take the jump, but not singlehandedly, without the work of other Masters preceding him mankind would not be ready. Stop, stop, for God's sake (hey, these guys probably believe in one, even if I don't) STOP! My optometrist has warned me that all the eyerolling I do while reading FFL is having adverse effects on my vision. :-) This really takes the cake. HOW could anyone possibly believe this stuff, about someone so relatively insig- nificant and Almost Forgotten Already as Maharishi? I think that there must be a one-for-one relationship between the amount of fear that a person has about being insignificant and cosmically unimportant *themselves*, and the amount of significance and importance those poor people project onto spiritual teachers or others whom they identify with. In their minds, the higher the imaginary pedestal they put Maharishi (or whatever guru or teacher or public figure they're groupies for) on, the higher *they* become. Weird stuff, if you ask me. But whatever floats their boats. Me, I'll continue to think that he was just a garden-variety narcissist who would never have been remembered for much of anything by much of anyone if it hadn't been for the Beatles. People who made them- selves feel more significant and important by identifying with *them* just transferred that fallacious reasoning to Maharishi, and now make themselves feel more signif- icant and important by identifying with him. And *what* exactly, are they identifying with? A guy who made up a beginner's technique of meditation, had some initial success with it, and then pissed it all away with flights of fantasy, delusion, grandiosity, and madness, leaving today's TM organization unable to get anyone to learn TM *unless someone else pays for it for them*, like some guvmint or the DLF. They couldn't market TM successfully on a standalone basis in the meditation marketplace if they tried. Some accomplishment, for someone they consider more important than Rama, Krishna, and Buddha (two of whom never even existed). The ludicrousness of believing that Maharishi is in any way important to planet Earth makes my eyes roll so much that I fear my optometrist is going to be very worried indeed. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@ wrote: there are nothing when compared to Maharishi and what he has done. Maharishi's mission is unique because he had the power, love and dedication and was sent in a moment of human history when mankind was on the verge of the big leap forward. He made mankind take the jump, but not singlehandedly, without the work of other Masters preceding him mankind would not be ready.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@ wrote: there [sic] are nothing when compared to Maharishi and what he has done. Maharishi's mission is unique because he had the power, love and dedication and was sent in a moment of human history when mankind was on the verge of the big leap forward. He made mankind take the jump, but not singlehandedly, without the work of other Masters preceding him mankind would not be ready. Stop, stop, for God's sake (hey, these guys probably believe in one, even if I don't) STOP! My optometrist has warned me that all the eyerolling I do while reading FFL is having adverse effects on my vision. :-) This really takes the cake. HOW could anyone possibly believe this stuff, about someone so relatively insig- nificant and Almost Forgotten Already as Maharishi? I think that there must be a one-for-one relationship between the amount of fear that a person has about being insignificant and cosmically unimportant *themselves*, and the amount of significance and importance those poor people project onto spiritual teachers or others whom they identify with. In their minds, the higher the imaginary pedestal they put Maharishi (or whatever guru or teacher or public figure they're groupies for) on, the higher *they* become. Weird stuff, if you ask me. But whatever floats their boats. Me, I'll continue to think that he was just a garden-variety narcissist who would never have been remembered for much of anything by much of anyone if it hadn't been for the Beatles. People who made them- selves feel more significant and important by identifying with *them* just transferred that fallacious reasoning to Maharishi, and now make themselves feel more signif- icant and important by identifying with him. And *what* exactly, are they identifying with? A guy who made up a beginner's technique of meditation, had some initial success with it, and then pissed it all away with flights of fantasy, delusion, grandiosity, and madness, leaving today's TM organization unable to get anyone to learn TM *unless someone else pays for it for them*, like some guvmint or the DLF. They couldn't market TM successfully on a standalone basis in the meditation marketplace if they tried. Some accomplishment, for someone they consider more important than Rama, Krishna, and Buddha (two of whom never even existed). The ludicrousness of believing that Maharishi is in any way important to planet Earth makes my eyes roll so much that I fear my optometrist is going to be very worried indeed. :-) Don't worry, if you have any difficulties I can suggest a specialist. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@ wrote: there are nothing when compared to Maharishi and what he has done. Maharishi's mission is unique because he had the power, love and dedication and was sent in a moment of human history when mankind was on the verge of the big leap forward. He made mankind take the jump, but not singlehandedly, without the work of other Masters preceding him mankind would not be ready.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@ wrote: there [sic] are nothing when compared to Maharishi and what he has done. Maharishi's mission is unique because he had the power, love and dedication and was sent in a moment of human history when mankind was on the verge of the big leap forward. He made mankind take the jump, but not singlehandedly, without the work of other Masters preceding him mankind would not be ready. Stop, stop, for God's sake (hey, these guys probably believe in one, even if I don't) STOP! The ludicrousness of believing that Maharishi is in any way important to planet Earth makes my eyes roll so much that I fear my optometrist is going to be very worried indeed. :-) Don't worry, if you have any difficulties I can suggest a specialist. A psychiatrist I presume ? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@ wrote: there are nothing when compared to Maharishi and what he has done. Let me guess.. creating the biggest spiritual egos? Correct, universal egos :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing
By saying MMY is greater than Rama, Krishna, and Buddha, you've put yourself in the same category of the 'Hare Krishnas' who once claimed there will never be a master as great as Swami Prabhupadha. I remember when I was at MIU many students would always ask why this knowledge disappeared and why it can't be easily spread to the masses. The reply, which is a direct quote from MMY, is that 'Pure Knowledge is like water that shatters on the hard rocks of ignorance'. So it's a default answer anytime someone asks. Basically, it's a very benevolent way of saying 'because people are dumbasses'. But after seeing the behaviour and actions of many people in the TMO, I'm convinced that it's not just that people are ignorant. It's also because followers of 'pure knowledge' develop a lot of narcissistic and arrogant traits that make anything they have to say seem very unattractive to anyone. It reminds me of a public speech by John Hagelin in either 1996 or 2000. He stood up in front of a crowd talking about failed government policy vs. enlightened policy. And though I agree with many ideas he expressed, what I noticed about him was something very peculiar. There was this blatantly arrogant tone in his voice and body language combined with a know-it-all attitude. When I watched that speech, I prayed to God that he never gets any significant publicity. Saturday night live and other comedians would eat someone like him alive after seeing a speech like that. It is obvious to me that the reason the NLP didn't gain much momentum, and TM isn't marketing that well is not because everyone is dumb. It's because those following the TMO/NLP/MMY the closest have so many bizarre traits that nobody will listen to them. So before we go around and say MMY is the greatest master (or whatever term you want to use), I would be cautious to see how long his influence really lasts. None of us were alive when Buddha, Krishna, or Rama were around, so we have no idea how many people were positively influenced by them. Besides, we don't really know if Krishna or Rama really existed, speculation only. But the bottom line is that Buddha, Krishna, and Rama have all given rise to many religious nuts and cults that I'm sure are far off track from the original teaching. And I don't see any indication that the TMO is on any different path than all the other nutcase cults that exist in this world. I firmly believe we are capable of screwing up the spreading of TM to the world in the same way Bhuddism and Hinduism have resulted in many screwed up cults and followers. In other words, it's not 'Pure Knowledge shattering on the hard rocks of ignorance', but perhaps its 'Followers of Pure teachings becoming unattractive and narcissistic megolamaniacs that nobody wants to listen to' that destroys the chances of spirituality expanding in this world. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@ wrote: there are nothing when compared to Maharishi and what he has done. Let me guess.. creating the biggest spiritual egos? Correct, universal egos :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing
*MY* Guru is the greatest guru. No guru is greater than *MINE*. When one says this it is an attempt to puff up oneself by basking in the apparent glory of another, like having oneself photographed with celebrities. No one in the attempt to preserve their ego tends to say, 'My guru was the dumbest, sleaziest bastard I have ever had the misfortune to meet'. All human teachers are human beings; they have what we would in ourselves call faults. Look at how scientists have changed the world and made us so much more comfortable; no one calls them saints. A teacher's wares are what we want, what they can show us to improve our situation; that is the part we take with us. If they are successful, we move beyond our need for them. What they are as people may or may not correspond with what we would call enlightened. That is not what enlightenment is about. Enlightenment is about seeing the world for what it is, ultimate reality, or a ultimate as it is humanly possible to perceive. As for morality (a function of geography according to Bertrand Russell), seeing that religious leaders, gurus, politicians all seem to fall very short of some imagined ideal, is there any tangible evidence that enlightenment or spiritual advancement has anything to do with morality, or can influence it more than in just a passing shot? If this game has to do with seeing the world as it is, how does morality fit into this and why? Why is it that gurus and their students always seem to fall very short of imagined ideals? Look at the lot of us here. The 'average', so to speak, of all of us here, is what gurus have wrought. That, I think, would indicate we are missing something here.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing
I know that in Astrology the houses and planets that lead us to enlightenment are primarily the 8th and 12th house as well as Ketu. The planet and house associated with morality is Jupiter and the 9th house. So it would make perfect sense to me that those who exhibit traits of enlightenment aren't moral, and those who are moral aren't necessarily enlightened. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: Why is it that gurus and their students always seem to fall very short of imagined ideals? Look at the lot of us here. The 'average', so to speak, of all of us here, is what gurus have wrought. That, I think, would indicate we are missing something here.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing
I think one of the signposts of the lack of oomph the TMO has is the fact that after Oprah came out in support of TM there was so far as I know no explosion of people getting initiated. Normally whatever Oprah endorses temporarily zooms in popularity and lots of her fans run go get it. If this had happened, I think the TMO would have been crowing about it to high heaven. From: seekliberation seekliberat...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 6:42 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing By saying MMY is greater than Rama, Krishna, and Buddha, you've put yourself in the same category of the 'Hare Krishnas' who once claimed there will never be a master as great as Swami Prabhupadha. I remember when I was at MIU many students would always ask why this knowledge disappeared and why it can't be easily spread to the masses. The reply, which is a direct quote from MMY, is that 'Pure Knowledge is like water that shatters on the hard rocks of ignorance'. So it's a default answer anytime someone asks. Basically, it's a very benevolent way of saying 'because people are dumbasses'. But after seeing the behaviour and actions of many people in the TMO, I'm convinced that it's not just that people are ignorant. It's also because followers of 'pure knowledge' develop a lot of narcissistic and arrogant traits that make anything they have to say seem very unattractive to anyone. It reminds me of a public speech by John Hagelin in either 1996 or 2000. He stood up in front of a crowd talking about failed government policy vs. enlightened policy. And though I agree with many ideas he expressed, what I noticed about him was something very peculiar. There was this blatantly arrogant tone in his voice and body language combined with a know-it-all attitude. When I watched that speech, I prayed to God that he never gets any significant publicity. Saturday night live and other comedians would eat someone like him alive after seeing a speech like that. It is obvious to me that the reason the NLP didn't gain much momentum, and TM isn't marketing that well is not because everyone is dumb. It's because those following the TMO/NLP/MMY the closest have so many bizarre traits that nobody will listen to them. So before we go around and say MMY is the greatest master (or whatever term you want to use), I would be cautious to see how long his influence really lasts. None of us were alive when Buddha, Krishna, or Rama were around, so we have no idea how many people were positively influenced by them. Besides, we don't really know if Krishna or Rama really existed, speculation only. But the bottom line is that Buddha, Krishna, and Rama have all given rise to many religious nuts and cults that I'm sure are far off track from the original teaching. And I don't see any indication that the TMO is on any different path than all the other nutcase cults that exist in this world. I firmly believe we are capable of screwing up the spreading of TM to the world in the same way Bhuddism and Hinduism have resulted in many screwed up cults and followers. In other words, it's not 'Pure Knowledge shattering on the hard rocks of ignorance', but perhaps its 'Followers of Pure teachings becoming unattractive and narcissistic megolamaniacs that nobody wants to listen to' that destroys the chances of spirituality expanding in this world. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@ wrote: there are nothing when compared to Maharishi and what he has done. Let me guess.. creating the biggest spiritual egos? Correct, universal egos :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing
Good one, Mr. Soss and so happy to see that Nabby brain was not addled by recent pic of Russell and Dalai Lama whose initials btw happen to be the exact same as David Lynch. I think it's a sign (-: Anyway, also thanks for recent crop circle offering. It was beautiful. From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 4:53 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@ wrote: there are nothing when compared to Maharishi and what he has done. Let me guess.. creating the biggest spiritual egos? Correct, universal egos :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing
I think in terms of psychological health of some TMO members, it is probably better that TM doesn't all of a sudden blossom again like it did in the 70's. It's much like some people i've observed in life who clearly have a narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), or some other similar condition. The only thing that breaks it down is when their illusions stop being supported. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: I think one of the signposts of the lack of oomph the TMO has is the fact that after Oprah came out in support of TM there was so far as I know no explosion of people getting initiated. Normally whatever Oprah endorses temporarily zooms in popularity and lots of her fans run go get it. If this had happened, I think the TMO would have been crowing about it to high heaven. From: seekliberation To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 6:42 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing  By saying MMY is greater than Rama, Krishna, and Buddha, you've put yourself in the same category of the 'Hare Krishnas' who once claimed there will never be a master as great as Swami Prabhupadha. I remember when I was at MIU many students would always ask why this knowledge disappeared and why it can't be easily spread to the masses. The reply, which is a direct quote from MMY, is that 'Pure Knowledge is like water that shatters on the hard rocks of ignorance'. So it's a default answer anytime someone asks. Basically, it's a very benevolent way of saying 'because people are dumbasses'. But after seeing the behaviour and actions of many people in the TMO, I'm convinced that it's not just that people are ignorant. It's also because followers of 'pure knowledge' develop a lot of narcissistic and arrogant traits that make anything they have to say seem very unattractive to anyone. It reminds me of a public speech by John Hagelin in either 1996 or 2000. He stood up in front of a crowd talking about failed government policy vs. enlightened policy. And though I agree with many ideas he expressed, what I noticed about him was something very peculiar. There was this blatantly arrogant tone in his voice and body language combined with a know-it-all attitude. When I watched that speech, I prayed to God that he never gets any significant publicity. Saturday night live and other comedians would eat someone like him alive after seeing a speech like that. It is obvious to me that the reason the NLP didn't gain much momentum, and TM isn't marketing that well is not because everyone is dumb. It's because those following the TMO/NLP/MMY the closest have so many bizarre traits that nobody will listen to them. So before we go around and say MMY is the greatest master (or whatever term you want to use), I would be cautious to see how long his influence really lasts. None of us were alive when Buddha, Krishna, or Rama were around, so we have no idea how many people were positively influenced by them. Besides, we don't really know if Krishna or Rama really existed, speculation only. But the bottom line is that Buddha, Krishna, and Rama have all given rise to many religious nuts and cults that I'm sure are far off track from the original teaching. And I don't see any indication that the TMO is on any different path than all the other nutcase cults that exist in this world. I firmly believe we are capable of screwing up the spreading of TM to the world in the same way Bhuddism and Hinduism have resulted in many screwed up cults and followers. In other words, it's not 'Pure Knowledge shattering on the hard rocks of ignorance', but perhaps its 'Followers of Pure teachings becoming unattractive and narcissistic megolamaniacs that nobody wants to listen to' that destroys the chances of spirituality expanding in this world. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@ wrote: there are nothing when compared to Maharishi and what he has done. Let me guess.. creating the biggest spiritual egos? Correct, universal egos :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing
hi seekliberation this reminds me of the work of Lester Levensen originator of both the Sedona Method and the Release Technique. He talks about Pride as the most difficult of all the negative emotions. Mainly because it is the one between the positive and negative states: Peace Acceptance Courageousness ___ Pride Anger Lust Fear Grief Apathy Lester's scale is based on his observation that Apathy has the least amount of life force and Pride the most. From: seekliberation seekliberat...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 5:42 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing By saying MMY is greater than Rama, Krishna, and Buddha, you've put yourself in the same category of the 'Hare Krishnas' who once claimed there will never be a master as great as Swami Prabhupadha. I remember when I was at MIU many students would always ask why this knowledge disappeared and why it can't be easily spread to the masses. The reply, which is a direct quote from MMY, is that 'Pure Knowledge is like water that shatters on the hard rocks of ignorance'. So it's a default answer anytime someone asks. Basically, it's a very benevolent way of saying 'because people are dumbasses'. But after seeing the behaviour and actions of many people in the TMO, I'm convinced that it's not just that people are ignorant. It's also because followers of 'pure knowledge' develop a lot of narcissistic and arrogant traits that make anything they have to say seem very unattractive to anyone. It reminds me of a public speech by John Hagelin in either 1996 or 2000. He stood up in front of a crowd talking about failed government policy vs. enlightened policy. And though I agree with many ideas he expressed, what I noticed about him was something very peculiar. There was this blatantly arrogant tone in his voice and body language combined with a know-it-all attitude. When I watched that speech, I prayed to God that he never gets any significant publicity. Saturday night live and other comedians would eat someone like him alive after seeing a speech like that. It is obvious to me that the reason the NLP didn't gain much momentum, and TM isn't marketing that well is not because everyone is dumb. It's because those following the TMO/NLP/MMY the closest have so many bizarre traits that nobody will listen to them. So before we go around and say MMY is the greatest master (or whatever term you want to use), I would be cautious to see how long his influence really lasts. None of us were alive when Buddha, Krishna, or Rama were around, so we have no idea how many people were positively influenced by them. Besides, we don't really know if Krishna or Rama really existed, speculation only. But the bottom line is that Buddha, Krishna, and Rama have all given rise to many religious nuts and cults that I'm sure are far off track from the original teaching. And I don't see any indication that the TMO is on any different path than all the other nutcase cults that exist in this world. I firmly believe we are capable of screwing up the spreading of TM to the world in the same way Bhuddism and Hinduism have resulted in many screwed up cults and followers. In other words, it's not 'Pure Knowledge shattering on the hard rocks of ignorance', but perhaps its 'Followers of Pure teachings becoming unattractive and narcissistic megolamaniacs that nobody wants to listen to' that destroys the chances of spirituality expanding in this world. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@ wrote: there are nothing when compared to Maharishi and what he has done. Let me guess.. creating the biggest spiritual egos? Correct, universal egos :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: *MY* Guru is the greatest guru. No guru is greater than *MINE*. When one says this it is an attempt to puff up oneself by basking in the apparent glory of another, like having oneself photographed with celebrities. No one in the attempt to preserve their ego tends to say, 'My guru was the dumbest, sleaziest bastard I have ever had the misfortune to meet'. All human teachers are human beings; they have what we would in ourselves call faults. Look at how scientists have changed the world and made us so much more comfortable; no one calls them saints. A teacher's wares are what we want, what they can show us to improve our situation; that is the part we take with us. If they are successful, we move beyond our need for them. What they are as people may or may not correspond with what we would call enlightened. That is not what enlightenment is about. Enlightenment is about seeing the world for what it is, ultimate reality, or a ultimate as it is humanly possible to perceive. As for morality (a function of geography according to Bertrand Russell), seeing that religious leaders, gurus, politicians all seem to fall very short of some imagined ideal, is there any tangible evidence that enlightenment or spiritual advancement has anything to do with morality, or can influence it more than in just a passing shot? If this game has to do with seeing the world as it is, how does morality fit into this and why? Why is it that gurus and their students always seem to fall very short of imagined ideals? Look at the lot of us here. The 'average', so to speak, of all of us here, is what gurus have wrought. That, I think, would indicate we are missing something here. Yes, Discipline. It's because you, you and you have not better attended to the group program and The Scruples of Moral Character for Success in the Conduct of Proper Spiritual Evolution and Life. There's a scientific chart about this and the improved moral reasoning of meditators. Foremost amongst the traditional scruple cultivated by long meditation practice: To do no harm and never entertain negativity. Ahinsa, is a term meaning to do no harm (literally: the avoidance of violence hinsa). The word is derived from the Sanskrit root hims to strike; hinsa is injury or harm, a-hinsa is the opposite of this. General Rules: It is therefore expected of all who continue therein the TM-Siddhis Dome program that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation, First: By doing no harm, by avoiding evil of every kind . . . ; Second: By . . . doing good of every possible sort, and, as far as possible, to all . . . ; Third: By attending upon all the ordinances of the Unified Field and all the policies and guidelines of the course office given by our teacher and master for proper deportment and conduct of all meditators including celebratory life. Go Thee in Peace and May the Unified Field be with You, -Buck
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUiTQvT0W_0 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@... wrote: there are nothing when compared to Maharishi and what he has done.
