[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (P.S. It looks as though you've apparently chosen yet again to ignore the main point of the post: the distinction between sattva and purusha, or judging it's a really, really *good* movie vs. actually freeing oneself from belief in the movie. While I enjoy sattvic behavior as much as the next guy, judging anyone's behavior as enlightened or not enlightened would to me fall into the category of judging the quality of the movie.) Ah, the light dawns. Rory and Jim just don't have any *discrimination*. It's all about upholding their moodmake-y views of their own states of consciousness, in the same way that Ed Wood actually believed that he was a good filmmaker. One *can* suspend disbelief and enjoy even an Ed Wood movie, but if one has been around the film block a few times, that suspension of dis- belief doesn't prevent one from knowing that one is watching a Really Bad Movie. The problem with you guys and your claims about your own states of consciousness is *not* that you don't believe them. I'm sure that you both believe them, and that, like Ed Wood, you believe that you're creating great works of consciousness cinema with your posts here. The problem IMO is that you're acting, and you're both really bad actors, What you mistake for high drama and uplifting cinema many of the rest of us -- our discrimination still intact -- see as a Really Bad Movie. Bottom line: moodmaking isn't enlightenment, unless your audience can be convinced to moodmake along with you. You guys just aren't that convincing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: (P.S. It looks as though you've apparently chosen yet again to ignore the main point of the post: the distinction between sattva and purusha, or judging it's a really, really *good* movie vs. actually freeing oneself from belief in the movie. While I enjoy sattvic behavior as much as the next guy, judging anyone's behavior as enlightened or not enlightened would to me fall into the category of judging the quality of the movie.) Ah, the light dawns. Rory and Jim just don't have any *discrimination*. It's all about upholding their moodmake-y views of their own states of consciousness, in the same way that Ed Wood actually believed that he was a good filmmaker. One *can* suspend disbelief and enjoy even an Ed Wood movie, but if one has been around the film block a few times, that suspension of dis- belief doesn't prevent one from knowing that one is watching a Really Bad Movie. The problem with you guys and your claims about your own states of consciousness is *not* that you don't believe them. I'm sure that you both believe them, and that, like Ed Wood, you believe that you're creating great works of consciousness cinema with your posts here. The problem IMO is that you're acting, and you're both really bad actors, What you mistake for high drama and uplifting cinema many of the rest of us -- our discrimination still intact -- see as a Really Bad Movie. Bottom line: moodmaking isn't enlightenment, unless your audience can be convinced to moodmake along with you. You guys just aren't that convincing. Their 'script' appears as a transcription of Timothy Leary heavily dosed out on LSD and babbling stuff only 'he' sees in his head - and that has ZERO actual value to anyone else.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: snip... the distinction between sattva and purusha, or judging it's a really, really *good* movie vs. actually freeing oneself from belief in the movie. While I enjoy sattvic behavior as much as the next guy, judging anyone's behavior as enlightened or not enlightened would to me fall into the category of judging the quality of the movie. I'd like to refine this comparison a bit, because I think it's crucial, and it's come up a lot here on FFL lately. Judging a person as enlightened or unenlightened by his or her behavior is somewhat like judging an actor in a movie as being a genuinely good or bad person *based upon one's response to the dramatic role s/he happens to be playing in the movie*, when the real issue is whether the spectator even knows s/he is watching a movie. Except it is even funnier than that, because it's not just a movie, it's a mirror, so we could see the whole judgment-process as more like the canary pecking away at his own reflection. I don't know much about logic, but I imagine one could call it a category error. *lol* I like that analogy-- it works. After working with my mind to refine, refine, refine, and discriminate, the most difficult thing to get for me was the letting go, into enlightenment. It occurred because I had exhausted everything else, and in the process had refined my thought and action to become worthy of the state of enlightenment. So it seems like a very basic trap if you will, of everyone that approaches, and eventually (who can say when?) completes this process. Especially difficult for those who have spent so much time on the refinement of thought and studying the process from a dualistic standpoint. Very difficult to let go. So much rationalization and false ownership for holding on to what has been learned to that point. Or in some cases the seeker tries to get it by declaring that all viewpoints they have are essentially worthless, or distinctly transient-- which is just another attempt to capture enlightenment, by the dualistic mind; not enlightenment at all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
new.morning wrote: Do people believe or experience that the practice of TM (and/or siddhis) improves day to day behavior and activity? http://www.enlightenedsentencing.org/index.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: (P.S. It looks as though you've apparently chosen yet again to ignore the main point of the post: the distinction between sattva and purusha, or judging it's a really, really *good* movie vs. actually freeing oneself from belief in the movie. While I enjoy sattvic behavior as much as the next guy, judging anyone's behavior as enlightened or not enlightened would to me fall into the category of judging the quality of the movie.) Ah, the light dawns. Rory and Jim just don't have any *discrimination*. It's all about upholding their moodmake-y views of their own states of consciousness, in the same way that Ed Wood actually believed that he was a good filmmaker. One *can* suspend disbelief and enjoy even an Ed Wood movie, but if one has been around the film block a few times, that suspension of dis- belief doesn't prevent one from knowing that one is watching a Really Bad Movie. The problem with you guys and your claims about your own states of consciousness is *not* that you don't believe them. I'm sure that you both believe them, and that, like Ed Wood, you believe that you're creating great works of consciousness cinema with your posts here. The problem IMO is that you're acting, and you're both really bad actors, What you mistake for high drama and uplifting cinema many of the rest of us -- our discrimination still intact -- see as a Really Bad Movie. Bottom line: moodmaking isn't enlightenment, unless your audience can be convinced to moodmake along with you. You guys just aren't that convincing. Hilarious Barry, simply hilarious!!!
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
Actually my question was quite simple. Do people believe or experience that the practice of TM (and/or siddhis) improves day to day behavior and activity? Any takers? (The intent of the question had nothing to do with debates about altered states, enlightenment, etc.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: (P.S. It looks as though you've apparently chosen yet again to ignore the main point of the post: the distinction between sattva and purusha, or judging it's a really, really *good* movie vs. actually freeing oneself from belief in the movie. While I enjoy sattvic behavior as much as the next guy, judging anyone's behavior as enlightened or not enlightened would to me fall into the category of judging the quality of the movie.) Ah, the light dawns. Rory and Jim just don't have any *discrimination*. It's all about upholding their moodmake-y views of their own states of consciousness, in the same way that Ed Wood actually believed that he was a good filmmaker. One *can* suspend disbelief and enjoy even an Ed Wood movie, but if one has been around the film block a few times, that suspension of dis- belief doesn't prevent one from knowing that one is watching a Really Bad Movie. The problem with you guys and your claims about your own states of consciousness is *not* that you don't believe them. I'm sure that you both believe them, and that, like Ed Wood, you believe that you're creating great works of consciousness cinema with your posts here. The problem IMO is that you're acting, and you're both really bad actors, What you mistake for high drama and uplifting cinema many of the rest of us -- our discrimination still intact -- see as a Really Bad Movie. Bottom line: moodmaking isn't enlightenment, unless your audience can be convinced to moodmake along with you. You guys just aren't that convincing. Hilarious Barry, simply hilarious!!! And accurate. For example, you claim to have perfect knowledge and the ability to act from the level of the laws of nature, and you're now at 38 posts, AFTER having been told that you were at the limit some time ago by Sal. And you're undoubtedly going to respond to this post, too, as if you had a right to keep posting as much as you damned well please. You're a sham, Jim. You claim to be enlightened because your view of what enlightenment means is that you don't have to take any responsibility for your words and your actions. That's not enlightenment, dude, it's being an asshole.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
On Nov 14, 2007, at 8:54 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: And accurate. For example, you claim to have perfect knowledge and the ability to act from the level of the laws of nature, and you're now at 38 posts, AFTER having been told that you were at the limit some time ago by Sal. Up to 40 now by my count. So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye, Jim. :) And you're undoubtedly going to respond to this post, too, as if you had a right to keep posting as much as you damned well please. You're a sham, Jim. Bingo. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
New.Morn., yes, based on my own experience, I feel that it does. However, since there's not been any control to measure against, that's just pure gut feeling. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually my question was quite simple. Do people believe or experience that the practice of TM (and/or siddhis) improves day to day behavior and activity? Any takers? (The intent of the question had nothing to do with debates about altered states, enlightenment, etc.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 14, 2007, at 8:54 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: And accurate. For example, you claim to have perfect knowledge and the ability to act from the level of the laws of nature, and you're now at 38 posts, AFTER having been told that you were at the limit some time ago by Sal. Up to 40 now by my count. So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye, Jim. :) And you're undoubtedly going to respond to this post, too, as if you had a right to keep posting as much as you damned well please. You're a sham, Jim. Bingo. Sal Double Bingo !!
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
You're a sham, Jim. Sal Sunshine wrote: Bingo. do.rflex wrote: Double Bingo !! Leave Jim alone - he has just as much right to post here as you do. Maybe if you practiced TM, you would exhibit better behavior on FFL.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually my question was quite simple. Do people believe or experience that the practice of TM (and/or siddhis) improves day to day behavior and activity? Any takers? (The intent of the question had nothing to do with debates about altered states, enlightenment, etc.) Yep, I went from a twenty-a-day smoker, beer monster, acid-freak and terminal pothead to totally sattvic Buddha in one week! 15 years on and I'm bored stiff.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: (P.S. It looks as though you've apparently chosen yet again to ignore the main point of the post: the distinction between sattva and purusha, or judging it's a really, really *good* movie vs. actually freeing oneself from belief in the movie. While I enjoy sattvic behavior as much as the next guy, judging anyone's behavior as enlightened or not enlightened would to me fall into the category of judging the quality of the movie.) Ah, the light dawns. Rory and Jim just don't have any *discrimination*. It's all about upholding their moodmake-y views of their own states of consciousness, in the same way that Ed Wood actually believed that he was a good filmmaker. One *can* suspend disbelief and enjoy even an Ed Wood movie, but if one has been around the film block a few times, that suspension of dis- belief doesn't prevent one from knowing that one is watching a Really Bad Movie. The problem with you guys and your claims about your own states of consciousness is *not* that you don't believe them. I'm sure that you both believe them, and that, like Ed Wood, you believe that you're creating great works of consciousness cinema with your posts here. The problem IMO is that you're acting, and you're both really bad actors, What you mistake for high drama and uplifting cinema many of the rest of us -- our discrimination still intact -- see as a Really Bad Movie. Bottom line: moodmaking isn't enlightenment, unless your audience can be convinced to moodmake along with you. You guys just aren't that convincing. Hilarious Barry, simply hilarious!!! And accurate. For example, you claim to have perfect knowledge and the ability to act from the level of the laws of nature, and you're now at 38 posts, AFTER having been told that you were at the limit some time ago by Sal. And you're undoubtedly going to respond to this post, too, as if you had a right to keep posting as much as you damned well please. You're a sham, Jim. You claim to be enlightened because your view of what enlightenment means is that you don't have to take any responsibility for your words and your actions. That's not enlightenment, dude, it's being an asshole. That's even funnier Barry!
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
New Morning et al: Actually my question was quite simple. Do people believe or experience that the practice of TM (and/or siddhis) improves day to day behavior and activity? Any takers? Tom T; My experience is Yes. That does not mean that from time to time certain people experience me as someone that do not see that way. I can say that it has happened here in this forum in the past and I can not predict it will not happen again. There are certain people we are destined to do some dance with. I feel that I may do the dance better or less harshly now but I still find myself involved with some here in such a situation. Thanks for allowing me to admit that humanity is still running strongly and being human doesn't ever stop. Tom
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like that analogy-- it works. After working with my mind to refine, refine, refine, and discriminate, the most difficult thing to get for me was the letting go, into enlightenment. It occurred because I had exhausted everything else, and in the process had refined my thought and action to become worthy of the state of enlightenment. So it seems like a very basic trap if you will, of everyone that approaches, and eventually (who can say when?) completes this process. Especially difficult for those who have spent so much time on the refinement of thought and studying the process from a dualistic standpoint. Very difficult to let go. So much rationalization and false ownership for holding on to what has been learned to that point. Or in some cases the seeker tries to get it by declaring that all viewpoints they have are essentially worthless, or distinctly transient-- which is just another attempt to capture enlightenment, by the dualistic mind; not enlightenment at all. Yeah, true. Another thing about that canary-pecking-at-the-mirror analogy -- When we consider that the mirror completely surrounds and encases the canary, it could also be called an egg. And how do we get out of the egg except by peck, peck pecking at it?! *rofl*
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Nov 14, 2007, at 8:54 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: And accurate. For example, you claim to have perfect knowledge and the ability to act from the level of the laws of nature, and you're now at 38 posts, AFTER having been told that you were at the limit some time ago by Sal. Up to 40 now by my count. So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye, Jim. :) And you're undoubtedly going to respond to this post, too, as if you had a right to keep posting as much as you damned well please. You're a sham, Jim. Bingo. Sal How was it someone characterised Sal... brimming with charm ? Or was it oozing charm ? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: (P.S. It looks as though you've apparently chosen yet again to ignore the main point of the post: the distinction between sattva and purusha, or judging it's a really, really *good* movie vs. actually freeing oneself from belief in the movie. While I enjoy sattvic behavior as much as the next guy, judging anyone's behavior as enlightened or not enlightened would to me fall into the category of judging the quality of the movie.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah, the light dawns. Rory and Jim just don't have any *discrimination*. In a sense, that's true; I don't haplessly identify with the discriminator as I did before dying, as THAT or the Me or the Self is behind discrimination, behind buddhi. In another sense, that's quite untrue, as you may recall I have discriminated into your sloppy thinking here on FFL, which oddly enough appears to be about when you stopped seeing me as a semi- enlightened friend whose experiences you claimed to like to read, and started seeing me as a moodmake-y, unconvincing asshole. Of course, I am both, or neither. I repeat, I can make no claims to enlightenment or ignorance, I can make no claims to anything but having died, and even that from some POVs must be untrue, as here I apparently still am. As to shakti over the internet -- some get it, some don't. I couldn't care less either way. I think it's been pointed out many times on FFL that even the most inveterate shakti-junkies *still* manage to avoid dying. No great suprise there -- who would purposely trade all those great kicks for absolute Nothingness? Only those who have no choice. I am only here to (metaphorically) cut off your head, dance on it, throw your corpse into my fire, consume it utterly, and scatter the sparks to the breeze, and why would you want that unless you *knew* just how much suffering your head was causing you? I do not wonder how or why you so sedulously manage to ignore me. I'll wait. *lol*
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
---Right, the false you has died, but the relative you still exists. It's the Rorybody.as opposed to other bodies, for example the Bushbody, the MMYbody, etc... The remaining questions regarding relativity revolve around the importance given to bodies. One can simply dismiss them (things) as being notational, implying unimportance; or, they are in a way notational but still important and significant. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: (P.S. It looks as though you've apparently chosen yet again to ignore the main point of the post: the distinction between sattva and purusha, or judging it's a really, really *good* movie vs. actually freeing oneself from belief in the movie. While I enjoy sattvic behavior as much as the next guy, judging anyone's behavior as enlightened or not enlightened would to me fall into the category of judging the quality of the movie.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Ah, the light dawns. Rory and Jim just don't have any *discrimination*. In a sense, that's true; I don't haplessly identify with the discriminator as I did before dying, as THAT or the Me or the Self is behind discrimination, behind buddhi. In another sense, that's quite untrue, as you may recall I have discriminated into your sloppy thinking here on FFL, which oddly enough appears to be about when you stopped seeing me as a semi- enlightened friend whose experiences you claimed to like to read, and started seeing me as a moodmake-y, unconvincing asshole. Of course, I am both, or neither. I repeat, I can make no claims to enlightenment or ignorance, I can make no claims to anything but having died, and even that from some POVs must be untrue, as here I apparently still am. As to shakti over the internet -- some get it, some don't. I couldn't care less either way. I think it's been pointed out many times on FFL that even the most inveterate shakti-junkies *still* manage to avoid dying. No great suprise there -- who would purposely trade all those great kicks for absolute Nothingness? Only those who have no choice. I am only here to (metaphorically) cut off your head, dance on it, throw your corpse into my fire, consume it utterly, and scatter the sparks to the breeze, and why would you want that unless you *knew* just how much suffering your head was causing you? I do not wonder how or why you so sedulously manage to ignore me. I'll wait. *lol*
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Isn't the whole premise of Maharishi's vision that TM is supposed to lead to enlightened behavior? Never heard that one. I don't know if you are simply parsing words, Jim -- in that MMY did not as I recall, use the term enlightened behavior as much as many others which signify improved action and behavior in all contexts of life from the practice of TM etc. A few among them: - improved social behavior was 1/4 of the entire SIMS intro lecture format. Improved action -- based on fuller mental potential -- was another 1/4. - being in-tune with all the laws of nature - acting from the home of all the laws of nature - being established in the constitution of the universe - acting with grace - improed deservabily resulting from ones behavior - infinitely flexible action and behavior - acting from a level of overflowing fulfillment - being able to give in all social interactions - acting from an ocean of love - spontaneously providing life-supporting influence on all around him - even that blood relatives would gain benefit and their lives would improve - radiating bliss in ones actions - 100's of scientific charts and studies often alluded to regarding improved behavior fir many different benchmarks. - improved compassion and empathy I think the list could fill many pages. Since enlightenment in his view and teachings is the living emodiment of these qualities, the culmination of their fuller, if not full growth, then the concept, if not the words, enlightened behavior certainly have a strong context in the TMO. (Though I would not choose to use the term in that it, in its present usage, becomes quite nebulous.) You never heard MMY speak of any of this, improved behavior through TM? Or are you simply parsing words? I detest that expression enlightened behavior because it attempts to signify a state which is all about eternal, universal immortal freedom and categorize it so that the dualistic mind can make it comprehensible.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Isn't the whole premise of Maharishi's vision that TM is supposed to lead to enlightened behavior? Never heard that one. I don't know if you are simply parsing words, Jim -- in that MMY did not as I recall, use the term enlightened behavior as much as many others which signify improved action and behavior in all contexts of life from the practice of TM etc. A few among them: - improved social behavior was 1/4 of the entire SIMS intro lecture format. Improved action -- based on fuller mental potential -- was another 1/4. - being in-tune with all the laws of nature - acting from the home of all the laws of nature - being established in the constitution of the universe - acting with grace - improed deservabily resulting from ones behavior - infinitely flexible action and behavior - acting from a level of overflowing fulfillment - being able to give in all social interactions - acting from an ocean of love - spontaneously providing life-supporting influence on all around him - even that blood relatives would gain benefit and their lives would improve - radiating bliss in ones actions - 100's of scientific charts and studies often alluded to regarding improved behavior fir many different benchmarks. - improved compassion and empathy I think the list could fill many pages. Since enlightenment in his view and teachings is the living emodiment of these qualities, the culmination of their fuller, if not full growth, then the concept, if not the words, enlightened behavior certainly have a strong context in the TMO. (Though I would not choose to use the term in that it, in its present usage, becomes quite nebulous.) You never heard MMY speak of any of this, improved behavior through TM? Or are you simply parsing words? I detest that expression enlightened behavior because it attempts to signify a state which is all about eternal, universal immortal freedom and categorize it so that the dualistic mind can make it comprehensible. Right. But you said you never heard of the term -- implying that you are unfamiliar with MMY's and the TMO's premise that TM etc significantly improves behavior, social interactions, and actions . Are you unfamiliar with this premise? That is what you implied, and that is my question.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Isn't the whole premise of Maharishi's vision that TM is supposed to lead to enlightened behavior? Never heard that one. I don't know if you are simply parsing words, Jim -- in that MMY did not as I recall, use the term enlightened behavior as much as many others which signify improved action and behavior in all contexts of life from the practice of TM etc. A few among them: - improved social behavior was 1/4 of the entire SIMS intro lecture format. Improved action -- based on fuller mental potential -- was another 1/4. - being in-tune with all the laws of nature - acting from the home of all the laws of nature - being established in the constitution of the universe - acting with grace - improed deservabily resulting from ones behavior - infinitely flexible action and behavior - acting from a level of overflowing fulfillment - being able to give in all social interactions - acting from an ocean of love - spontaneously providing life-supporting influence on all around him - even that blood relatives would gain benefit and their lives would improve - radiating bliss in ones actions - 100's of scientific charts and studies often alluded to regarding improved behavior fir many different benchmarks. - improved compassion and empathy I think the list could fill many pages. Since enlightenment in his view and teachings is the living emodiment of these qualities, the culmination of their fuller, if not full growth, then the concept, if not the words, enlightened behavior certainly have a strong context in the TMO. (Though I would not choose to use the term in that it, in its present usage, becomes quite nebulous.) You never heard MMY speak of any of this, improved behavior through TM? Or are you simply parsing words? I detest that expression enlightened behavior because it attempts to signify a state which is all about eternal, universal immortal freedom and categorize it so that the dualistic mind can make it comprehensible. Right. But you said you never heard of the term -- implying that you are unfamiliar with MMY's and the TMO's premise that TM etc significantly improves behavior, social interactions, and actions . Are you unfamiliar with this premise? That is what you implied, and that is my question. This feels like a very familiar road for both of us, eh? MMY's and the TMO's attempt to chart and categorize improvements in behavior are laudable and appropriate, given their intention (to spread the practice of TM). I don't have the same intention, and would not even attempt to say anything about enlightened behavior except that enlightenment is all about living eternal, infinite, immortal, freedom. Anything else is up for interpretation and I just don't go there.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I detest that expression enlightened behavior because it attempts to signify a state which is all about eternal, universal immortal freedom and categorize it so that the dualistic mind can make it comprehensible. As Jody at Guruphiliac blog might say, it's just more occluding nonsense that makes people believe that enlightenment is all about achieving a dualistic state of being some sort of hagiographied mind-body man-god.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: I detest that expression enlightened behavior because it attempts to signify a state which is all about eternal, universal immortal freedom and categorize it so that the dualistic mind can make it comprehensible. As Jody at Guruphiliac blog might say, it's just more occluding nonsense that makes people believe that enlightenment is all about achieving a dualistic state of being some sort of hagiographied mind-body man-god. Exactly. Such descriptions though seem to serve a useful purpose initially into tricking the mind identified with a dualistic view, into thinking that its problems will be solved *on its own terms* by achieving enlightenment. Then once enlightenment dawns, it is completely different, since a bound mind cannot concieve of its own freedom anyway. And it is so naturally fulfilling that who cares at that point? Pretty funny little sequence we all go through in gaining our natural and universal identity.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
On Nov 13, 2007, at 11:43 AM, new.morning wrote: Right. But you said you never heard of the term -- implying that you are unfamiliar with MMY's and the TMO's premise that TM etc significantly improves behavior, social interactions, and actions . Are you unfamiliar with this premise? That is what you implied, and that is my question. It's more than a premise IMO. Hang around enough saints and you begin to recognize a spontaneous quality that can only be termed virtues or virtuous. It's the Natural Condition. Co-emergent with that recognition is our own Natural State, which is equally abundant in what I call spontaneous qualities (of the enlightened state). Any meditator will begin to recognize that quality in others. No scientific research necessary, this is something most people would recognize.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's more than a premise IMO. Hang around enough saints and you begin to recognize a spontaneous quality that can only be termed virtues or virtuous. It's the Natural Condition. Co-emergent with that recognition is our own Natural State, which is equally abundant in what I call spontaneous qualities (of the enlightened state). Any meditator will begin to recognize that quality in others. No scientific research necessary, this is something most people would recognize. ...as co-dependent moodmaking. *lol*
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
On Nov 13, 2007, at 6:51 PM, Rory Goff wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's more than a premise IMO. Hang around enough saints and you begin to recognize a spontaneous quality that can only be termed virtues or virtuous. It's the Natural Condition. Co-emergent with that recognition is our own Natural State, which is equally abundant in what I call spontaneous qualities (of the enlightened state). Any meditator will begin to recognize that quality in others. No scientific research necessary, this is something most people would recognize. ...as co-dependent moodmaking. *lol* No, as spontaneous [excellent] qualities. We already have one editor here, who needs a retired antiquarian?
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 13, 2007, at 6:51 PM, Rory Goff wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: It's more than a premise IMO. Hang around enough saints and you begin to recognize a spontaneous quality that can only be termed virtues or virtuous. It's the Natural Condition. Co-emergent with that recognition is our own Natural State, which is equally abundant in what I call spontaneous qualities (of the enlightened state). Any meditator will begin to recognize that quality in others. No scientific research necessary, this is something most people would recognize. ...as co-dependent moodmaking. *lol* No, as spontaneous [excellent] qualities. We already have one editor here, who needs a retired antiquarian? if you spoke in plain English, instead of this pseudo-precious language: spontaneous qualities (of the enlightened state)...I mean wtf?! Are you trying to say these folks are just plain *nicer* to be around?? or struck you as friendlier? That I get, but this? After reading this post of yours I imagine folks walking around softly, and...talking...softly...and everyone near them murmuring...softly, and nodding... sagely...at ...every ...utterance...of...their (spontaneous)wisdom- - doesn't sound like a very fun party to me at all.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
Vaj, why don't you read my response to Curtis' response to Bronte's essay regarding behavior and TM? a Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 13, 2007, at 6:51 PM, Rory Goff wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's more than a premise IMO. Hang around enough saints and you begin to recognize a spontaneous quality that can only be termed virtues or virtuous. It's the Natural Condition. Co-emergent with that recognition is our own Natural State, which is equally abundant in what I call spontaneous qualities (of the enlightened state). Any meditator will begin to recognize that quality in others. No scientific research necessary, this is something most people would recognize. ...as co-dependent moodmaking. *lol* No, as spontaneous [excellent] qualities. We already have one editor here, who needs a retired antiquarian? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 13, 2007, at 6:51 PM, Rory Goff wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: It's more than a premise IMO. Hang around enough saints and you begin to recognize a spontaneous quality that can only be termed virtues or virtuous. It's the Natural Condition. Co-emergent with that recognition is our own Natural State, which is equally abundant in what I call spontaneous qualities (of the enlightened state). Any meditator will begin to recognize that quality in others. No scientific research necessary, this is something most people would recognize. ...as co-dependent moodmaking. *lol* No, as spontaneous [excellent] qualities. Apparently, one person's spontaneous [excellent] qualities are another's co-dependent moodmaking, then, Vaj; or maybe you meant to say, *our* group's enlightened qualities are spontaneous and excellent; *yours* are co-dependent moodmaking? Either way, one could probably make a good case for this whole line of thinking being baloney, along the lines of mistaking sattva (a guna) for purusha (free from gunas), or mistaking making it a really, really *good* movie with actual freedom from belief in the movie. We already have one editor here, who needs a retired antiquarian? Who indeed? If you still think you and I exist, then you do, apparently, as here I apparently am. Speaking of editing, perhaps you missed the editor's gentle hint the first time around: the possessive of it is its -- not it's, which is only used by the literate as the contraction of it is.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
On Nov 13, 2007, at 9:17 PM, Angela Mailander wrote: Vaj, why don't you read my response to Curtis' response to Bronte's essay regarding behavior and TM? a Uh, Do I have to? If I have the time, I'll try, OK? I'm not a part time playwright, so don't expect me to bear so much drama in a day, OK?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
On Nov 13, 2007, at 9:41 PM, Rory Goff wrote: Speaking of editing, perhaps you missed the editor's gentle hint the first time around: the possessive of it is its -- not it's, which is only used by the literate as the contraction of it is. Yes and my understanding (perhaps not of publishing genre) was that it's ok per casual anglais. I don't live by my c. 1977 Norton Reader or (heaven forbid) a dictionary. I'm just an ordinary being.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
On Nov 13, 2007, at 9:17 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 13, 2007, at 6:51 PM, Rory Goff wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: It's more than a premise IMO. Hang around enough saints and you begin to recognize a spontaneous quality that can only be termed virtues or virtuous. It's the Natural Condition. Co-emergent with that recognition is our own Natural State, which is equally abundant in what I call spontaneous qualities (of the enlightened state). Any meditator will begin to recognize that quality in others. No scientific research necessary, this is something most people would recognize. ...as co-dependent moodmaking. *lol* No, as spontaneous [excellent] qualities. We already have one editor here, who needs a retired antiquarian? if you spoke in plain English, instead of this pseudo-precious language: spontaneous qualities (of the enlightened state)...I mean wtf?! Are you trying to say these folks are just plain *nicer* to be around?? or struck you as friendlier? That I get, but this? After reading this post of yours I imagine folks walking around softly, and...talking...softly...and everyone near them murmuring...softly, and nodding... sagely...at ...every ...utterance...of...their (spontaneous)wisdom- - doesn't sound like a very fun party to me at all. Spontaneous is spontaneous, what do you want me to say. It's just the way it is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 13, 2007, at 9:41 PM, Rory Goff wrote: Speaking of editing, perhaps you missed the editor's gentle hint the first time around: the possessive of it is its -- not it's, which is only used by the literate as the contraction of it is. V: Yes and my understanding (perhaps not of publishing genre) was that it's ok per casual anglais. Suit yourself; to me it reeks of ignorance. Speaking of ignorance (how's that for a segue), you apparently ignored the main point of the post, about sattva vs. purusha: Apparently, one person's spontaneous [excellent] qualities are another's co-dependent moodmaking, then, Vaj; or maybe you meant to say, *our* group's enlightened qualities are spontaneous and excellent; *yours* are co-dependent moodmaking? Either way, one could probably make a good case for this whole line of thinking being baloney, along the lines of mistaking sattva (a guna) for purusha (free from gunas), or mistaking making it a really, really *good* movie with actual freedom from belief in the movie. I don't live by my c. 1977 Norton Reader or (heaven forbid) a dictionary. I'm just an ordinary being. If only.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
On Nov 13, 2007, at 10:00 PM, Rory Goff wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 13, 2007, at 9:41 PM, Rory Goff wrote: Speaking of editing, perhaps you missed the editor's gentle hint the first time around: the possessive of it is its -- not it's, which is only used by the literate as the contraction of it is. V: Yes and my understanding (perhaps not of publishing genre) was that it's ok per casual anglais. Suit yourself; to me it reeks of ignorance. Reek on then dude, reek on. If only. Only.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 13, 2007, at 9:17 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Nov 13, 2007, at 6:51 PM, Rory Goff wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: It's more than a premise IMO. Hang around enough saints and you begin to recognize a spontaneous quality that can only be termed virtues or virtuous. It's the Natural Condition. Co-emergent with that recognition is our own Natural State, which is equally abundant in what I call spontaneous qualities (of the enlightened state). Any meditator will begin to recognize that quality in others. No scientific research necessary, this is something most people would recognize. ...as co-dependent moodmaking. *lol* No, as spontaneous [excellent] qualities. We already have one editor here, who needs a retired antiquarian? if you spoke in plain English, instead of this pseudo-precious language: spontaneous qualities (of the enlightened state)...I mean wtf?! Are you trying to say these folks are just plain *nicer* to be around?? or struck you as friendlier? That I get, but this? After reading this post of yours I imagine folks walking around softly, and...talking...softly...and everyone near them murmuring...softly, and nodding... sagely...at ...every ...utterance...of...their (spontaneous)wisdom- - doesn't sound like a very fun party to me at all. Spontaneous is spontaneous, what do you want me to say. It's just the way it is. spontaneous I get, I understand that-- but what I was looking for was a description from *you* about what all this feels like, to *you*. This looks like fake stuff is all. Like creating a mood of some kind, and it also sounds dull.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Nov 13, 2007, at 9:41 PM, Rory Goff wrote: Speaking of editing, perhaps you missed the editor's gentle hint the first time around: the possessive of it is its -- not it's, which is only used by the literate as the contraction of it is. V: Yes and my understanding (perhaps not of publishing genre) was that it's ok per casual anglais. Suit yourself; to me it reeks of ignorance. Speaking of ignorance (how's that for a segue), you apparently ignored the main point of the post, about sattva vs. purusha: Apparently, one person's spontaneous [excellent] qualities are another's co-dependent moodmaking, then, Vaj; or maybe you meant to say, *our* group's enlightened qualities are spontaneous and excellent; *yours* are co-dependent moodmaking? Either way, one could probably make a good case for this whole line of thinking being baloney, along the lines of mistaking sattva (a guna) for purusha (free from gunas), or mistaking making it a really, really *good* movie with actual freedom from belief in the movie. I don't live by my c. 1977 Norton Reader or (heaven forbid) a dictionary. I'm just an ordinary being. If only. unfortunately, it looks like if you mistake sattva for purusha, the satva spontaneously transforms into tamas rather quickly...or tamas/rajas at any rate
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As to your statement, Vaj, Yes and my understanding (perhaps not of publishing genre) was that it's ok per casual anglais, Judy would like to tell you (and I heartily agree) that it's not OK no matter how casual your anglais, unless perhaps you're spray-painting it on the subway walls. And in response to your statements, I don't live by my c. 1977 Norton Reader or (heaven forbid) a dictionary and I'm just an ordinary being, Judy points out that Many utterly ordinary beings have no need of the dictionary or Norton's Reader of any vintage to know the difference between a possessive and a contraction. :-) (P.S. It looks as though you've apparently chosen yet again to ignore the main point of the post: the distinction between sattva and purusha, or judging it's a really, really *good* movie vs. actually freeing oneself from belief in the movie. While I enjoy sattvic behavior as much as the next guy, judging anyone's behavior as enlightened or not enlightened would to me fall into the category of judging the quality of the movie.) :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip... the distinction between sattva and purusha, or judging it's a really, really *good* movie vs. actually freeing oneself from belief in the movie. While I enjoy sattvic behavior as much as the next guy, judging anyone's behavior as enlightened or not enlightened would to me fall into the category of judging the quality of the movie. I'd like to refine this comparison a bit, because I think it's crucial, and it's come up a lot here on FFL lately. Judging a person as enlightened or unenlightened by his or her behavior is somewhat like judging an actor in a movie as being a genuinely good or bad person *based upon one's response to the dramatic role s/he happens to be playing in the movie*, when the real issue is whether the spectator even knows s/he is watching a movie. Except it is even funnier than that, because it's not just a movie, it's a mirror, so we could see the whole judgment-process as more like the canary pecking away at his own reflection. I don't know much about logic, but I imagine one could call it a category error. *lol*
