[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[curtisdeltablues]

Snip

Judy:  Was your life having a preordained purpose something
 you were taught in the TMO, or did you come up with
 that yourself? I ask because I never encountered any
 such teaching.

Me: The purpose of human life in MMY's teaching is gaining
enlightenment. You continue to reincarnate until you do.  If you
didn't get it from his lectures you would get it from the Gita
commentary.  Am I understanding your question?


ME:  snip
  A common theme for me is that I challenge self-proclaimed
  enlightened people to do something that unenlightened people
  cannot.  Most gurus are only able to claim that they have a
  higher level of happiness or awareness but can't demonstrate
  to me that they have achieved more than that, a state of
  personal satisfaction.


Judy:  What's wrong with being in a state of personal
 satisfaction?

ME: Nothing.  I am all for it.  I think it is achieved by a lot of
people and is therefore not something grand enough to be called
enlightenment.  The association of enlightenment with enhanced
cognitive abilities is part of its marketing appeal.


Judy:  Why can't you be in a state of personal
 satisfaction *and* pursue goals that you set
 for yourself? Why are those mutually exclusive?

ME: I agree with you here.


ME:   If just one of them stepped up with their superior knowledge
  and cured cancer I would have to re-think my position.


Judy:  Isn't that sort of a shallow criterion? (I
 mean, obviously curing cancer per se isn't
 shallow, but you seem to mean it in the sense
 of being able to pull it out of a hat by
 magic.)

Me: If they did it by superior intelligence or creativity that would
be great too.  I would hope that living the full potential of creative
intelligence (remember SCI) would manifest in a person demonstrating
more of these qualities. When I was in the movement MMY's superstar
(in my mind) and super rich status was more impressive to me than it
is today. 


Judy:  What if the personal-satisfaction quotient in
 somebody's life were such that it enabled them
 to be especially persistent in the search for
 a cure for cancer? What if it enabled them to
 work on the science with a concentrated focus,
 without being distracted by petty concerns?

 What if their personal satisfaction granted
 them a degree of clarity of mind that enabled
 them to make out-of-the-box connections that
 turned out to be the key to a cure for cancer?

 None of that is magic, but it seems to me
 that firmly established personal satisfaction
 as a state of being might well facilitate
 getting to a cure for cancer--or any other
 worthy accomplishment--without the need for
 magic.


It might.  I just don't see anybody pulling this off in any magic or
non magic way.  If you assume that enlightened people are using their
full mental potential shouldn't they be able to do something more
special then becoming rich and famous?  Brittany pulled this off too. 

Remember our discussions about the sidhis and how they may not be
really volitional but are dictated by the needs of nature? Since there
are just human capabilities according to MMY, it almost seems like
there is a possibility that nature may not have a need for
enlightened people to manifest any of the benefits of TM. TM is
supposed to increase intelligence but maybe when you get enlightened
you are at the mercy of Nature and if it suits nature you might end
up acting like a dummy and not showing any increased intelligence in
your daily life.  That would totally suck wouldn't it?!












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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 snip
  My shift of perspective on the value of the states of mind I
  had been cultivating through meditation that happened about 18
  years ago brought a complete change in how I view my life and
  its purpose. Having dropped the assumption that my life has a
  pre-ordained purpose, I took up the challenge of creating
  purposes for my life.
 
 Was your life having a preordained purpose something
 you were taught in the TMO, or did you come up with
 that yourself? I ask because I never encountered any
 such teaching.
 
 snip
  A common theme for me is that I challenge self-proclaimed 
  enlightened people to do something that unenlightened people 
  cannot.  Most gurus are only able to claim that they have a
  higher level of happiness or awareness but can't demonstrate
  to me that they have achieved more than that, a state of
  personal satisfaction.
 
 What's wrong with being in a state of personal
 satisfaction?
 
 Why can't you be in a state of personal
 satisfaction *and* pursue goals that you set
 for yourself? Why are those mutually exclusive?
 
  If just one of them stepped up with their superior knowledge
  and cured cancer I would have to re-think my position.
 
 Isn't that sort of a shallow criterion? (I
 mean, obviously curing cancer per se isn't
 shallow, but you seem to 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Snip
 
 Judy:  Was your life having a preordained purpose something
  you were taught in the TMO, or did you come up with
  that yourself? I ask because I never encountered any
  such teaching.
 
 Me: The purpose of human life in MMY's teaching is gaining
 enlightenment. You continue to reincarnate until you do.  If you
 didn't get it from his lectures you would get it from the Gita
 commentary.  Am I understanding your question?

Oh, OK, in other words, the purpose of *every* life
(and not just human life). I thought you meant a
particular purpose for you, or for all TMers, or all
TM teachers.

snip
 Judy:  What's wrong with being in a state of personal
  satisfaction?
 
 ME: Nothing.  I am all for it.  I think it is achieved by a lot of
 people and is therefore not something grand enough to be called
 enlightenment.

Might there be degrees, though?

 ME:   If just one of them stepped up with their superior knowledge
   and cured cancer I would have to re-think my position.
 
 Judy:  Isn't that sort of a shallow criterion? (I
  mean, obviously curing cancer per se isn't
  shallow, but you seem to mean it in the sense
  of being able to pull it out of a hat by
  magic.)
 
 Me: If they did it by superior intelligence or creativity that
 would be great too.  I would hope that living the full potential
 of creative intelligence (remember SCI) would manifest in a person
 demonstrating more of these qualities. When I was in the movement 
 MMY's superstar (in my mind) and super rich status was more 
 impressive to me than it is today.

But if he'd come up with a cure for cancer instead
of starting a worldwide movement, you would find that
more impressive today?

 Judy:  What if the personal-satisfaction quotient in
  somebody's life were such that it enabled them
  to be especially persistent in the search for
  a cure for cancer? What if it enabled them to
  work on the science with a concentrated focus,
  without being distracted by petty concerns?
 
  What if their personal satisfaction granted
  them a degree of clarity of mind that enabled
  them to make out-of-the-box connections that
  turned out to be the key to a cure for cancer?
 
  None of that is magic, but it seems to me
  that firmly established personal satisfaction
  as a state of being might well facilitate
  getting to a cure for cancer--or any other
  worthy accomplishment--without the need for
  magic.
 
 It might.  I just don't see anybody pulling this off in any magic
 or non magic way.

Pulling what off, a cure for cancer, or any worthy
accomplishment? (I assume by anybody you mean
any TMers, right?)

  If you assume that enlightened people are using their
 full mental potential shouldn't they be able to do something more
 special then becoming rich and famous? Brittany pulled this off too.

How do you know they haven't?

 Remember our discussions about the sidhis and how they may not be
 really volitional but are dictated by the needs of nature? Since 
 there are just human capabilities according to MMY, it almost seems 
 like there is a possibility that nature may not have a need for
 enlightened people to manifest any of the benefits of TM. TM is
 supposed to increase intelligence but maybe when you get enlightened
 you are at the mercy of Nature and if it suits nature you might 
 end up acting like a dummy and not showing any increased 
 intelligence in your daily life.  That would totally suck wouldn't
 it?!

You're *always* at the mercy of nature, though,
by definition.

I guess my bottom-line point is that when you get
right down to the nitty-gritty of what MMY teaches
(although he doesn't make this plain), there just
are no relative objective standards you can apply
to the question of whether enlightenment is
beneficial. Any attempted objective analysis is
going to ultimately run afoul of some aspect of
his metaphysics.

We're all working without a net, in other words.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[jim_flanegin]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  Snip
  
  Judy:  Was your life having a preordained purpose something
   you were taught in the TMO, or did you come up with
   that yourself? I ask because I never encountered any
   such teaching.
  
  Me: The purpose of human life in MMY's teaching is gaining
  enlightenment. You continue to reincarnate until you do.  If you
  didn't get it from his lectures you would get it from the Gita
  commentary.  Am I understanding your question?
 
 Oh, OK, in other words, the purpose of *every* life
 (and not just human life). I thought you meant a
 particular purpose for you, or for all TMers, or all
 TM teachers.
 
The logic as I recall it was to eliminate suffering in one's life, 
and that any relative means to do this would eventually be 
transcended, and therefore becoming established in a state that was 
permanently free of the suffering of relative life; enlightenment, 
was the purpose of life. Makes sense to me.

The catch is how we define enlightenment, becasue it is a state that 
coexists with every thought, action and lack of any thought or 
action. Until the reality of both enlightenment and action is lived, 
it cannot be conceived by the mind; the mind will only think of it 
in terms of its description of eternal peace and conclude no action 
is taking place, because the unenlightened mind is always bound to 
action, so if there is eternal peace it concludes that the body and 
mind are also not acting.

The reality of enlightenment is that it is the eternal fulfillment 
of living a contented life. The enlightened part of us continues in 
eternal silence, eternal fulfillment, and if we are not recluses, 
our bodies and minds work and play as hard as possible while 
enjoying this simultaneous state of complete fulfillment and inner 
silence/infinity. Nothing stagnant or preordained about it. It is 
freedom of the highest order. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[curtisdeltablues]

snip
 But if he'd come up with a cure for cancer instead
 of starting a worldwide movement, you would find that
 more impressive today?

Yes of course.   But I understand this is due to my own valuation of
his techniques.

Snip

   If you assume that enlightened people are using their
  full mental potential shouldn't they be able to do something more
  special then becoming rich and famous? Brittany pulled this off too.

 How do you know they haven't?

With the unsolved problems in the world, I think they must be working
on some pretty obscure stuff or it would hit the news.  Of course I
don't know how many of the innovators in society are enlightened. 


  Remember our discussions about the sidhis and how they may not be
  really volitional but are dictated by the needs of nature? Since
  there are just human capabilities according to MMY, it almost seems
  like there is a possibility that nature may not have a need for
  enlightened people to manifest any of the benefits of TM. TM is
  supposed to increase intelligence but maybe when you get enlightened
  you are at the mercy of Nature and if it suits nature you might
  end up acting like a dummy and not showing any increased
  intelligence in your daily life.  That would totally suck wouldn't
  it?!

 You're *always* at the mercy of nature, though,
 by definition.

I thought unenlightened clods like me could still violate natural law.
 It makes ignorance seem more free that the enlightened.


 I guess my bottom-line point is that when you get
 right down to the nitty-gritty of what MMY teaches
 (although he doesn't make this plain), there just
 are no relative objective standards you can apply
 to the question of whether enlightenment is
 beneficial. Any attempted objective analysis is
 going to ultimately run afoul of some aspect of
 his metaphysics.

 We're all working without a net, in other words.

This part of our discussion really fascinates me.  I think it
represents a direct contradiction of the claims of TM.  I mean in your
own life as a long term meditator, you  must feel concrete cognitive
benefitsright?  Of course unless you have tried quitting for a long
period it might be hard to compare what you would feel if you didn't.
 But increasing intelligence and creativity is at the core of TM
claims.  If we accept that you might not display these qualities in
enlightenment, not more intelligent, more creative, more virtuous, I
think we are redefining what it is all supposed to mean.  I guess
after decades of people practicing TM we have to accept the obvious,
that the benefits of TM are not as obvious as I had hoped.  By now I
would have expected people doing some amazing stuff.  Instead we have
an acceptance that enlightenment may not have any of the expected
qualities.
 Your statement that : there just
 are no relative objective standards you can apply
 to the question of whether enlightenment is
 beneficial.

seems like a pretty high level of honesty about it all.









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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  Snip
  
  Judy:  Was your life having a preordained purpose something
   you were taught in the TMO, or did you come up with
   that yourself? I ask because I never encountered any
   such teaching.
  
  Me: The purpose of human life in MMY's teaching is gaining
  enlightenment. You continue to reincarnate until you do.  If you
  didn't get it from his lectures you would get it from the Gita
  commentary.  Am I understanding your question?
 
 Oh, OK, in other words, the purpose of *every* life
 (and not just human life). I thought you meant a
 particular purpose for you, or for all TMers, or all
 TM teachers.
 
 snip
  Judy:  What's wrong with being in a state of personal
   satisfaction?
  
  ME: Nothing.  I am all for it.  I think it is achieved by a lot of
  people and is therefore not something grand enough to be called
  enlightenment.
 
 Might there be degrees, though?
 
  ME:   If just one of them stepped up with their superior knowledge
and cured cancer I would have to re-think my position.
  
  Judy:  Isn't that sort of a shallow criterion? (I
   mean, obviously curing cancer per se isn't
   shallow, but you seem to mean it in the sense
   of being able to pull it out of a hat by
   magic.)
  
  Me: If they did it by superior intelligence or creativity that
  would be great too.  I would hope that living the full potential
  of creative intelligence (remember SCI) would manifest in a person
  demonstrating more of these qualities. When I was in the movement 
  MMY's superstar (in my mind) and super rich status was more 
  impressive to me than it is today.
 
 But if he'd come up with a cure for cancer instead
 of starting a worldwide movement, you would find that
 more impressive today?
 
  Judy:  What if the personal-satisfaction quotient in
   somebody's life were such that it enabled them
   to be 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[jim_flanegin]

authfriend posted:
   Your statement that : there just
  are no relative objective standards you can apply
  to the question of whether enlightenment is
  beneficial.
 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 seems like a pretty high level of honesty about it all.
 
It is. Of what use is a rhetorical discussion about enlightenment? 
Because the benefits are entirely subjective, there is no way to 
*prove* the benefits of it, one way or another, to another. Either 
for the sake of the other, or the sake of the enlightened one. 

Seen from within the establishment of such a state, there is a 
quantum, unmistakable benefit, but beyond each individual's need to 
pursue such a thing, or not, any attempt to justify such a 
dedication in one's life [towards gaining enlightenment] is 
completely worthless. Both for the one pursuing the permanent 
establishment of enlightenment, and others. Completely worthless to 
try to persuade others.

People come to a pursuit of enlightenment for their own reasons, in 
their own time. If someone, such as yourself, sees no need to pursue 
such a thing, there is no reason that I can see to contradict that, 
or try to change that.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 authfriend posted:
Your statement that : there just
   are no relative objective standards you can apply
   to the question of whether enlightenment is
   beneficial.
  
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  seems like a pretty high level of honesty about it all.
  
 It is. Of what use is a rhetorical discussion about enlightenment? 
 Because the benefits are entirely subjective, there is no way to 
 *prove* the benefits of it, one way or another, to another. Either 
 for the sake of the other, or the sake of the enlightened one. 

This is a direct contradiction to MMY's claims that first, a person
gains measurably increased cognitive abilities from TM practice,and
that the performance of sidhis verifies that gains in higher states.

According to MMY the benifits are not only not just subjective,they
can be measured by relatively crude scientific techniques.  I respect
that he does give falsifiable criteria for the subjective state of
enlightenment.  

 
 Seen from within the establishment of such a state, there is a 
 quantum, unmistakable benefit, but beyond each individual's need to 
 pursue such a thing, or not, any attempt to justify such a 
 dedication in one's life [towards gaining enlightenment] is 
 completely worthless. Both for the one pursuing the permanent 
 establishment of enlightenment, and others. Completely worthless to 
 try to persuade others.

Then MMY's life is a total waste because he has dedicated it to just
this goal.

 
 People come to a pursuit of enlightenment for their own reasons, in 
 their own time. If someone, such as yourself, sees no need to pursue 
 such a thing, there is no reason that I can see to contradict that, 
 or try to change that.

Agreed.  It shows a good development of intellectual boundaries.  But
for MMY and his closest followers, the evangelical nature of his
activities are the basis of everything he does. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 snip
  But if he'd come up with a cure for cancer instead
  of starting a worldwide movement, you would find that
  more impressive today?
 
 Yes of course.   But I understand this is due to my own valuation of
 his techniques.
 
 Snip
 
If you assume that enlightened people are using their
   full mental potential shouldn't they be able to do something
   more special then becoming rich and famous? Brittany pulled 
   this off too.
 
  How do you know they haven't?
 
 With the unsolved problems in the world, I think they must be 
 working on some pretty obscure stuff or it would hit the news.
 Of course I don't know how many of the innovators in society are 
 enlightened.

Yes, that was my point. But not necessarily just
innovators per se.

snip
   supposed to increase intelligence but maybe when you get
   enlightened you are at the mercy of Nature and if it
   suits nature you might end up acting like a dummy and not 
   showing any increased intelligence in your daily life.
   That would totally suck wouldn't it?!
 
  You're *always* at the mercy of nature, though,
  by definition.
 
 I thought unenlightened clods like me could still violate
 natural law.

How could that be possible if natural law is
said to govern everything?

snip
  I guess my bottom-line point is that when you get
  right down to the nitty-gritty of what MMY teaches
  (although he doesn't make this plain), there just
  are no relative objective standards you can apply
  to the question of whether enlightenment is
  beneficial. Any attempted objective analysis is
  going to ultimately run afoul of some aspect of
  his metaphysics.
 
  We're all working without a net, in other words.
 
 This part of our discussion really fascinates me.  I think it
 represents a direct contradiction of the claims of TM.  I mean
 in your own life as a long term meditator, you  must feel
 concrete cognitive benefits right?

I think I said here once before that the only
way I could describe the changes that are taking
place is as increasing transparency. That's pretty
vague, but it's such a holistic, subjective,
subtle type of change that articulating it any
more concretely just doesn't seem accurate.

 Of course unless you have tried quitting for a long
 period it might be hard to compare what you would feel if you
 didn't.  But increasing intelligence and creativity is at the
 core of TM claims.  If we accept that you might not display
 these qualities in enlightenment, not more intelligent, more 
 creative, more virtuous, I think we are redefining what it is
 all supposed to mean.

How can you tell whether these qualities are
being displayed? By what standards are you
evaluating them?

Unfathomable is the course of action.

I do think one's understanding of the implications
of the claims changes over time.

  I guess
 after decades of people practicing TM we have to accept the
 obvious, that the benefits of TM are not as obvious as I had 
 hoped.  By now I would have expected people doing some amazing 
 stuff.  Instead we have an acceptance that enlightenment may
 not have any of the expected qualities.

Well, that's *my* view, not necessarily anybody
else's.

  Your statement that : there just
  are no relative objective standards you can apply
  to the question of whether enlightenment is
  beneficial.
 
 seems like a pretty high level of honesty about it all.

I'm not pushing enlightenment, just suggesting
that objective arguments against it don't fill
the bill.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ 
wrote:
 
  authfriend posted:
 Your statement that : there just
are no relative objective standards you can apply
to the question of whether enlightenment is
beneficial.
   
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
   seems like a pretty high level of honesty about it all.
   
  It is. Of what use is a rhetorical discussion about 
enlightenment? 
  Because the benefits are entirely subjective, there is no way to 
  *prove* the benefits of it, one way or another, to another. 
Either 
  for the sake of the other, or the sake of the enlightened one. 
 
 This is a direct contradiction to MMY's claims that first, a person
 gains measurably increased cognitive abilities from TM practice,and
 that the performance of sidhis verifies that gains in higher 
states.

The practice of TM and the sidhis *are* verification of general (TM) 
and specific (sidhis) clearing of the physiology, yes, but these can 
be experienced without the permanent establishment of enlightenment.
 
 According to MMY the benifits are not only not just subjective,they
 can be measured by relatively crude scientific techniques.  I 
respect
 that he does give falsifiable criteria for the subjective state of
 enlightenment.  
 
Two different POVs here-- Maharishi wants to wake up those with any 
interest in enlightenment, and so will tie it to as many relative 
phenomena as he can. I am speaking from my personal POV, with no 
such objective.
 
  Seen from within the establishment of such a state, there is a 
  quantum, unmistakable benefit, but beyond each individual's need 
to 
  pursue such a thing, or not, any attempt to justify such a 
  dedication in one's life [towards gaining enlightenment] is 
  completely worthless. Both for the one pursuing the permanent 
  establishment of enlightenment, and others. Completely worthless 
to 
  try to persuade others.
 
 Then MMY's life is a total waste because he has dedicated it to 
just
 this goal.

Again, different POV, mine from his. And different dharmas too. His 
job is to open the door. I only had to walk through it.
 
  
  People come to a pursuit of enlightenment for their own reasons, 
in 
  their own time. If someone, such as yourself, sees no need to 
pursue 
  such a thing, there is no reason that I can see to contradict 
that, 
  or try to change that.
 
 Agreed.  It shows a good development of intellectual boundaries.  
But
 for MMY and his closest followers, the evangelical nature of his
 activities are the basis of everything he does. 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[Ron]

This is a profound question Ron. I hope others weigh it.

I think you have given a false choice here,

Response:

It is not my choice- it is for each to choose - I was addressing the 
ones that are not happy with TM, for the ones that are, you are all set

For the ones that are not, what' s it going to be?

Are you going to look for another Guru? Throwing in the towel? doing 
it on your own? or something else- I can't think of all the options 
available, so listed a few.

If you tried something and it didn't work, if you choose to lump in 
this thing and then categorize it with all the other things in this 
field- well, no one is stoping you, your choice.

I was just addressing that particular aspect and saying I don't think 
ththis is wise. What went on in one place may have nothing to do with 
ananother

Specifically with Gurus, and connecting it specifically to my path as 
an example, what goes on in any other path has nothing to do with what 
is here.

As a side note, I can site this recent publication with Ramana 
Maharishi and say yes, what is described in this book - Padamalai does 
take place in my path. So in this case, if one is turned off by the 
points in that book, then yes, what went on there does go on here in 
my path.


Hridaya

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
 My shift of perspective on the value of the states of mind I
 had been cultivating through meditation that happened about 18
 years ago brought a complete change in how I view my life and
 its purpose. Having dropped the assumption that my life has a
 pre-ordained purpose, I took up the challenge of creating
 purposes for my life.

Was your life having a preordained purpose something
you were taught in the TMO, or did you come up with
that yourself? I ask because I never encountered any
such teaching.

snip
 A common theme for me is that I challenge self-proclaimed 
 enlightened people to do something that unenlightened people 
 cannot.  Most gurus are only able to claim that they have a
 higher level of happiness or awareness but can't demonstrate
 to me that they have achieved more than that, a state of
 personal satisfaction.

What's wrong with being in a state of personal
satisfaction?

Why can't you be in a state of personal
satisfaction *and* pursue goals that you set
for yourself? Why are those mutually exclusive?

 If just one of them stepped up with their superior knowledge
 and cured cancer I would have to re-think my position.

Isn't that sort of a shallow criterion? (I
mean, obviously curing cancer per se isn't
shallow, but you seem to mean it in the sense
of being able to pull it out of a hat by
magic.)

What if the personal-satisfaction quotient in
somebody's life were such that it enabled them
to be especially persistent in the search for
a cure for cancer? What if it enabled them to
work on the science with a concentrated focus,
without being distracted by petty concerns?

What if their personal satisfaction granted 
them a degree of clarity of mind that enabled
them to make out-of-the-box connections that
turned out to be the key to a cure for cancer?

None of that is magic, but it seems to me 
that firmly established personal satisfaction
as a state of being might well facilitate
getting to a cure for cancer--or any other
worthy accomplishment--without the need for
magic.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[Ron]

Since this thread is one of many where there are some that are happy 
to be where they are with TM and then some indicating they would 
have nothing to do with TM, my question to the latter is what is it 
you have decided to do now?

Have you continued seeking another path that can bring about the 
promises that you thought were incorperated in TM or have you thrown 
in the towel and lumped all paths with TM and taken the position 
that all Gurus and paths are fraud?

Of course the decision is up to you but if you have made the latter 
choice, it differs from what I chose.

The point is that what is taking place in any other path has nothing 
to do with the other, all deserve a fair chance of unbiased 
investigation


Hridaya

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ 
 wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ 
   wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin 
 jflanegi@ 
   wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 
 no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex 
 do.rflex@ 
   wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 
   stephen4359@ 
 wrote:
   
There is no worshipping Rajas in Maharishi's 
movement- 
   Raja's 
 are
worshipping Bhagavan.
   
   
   The Rajas [kings] in Maharishi's movement are phony 
 Rajas of 
 imaginary
   countries. It's all part of Maharishi's pretend world. 
 It 
   has no
   connection to what's actually happening in the actual 
 world 
   of 
 human
   affairs.
   
   For you to fuss about whether the phony Rajas actually 
   worship
   Bhagavan is ludicrous in light of their phoniness to 
 begin 
   with.
  
  But my dear friend; I thought we had already established 
 the 
   fact 
 that 
  the actual world is not only boring but even 
dangerous. 
 It 
   is 
 people 
  that only relate to the little things they can see and 
 hear 
   and 
 touch 
  etc that are responsible for the plight this planet is 
in !
 
 For what its worth, I recall Maharishi referring to 
material 
   life as 
 the lowest form of life. Not as a value judgement, but 
 relative 
   to a 
 sliding scale of evolution.


Interesting. Guru Dev on the other hand claimed that a life 
in 
 this
world is preferable a life in the God worlds. 

Divine birth is longed for by those wishing for a share of 
the
celestial, to be acquired by people who make specific 
religious
sacrifices and works relating to the divine. In devaloka 
 (heaven) 
   the
abundance of things to be experienced causes the minds of 
 devataa{}
   oM
(gods) to remain wandering endlessly, hence they do not make 
   efforts
to do purushhartha (work for fulfilment of life). Therefore 
 birth 
   as a
human is said to be preferable; since here man can do 
 purushhaartha
and so can be in the presence of parabrahma (the Supreme 
Soul)

~~ Guru Dev

And I recall Maharishi having said just about the same thing 
 Guru 
   Dev
said.
   
   I agree that all levels of life, from the base material, to 
the 
   divine transcendent are all available right here in human 
form. 
   Depends on the level of consciousness how much is accessible.
  
  
  The point is that this world is preferable as a place to grow.
 
 Point, John!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 Since this thread is one of many where there are some that are happy 
 to be where they are with TM and then some indicating they would 
 have nothing to do with TM, my question to the latter is what is it 
 you have decided to do now?
 
 Have you continued seeking another path that can bring about the 
 promises that you thought were incorperated in TM or have you thrown 
 in the towel and lumped all paths with TM and taken the position 
 that all Gurus and paths are fraud?


This is a profound question Ron.  I hope others weigh it.

I think you have given a false choice here, either seeking another
path or throwing in the towel and lumping all paths with TM as frauds.
 There are many other options, including my own, which cannot be
summed up so neatly.  You are evaluating anyone who has changed their
perspective from your own teleological bias.  You believe that life
has a goal of enlightenment.  If you drop that assumption you can
understand my POV.

For me the goal of enlightenment adn God realization was a given for
many years.  I believed that it was clear cut and irrefutable that
life's purpose was to live in a permanent state of awareness of bliss
and complete knowledge of life, a state of fulfillment and infinitely
expanded awareness.  I had experienced qualities of this state enough
to know that it might be possible to live in such a state, but I never
asked the question if this was really a desirable state for me.  I
never questioned that.  Of course living in a permanent state of
absolute happiness and fulfillment is good right?   Not so fast.

I am reading a fascinating book right now that sheds some light on
this question and is putting together ideas that I have been banging
around for years.  The most popular course at Harvard University right
now is about happiness by a guy named Tal Ben-Shahar.  His conclusions
match my experiences (oh, is that why I like certain books!) that
happiness is not useful as a static goal.  It is meant to be in flux
as a way to guide our life towards our goals in life.  I wont try to
sum it all up in a post, anyone can check it out for themselves, the
book is called Happier.  He doesn't have ultimate answers but I
think he has detailed the variables nicely.

My shift of perspective on the value of the states of mind I had been
cultivating through meditation that happened about 18 years ago
brought a complete change in how I view my life and its purpose. 
Having dropped the assumption that my life has a pre-ordained purpose,
I took up the challenge of creating purposes for my life.  Although I
have a good baseline of wellbeing, the degrees of my happiness are in
flux according to how well I am fulfilling the goals of my
self-created purposes.  Fluctuating happiness is a valuable tool to
keep me heading in the direction I want. 

I view the states of mind I used to revel in from program as just what
MMY promised fulfillment without achievement and this is not helpful
for me now.  I think these states are interesting and a blast to
experience, but I view them cautiously in my life almost like a state
of intoxication.  I am not anti ecstatic experience, no matter what
the source, but I understand that they have a price.  I no longer seek
to live in fulfillment. I love its ebb and flow.

My experience is that these internal states don't seem to create
people that I look up to particularly.  People who claim to have
mastered enlightenment and the truth of life just strike me as a
certain type of person who needs to present themselves as above
others.  I don't deny that they have gained some unique internal
state, maybe they have.  But the state of our mind is such a tiny part
of my life.  Over focusing on it, and spending large amounts of time
cultivating specific states misses the point of life for me now.  I
couldn't care less what state of mind someone claims and really don't
care much about my own state.  I generate happiness and fulfillment on
an ongoing basis.  If you offered me a permanent state of enlightened
fulfillment I would decline.  I love my life as it is.  I am
enlightened enough to enjoy life, smart enough to understand what I
want, and fulfilled in varying degrees as I unfold the goals and
purposes of my life I have created.  I have cognitive limits but I
work with them to get what I want.

I have known both heroin addicts and people who spent all day in
program in my life.  I find them both completely nonfunctional in
their lives.  I have known people who enjoy a cocktail or joint after
they do their work and people who like to sit in meditation after
being productive.  I find these two groups to be more similar than
different in their balance of life.  They both seem to have similar
potential for happiness and fulfillment in their lives. (You can
substitute any engaging hobby like kayaking, sailing or playing music
,my choice, if you are so inclined.  The key seems to be a 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[Marek Reavis]

Comment below:

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote:
 
  
  Since this thread is one of many where there are some that are 
happy 
  to be where they are with TM and then some indicating they would 
  have nothing to do with TM, my question to the latter is what is 
it 
  you have decided to do now?
  
  Have you continued seeking another path that can bring about the 
  promises that you thought were incorperated in TM or have you 
thrown 
  in the towel and lumped all paths with TM and taken the position 
  that all Gurus and paths are fraud?
 
 
 This is a profound question Ron.  I hope others weigh it.
 
 I think you have given a false choice here, either seeking another
 path or throwing in the towel and lumping all paths with TM as 
frauds.
  There are many other options, including my own, which cannot be
 summed up so neatly.  You are evaluating anyone who has changed 
their
 perspective from your own teleological bias.  You believe that life
 has a goal of enlightenment.  If you drop that assumption you can
 understand my POV.
 
 For me the goal of enlightenment adn God realization was a given for
 many years.  I believed that it was clear cut and irrefutable that
 life's purpose was to live in a permanent state of awareness of 
bliss
 and complete knowledge of life, a state of fulfillment and 
infinitely
 expanded awareness.  I had experienced qualities of this state 
enough
 to know that it might be possible to live in such a state, but I 
never
 asked the question if this was really a desirable state for me.  I
 never questioned that.  Of course living in a permanent state of
 absolute happiness and fulfillment is good right?   Not so fast.
 
 I am reading a fascinating book right now that sheds some light on
 this question and is putting together ideas that I have been banging
 around for years.  The most popular course at Harvard University 
right
 now is about happiness by a guy named Tal Ben-Shahar.  His 
conclusions
 match my experiences (oh, is that why I like certain books!) that
 happiness is not useful as a static goal.  It is meant to be in flux
 as a way to guide our life towards our goals in life.  I wont try to
 sum it all up in a post, anyone can check it out for themselves, the
 book is called Happier.  He doesn't have ultimate answers but I
 think he has detailed the variables nicely.
 
 My shift of perspective on the value of the states of mind I had 
been
 cultivating through meditation that happened about 18 years ago
 brought a complete change in how I view my life and its purpose. 
 Having dropped the assumption that my life has a pre-ordained 
purpose,
 I took up the challenge of creating purposes for my life.  Although 
I
 have a good baseline of wellbeing, the degrees of my happiness are 
in
 flux according to how well I am fulfilling the goals of my
 self-created purposes.  Fluctuating happiness is a valuable tool to
 keep me heading in the direction I want. 
 
 I view the states of mind I used to revel in from program as just 
what
 MMY promised fulfillment without achievement and this is not 
helpful
 for me now.  I think these states are interesting and a blast to
 experience, but I view them cautiously in my life almost like a 
state
 of intoxication.  I am not anti ecstatic experience, no matter what
 the source, but I understand that they have a price.  I no longer 
seek
 to live in fulfillment. I love its ebb and flow.
 
 My experience is that these internal states don't seem to create
 people that I look up to particularly.  People who claim to have
 mastered enlightenment and the truth of life just strike me as a
 certain type of person who needs to present themselves as above
 others.  I don't deny that they have gained some unique internal
 state, maybe they have.  But the state of our mind is such a tiny 
part
 of my life.  Over focusing on it, and spending large amounts of time
 cultivating specific states misses the point of life for me now.  I
 couldn't care less what state of mind someone claims and really 
don't
 care much about my own state.  I generate happiness and fulfillment 
on
 an ongoing basis.  If you offered me a permanent state of 
enlightened
 fulfillment I would decline.  I love my life as it is.  I am
 enlightened enough to enjoy life, smart enough to understand what I
 want, and fulfilled in varying degrees as I unfold the goals and
 purposes of my life I have created.  I have cognitive limits but I
 work with them to get what I want.
 
 I have known both heroin addicts and people who spent all day in
 program in my life.  I find them both completely nonfunctional in
 their lives.  I have known people who enjoy a cocktail or joint 
after
 they do their work and people who like to sit in meditation after
 being productive.  I find these two groups to be more similar than
 different in their balance of life.  They both seem to have 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[hugheshugo]

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote:
 
  
  Since this thread is one of many where there are some that are 
happy 
  to be where they are with TM and then some indicating they would 
  have nothing to do with TM, my question to the latter is what is it 
  you have decided to do now?


I think you can seperate this group a third way with those of us who do 
TM but have nothing to do with the TM movement, not sure if I'm the 
only one in that category.

For years I believed the TMO that TM is the only genuine technique and 
all the others were mood making or not as fast etc. It's one of the 
things that makes me angry about them, I feel like I was duped, If you 
don't know much about it the TM propaganda is very effective.

I think people need different things at different times, and what is 
essential to growth is that you recognise when something isn't working 
for you anymore. I've met so many in the TMO who just blindly follow 
the programme, living on rice and dhal, are they happy and evolving? Is 
it healthy just to sit on purusha and do nothing else? I've met many 
who that didn't suit but when asked they just say 'what's the 
alternative'.

I'm so slack with TM now I'll skip it in the morning to watch re-runs 
of Just Shoot Me How off the programme is that!

As for what I'm doing now, I learnt a technique this summer based on 
Osteopathy and Neuro-Linguistic Programming, the idea is to improve the 
mind by deleting non-useful thoughts and creating new neural networks. 
Sounds simplistic, does it work? I got more out of it in 3 days than I 
did from 15 years of TM.

I'm not saying there is no room for meditation it's a damn pleasant 
experience, just that the appliance of science to human development has 
left TM looking a bit antiquated. Whether I can get enlightened from it 
remains to be seen.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[shukra69]

There is no worshipping Rajas in Maharishi's movement- Raja's are
worshipping Bhagavan.
The most ingenious one of all is the
 one who worships Paramatma to always stay happy in th[is] world and
 the other world. This the role of these Rajas, and not what Guru
Dev is referring to here, the state of Rajas represented at that time.
The word ingenious is instructive- this post is what is known as
disigenious 

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

 
 
 About performing worship there is almost nothing to say. If you do not
 worship Bhagavan [God] then you will fall down worshipping the raja,
 the nobleman, the merchant and the moneylender. [...]
 
 Whoever will not worship Bhagavan is then a licentious  base person
 who will fall down and worship the raja, the nobleman, the merchant
 and the moneylender. If you will not get help from the greater then
 you will fall down and accept assistance from the lesser.
 
 Therefore it is the wise mind that goes for the support of Paramatma
 [God] who gives what we desire in both this world and the next.
 
 However well-off a man has become, afterwards his wealth will only
 remain limited and also sometimes shifts (worsens), that day can be.
 Therefore don't look for support from one whose condition is not
 settled, then you will rise up. The most ingenious one of all is the
 one who worships Paramatma to always stay happy in th[is] world and
 the other world.
 
 [Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita kaNa 4 of 108]
 translation - Paul Mason © 2007
 http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/upadesh.htm#kaNa4

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 There is no worshipping Rajas in Maharishi's movement- 


Please indicate where I said that there was.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 There is no worshipping Rajas in Maharishi's movement- Raja's are
 worshipping Bhagavan.


The Rajas [kings] in Maharishi's movement are phony Rajas of imaginary
countries. It's all part of Maharishi's pretend world. It has no
connection to what's actually happening in the actual world of human
affairs.

For you to fuss about whether the phony Rajas actually worship
Bhagavan is ludicrous in light of their phoniness to begin with.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 stephen4359@ wrote:
  
   There is no worshipping Rajas in Maharishi's movement- Raja's are
   worshipping Bhagavan.
  
  
  The Rajas [kings] in Maharishi's movement are phony Rajas of imaginary
  countries. It's all part of Maharishi's pretend world. It has no
  connection to what's actually happening in the actual world of human
  affairs.
  
  For you to fuss about whether the phony Rajas actually worship
  Bhagavan is ludicrous in light of their phoniness to begin with.
 
 But my dear friend; I thought we had already established the fact
that the actual world is not only boring but even dangerous. 


Who's we? 


 It is people that only relate to the little things they can see and
hear and touch etc that are responsible for the plight this planet is in !


So you go off into a pretend world? Maybe you could share with us how
that has anything at all to do with improving the plight this planet
is in.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[nablusoss1008]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 stephen4359@ wrote:
 
  There is no worshipping Rajas in Maharishi's movement- Raja's are
  worshipping Bhagavan.
 
 
 The Rajas [kings] in Maharishi's movement are phony Rajas of imaginary
 countries. It's all part of Maharishi's pretend world. It has no
 connection to what's actually happening in the actual world of human
 affairs.
 
 For you to fuss about whether the phony Rajas actually worship
 Bhagavan is ludicrous in light of their phoniness to begin with.

But my dear friend; I thought we had already established the fact that 
the actual world is not only boring but even dangerous. It is people 
that only relate to the little things they can see and hear and touch 
etc that are responsible for the plight this planet is in ! 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 stephen4359@ 
wrote:
  
   There is no worshipping Rajas in Maharishi's movement- Raja's 
are
   worshipping Bhagavan.
  
  
  The Rajas [kings] in Maharishi's movement are phony Rajas of 
imaginary
  countries. It's all part of Maharishi's pretend world. It has no
  connection to what's actually happening in the actual world of 
human
  affairs.
  
  For you to fuss about whether the phony Rajas actually worship
  Bhagavan is ludicrous in light of their phoniness to begin with.
 
 But my dear friend; I thought we had already established the fact 
that 
 the actual world is not only boring but even dangerous. It is 
people 
 that only relate to the little things they can see and hear and 
touch 
 etc that are responsible for the plight this planet is in !

For what its worth, I recall Maharishi referring to material life as 
the lowest form of life. Not as a value judgement, but relative to a 
sliding scale of evolution. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 stephen4359@ 
 wrote:
   
There is no worshipping Rajas in Maharishi's movement- Raja's 
 are
worshipping Bhagavan.
   
   
   The Rajas [kings] in Maharishi's movement are phony Rajas of 
 imaginary
   countries. It's all part of Maharishi's pretend world. It has no
   connection to what's actually happening in the actual world of 
 human
   affairs.
   
   For you to fuss about whether the phony Rajas actually worship
   Bhagavan is ludicrous in light of their phoniness to begin with.
  
  But my dear friend; I thought we had already established the fact 
 that 
  the actual world is not only boring but even dangerous. It is 
 people 
  that only relate to the little things they can see and hear and 
 touch 
  etc that are responsible for the plight this planet is in !
 
 For what its worth, I recall Maharishi referring to material life as 
 the lowest form of life. Not as a value judgement, but relative to a 
 sliding scale of evolution.


Interesting. Guru Dev on the other hand claimed that a life in this
world is preferable a life in the God worlds. 

Divine birth is longed for by those wishing for a share of the
celestial, to be acquired by people who make specific religious
sacrifices and works relating to the divine. In devaloka (heaven) the
abundance of things to be experienced causes the minds of devataa{}oM
(gods) to remain wandering endlessly, hence they do not make efforts
to do purushhartha (work for fulfilment of life). Therefore birth as a
human is said to be preferable; since here man can do purushhaartha
and so can be in the presence of parabrahma (the Supreme Soul)

~~ Guru Dev

And I recall Maharishi having said just about the same thing Guru Dev
said.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[nablusoss1008]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ 
wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ 
wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 stephen4359@ 
wrote:
   
There is no worshipping Rajas in Maharishi's movement- Raja's 
are
worshipping Bhagavan.
   
   
   The Rajas [kings] in Maharishi's movement are phony Rajas of 
imaginary
   countries. It's all part of Maharishi's pretend world. It has no
   connection to what's actually happening in the actual world of 
human
   affairs.
   
   For you to fuss about whether the phony Rajas actually worship
   Bhagavan is ludicrous in light of their phoniness to begin with.
  
  But my dear friend; I thought we had already established the fact
 that the actual world is not only boring but even dangerous. 
 
 
 Who's we? 
 
 
  It is people that only relate to the little things they can see 
and
 hear and touch etc that are responsible for the plight this planet 
is in !
 
 
 So you go off into a pretend world? Maybe you could share with us 
how
 that has anything at all to do with improving the plight this 
planet
 is in.

Maharishi has established a detailed yet pulsating Ideal Society on 
the level of consciousness, the custodians being transcendentalists. 
It might be a pretend world to you but very much alive, real and 
vibrant to those open to the transcendent field of life. 
Those who are not open to this field, what can the Vedas do for 
him ?

The Rajas are only the other forms representing something you perhaps 
detest because of your tamasic tendency. I'm not saying you are 
tamasic by nature, only that you seem to be. And tamas is basically 
very boring.

That which you can see and touch has also been concieved, thought of 
before it came into being. Likewise an Ideal Society had to be 
structured first on the level of consciousness before it slowly could 
take a form. First Rishi, then Devata, then Chandas.

Thats what I really like about the americans, they don't sit around 
thinking about things forever like us; they act quickly. Just see how 
much they have materialized of Maharishis ideas in such a short time: 
Domes, Peace Palaces, Clinics and Towers of Invincebility. And where 
is the applied knowledge of the Vedas like Ayurveda and Stapahtyaveda 
most accepted in the western world ? Without any doubt in the USA. 
You fellows have a lot to be proud of. 

The Sattwa Maharishi with the grace of Guru Dev has brought into this 
world is not even possible for me to describe, and I do not pretend I 
see more than a tiny little fraction of it. On a good day :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ 
 wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ 
 wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 
stephen4359@ 
 wrote:

 There is no worshipping Rajas in Maharishi's movement- 
Raja's 
 are
 worshipping Bhagavan.


The Rajas [kings] in Maharishi's movement are phony Rajas of 
 imaginary
countries. It's all part of Maharishi's pretend world. It 
has no
connection to what's actually happening in the actual world 
of 
 human
affairs.

For you to fuss about whether the phony Rajas actually 
worship
Bhagavan is ludicrous in light of their phoniness to begin 
with.
   
   But my dear friend; I thought we had already established the 
fact
  that the actual world is not only boring but even dangerous. 
  
  
  Who's we? 
  
  
   It is people that only relate to the little things they can 
see 
 and
  hear and touch etc that are responsible for the plight this 
planet 
 is in !
  
  
  So you go off into a pretend world? Maybe you could share with 
us 
 how
  that has anything at all to do with improving the plight this 
 planet
  is in.
 
 Maharishi has established a detailed yet pulsating Ideal Society 
on 
 the level of consciousness, the custodians being 
transcendentalists. 
 It might be a pretend world to you but very much alive, real and 
 vibrant to those open to the transcendent field of life. 
 Those who are not open to this field, what can the Vedas do for 
 him ?
 
 The Rajas are only the other forms representing something you 
perhaps 
 detest because of your tamasic tendency. I'm not saying you are 
 tamasic by nature, only that you seem to be. And tamas is 
basically 
 very boring.
 
 That which you can see and touch has also been concieved, thought 
of 
 before it came into being. Likewise an Ideal Society had to be 
 structured first on the level of consciousness before it slowly 
could 
 take a form. First Rishi, then Devata, then Chandas.
 
 Thats what I really like about the americans, they don't sit 
around 
 thinking about things forever like us; they act quickly. Just see 
how 
 much they have materialized of Maharishis ideas in such a short 
time: 
 Domes, Peace Palaces, Clinics and Towers of Invincebility. And 
where 
 is the applied knowledge of the Vedas like Ayurveda and 
Stapahtyaveda 
 most accepted in the western world ? Without any doubt in the USA. 
 You fellows have a lot to be proud of. 
 
 The Sattwa Maharishi with the grace of Guru Dev has brought into 
this 
 world is not even possible for me to describe, and I do not 
pretend I 
 see more than a tiny little fraction of it. On a good day :-)

couldn't have said it better myself-- absolutely correct in terms of 
the satva(sp?) infused into the world. Would be a completely dark 
and deadly place otherwise.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[jim_flanegin]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ 
wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ 
wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 
stephen4359@ 
  wrote:

 There is no worshipping Rajas in Maharishi's movement- 
Raja's 
  are
 worshipping Bhagavan.


The Rajas [kings] in Maharishi's movement are phony Rajas of 
  imaginary
countries. It's all part of Maharishi's pretend world. It 
has no
connection to what's actually happening in the actual world 
of 
  human
affairs.

For you to fuss about whether the phony Rajas actually 
worship
Bhagavan is ludicrous in light of their phoniness to begin 
with.
   
   But my dear friend; I thought we had already established the 
fact 
  that 
   the actual world is not only boring but even dangerous. It 
is 
  people 
   that only relate to the little things they can see and hear 
and 
  touch 
   etc that are responsible for the plight this planet is in !
  
  For what its worth, I recall Maharishi referring to material 
life as 
  the lowest form of life. Not as a value judgement, but relative 
to a 
  sliding scale of evolution.
 
 
 Interesting. Guru Dev on the other hand claimed that a life in this
 world is preferable a life in the God worlds. 
 
 Divine birth is longed for by those wishing for a share of the
 celestial, to be acquired by people who make specific religious
 sacrifices and works relating to the divine. In devaloka (heaven) 
the
 abundance of things to be experienced causes the minds of devataa{}
oM
 (gods) to remain wandering endlessly, hence they do not make 
efforts
 to do purushhartha (work for fulfilment of life). Therefore birth 
as a
 human is said to be preferable; since here man can do purushhaartha
 and so can be in the presence of parabrahma (the Supreme Soul)
 
 ~~ Guru Dev
 
 And I recall Maharishi having said just about the same thing Guru 
Dev
 said.

I agree that all levels of life, from the base material, to the 
divine transcendent are all available right here in human form. 
Depends on the level of consciousness how much is accessible.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

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

[snip]


  So you go off into a pretend world? Maybe you could share with us 
 how
  that has anything at all to do with improving the plight this 
 planet
  is in.
 
 Maharishi has established a detailed yet pulsating Ideal Society on 
 the level of consciousness, the custodians being transcendentalists.


Pure hokum with ZERO objective outer substance that has any connection
whatsoever to *actual* human affairs on this planet.

 
 It might be a pretend world to you but very much alive, real and 
 vibrant to those open to the transcendent field of life.


Schizophrenics and people on hallucinogenics make the same kinds of
claims.

 
 Those who are not open to this field, what can the Vedas do for 
 him ?


I'm plenty open to the subjective and objective Divinity I
*experience* as a result of my practice of TM. But it certainly
doesn't include the bullshit of Maharishi's fake kings and fake
palaces and useless towers of invincibility that represent fake
kingdoms and fake countries. That insanity has nothing at all to do
with either the Divinity I experience with TM and am familiar with in
my experience of Guru Dev [and recently Lakshmi], *or* rational
factual objective reality. I hope, for your sake that you're very
careful with whom you share your imaginary world.

 
 The Rajas are only the other forms representing something you perhaps 
 detest because of your tamasic tendency. 


I have no reason to detest Maharishi's phony Rajas any more than I
have a reason to detest the Easter Bunny.


 I'm not saying you are 
 tamasic by nature, only that you seem to be. And tamas is basically 
 very boring.


It appears that factual objective reality is boring to you so you
have to call it tamasic.


 That which you can see and touch has also been concieved, thought of 
 before it came into being. Likewise an Ideal Society had to be 
 structured first on the level of consciousness before it slowly could 
 take a form. First Rishi, then Devata, then Chandas.


TMOspeak. But Oh, of course! That might explain why Maharishi's TMO is
one of the most embarrassingly inept run organizations I've ever
encountered and that most of Maharishi's bizarre schemes continue to
fail, over and over again. 

But he sure rakes in the cash, eh? I recall about three or four years
ago he made a pitch for $100 million to pay for loads of pundits to
show up somewhere. He set up an Enlightenment Course where 100
people could become 'enlightened' if those 100 people paid a million
dollars each.

Well, lo and behold, Maharishi held the course and got the $100
million - BUT - guess what. There weren't $100 million dollars worth
of pundits that showed up *anywhere* .

Maybe he does so well at getting cash because, as PT Barnum used to
say, There's a sucker born every minute.

 
 Thats what I really like about the americans, they don't sit around 
 thinking about things forever like us; they act quickly. Just see how 
 much they have materialized of Maharishis ideas in such a short time: 
 Domes, Peace Palaces, Clinics and Towers of Invincebility. And where 
 is the applied knowledge of the Vedas like Ayurveda and Stapahtyaveda 
 most accepted in the western world ? Without any doubt in the USA. 
 You fellows have a lot to be proud of.


The extent to which any significant number of human beings actually
buys any of that bullshit, is again, embarrassingly but very
understandably, minuscule.

 
 The Sattwa Maharishi with the grace of Guru Dev has brought into this 
 world is not even possible for me to describe, and I do not pretend I 
 see more than a tiny little fraction of it. On a good day :-)


Too bad it's all in your mind.

-An astonishing load of horse pucky! My God, man, you really *do* live
in an imaginary world. Maharishi has created insane people who think
it's OK to be insane. No wonder all the sane people left Maharishi
many years ago.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ 
 wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ 
   wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ 
 wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 
 stephen4359@ 
   wrote:
 
  There is no worshipping Rajas in Maharishi's movement- 
 Raja's 
   are
  worshipping Bhagavan.
 
 
 The Rajas [kings] in Maharishi's movement are phony Rajas of 
   imaginary
 countries. It's all part of Maharishi's pretend world. It 
 has no
 connection to what's actually happening in the actual world 
 of 
   human
 affairs.
 
 For you to fuss about whether the phony Rajas actually 
 worship
 Bhagavan is ludicrous in light of their phoniness to begin 
 with.

But my dear friend; I thought we had already established the 
 fact 
   that 
the actual world is not only boring but even dangerous. It 
 is 
   people 
that only relate to the little things they can see and hear 
 and 
   touch 
etc that are responsible for the plight this planet is in !
   
   For what its worth, I recall Maharishi referring to material 
 life as 
   the lowest form of life. Not as a value judgement, but relative 
 to a 
   sliding scale of evolution.
  
  
  Interesting. Guru Dev on the other hand claimed that a life in this
  world is preferable a life in the God worlds. 
  
  Divine birth is longed for by those wishing for a share of the
  celestial, to be acquired by people who make specific religious
  sacrifices and works relating to the divine. In devaloka (heaven) 
 the
  abundance of things to be experienced causes the minds of devataa{}
 oM
  (gods) to remain wandering endlessly, hence they do not make 
 efforts
  to do purushhartha (work for fulfilment of life). Therefore birth 
 as a
  human is said to be preferable; since here man can do purushhaartha
  and so can be in the presence of parabrahma (the Supreme Soul)
  
  ~~ Guru Dev
  
  And I recall Maharishi having said just about the same thing Guru 
 Dev
  said.
 
 I agree that all levels of life, from the base material, to the 
 divine transcendent are all available right here in human form. 
 Depends on the level of consciousness how much is accessible.


The point is that this world is preferable as a place to grow.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 Too bad it's all in your mind.
 
 -An astonishing load of horse pucky! My God, man, you really *do* live
 in an imaginary world. Maharishi has created insane people who think
 it's OK to be insane. No wonder all the sane people left Maharishi
 many years ago.

To tell you the truth, I do not think he misses any of your sane 
nutcases from the early days of the Movement. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 I'm plenty open to the subjective and objective Divinity I
 *experience* as a result of my practice of TM. But it certainly
 doesn't include the bullshit of Maharishi's fake kings and fake
 palaces and useless towers of invincibility that represent fake
 kingdoms and fake countries. That insanity has nothing at all to do
 with either the Divinity I experience with TM and am familiar with in
 my experience of Guru Dev [and recently Lakshmi], *or* rational
 factual objective reality. 

Schizophrenics and people on hallucinogenics make the same kinds of
claims. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
  
  Too bad it's all in your mind.
  
  -An astonishing load of horse pucky! My God, man, you really *do* live
  in an imaginary world. Maharishi has created insane people who think
  it's OK to be insane. No wonder all the sane people left Maharishi
  many years ago.
 
 To tell you the truth, I do not think he misses any of your sane 
 nutcases from the early days of the Movement.


Do you really think that any of who you call sane nutcases gives a
shit that Maharishi does or doesn't miss them?  If you face reality,
you'll see that Maharishi doesn't miss anybody - but he also doesn't
miss turning a buck.

Do *you* actually believe that Maharishi would miss you if you
disappeared off the planet? You've been in isolation too long, fella.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[jim_flanegin]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ 
wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin 
jflanegi@ 
  wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 
no_reply@ 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex 
do.rflex@ 
  wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 
  stephen4359@ 
wrote:
  
   There is no worshipping Rajas in Maharishi's movement- 
  Raja's 
are
   worshipping Bhagavan.
  
  
  The Rajas [kings] in Maharishi's movement are phony 
Rajas of 
imaginary
  countries. It's all part of Maharishi's pretend world. 
It 
  has no
  connection to what's actually happening in the actual 
world 
  of 
human
  affairs.
  
  For you to fuss about whether the phony Rajas actually 
  worship
  Bhagavan is ludicrous in light of their phoniness to 
begin 
  with.
 
 But my dear friend; I thought we had already established 
the 
  fact 
that 
 the actual world is not only boring but even dangerous. 
It 
  is 
people 
 that only relate to the little things they can see and 
hear 
  and 
touch 
 etc that are responsible for the plight this planet is in !

For what its worth, I recall Maharishi referring to material 
  life as 
the lowest form of life. Not as a value judgement, but 
relative 
  to a 
sliding scale of evolution.
   
   
   Interesting. Guru Dev on the other hand claimed that a life in 
this
   world is preferable a life in the God worlds. 
   
   Divine birth is longed for by those wishing for a share of the
   celestial, to be acquired by people who make specific religious
   sacrifices and works relating to the divine. In devaloka 
(heaven) 
  the
   abundance of things to be experienced causes the minds of 
devataa{}
  oM
   (gods) to remain wandering endlessly, hence they do not make 
  efforts
   to do purushhartha (work for fulfilment of life). Therefore 
birth 
  as a
   human is said to be preferable; since here man can do 
purushhaartha
   and so can be in the presence of parabrahma (the Supreme Soul)
   
   ~~ Guru Dev
   
   And I recall Maharishi having said just about the same thing 
Guru 
  Dev
   said.
  
  I agree that all levels of life, from the base material, to the 
  divine transcendent are all available right here in human form. 
  Depends on the level of consciousness how much is accessible.
 
 
 The point is that this world is preferable as a place to grow.

Point, John! 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[jim_flanegin]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ 
wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ 
wrote:
   
   Too bad it's all in your mind.
   
   -An astonishing load of horse pucky! My God, man, you really 
*do* live
   in an imaginary world. Maharishi has created insane people who 
think
   it's OK to be insane. No wonder all the sane people left 
Maharishi
   many years ago.
  
  To tell you the truth, I do not think he misses any of 
your sane 
  nutcases from the early days of the Movement.
 
 
 Do you really think that any of who you call sane nutcases gives 
a
 shit that Maharishi does or doesn't miss them?  If you face 
reality,
 you'll see that Maharishi doesn't miss anybody - but he also 
doesn't
 miss turning a buck.
 
 Do *you* actually believe that Maharishi would miss you if you
 disappeared off the planet? You've been in isolation too long, 
fella.

John, look at it this way-- Maharishi will depart soon, and then you 
won't have to be so pissed off at him and his crazy organization 
full of loonies. Fair enough? Is it?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
  
  Too bad it's all in your mind.
  
  -An astonishing load of horse pucky! My God, man, you really *do* 
live
  in an imaginary world. Maharishi has created insane people who 
think
  it's OK to be insane. No wonder all the sane people left Maharishi
  many years ago.
 
 To tell you the truth, I do not think he misses any of your sane 
 nutcases from the early days of the Movement.

Let's hear it for consensus sanity! NOT.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
  
  I'm plenty open to the subjective and objective Divinity I
  *experience* as a result of my practice of TM. But it certainly
  doesn't include the bullshit of Maharishi's fake kings and fake
  palaces and useless towers of invincibility that represent fake
  kingdoms and fake countries. That insanity has nothing at all to do
  with either the Divinity I experience with TM and am familiar with in
  my experience of Guru Dev [and recently Lakshmi], *or* rational
  factual objective reality. 
 
 Schizophrenics and people on hallucinogenics make the same kinds of
 claims.


Heh...  I don't attempt to objectify my subtle perceptions into fake
outer constructs, like special hats for pretend occasions, fake
titles, fake kingdoms, fake countries etc...  

Anything subtle I *do* experience *already* has its *own* existence
and is perceived in its *own* subtle state. Temporary life in *this
world* has its own, as Guru Dev clearly indicated, preferable, useful
and meaningful purpose - at the level it is. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[nablusoss1008]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ 
wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ 
wrote:
   
   Too bad it's all in your mind.
   
   -An astonishing load of horse pucky! My God, man, you really 
*do* live
   in an imaginary world. Maharishi has created insane people who 
think
   it's OK to be insane. No wonder all the sane people left 
Maharishi
   many years ago.
  
  To tell you the truth, I do not think he misses any of 
your sane 
  nutcases from the early days of the Movement.
 
 
 Do you really think that any of who you call sane nutcases gives a
 shit that Maharishi does or doesn't miss them?  If you face 
reality,
 you'll see that Maharishi doesn't miss anybody - but he also 
doesn't
 miss turning a buck.
 
 Do *you* actually believe that Maharishi would miss you if you
 disappeared off the planet? You've been in isolation too long, 
fella.

Does enlightened people miss anything ? I don't know. What I do 
know is that he, as other Masters value loyalty. It's basic and 
important for reasons you obviously do not want to know.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ 
 wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ 
 wrote:

Too bad it's all in your mind.

-An astonishing load of horse pucky! My God, man, you really 
 *do* live
in an imaginary world. Maharishi has created insane people who 
 think
it's OK to be insane. No wonder all the sane people left 
 Maharishi
many years ago.
   
   To tell you the truth, I do not think he misses any of 
 your sane 
   nutcases from the early days of the Movement.
  
  
  Do you really think that any of who you call sane nutcases gives a
  shit that Maharishi does or doesn't miss them?  If you face 
 reality,
  you'll see that Maharishi doesn't miss anybody - but he also 
 doesn't
  miss turning a buck.
  
  Do *you* actually believe that Maharishi would miss you if you
  disappeared off the planet? You've been in isolation too long, 
 fella.
 
 Does enlightened people miss anything ? I don't know. 


Then why did you say he doesn't miss sane nutcases if you don't
really know. Are you just being an asshole?


 What I do 
 know is that he, as other Masters value loyalty. It's basic and 
 important for reasons you obviously do not want to know.


Sure, I'd love to know why I should be loyal to a man I no longer trust.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ 
 wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ 
 wrote:

Too bad it's all in your mind.

-An astonishing load of horse pucky! My God, man, you really 
 *do* live
in an imaginary world. Maharishi has created insane people who 
 think
it's OK to be insane. No wonder all the sane people left 
 Maharishi
many years ago.
   
   To tell you the truth, I do not think he misses any of 
 your sane 
   nutcases from the early days of the Movement.
  
  
  Do you really think that any of who you call sane nutcases gives 
 a
  shit that Maharishi does or doesn't miss them?  If you face 
 reality,
  you'll see that Maharishi doesn't miss anybody - but he also 
 doesn't
  miss turning a buck.
  
  Do *you* actually believe that Maharishi would miss you if you
  disappeared off the planet? You've been in isolation too long, 
 fella.
 
 John, look at it this way-- Maharishi will depart soon, and then you 
 won't have to be so pissed off at him and his crazy organization 
 full of loonies. Fair enough? Is it?


Your assumptions are offensive - and revealing. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
   
   Too bad it's all in your mind.
   
   -An astonishing load of horse pucky! My God, man, you really *do* 
 live
   in an imaginary world. Maharishi has created insane people who 
 think
   it's OK to be insane. No wonder all the sane people left Maharishi
   many years ago.
  
  To tell you the truth, I do not think he misses any of your sane 
  nutcases from the early days of the Movement.
 
 Let's hear it for consensus sanity! NOT.


Childish insults from one of Maharishi's self-proclaimed Brahman
Consciousness attainers? It appears that people with Brahman
consciousness aren't necessarily mature, civil human beings. They can
be totally full of shit. And Brahman Consciousness would certainly
have lost its appeal in my eyes, if I didn't see that Jim is a fraud.
No surprise.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[jim_flanegin]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ 
wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ 
wrote:
   
   I'm plenty open to the subjective and objective Divinity I
   *experience* as a result of my practice of TM. But it certainly
   doesn't include the bullshit of Maharishi's fake kings and fake
   palaces and useless towers of invincibility that represent 
fake
   kingdoms and fake countries. That insanity has nothing at all 
to do
   with either the Divinity I experience with TM and am familiar 
with in
   my experience of Guru Dev [and recently Lakshmi], *or* rational
   factual objective reality. 
  
  Schizophrenics and people on hallucinogenics make the same 
kinds of
  claims.
 
 
 Heh...  I don't attempt to objectify my subtle perceptions into 
fake
 outer constructs, like special hats for pretend occasions, fake
 titles, fake kingdoms, fake countries etc...  
 
 Anything subtle I *do* experience *already* has its *own* existence
 and is perceived in its *own* subtle state. Temporary life in *this
 world* has its own, as Guru Dev clearly indicated, preferable, 
useful
 and meaningful purpose - at the level it is.

As for all that fake stuff, and all kidding aside for a sec-- I 
think what Maharishi is doing in many of these instances is creating 
on earth to the extent that the low earth consciousness allows him 
to, are ideal representations of organizations, concepts, divine 
forms, etc. to more solidly bring into earth's atmosphere the 
archetypes of human perfection. 

When seen through the lens of contemporary society, which we can all 
agree leaves a tremendous amount to be desired anyway, such things 
look fake, clownish, and bizarre. However, it is actually quite a 
powerful and fearless thing for Maharishi to be doing, no matter 
what the justification of his followers may be to themselves for 
their involvement in this pageant of His.

So be fascinated by it, or reject it, or even condemn it- no problem.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ 
 wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ 
 wrote:

I'm plenty open to the subjective and objective Divinity I
*experience* as a result of my practice of TM. But it certainly
doesn't include the bullshit of Maharishi's fake kings and fake
palaces and useless towers of invincibility that represent 
 fake
kingdoms and fake countries. That insanity has nothing at all 
 to do
with either the Divinity I experience with TM and am familiar 
 with in
my experience of Guru Dev [and recently Lakshmi], *or* rational
factual objective reality. 
   
   Schizophrenics and people on hallucinogenics make the same 
 kinds of
   claims.
  
  
  Heh...  I don't attempt to objectify my subtle perceptions into 
 fake
  outer constructs, like special hats for pretend occasions, fake
  titles, fake kingdoms, fake countries etc...  
  
  Anything subtle I *do* experience *already* has its *own* existence
  and is perceived in its *own* subtle state. Temporary life in *this
  world* has its own, as Guru Dev clearly indicated, preferable, 
 useful
  and meaningful purpose - at the level it is.
 
 As for all that fake stuff, and all kidding aside for a sec-- I 
 think what Maharishi is doing in many of these instances is creating 
 on earth to the extent that the low earth consciousness allows him 
 to, are ideal representations of organizations, concepts, divine 
 forms, etc. to more solidly bring into earth's atmosphere the 
 archetypes of human perfection. 
 
 When seen through the lens of contemporary society, which we can all 
 agree leaves a tremendous amount to be desired anyway, such things 
 look fake, clownish, and bizarre. However, it is actually quite a 
 powerful and fearless thing for Maharishi to be doing, no matter 
 what the justification of his followers may be to themselves for 
 their involvement in this pageant of His.
 
 So be fascinated by it, or reject it, or even condemn it- no problem.


I've heard those justifications before. I stand by my comments.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 
 As for all that fake stuff, and all kidding aside for a sec-- I 
 think what Maharishi is doing in many of these instances is 
creating 
 on earth to the extent that the low earth consciousness allows him 
 to, are ideal representations of organizations, concepts, divine 
 forms, etc. to more solidly bring into earth's atmosphere the 
 archetypes of human perfection. 

 When seen through the lens of contemporary society, which we can 
all 
 agree leaves a tremendous amount to be desired anyway, such things 
 look fake, clownish, and bizarre. However, it is actually quite a 
 powerful and fearless thing for Maharishi to be doing, no matter 
 what the justification of his followers may be to themselves for 
 their involvement in this pageant of His.
 
 So be fascinated by it, or reject it, or even condemn it- no 
problem.


Great ! Classic Theosophical presentation of truth as it is 
presented to us right in front of our eyes, in this life, now. It's a 
marvel and gift of opportunity Maharishi is giving with total 
fearlessness, total abandon. Very well put. It's such a pleasure to 
read this kind of insights Jim !
And one fine day I will stop getting agitated by the waves of 
agitation Maharishi is creating on some levels, in some people and 
just enjoy his Lila. 
I know he is :-) 
Thanks again !

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ 
 wrote:
 
  
  As for all that fake stuff, and all kidding aside for a sec-- 
I 
  think what Maharishi is doing in many of these instances is 
 creating 
  on earth to the extent that the low earth consciousness allows 
him 
  to, are ideal representations of organizations, concepts, divine 
  forms, etc. to more solidly bring into earth's atmosphere the 
  archetypes of human perfection. 
 
  When seen through the lens of contemporary society, which we can 
 all 
  agree leaves a tremendous amount to be desired anyway, such 
things 
  look fake, clownish, and bizarre. However, it is actually quite 
a 
  powerful and fearless thing for Maharishi to be doing, no matter 
  what the justification of his followers may be to themselves for 
  their involvement in this pageant of His.
  
  So be fascinated by it, or reject it, or even condemn it- no 
 problem.
 
 
 Great ! Classic Theosophical presentation of truth as it is 
 presented to us right in front of our eyes, in this life, now. 
It's a 
 marvel and gift of opportunity Maharishi is giving with total 
 fearlessness, total abandon. Very well put. It's such a pleasure 
to 
 read this kind of insights Jim !
 And one fine day I will stop getting agitated by the waves of 
 agitation Maharishi is creating on some levels, in some people and 
 just enjoy his Lila. 
 I know he is :-) 
 Thanks again !

Glad you enjoyed them-- I do too, only because the knowledge is so 
lively and dynamic-- lots of fun and bliss. Yeah, I know he is too! 
Life is nothing but a complete pleasure and joy to Maharishi.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 Sure, I'd love to know why I should be loyal to a man I no longer 
trust.

Unfortunately I think you are lost in your sane materialistic little 
world.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[matrixmonitor]

--MMY has a poor and naive understanding of the immense M-fields that 
are antagonistic toward the spread of TM. 1. These include 
Evangelical Christians; (i.e. as an energy field the vast numbers of 
such people radiate, along with the dogma) 2. and in the Middle East, 
Islam Fundamentalists.
 Some of the original suppositions MMY came up with in the 60's 
simply don't work...: for example, the notion that druggies will 
simply embrace TM since it provides and curative alternative to 
dope.  Or, the idea that psychologists will readily embrace TM 
because the practice will eradicate mental illnesses.  Or, that 
people in the criminal justice system will promote TM to offset 
crimes, (and we know that the ME effect proves diminishing levels 
of crime).
etc.
 Even on a more fundamental level, we have yet to see demonstrations 
of actually why somebody would begin the practice of TM; as an 
incentive to assist the practioner in the relative field of existence.
Bogus and/or doctored statistics are counterproductive. 
 


- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ 
 wrote:
 
  
  As for all that fake stuff, and all kidding aside for a sec-- I 
  think what Maharishi is doing in many of these instances is 
 creating 
  on earth to the extent that the low earth consciousness allows 
him 
  to, are ideal representations of organizations, concepts, divine 
  forms, etc. to more solidly bring into earth's atmosphere the 
  archetypes of human perfection. 
 
  When seen through the lens of contemporary society, which we can 
 all 
  agree leaves a tremendous amount to be desired anyway, such 
things 
  look fake, clownish, and bizarre. However, it is actually quite a 
  powerful and fearless thing for Maharishi to be doing, no matter 
  what the justification of his followers may be to themselves for 
  their involvement in this pageant of His.
  
  So be fascinated by it, or reject it, or even condemn it- no 
 problem.
 
 
 Great ! Classic Theosophical presentation of truth as it is 
 presented to us right in front of our eyes, in this life, now. It's 
a 
 marvel and gift of opportunity Maharishi is giving with total 
 fearlessness, total abandon. Very well put. It's such a pleasure to 
 read this kind of insights Jim !
 And one fine day I will stop getting agitated by the waves of 
 agitation Maharishi is creating on some levels, in some people and 
 just enjoy his Lila. 
 I know he is :-) 
 Thanks again !

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
  
  Sure, I'd love to know why I should be loyal to a man I no longer 
 trust.
 
 Unfortunately I think you are lost in your sane materialistic little 
 world.


Think what you like. Crazy people like you surely do.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[Richard J. Williams]

do.rflex wrote:
 Pure hokum with ZERO objective outer substance that 
 has any connection whatsoever to *actual* human 
 affairs on this planet.
 
Sort of like the pure hokum of worshiping a Bhagavan
or having conversations with a dead saint like Brahmanand
Saraswati - no connection whatsoever to *actual* human 
affairs on this planet! 

guffaw

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[Richard J. Williams]

do-reflex wrote:
  No wonder all the sane people left Maharishi
  many years ago.
 
Yeah, like the insane nutcases that used to tell students 
that the TM mantras were the secret nicknames of the Hindu 
demi-Gods!

 To tell you the truth, I do not think he misses any of 
 your sane nutcases from the early days of the Movement.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[nablusoss1008]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
   
   Sure, I'd love to know why I should be loyal to a man I no longer 
  trust.
  
  Unfortunately I think you are lost in your sane materialistic 
little 
  world.
 
 
 Think what you like. Crazy people like you surely do.

If you find me crazy then I know I must be doing something right.
Anyway I appreciated your frankness and our exchange.
Enjoy ! :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[Richard J. Williams]

do.rflex wrote:
 Childish insults from one of Maharishi's self-proclaimed 
 Brahman Consciousness attainers? 

From: John Manning
Subject: Re: Love
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2001-11-12 05:56:08 PST

In the beginning, MMY expressed what I thought was love, 
with his gentle, sweet, and sympathetic expressions. I 
fell for his pitch, as I was seeking spiritual love and 
God. As it turned out, he's just a con man with a 
questionable relaxation technique to sell for lots of cash.
He has added bells and whistles for more cash, and a product 
line of expensive health products. The TM org is 
indistinguishable from any other marketing scheme, except 
by its bizarre leader and spiritually offensive 'elite'. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[Sal Sunshine]

On Nov 1, 2007, at 6:11 PM, jim_flanegin wrote:


Glad you enjoyed them-- I do too, only because the knowledge is so
lively and dynamic-- lots of fun and bliss. Yeah, I know he is too!
Life is nothing but a complete pleasure and joy to Maharishi.



Way over the limit, Jim.  Sayonara.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[jim_flanegin]

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

 On Nov 1, 2007, at 6:11 PM, jim_flanegin wrote:
 
  Glad you enjoyed them-- I do too, only because the knowledge is so
  lively and dynamic-- lots of fun and bliss. Yeah, I know he is too!
  Life is nothing but a complete pleasure and joy to Maharishi.
 
 
 Way over the limit, Jim.  Sayonara.
 
 Sal

I did the Yahoo advanced search and I'm only showing 29 messages since 
12:01AM Saturday. How many are you counting?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[jim_flanegin]

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

 On Nov 1, 2007, at 7:51 PM, jim_flanegin wrote:
 
  I did the Yahoo advanced search and I'm only showing 29 messages 
since
  12:01AM Saturday. How many are you counting?
 
 41 including this one, all of them different as far as I can tell.
 
 Sal

Is that right!? damn-- OK I'll take your word for it-- sayonara.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Even on a more fundamental level, we have yet to see demonstrations 
 of actually why somebody would begin the practice of TM; as an 
 incentive to assist the practioner in the relative field of 
existence.

My take on why some people begin TM is some intuition that they can 
continue their spiritual practice from before-- its experiential 
nature and immediate results ring true to those who have had this 
experience previously. Then others probably start because the energy 
radiated from the initiators sparks a natural curiosity in them. And 
let's face it, so many are spiritually impovershed these days, 
constantly looking for something to fill the hunger.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[Sal Sunshine]

On Nov 1, 2007, at 7:51 PM, jim_flanegin wrote:


I did the Yahoo advanced search and I'm only showing 29 messages since
12:01AM Saturday. How many are you counting?


41 including this one, all of them different as far as I can tell.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev has something to say about rajas

[curtisdeltablues]

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

 On Nov 1, 2007, at 7:51 PM, jim_flanegin wrote:
 
  I did the Yahoo advanced search and I'm only showing 29 messages since
  12:01AM Saturday. How many are you counting?
 
 41 including this one, all of them different as far as I can tell.
 
 Sal

Sometimes you really crack me up Sal.