Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[Share Long]

Seraphita, I've never seen anyone disappear (-:
BUT, I've heard stories of people seeing people disappear. So that the only 
thing visible was just the blanket that had been on their knees. I heard that 
Maharishi explained that the invisibility technique wouldn't work because it 
could still be used for not life supporting purposes.
Definitely intuition develops. Strength comes in handy in day to day life.
AND, one day when I was doing my TMSP alone, I suddenly felt as though my body 
had dissolved into the wall it was leaning against. That was a very long time 
ago!





On Friday, November 8, 2013 10:36 AM, Share Long  wrote:
 
  
Seraphita, I'm like most of the long term sidhas in FF, just a person bumbling 
along as best as we can, enjoying a lot, ranting and raving occasionally. 
living deep. 
Back in those days the sidhas and yogic flying were taught in 2 week blocks. So 
I took the sidhis in summer 1977 but didn't do the flying block til Sept 1978. 





On Friday, November 8, 2013 10:14 AM, "s3raph...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  
Re "I still think this is true after 38-and-a-half years of TM; 36 years of 
TMSP; and 35 years of YF.": 

You must be a living saint by now . . . 

Does YF = Yogic Flying and so is it distinguished from TMSP = TM/Sidhi Program, 
suggesting that it's a more advanced sidhi? 

I've got back pain at the moment so Perfect Health sounds more appealing.
(I'll pass on Immortality though - I can only take so many re-runs of Baywatch.)

Surely only prisoners want to Walk through Walls? And Colossal Strength is for 
bullies.

Invisibility and ESP sound the coolest powers. Anyone on the program ever 
demonstrate their prowess in those two fields? 




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


Xeno, I lived on MUM campus for 14 years either as a graduate student or as a 
staff member. I never felt pressured to feel devoted to Maharishi though I 
spontaneously felt devoted to the knowledge he taught. Nor did I ever get from 
Maharishi the idea that the path of devotion is the superior one. In fact he 
was quite clear that the final stroke of enlightenment involves a discernment 
of the intellect. For me, one of the key ideas from Maharishi is that TM is the 
system of self development that transcends itself. When I first heard it what I 
grokked is this: TM will liberate me, even from itself. I still think this is 
true after 38 and a half years of TM. 36 years of TMSP and 35 years of YF. Dare 
I say go figure?





On Friday, November 8, 2013 8:53 AM, "anartaxius@..."  wrote:
 
  
What you say is true of regular meditators and learning TM for the most part, 
but if working in the movement, devotion seems to be considered above all the 
other conceivable ways you could image what a spiritual path would be. 
Maharishi promoted this idea, because, I think, of his own experience with 
Brahmananda Saraswati. Within the movement there is a kind of unspoken peer 
pressure that the path of devotion, and in particular, devotion to Maharishi's 
stated ideals, is the one you ought to be pursuing. Further some sort of 
adulation of Maharishi himself seemed to be part of that influence, whether or 
not Maharishi himself ever directly said such (he tended to imply that devotion 
was the superior path without saying 'you should be devoted to me'). There is a 
lot of hidden and unvocalised (and also vocalised) compulsions in 
organisations, and particularly spiritual organisations, or any organisations 
that have a 'mission', that there is a right way to go
 about it and think, and a wrong way to go about it and think. I was speaking 
about those more closely allied with the TMO than regular meditators, and many 
here probably have the sense of what I was writing about.


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


Re"I found the emphasis on devotion to the guru in the TM movement always 
disconcerting":

What emphasis? Maharishi was never a guru - he was a teacher of meditation.  
"The guru-shishya tradition is the transmission of teachings from a guru to a 
disciple. In this relationship, subtle and advanced knowledge is conveyed and 
received through the student's respect, commitment, devotion and obedience."

That sounds nothing like the usual experience of learning TM in which one is 
given a mantra and left to get on with it on one's own. No devotion or 
obedience was ever expected.

 


---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:


authfriend wrote:

'My parents sent me to Sunday School at a nearby nondenominational Christian 
church a couple of times when I was around 10 or so, feeling they should at 
least give me some exposure to religion. I didn't like it, and they didn't make 
me go again. I had a brief flirtation with Unitarianism in my teens, but it 
didn't last. Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship 
context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple 
of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the

Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[Share Long]

Seraphita, I'm like most of the long term sidhas in FF, just a person bumbling 
along as best as we can, enjoying a lot, ranting and raving occasionally. 
living deep. 
Back in those days the sidhas and yogic flying were taught in 2 week blocks. So 
I took the sidhis in summer 1977 but didn't do the flying block til Sept 1978. 





On Friday, November 8, 2013 10:14 AM, "s3raph...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  
Re "I still think this is true after 38-and-a-half years of TM; 36 years of 
TMSP; and 35 years of YF.": 

You must be a living saint by now . . . 

Does YF = Yogic Flying and so is it distinguished from TMSP = TM/Sidhi Program, 
suggesting that it's a more advanced sidhi? 

I've got back pain at the moment so Perfect Health sounds more appealing.
(I'll pass on Immortality though - I can only take so many re-runs of Baywatch.)

Surely only prisoners want to Walk through Walls? And Colossal Strength is for 
bullies.

Invisibility and ESP sound the coolest powers. Anyone on the program ever 
demonstrate their prowess in those two fields? 




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


Xeno, I lived on MUM campus for 14 years either as a graduate student or as a 
staff member. I never felt pressured to feel devoted to Maharishi though I 
spontaneously felt devoted to the knowledge he taught. Nor did I ever get from 
Maharishi the idea that the path of devotion is the superior one. In fact he 
was quite clear that the final stroke of enlightenment involves a discernment 
of the intellect. For me, one of the key ideas from Maharishi is that TM is the 
system of self development that transcends itself. When I first heard it what I 
grokked is this: TM will liberate me, even from itself. I still think this is 
true after 38 and a half years of TM. 36 years of TMSP and 35 years of YF. Dare 
I say go figure?





On Friday, November 8, 2013 8:53 AM, "anartaxius@..."  wrote:
 
  
What you say is true of regular meditators and learning TM for the most part, 
but if working in the movement, devotion seems to be considered above all the 
other conceivable ways you could image what a spiritual path would be. 
Maharishi promoted this idea, because, I think, of his own experience with 
Brahmananda Saraswati. Within the movement there is a kind of unspoken peer 
pressure that the path of devotion, and in particular, devotion to Maharishi's 
stated ideals, is the one you ought to be pursuing. Further some sort of 
adulation of Maharishi himself seemed to be part of that influence, whether or 
not Maharishi himself ever directly said such (he tended to imply that devotion 
was the superior path without saying 'you should be devoted to me'). There is a 
lot of hidden and unvocalised (and also vocalised) compulsions in 
organisations, and particularly spiritual organisations, or any organisations 
that have a 'mission', that there is a right way to go
 about it and think, and a wrong way to go about it and think. I was speaking 
about those more closely allied with the TMO than regular meditators, and many 
here probably have the sense of what I was writing about.


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


Re"I found the emphasis on devotion to the guru in the TM movement always 
disconcerting":

What emphasis? Maharishi was never a guru - he was a teacher of meditation.  
"The guru-shishya tradition is the transmission of teachings from a guru to a 
disciple. In this relationship, subtle and advanced knowledge is conveyed and 
received through the student's respect, commitment, devotion and obedience."

That sounds nothing like the usual experience of learning TM in which one is 
given a mantra and left to get on with it on one's own. No devotion or 
obedience was ever expected.

 


---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:


authfriend wrote:

'My parents sent me to Sunday School at a nearby nondenominational Christian 
church a couple of times when I was around 10 or so, feeling they should at 
least give me some exposure to religion. I didn't like it, and they didn't make 
me go again. I had a brief flirtation with Unitarianism in my teens, but it 
didn't last. Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship 
context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple 
of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the 
Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified 
Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can 
go.'

My exposure to religion was rather slight, and by high school I was essentially 
agnostic although at times early influences would kick in on the emotional 
level. What you said here is pretty much what is available to agnostics, 
atheists, and non-theistic religions or philosophies (such as Zen Buddhism; 
Tao). One pretty much has to bypass that conception of a personal level of 
'creation' (assuming there really is creation). It is possible other conceptual 
states mig

RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[s3raphita]

Re "I still think this is true after 38-and-a-half years of TM; 36 years of 
TMSP; and 35 years of YF.": 
 

 You must be a living saint by now . . . 
 

 Does YF = Yogic Flying and so is it distinguished from TMSP = TM/Sidhi 
Program, suggesting that it's a more advanced sidhi? 
 

 I've got back pain at the moment so Perfect Health sounds more appealing.
 (I'll pass on Immortality though - I can only take so many re-runs of 
Baywatch.)
 

 Surely only prisoners want to Walk through Walls? And Colossal Strength is for 
bullies.
 

 Invisibility and ESP sound the coolest powers. Anyone on the program ever 
demonstrate their prowess in those two fields? 
 

 

 

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

 Xeno, I lived on MUM campus for 14 years either as a graduate student or as a 
staff member. I never felt pressured to feel devoted to Maharishi though I 
spontaneously felt devoted to the knowledge he taught. Nor did I ever get from 
Maharishi the idea that the path of devotion is the superior one. In fact he 
was quite clear that the final stroke of enlightenment involves a discernment 
of the intellect. For me, one of the key ideas from Maharishi is that TM is the 
system of self development that transcends itself. When I first heard it what I 
grokked is this: TM will liberate me, even from itself. I still think this is 
true after 38 and a half years of TM. 36 years of TMSP and 35 years of YF. Dare 
I say go figure?
 

 
 
 On Friday, November 8, 2013 8:53 AM, "anartaxius@..."  wrote:
 
   What you say is true of regular meditators and learning TM for the most 
part, but if working in the movement, devotion seems to be considered above all 
the other conceivable ways you could image what a spiritual path would be. 
Maharishi promoted this idea, because, I think, of his own experience with 
Brahmananda Saraswati. Within the movement there is a kind of unspoken peer 
pressure that the path of devotion, and in particular, devotion to Maharishi's 
stated ideals, is the one you ought to be pursuing. Further some sort of 
adulation of Maharishi himself seemed to be part of that influence, whether or 
not Maharishi himself ever directly said such (he tended to imply that devotion 
was the superior path without saying 'you should be devoted to me'). There is a 
lot of hidden and unvocalised (and also vocalised) compulsions in 
organisations, and particularly spiritual organisations, or any organisations 
that have a 'mission', that there is a right way to go about it and think, and 
a wrong way to go about it and think. I was speaking about those more closely 
allied with the TMO than regular meditators, and many here probably have the 
sense of what I was writing about.
 

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

 Re "I found the emphasis on devotion to the guru in the TM movement always 
disconcerting":
 

 What emphasis? Maharishi was never a guru - he was a teacher of meditation.  
"The guru-shishya tradition is the transmission of teachings from a guru to a 
disciple. In this relationship, subtle and advanced knowledge is conveyed and 
received through the student's respect, commitment, devotion and obedience."
 

 That sounds nothing like the usual experience of learning TM in which one is 
given a mantra and left to get on with it on one's own. No devotion or 
obedience was ever expected.
 

  
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 authfriend wrote:
 

 'My parents sent me to Sunday School at a nearby nondenominational Christian 
church a couple of times when I was around 10 or so, feeling they should at 
least give me some exposure to religion. I didn't like it, and they didn't make 
me go again. I had a brief flirtation with Unitarianism in my teens, but it 
didn't last. Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship 
context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple 
of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the 
Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified 
Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can 
go.'
 

 My exposure to religion was rather slight, and by high school I was 
essentially agnostic although at times early influences would kick in on the 
emotional level. What you said here is pretty much what is available to 
agnostics, atheists, and non-theistic religions or philosophies (such as Zen 
Buddhism; Tao). One pretty much has to bypass that conception of a personal 
level of 'creation' (assuming there really is creation). It is possible other 
conceptual states might take the place of the personal god concept. What I 
found as time went on was I would make the attempt not to visualise the goal, I 
would easily try to deflect the tendency to give it a form. This worked for me. 
But a lot of people have trouble without some kind of concrete image in the 
mind, I find it interesting that TM takes the mind away from concrete im

[FairfieldLife] RE: Re: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[authfriend]

Barry wrote:
 > Since no one else seems to be willing to deal with this, I will. :-)

 > The answer, of course, is "Is the Pope Catholic?" *Of course*
> there were mass pujas and "celebrations" performed to the
> various Hindu gods and goddesses in these locations.
 

 Which "Hindu gods and goddesses" were these, other than
 those mentioned in the puja? Give us a for-instance.
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[Share Long]

Xeno, I lived on MUM campus for 14 years either as a graduate student or as a 
staff member. I never felt pressured to feel devoted to Maharishi though I 
spontaneously felt devoted to the knowledge he taught. Nor did I ever get from 
Maharishi the idea that the path of devotion is the superior one. In fact he 
was quite clear that the final stroke of enlightenment involves a discernment 
of the intellect. For me, one of the key ideas from Maharishi is that TM is the 
system of self development that transcends itself. When I first heard it what I 
grokked is this: TM will liberate me, even from itself. I still think this is 
true after 38 and a half years of TM. 36 years of TMSP and 35 years of YF. Dare 
I say go figure?





On Friday, November 8, 2013 8:53 AM, "anartax...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  
What you say is true of regular meditators and learning TM for the most part, 
but if working in the movement, devotion seems to be considered above all the 
other conceivable ways you could image what a spiritual path would be. 
Maharishi promoted this idea, because, I think, of his own experience with 
Brahmananda Saraswati. Within the movement there is a kind of unspoken peer 
pressure that the path of devotion, and in particular, devotion to Maharishi's 
stated ideals, is the one you ought to be pursuing. Further some sort of 
adulation of Maharishi himself seemed to be part of that influence, whether or 
not Maharishi himself ever directly said such (he tended to imply that devotion 
was the superior path without saying 'you should be devoted to me'). There is a 
lot of hidden and unvocalised (and also vocalised) compulsions in 
organisations, and particularly spiritual organisations, or any organisations 
that have a 'mission', that there is a right way to go
 about it and think, and a wrong way to go about it and think. I was speaking 
about those more closely allied with the TMO than regular meditators, and many 
here probably have the sense of what I was writing about.


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


Re"I found the emphasis on devotion to the guru in the TM movement always 
disconcerting":

What emphasis? Maharishi was never a guru - he was a teacher of meditation.  
"The guru-shishya tradition is the transmission of teachings from a guru to a 
disciple. In this relationship, subtle and advanced knowledge is conveyed and 
received through the student's respect, commitment, devotion and obedience."

That sounds nothing like the usual experience of learning TM in which one is 
given a mantra and left to get on with it on one's own. No devotion or 
obedience was ever expected.

 


---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:


authfriend wrote:

'My parents sent me to Sunday School at a nearby nondenominational Christian 
church a couple of times when I was around 10 or so, feeling they should at 
least give me some exposure to religion. I didn't like it, and they didn't make 
me go again. I had a brief flirtation with Unitarianism in my teens, but it 
didn't last. Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship 
context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple 
of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the 
Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified 
Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can 
go.'

My exposure to religion was rather slight, and by high school I was essentially 
agnostic although at times early influences would kick in on the emotional 
level. What you said here is pretty much what is available to agnostics, 
atheists, and non-theistic religions or philosophies (such as Zen Buddhism; 
Tao). One pretty much has to bypass that conception of a personal level of 
'creation' (assuming there really is creation). It is possible other conceptual 
states might take the place of the personal god concept. What I found as time 
went on was I would make the attempt not to visualise the goal, I would easily 
try to deflect the tendency to give it a form. This worked for me. But a lot of 
people have trouble without some kind of concrete image in the mind, I find it 
interesting that TM takes the mind away from concrete imaging, yet when people 
come out of the meditation, it does not seem to register that that experience 
of formlessness has something to do
 with what one experiences through the senses. Ultimately that empty blank is 
what is experienced as being all the forms.

The Bhagavad-Gita says that those bent on the unmanifest may have a tough time 
of it - a few translations follow, Chapter 12 Verse 5:

'For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of 
the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that 
discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.'

'Those whose minds are attached to the unmanifest aspect have much greater 
tribulations, because devoid of any percepti

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[anartaxius]

What you say is true of regular meditators and learning TM for the most part, 
but if working in the movement, devotion seems to be considered above all the 
other conceivable ways you could image what a spiritual path would be. 
Maharishi promoted this idea, because, I think, of his own experience with 
Brahmananda Saraswati. Within the movement there is a kind of unspoken peer 
pressure that the path of devotion, and in particular, devotion to Maharishi's 
stated ideals, is the one you ought to be pursuing. Further some sort of 
adulation of Maharishi himself seemed to be part of that influence, whether or 
not Maharishi himself ever directly said such (he tended to imply that devotion 
was the superior path without saying 'you should be devoted to me'). There is a 
lot of hidden and unvocalised (and also vocalised) compulsions in 
organisations, and particularly spiritual organisations, or any organisations 
that have a 'mission', that there is a right way to go about it and think, and 
a wrong way to go about it and think. I was speaking about those more closely 
allied with the TMO than regular meditators, and many here probably have the 
sense of what I was writing about.
 

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

 Re "I found the emphasis on devotion to the guru in the TM movement always 
disconcerting":
 

 What emphasis? Maharishi was never a guru - he was a teacher of meditation.  
"The guru-shishya tradition is the transmission of teachings from a guru to a 
disciple. In this relationship, subtle and advanced knowledge is conveyed and 
received through the student's respect, commitment, devotion and obedience."
 

 That sounds nothing like the usual experience of learning TM in which one is 
given a mantra and left to get on with it on one's own. No devotion or 
obedience was ever expected.
 

  
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 authfriend wrote:
 

 'My parents sent me to Sunday School at a nearby nondenominational Christian 
church a couple of times when I was around 10 or so, feeling they should at 
least give me some exposure to religion. I didn't like it, and they didn't make 
me go again. I had a brief flirtation with Unitarianism in my teens, but it 
didn't last. Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship 
context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple 
of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the 
Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified 
Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can 
go.'
 

 My exposure to religion was rather slight, and by high school I was 
essentially agnostic although at times early influences would kick in on the 
emotional level. What you said here is pretty much what is available to 
agnostics, atheists, and non-theistic religions or philosophies (such as Zen 
Buddhism; Tao). One pretty much has to bypass that conception of a personal 
level of 'creation' (assuming there really is creation). It is possible other 
conceptual states might take the place of the personal god concept. What I 
found as time went on was I would make the attempt not to visualise the goal, I 
would easily try to deflect the tendency to give it a form. This worked for me. 
But a lot of people have trouble without some kind of concrete image in the 
mind, I find it interesting that TM takes the mind away from concrete imaging, 
yet when people come out of the meditation, it does not seem to register that 
that experience of formlessness has something to do with what one experiences 
through the senses. Ultimately that empty blank is what is experienced as being 
all the forms.
 

 The Bhagavad-Gita says that those bent on the unmanifest may have a tough time 
of it - a few translations follow, Chapter 12 Verse 5:
 

 'For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of 
the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that 
discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.'
 

 'Those whose minds are attached to the unmanifest aspect have much greater 
tribulations, because devoid of any perceptible form and attributes, success is 
achieved with great difficulty due to the beings identifying with the body.'
 

 'There is greater trouble for those whose minds are attached to the 
unmanifest. For, the path of the unmanifest is difficult to attain by the 
embodied.'
 

 As a kind of space case, perhaps I was attracted to a less concrete view of 
the universe. For example, without wanting to be a Buddhist, I was attracted to 
its Zen lineage because of the lack of conceptualisation and emphasis on direct 
experience. I found the emphasis on devotion to the guru in the TM movement 
always disconcerting as it did not seem to have any relevance to my so-called 
path. Others, of course, found devotion quite amenable to them, if it was 
natural; but faking devotion because

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[authfriend]

What's yer problem? We're saying we like this kind of thing, the fancier and 
more elaborate the better.
 

 Love the costumes in this clip, the different coordinated black-and-white 
prints for the vestments.
 

 Russian liturgical music is kind of an acquired taste for most Westerners, but 
it's magnificent once you develop an ear for it.
 

 I told you my sister sang with an amateur (but superb) Russian chorus in 
Boston some years ago, didn't I? They did a tour of Russia at one point, where 
they had very eager Russian audiences. Choral performance of liturgical music 
had almost become a lost art under Communism, so people were actually 
re-learning the style and fine points from them.
 

 

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

 You're all sounding like desiccated corpses drying in the desert. 
 There is another type of Christian life here in America.
 

 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0M94z3Pev4 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0M94z3Pev4
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Seraphita wrote: 
 
 > Re "Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship context and 
 > joined the 
 > church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple of years but wasn't 
 > inspired 
 > enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the Personal God aspect of 
 > the belief system 
 > (or Christ as savior). God as Unified Field, the ultimate (and 
 > unworshipable) abstraction, is 
 > about as far as I can go. ":
 >
 > Again very close to my view. Here in the UK, the Anglican Church is 
 > essentially a wishy- 
 > washy nostalgia circus for reminding grown-ups of their childhood. (With 
 > bits of Arthurian 
 > romance added to the mix.) So all pretty harmless. Even arch-atheist Richard 
 > Dawkins has 
 > confessed to occasionally popping into a church just to enjoy the aesthetic 
 > experience!
 
 

 Heehee. Be fun to see that guy Spufford look up from his prayers and clap eyes 
on Dawkins.
 

 > Having always been intrigued by the occult fringe, I've also seen some 
 > attraction in the 

 > Catholic position: the Mass as a magical ritual and the unembarrassed 
 > veneration of those 
 > medieval mystics. Even such unregenerates as Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire  and 
 > Huysmans 
 > finally turned to Rome as they sensed it was the more poetical religion.
 
 
 Huh, I'm attracted by the poetry/music/incense/art/theatrical aspects as well. 
Goes way back with me to the (wonderful) Audrey Hepburn film "The Nun's Story." 
I think I'd need a Peter Finch equivalent, though.
 

 To this day I have no idea whether my late father had any religious 
sensibility whatsoever, but he adored churches and religious music and 
painting. I guess it's in the genes.
 
 

 I might be tempted to pop into a Catholic church at some point if they were 
doing a mass in Latin. There's something really magical about Latin. Like 
Sanskrit, I suppose, but the music is a lot better. ;-) I once memorized the 
Hail Mary in Latin just because I loved the sound of it. My Presbyterian 
ancestors (Huguenots, no less) must have spun themselves nearly out of their 
graves.
 



 

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[authfriend]

Seraphita wrote: 
 
 > Re "Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship context and 
 > joined the 
 > church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple of years but wasn't 
 > inspired 
 > enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the Personal God aspect of 
 > the belief system 
 > (or Christ as savior). God as Unified Field, the ultimate (and 
 > unworshipable) abstraction, is 
 > about as far as I can go. ":
 >
 > Again very close to my view. Here in the UK, the Anglican Church is 
 > essentially a wishy- 
 > washy nostalgia circus for reminding grown-ups of their childhood. (With 
 > bits of Arthurian 
 > romance added to the mix.) So all pretty harmless. Even arch-atheist Richard 
 > Dawkins has 
 > confessed to occasionally popping into a church just to enjoy the aesthetic 
 > experience!
 

 Heehee. Be fun to see that guy Spufford look up from his prayers and clap eyes 
on Dawkins.
 

 > Having always been intrigued by the occult fringe, I've also seen some 
 > attraction in the 

 > Catholic position: the Mass as a magical ritual and the unembarrassed 
 > veneration of those 
 > medieval mystics. Even such unregenerates as Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire  and 
 > Huysmans 
 > finally turned to Rome as they sensed it was the more poetical religion.
 

 Huh, I'm attracted by the poetry/music/incense/art/theatrical aspects as well. 
Goes way back with me to the (wonderful) Audrey Hepburn film "The Nun's Story." 
I think I'd need a Peter Finch equivalent, though.
 

 To this day I have no idea whether my late father had any religious 
sensibility whatsoever, but he adored churches and religious music and 
painting. I guess it's in the genes.
 
 

 I might be tempted to pop into a Catholic church at some point if they were 
doing a mass in Latin. There's something really magical about Latin. Like 
Sanskrit, I suppose, but the music is a lot better. ;-) I once memorized the 
Hail Mary in Latin just because I loved the sound of it. My Presbyterian 
ancestors (Huguenots, no less) must have spun themselves nearly out of their 
graves.
 

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[authfriend]

Seraphita wrote:
 (snip)
 > Re "You could say I'm sympathetic to religions generally; I've read a good 
 > bit of 
 > theology because it interests me, but that's about it.":
 > Sounds like me. Except I went to a Moravian school originally founded in 
 > 1753 as a 
 > utopian community.
 

 My parents sent me to Sunday School at a nearby nondenominational Christian 
church a couple of times when I was around 10 or so, feeling they should at 
least give me some exposure to religion. I didn't like it, and they didn't make 
me go again. I had a brief flirtation with Unitarianism in my teens, but it 
didn't last. Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship 
context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple 
of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the 
Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified 
Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can 
go.
 

 > Re "Robin Carlsen converted while he was still adventuring . . . he rejected 
 > Catholicism as well.":
 > His jumping from MMY to Ayatollahs to Popes suggest someone in search of an 
 > authority figure, no?
 

 Could be (but he never "jumped to" the Ayatollah; Islam wasn't his bag--he was 
really just curious, and then very impressed by the Ayatollah as a presumably 
enlightened being, but not as a guru or authority figure).
 

 Robin's an extraordinarily complicated and unusual fellow with a unique 
history. I don't think you can apply standard psychological interpretations to 
his behavior or motivations. I'm not sure he ever "jumped to" the pope either 
as an authority figure, except nominally as part of Catholic doctrine; and his 
devotion to Maharishi was more of a spiritual bromance based on his profound 
experience of TM than a need for authority per se, if you see the distinction 
I'm making.
 

 > Re "He didn't become a priest. Not sure where you got that.":
 > It was a rumour - I'm sure I saw it mentioned on FFL long, long ago.
 

 Oh, I see. Lots of rumors about Robin given that he effectively disappeared 
after the group collapsed. He was also said to have committed suicide and to 
have been institutionalized. In fact, he was living with his best friend, with 
no contact with anyone from his past, including his family, and going through 
extreme agonies trying to get himself straightened out with his friend's 
guidance. When he showed up here two years ago, he was--at least from the 
descriptions of those who knew him in his "enlightened" period--a different 
person.

 

 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Seraphita wrote:
 
 > Should I assume that you are Roman Catholic? Or at least a fellow traveller?
 
 
 No. I responded to an earlier question from you about my religious leanings a 
week or so ago; did you miss it?
 

 My family heritage is Christian (Presbyterian), but I didn't have a religious 
upbringing and am not a believer. You could say I'm sympathetic to religions 
generally; I've read a good bit of theology because it interests me, but that's 
about it.
 
 
 > I understand Robin Carlsen became a Catholic convert - indeed a Catholic 
 > priest (?) after his 
 > adventures on the new-age circuit.
 
 
 He converted while he was still adventuring, actually. (Not sure I'd call 
those adventures "New Age," unless you want to put TM in that category.) He 
convinced many of his followers to convert as well; a number of them are still 
devout Catholics. At the time, he thought Catholicism could be reconciled with 
TM.
 

 The group collapsed in chaos not long after that, and he went into seclusion 
for 25 years to sort himself out. He decided shortly after he began this 
recovery process that TM and Catholicism weren't compatible after all and 
rejected TM. A few years after that he decided the Church was no longer what it 
had been and had lost its divine authority with regard to salvation. At that 
point he rejected Catholicism as well.

 

 (Ann, I think I have the chronology straight here; if not, corrections are 
welcome.)
 

 He didn't become a priest. Not sure where you got that.
 
 
 > Are you one of his former acolytes?
 
 

 Nope. I encountered him for the first time here on FFL, summer of 2011.
 



 Seraphita wrote:
 (snip)
 > Isn't the vulgar notion of Christianity held by most believers radically 
 > dualist? (Which 
 > isn't surprising as western Christianity flows from Augustine.) Your 
 > standard Christian 
 > believes God is good and Satan is evil and History will end with a stand-up 
 > fight 
 > between the angels of light and the demons with the good angels destined to 
 > prevail.
 

 Christianity is dualistic, yes, but what you describe above really isn't what 
the "standard Christian" believes (at least not in the U.S.). It's various 
fundamentalist-type denominations and sects that are preoccupied with the End 
Times and Armageddon and the Rapture and so on. St

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[Richard J. Williams]

The Buddha was the first historical yogin in India to attain Samadhi - 
the primary means of cultivating samadhi is meditation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samdhi 



The Sanskrit word bodhi means "awakened." This word roughly correlates 
to "enlightened" in English. The word buddha is a variation of bodhi, 
meaning "awakened one."


http://buddhism.about.com/ 



On 11/6/2013 6:05 AM, sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote:


Ok, Richard, nobody else is gonna challenge you on this. Actually I'm 
not either. But it would be great if you could say more about it. 
Seems revolutionary (-:




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

Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist.

On 11/3/2013 4:42 PM, s3raphita@...  wrote:


*Is it possible to be a Buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly?*


Yes, according to MMY.



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


*Should TM'er Buddhists even be allowed to have a Dome badge? Is it 
possible to be a buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly?*


*-Buck*



---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com 
,  
 wrote:


Re "The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a 
struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual 
light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two 
opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is 
influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar 
to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not 
complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate 
to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang.":



The Yin and Yang "concepts" point to a Tao that includes the 
opposites. Imagining that one side of a pair of opposites could gain 
the upper hand over the other would be a vulgar error.


As the little we know about Manichaeism and similar "dualist" 
religions/philosophies comes to us from hostile sources isn't it 
possible that these beliefs weren't as dualist as they've been 
painted but perhaps also had the idea of a Transcendence that 
reconciled the positive and negative aspects of life?




---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com 
,  
 wrote:


So, let's review what we know about the prophet Mani.

The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle 
between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus 
the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing 
elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced 
by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the 
dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated.


Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with 
their own notions of Yin and Yang, which is probably derived from the 
Indian Sankhya, a radical dualism, and later tantra- a theory of 
polarity which posits male and female energies.


The name 'Mani' is Sanskrit. Mani traveled and lived in India for 
several years, visiting  Buddhist lands such as Bamiyan in 
Afghanistan, so it is not surprising that Buddhist influences would 
be apparent. Mani apparently adopted his theory of the reincarnation 
(transmigration of souls) from the Buddhists. Mani's sect structure 
was apparently based on the Buddhist Sangha, that is, Arhants and the 
lay follower community.



On 11/2/2013 11:31 AM, emptybill@...
 wrote:


No wonder the Near-Eastern realm got so mixed up. *//*

It seems that as Manichean ideology spread to the East it 
incorporated Buddhist concepts along the way in a effort to show the 
superiority of the "Religion of Light." Mani lived during the third 
century of the current era. Mani used the epitaph "Buddha of Light" 
and identified himself as Maitreya. He and his followers 
specifically borrowed from early Pure Land Sutras and Nagarjuna's 
Madhyamaka philosophy. As it entered the region of Gandhara and 
spread to China it used the Buddhist Hinayana tradition to support 
its views of "matter, the body and the world."


MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM


*/David A. Scott /*
*//*

*/Christ Church College /**/of /**/Higher Education/*

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[sharelong60]

hey, emptybill, too late! Moon in Pisces, which makes me not only a fish, but a 
fish facing in each direction!
 btw, thanks for Kelly article. Was horrified by it and article turq posted. 
Admit that such makes me grateful to be in FF. Could be deluded. But won't 
change til I'm sure I am! See, still looking in two directions...

 

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

 Share,
 Professor Troll is throwing out a fishing line to troll-in anyone who will 
bite. Don’t be a fish.
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Ok, Richard, nobody else is gonna challenge you on this. Actually I'm not 
either. But it would be great if you could say more about it. Seems 
revolutionary (-:  

 

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

 Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist. 
 
 On 11/3/2013 4:42 PM, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote:
 
   Is it possible to be a Buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly?
 
 
 Yes, according to MMY. 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
  Should TM'er Buddhists even be allowed to have a Dome badge? Is it possible 
to be a buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly?
 -Buck
 
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:s3raphita@... wrote:
 
 Re "The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle 
between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the 
material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a 
battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both 
good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, 
and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would 
probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang.": 
 
 The Yin and Yang "concepts" point to a Tao that includes the opposites. 
Imagining that one side of a pair of opposites could gain the upper hand over 
the other would be a vulgar error.
 As the little we know about Manichaeism and similar "dualist" 
religions/philosophies comes to us from hostile sources isn't it possible that 
these beliefs weren't as dualist as they've been painted but perhaps also had 
the idea of a Transcendence that reconciled the positive and negative aspects 
of life?
 
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:punditster@... wrote:
 
 So, let's review what we know about the prophet Mani. 
 
 The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between 
the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world 
darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. 
There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. 
Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's 
not complicated.
 
 Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own 
notions of Yin and Yang, which is probably derived from the Indian Sankhya, a 
radical dualism, and later tantra- a theory of polarity which posits male and 
female energies. 
 
 The name 'Mani' is Sanskrit. Mani traveled and lived in India for several 
years, visiting  Buddhist lands such as Bamiyan in Afghanistan, so it is not 
surprising that Buddhist influences would be apparent. Mani apparently adopted 
his theory of the reincarnation (transmigration of souls) from the Buddhists. 
Mani's sect structure was apparently based on the Buddhist Sangha, that is, 
Arhants and the lay follower community. 
 
 
 On 11/2/2013 11:31 AM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote:
 
   
  
 No wonder the Near-Eastern realm got so mixed up.   
 It seems that as Manichean ideology spread to the East it incorporated 
Buddhist concepts along the way in a effort to show the superiority of the 
"Religion of Light." Mani lived during the third century of the current era. 
Mani used the epitaph "Buddha of Light" and identified himself as Maitreya. He 
and his followers specifically borrowed from early Pure Land Sutras and 
Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy. As it entered the region of Gandhara and 
spread to China it used the Buddhist Hinayana tradition to support its views of 
"matter, the body and the world."
 MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
 
 
 David A. Scott 
 
 Christ Church College of Higher Education 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[dhamiltony2k5]

 Om,
 There are TM meditators
 There are Buddhist meditators
 Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist.
 Therefore, Transcendental Meditators are Buddhists.
 

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

 It is said, "Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist".  
 

 

 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Ok, Richard, nobody else is gonna challenge you on this. Actually I'm not 
either. But it would be great if you could say more about it. Seems 
revolutionary (-:  

 

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

 Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist. 
 
 On 11/3/2013 4:42 PM, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote:
 
   Is it possible to be a Buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly?
 
 
 Yes, according to MMY. 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
  Should TM'er Buddhists even be allowed to have a Dome badge? Is it possible 
to be a buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly?
 -Buck
 
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:s3raphita@... wrote:
 
 Re "The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle 
between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the 
material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a 
battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both 
good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, 
and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would 
probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang.": 
 
 The Yin and Yang "concepts" point to a Tao that includes the opposites. 
Imagining that one side of a pair of opposites could gain the upper hand over 
the other would be a vulgar error.
 As the little we know about Manichaeism and similar "dualist" 
religions/philosophies comes to us from hostile sources isn't it possible that 
these beliefs weren't as dualist as they've been painted but perhaps also had 
the idea of a Transcendence that reconciled the positive and negative aspects 
of life?
 
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:punditster@... wrote:
 
 So, let's review what we know about the prophet Mani. 
 
 The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between 
the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world 
darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. 
There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. 
Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's 
not complicated.
 
 Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own 
notions of Yin and Yang, which is probably derived from the Indian Sankhya, a 
radical dualism, and later tantra- a theory of polarity which posits male and 
female energies. 
 
 The name 'Mani' is Sanskrit. Mani traveled and lived in India for several 
years, visiting  Buddhist lands such as Bamiyan in Afghanistan, so it is not 
surprising that Buddhist influences would be apparent. Mani apparently adopted 
his theory of the reincarnation (transmigration of souls) from the Buddhists. 
Mani's sect structure was apparently based on the Buddhist Sangha, that is, 
Arhants and the lay follower community. 
 
 
 On 11/2/2013 11:31 AM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote:
 
   
  
 No wonder the Near-Eastern realm got so mixed up.   
 It seems that as Manichean ideology spread to the East it incorporated 
Buddhist concepts along the way in a effort to show the superiority of the 
"Religion of Light." Mani lived during the third century of the current era. 
Mani used the epitaph "Buddha of Light" and identified himself as Maitreya. He 
and his followers specifically borrowed from early Pure Land Sutras and 
Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy. As it entered the region of Gandhara and 
spread to China it used the Buddhist Hinayana tradition to support its views of 
"matter, the body and the world."
 MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
 
 
 David A. Scott 
 
 Christ Church College of Higher Education 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 

RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[sharelong60]

Ok, Richard, nobody else is gonna challenge you on this. Actually I'm not 
either. But it would be great if you could say more about it. Seems 
revolutionary (-:  

 

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

 Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist. 
 
 On 11/3/2013 4:42 PM, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote:
 
   Is it possible to be a Buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly?
 
 
 Yes, according to MMY. 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
  Should TM'er Buddhists even be allowed to have a Dome badge? Is it possible 
to be a buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly?
 -Buck
 
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:s3raphita@... wrote:
 
 Re "The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle 
between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the 
material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a 
battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both 
good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, 
and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would 
probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang.": 
 
 The Yin and Yang "concepts" point to a Tao that includes the opposites. 
Imagining that one side of a pair of opposites could gain the upper hand over 
the other would be a vulgar error.
 As the little we know about Manichaeism and similar "dualist" 
religions/philosophies comes to us from hostile sources isn't it possible that 
these beliefs weren't as dualist as they've been painted but perhaps also had 
the idea of a Transcendence that reconciled the positive and negative aspects 
of life?
 
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:punditster@... wrote:
 
 So, let's review what we know about the prophet Mani. 
 
 The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between 
the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world 
darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. 
There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. 
Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's 
not complicated.
 
 Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own 
notions of Yin and Yang, which is probably derived from the Indian Sankhya, a 
radical dualism, and later tantra- a theory of polarity which posits male and 
female energies. 
 
 The name 'Mani' is Sanskrit. Mani traveled and lived in India for several 
years, visiting  Buddhist lands such as Bamiyan in Afghanistan, so it is not 
surprising that Buddhist influences would be apparent. Mani apparently adopted 
his theory of the reincarnation (transmigration of souls) from the Buddhists. 
Mani's sect structure was apparently based on the Buddhist Sangha, that is, 
Arhants and the lay follower community. 
 
 
 On 11/2/2013 11:31 AM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote:
 
   
  
 No wonder the Near-Eastern realm got so mixed up.   
 It seems that as Manichean ideology spread to the East it incorporated 
Buddhist concepts along the way in a effort to show the superiority of the 
"Religion of Light." Mani lived during the third century of the current era. 
Mani used the epitaph "Buddha of Light" and identified himself as Maitreya. He 
and his followers specifically borrowed from early Pure Land Sutras and 
Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy. As it entered the region of Gandhara and 
spread to China it used the Buddhist Hinayana tradition to support its views of 
"matter, the body and the world."
 MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
 
 
 David A. Scott 
 
 Christ Church College of Higher Education 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[authfriend]

Seraphita wrote:
 
> Should I assume that you are Roman Catholic? Or at least a fellow traveller?
 

 No. I responded to an earlier question from you about my religious leanings a 
week or so ago; did you miss it?
 

 My family heritage is Christian (Presbyterian), but I didn't have a religious 
upbringing and am not a believer. You could say I'm sympathetic to religions 
generally; I've read a good bit of theology because it interests me, but that's 
about it.
 

 > I understand Robin Carlsen became a Catholic convert - indeed a Catholic 
 > priest (?) after his 
 > adventures on the new-age circuit.
 

 He converted while he was still adventuring, actually. (Not sure I'd call 
those adventures "New Age," unless you want to put TM in that category.) He 
convinced many of his followers to convert as well; a number of them are still 
devout Catholics. At the time, he thought Catholicism could be reconciled with 
TM.
 

 The group collapsed in chaos not long after that, and he went into seclusion 
for 25 years to sort himself out. He decided shortly after he began this 
recovery process that TM and Catholicism weren't compatible after all and 
rejected TM. A few years after that he decided the Church was no longer what it 
had been and had lost its divine authority with regard to salvation. At that 
point he rejected Catholicism as well.

 

 (Ann, I think I have the chronology straight here; if not, corrections are 
welcome.)
 

 He didn't become a priest. Not sure where you got that.
 

 > Are you one of his former acolytes?

 

 Nope. I encountered him for the first time here on FFL, summer of 2011.
 



 Seraphita wrote:
 (snip)
 > Isn't the vulgar notion of Christianity held by most believers radically 
 > dualist? (Which 
 > isn't surprising as western Christianity flows from Augustine.) Your 
 > standard Christian 
 > believes God is good and Satan is evil and History will end with a stand-up 
 > fight 
 > between the angels of light and the demons with the good angels destined to 
 > prevail.
 

 Christianity is dualistic, yes, but what you describe above really isn't what 
the "standard Christian" believes (at least not in the U.S.). It's various 
fundamentalist-type denominations and sects that are preoccupied with the End 
Times and Armageddon and the Rapture and so on. Standard or "mainline" 
Christians don't necessarily disbelieve in the prophecies of Revelation, but 
they don't tend to take them literally, and they don't focus on them.
 




 

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[authfriend]

Seraphita wrote:
 (snip)
 > Isn't the vulgar notion of Christianity held by most believers radically 
 > dualist? (Which 
 > isn't surprising as western Christianity flows from Augustine.) Your 
 > standard Christian 
 > believes God is good and Satan is evil and History will end with a stand-up 
 > fight 
 > between the angels of light and the demons with the good angels destined to 
 > prevail.
 

 Christianity is dualistic, yes, but what you describe above really isn't what 
the "standard Christian" believes (at least not in the U.S.). It's various 
fundamentalist-type denominations and sects that are preoccupied with the End 
Times and Armageddon and the Rapture and so on. Standard or "mainline" 
Christians don't necessarily disbelieve in the prophecies of Revelation, but 
they don't tend to take them literally, and they don't focus on them.
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[Richard J. Williams]

Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist.

On 11/3/2013 4:42 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote:


*Is it possible to be a Buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly?*


Yes, according to MMY.



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


*Should TM'er Buddhists even be allowed to have a Dome badge? Is it 
possible to be a buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly?*


*-Buck*



---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

Re "The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a 
struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light 
versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two 
opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is 
influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar 
to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not 
complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to 
this with their own notions of Yin and Yang.":



The Yin and Yang "concepts" point to a Tao that includes the 
opposites. Imagining that one side of a pair of opposites could gain 
the upper hand over the other would be a vulgar error.


As the little we know about Manichaeism and similar "dualist" 
religions/philosophies comes to us from hostile sources isn't it 
possible that these beliefs weren't as dualist as they've been painted 
but perhaps also had the idea of a Transcendence that reconciled the 
positive and negative aspects of life?




---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

So, let's review what we know about the prophet Mani.

The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle 
between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus 
the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing 
elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced 
by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the 
dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated.


Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with 
their own notions of Yin and Yang, which is probably derived from the 
Indian Sankhya, a radical dualism, and later tantra- a theory of 
polarity which posits male and female energies.


The name 'Mani' is Sanskrit. Mani traveled and lived in India for 
several years, visiting Buddhist lands such as Bamiyan in Afghanistan, 
so it is not surprising that Buddhist influences would be apparent. 
Mani apparently adopted his theory of the reincarnation 
(transmigration of souls) from the Buddhists. Mani's sect structure 
was apparently based on the Buddhist Sangha, that is, Arhants and the 
lay follower community.



On 11/2/2013 11:31 AM, emptybill@...
 wrote:


No wonder the Near-Eastern realm got so mixed up. *//*

It seems that as Manichean ideology spread to the East it 
incorporated Buddhist concepts along the way in a effort to show the 
superiority of the "Religion of Light." Mani lived during the third 
century of the current era. Mani used the epitaph "Buddha of Light" 
and identified himself as Maitreya. He and his followers specifically 
borrowed from early Pure Land Sutras and Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka 
philosophy. As it entered the region of Gandhara and spread to China 
it used the Buddhist Hinayana tradition to support its views of 
"matter, the body and the world."


MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM


*/David A. Scott /*
*//*

*/Christ Church College /**/of /**/Higher Education/*

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[s3raphita]

Is it possible to be a Buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly?
 

 Yes, according to MMY. 
 

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

  Should TM'er Buddhists even be allowed to have a Dome badge? Is it possible 
to be a buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly?
 -Buck
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Re "The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle 
between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the 
material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a 
battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both 
good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, 
and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would 
probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang.": 

 The Yin and Yang "concepts" point to a Tao that includes the opposites. 
Imagining that one side of a pair of opposites could gain the upper hand over 
the other would be a vulgar error.
 As the little we know about Manichaeism and similar "dualist" 
religions/philosophies comes to us from hostile sources isn't it possible that 
these beliefs weren't as dualist as they've been painted but perhaps also had 
the idea of a Transcendence that reconciled the positive and negative aspects 
of life?
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 So, let's review what we know about the prophet Mani. 
 
 The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between 
the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world 
darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. 
There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. 
Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's 
not complicated.
 
 Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own 
notions of Yin and Yang, which is probably derived from the Indian Sankhya, a 
radical dualism, and later tantra- a theory of polarity which posits male and 
female energies. 
 
 The name 'Mani' is Sanskrit. Mani traveled and lived in India for several 
years, visiting  Buddhist lands such as Bamiyan in Afghanistan, so it is not 
surprising that Buddhist influences would be apparent. Mani apparently adopted 
his theory of the reincarnation (transmigration of souls) from the Buddhists. 
Mani's sect structure was apparently based on the Buddhist Sangha, that is, 
Arhants and the lay follower community. 
 
 
 On 11/2/2013 11:31 AM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote:
 
   
  
 No wonder the Near-Eastern realm got so mixed up.   
 It seems that as Manichean ideology spread to the East it incorporated 
Buddhist concepts along the way in a effort to show the superiority of the 
"Religion of Light." Mani lived during the third century of the current era. 
Mani used the epitaph "Buddha of Light" and identified himself as Maitreya. He 
and his followers specifically borrowed from early Pure Land Sutras and 
Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy. As it entered the region of Gandhara and 
spread to China it used the Buddhist Hinayana tradition to support its views of 
"matter, the body and the world."
 MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
 
 
 David A. Scott 
 
 Christ Church College of Higher Education