[FairfieldLife] Re: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: On the topic of religious rituals - and to take this thread even further away from Mani - were there ever any group ceremonies (puja) performed at the various HQs where Maharishi established himself in Switzerland and Holland? And did those attending training courses as TM teachers ever have communal puja chanting or anything else suggesting a cult? Maybe the sacrifice of a maiden on a stone slab? Or did it never deviate from individual and group TM/Sidhi practice and SCI lectures? Since no one else seems to be willing to deal with this, I will. :-) The answer, of course, is Is the Pope Catholic? *Of course* there were mass pujas and celebrations performed to the various Hindu gods and goddesses in these locations. The general public probably never knew much about them, not being allowed on the premises, but they definitely took place, and undoubtedly do to this day. Many people suspected, because the people on the courses rarely came into town and when they did, they were as spaced out as zombies. In St. Moritz, on my last long TM course, the townspeople referred to the folks up in the hotel on top of the mountain, possibly taking a cue from the Beatles, as the fools on the hill. :-) To deal with other of your recent questions, there was always a public teaching and a private or real teaching w.r.t. the TMO and Maharishi. For the public (and for those TMers who never ventured any further into the org) it was 20 minutes twice a day and no belief or lifestyle changes. But for those who went on to become TM teachers, it was very, very different. Much of the teaching centered around oft- repeated stories extolling the benefits of and necessity of devotion to one's master. MMY would tell the story of Trotakacharya over and over, as if that exemplified what a spiritual seeker's life and relationship to one's teacher should be like, and in practice he pretty much demanded to be treated as if he were the master in question. Refuse to do something he had commanded you to do (for example, Deepak Chopra, preferring to have a life and a medical practice not directly linked to the TMO) and you were outa there faster than shit through a goose. Those held up as role models were the ones with near- absolute and unquestioning devotion to and obeisance to Maharishi. As for the name itself, the question is not so much How is it pronounced? but Was the name deserved? Even according to Maharishi's version, people started calling him that, and he allowed them to. Bottom line, however, is that the title was neither conferred on him by any legitimate lineage, or deserved. Heck, he wasn't even a yogi. If you were one of those lucky TMers who avoided the TM organization and just meditated, you probably missed a lot of the drama that people on this forum talk about, and that the cult apologists -- many of whom never became teachers themselves and never did more than dip their toe in the TMO as it really was -- try to excuse. For anyone who became a TM teacher, it was *very much* about lifestyle changes, and obeisance to one's master. And there was simply *no question* that Maharishi both allowed this to happen, and encouraged it.
[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
People should have taken a leaf out of John Lennon's book - respectful but not in awe of Maharishi. When Lennon first arrived at the Rishikesh ashram during an awkward silence Lennon walked across the room and patted Maharishi on the head, saying, There's a good little guru which broke the ice. Can't imagine any of the suits ever doing that. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote: What you say is true of regular meditators and learning TM for the most part, but if working in the movement, devotion seems to be considered above all the other conceivable ways you could image what a spiritual path would be. Maharishi promoted this idea, because, I think, of his own experience with Brahmananda Saraswati. Within the movement there is a kind of unspoken peer pressure that the path of devotion, and in particular, devotion to Maharishi's stated ideals, is the one you ought to be pursuing. Further some sort of adulation of Maharishi himself seemed to be part of that influence, whether or not Maharishi himself ever directly said such (he tended to imply that devotion was the superior path without saying 'you should be devoted to me'). There is a lot of hidden and unvocalised (and also vocalised) compulsions in organisations, and particularly spiritual organisations, or any organisations that have a 'mission', that there is a right way to go about it and think, and a wrong way to go about it and think. I was speaking about those more closely allied with the TMO than regular meditators, and many here probably have the sense of what I was writing about. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re I found the emphasis on devotion to the guru in the TM movement always disconcerting: What emphasis? Maharishi was never a guru - he was a teacher of meditation. The guru-shishya tradition is the transmission of teachings from a guru to a disciple. In this relationship, subtle and advanced knowledge is conveyed and received through the student's respect, commitment, devotion and obedience. That sounds nothing like the usual experience of learning TM in which one is given a mantra and left to get on with it on one's own. No devotion or obedience was ever expected. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote: authfriend wrote: 'My parents sent me to Sunday School at a nearby nondenominational Christian church a couple of times when I was around 10 or so, feeling they should at least give me some exposure to religion. I didn't like it, and they didn't make me go again. I had a brief flirtation with Unitarianism in my teens, but it didn't last. Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can go.' My exposure to religion was rather slight, and by high school I was essentially agnostic although at times early influences would kick in on the emotional level. What you said here is pretty much what is available to agnostics, atheists, and non-theistic religions or philosophies (such as Zen Buddhism; Tao). One pretty much has to bypass that conception of a personal level of 'creation' (assuming there really is creation). It is possible other conceptual states might take the place of the personal god concept. What I found as time went on was I would make the attempt not to visualise the goal, I would easily try to deflect the tendency to give it a form. This worked for me. But a lot of people have trouble without some kind of concrete image in the mind, I find it interesting that TM takes the mind away from concrete imaging, yet when people come out of the meditation, it does not seem to register that that experience of formlessness has something to do with what one experiences through the senses. Ultimately that empty blank is what is experienced as being all the forms. The Bhagavad-Gita says that those bent on the unmanifest may have a tough time of it - a few translations follow, Chapter 12 Verse 5: 'For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.' 'Those whose minds are attached to the unmanifest aspect have much greater tribulations, because devoid of any perceptible form and attributes, success is achieved with great difficulty due to the beings identifying with the body.' 'There is greater trouble for those whose minds are attached to the unmanifest. For, the path of the unmanifest is difficult to attain by the embodied.' As a kind of space case, perhaps I was attracted to a less concrete
[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
Since no one else seems to be willing to deal with this, I will. : Thanks - sounds intriguing. I wish someone had taken candid-camera footage for the rest of us to enjoy. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: On the topic of religious rituals - and to take this thread even further away from Mani - were there ever any group ceremonies (puja) performed at the various HQs where Maharishi established himself in Switzerland and Holland? And did those attending training courses as TM teachers ever have communal puja chanting or anything else suggesting a cult? Maybe the sacrifice of a maiden on a stone slab? Or did it never deviate from individual and group TM/Sidhi practice and SCI lectures? Since no one else seems to be willing to deal with this, I will. :-) The answer, of course, is Is the Pope Catholic? *Of course* there were mass pujas and celebrations performed to the various Hindu gods and goddesses in these locations. The general public probably never knew much about them, not being allowed on the premises, but they definitely took place, and undoubtedly do to this day. Many people suspected, because the people on the courses rarely came into town and when they did, they were as spaced out as zombies. In St. Moritz, on my last long TM course, the townspeople referred to the folks up in the hotel on top of the mountain, possibly taking a cue from the Beatles, as the fools on the hill. :-) To deal with other of your recent questions, there was always a public teaching and a private or real teaching w.r.t. the TMO and Maharishi. For the public (and for those TMers who never ventured any further into the org) it was 20 minutes twice a day and no belief or lifestyle changes. But for those who went on to become TM teachers, it was very, very different. Much of the teaching centered around oft- repeated stories extolling the benefits of and necessity of devotion to one's master. MMY would tell the story of Trotakacharya over and over, as if that exemplified what a spiritual seeker's life and relationship to one's teacher should be like, and in practice he pretty much demanded to be treated as if he were the master in question. Refuse to do something he had commanded you to do (for example, Deepak Chopra, preferring to have a life and a medical practice not directly linked to the TMO) and you were outa there faster than shit through a goose. Those held up as role models were the ones with near- absolute and unquestioning devotion to and obeisance to Maharishi. As for the name itself, the question is not so much How is it pronounced? but Was the name deserved? Even according to Maharishi's version, people started calling him that, and he allowed them to. Bottom line, however, is that the title was neither conferred on him by any legitimate lineage, or deserved. Heck, he wasn't even a yogi. If you were one of those lucky TMers who avoided the TM organization and just meditated, you probably missed a lot of the drama that people on this forum talk about, and that the cult apologists -- many of whom never became teachers themselves and never did more than dip their toe in the TMO as it really was -- try to excuse. For anyone who became a TM teacher, it was *very much* about lifestyle changes, and obeisance to one's master. And there was simply *no question* that Maharishi both allowed this to happen, and encouraged it.
[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
Maharishi explained that the invisibility technique wouldn't work because it could be used for bad purposes.: That's the Catch-22. Only ordinary folks would want the super powers but are excluded by their ordinariness; only advanced saints could develop the super powers but by then they wouldn't be interested.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
Seraphita my understanding of the TMSP, especially yogic flying, is that their purpose is to develop mind body coordination. I think such integration is very healthy spiritually, mentally, emotionally and physically. I'm aware of what some spiritual teachers think of sidhis in general. But in my experience, Being itself is running the show and one simply has to flow down the river without fighting it. I admit I find it hard to explain. I often suggest that people come and visit FF and see for themselves. On Friday, November 8, 2013 11:15 AM, s3raph...@yahoo.com s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: Maharishi explained that the invisibility technique wouldn't work because it could be used for bad purposes.: That's the Catch-22. Only ordinary folks would want the super powers but are excluded by their ordinariness; only advanced saints could develop the super powers but by then they wouldn't be interested.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
This thread is looking like it's headed for the outhouse. On 11/6/2013 10:10 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: You're all sounding like desiccated corpses drying in the desert. There is another type of Christian life here in America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0M94z3Pev4 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: *Seraphita wrote: * Re Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple of years but wasn't inspired enoughto continue, since I really wasn't into the Personal God aspect of the belief system (orChrist as savior). God as Unified Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can go. : Again very close to my view. Here in the UK, the Anglican Church is essentially a wishy- washy nostalgia circus for reminding grown-ups of their childhood. (With bits of Arthurian romance added to the mix.) So all pretty harmless. Even arch-atheist Richard Dawkins has confessed to occasionally popping into a church just to enjoy the aesthetic experience! *Heehee. Be fun to see that guy Spufford look up from his prayers and clap eyes on Dawkins.* * * ** Having always been intrigued by the occult fringe, I've also seen some attraction in the Catholic position: the Mass as a magical ritual and the unembarrassed veneration of those medieval mystics. Even such unregenerates as Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire and Huysmans finallyturned to Rome as they sensed it was the more poetical religion. *Huh, I'm attracted by the poetry/music/incense/art/theatrical aspects as well. Goes way back with me to the (wonderful) Audrey Hepburn film The Nun's Story. I think I'd need a Peter Finch equivalent, though.* * * *To this day I have no idea whether my late father had any religious sensibility whatsoever, but he adored churches and religious music and painting. I guess it's in the genes.* *I might be tempted to pop into a Catholic church at some point if they were doing a mass in Latin. There's something really magical about Latin. Like Sanskrit, I suppose, but the music is a lot better. ;-) I once memorized the Hail Mary in Latin just because I loved the sound of it. My Presbyterian ancestors (Huguenots, no less) must have spun themselves nearly out of their graves.*
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
Richard! Did you even look at the clip?! It's beautiful, not outhousy at all! Go figure! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: This thread is looking like it's headed for the outhouse. On 11/6/2013 10:10 PM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: You're all sounding like desiccated corpses drying in the desert. There is another type of Christian life here in America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0M94z3Pev4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0M94z3Pev4 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: Seraphita wrote: Re Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can go. : Again very close to my view. Here in the UK, the Anglican Church is essentially a wishy- washy nostalgia circus for reminding grown-ups of their childhood. (With bits of Arthurian romance added to the mix.) So all pretty harmless. Even arch-atheist Richard Dawkins has confessed to occasionally popping into a church just to enjoy the aesthetic experience! Heehee. Be fun to see that guy Spufford look up from his prayers and clap eyes on Dawkins. Having always been intrigued by the occult fringe, I've also seen some attraction in the Catholic position: the Mass as a magical ritual and the unembarrassed veneration of those medieval mystics. Even such unregenerates as Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire and Huysmans finally turned to Rome as they sensed it was the more poetical religion. Huh, I'm attracted by the poetry/music/incense/art/theatrical aspects as well. Goes way back with me to the (wonderful) Audrey Hepburn film The Nun's Story. I think I'd need a Peter Finch equivalent, though. To this day I have no idea whether my late father had any religious sensibility whatsoever, but he adored churches and religious music and painting. I guess it's in the genes. I might be tempted to pop into a Catholic church at some point if they were doing a mass in Latin. There's something really magical about Latin. Like Sanskrit, I suppose, but the music is a lot better. ;-) I once memorized the Hail Mary in Latin just because I loved the sound of it. My Presbyterian ancestors (Huguenots, no less) must have spun themselves nearly out of their graves.
[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
On the topic of religious rituals - and to take this thread even further away from Mani - were there ever any group ceremonies (puja) performed at the various HQs where Maharishi established himself in Switzerland and Holland? And did those attending training courses as TM teachers ever have communal puja chanting or anything else suggesting a cult? Maybe the sacrifice of a maiden on a stone slab? Or did it never deviate from individual and group TM/Sidhi practice and SCI lectures? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: What's yer problem? We're saying we like this kind of thing, the fancier and more elaborate the better. Love the costumes in this clip, the different coordinated black-and-white prints for the vestments. Russian liturgical music is kind of an acquired taste for most Westerners, but it's magnificent once you develop an ear for it. I told you my sister sang with an amateur (but superb) Russian chorus in Boston some years ago, didn't I? They did a tour of Russia at one point, where they had very eager Russian audiences. Choral performance of liturgical music had almost become a lost art under Communism, so people were actually re-learning the style and fine points from them. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: You're all sounding like desiccated corpses drying in the desert. There is another type of Christian life here in America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0M94z3Pev4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0M94z3Pev4 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Seraphita wrote: Re Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can go. : Again very close to my view. Here in the UK, the Anglican Church is essentially a wishy- washy nostalgia circus for reminding grown-ups of their childhood. (With bits of Arthurian romance added to the mix.) So all pretty harmless. Even arch-atheist Richard Dawkins has confessed to occasionally popping into a church just to enjoy the aesthetic experience! Heehee. Be fun to see that guy Spufford look up from his prayers and clap eyes on Dawkins. Having always been intrigued by the occult fringe, I've also seen some attraction in the Catholic position: the Mass as a magical ritual and the unembarrassed veneration of those medieval mystics. Even such unregenerates as Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire and Huysmans finally turned to Rome as they sensed it was the more poetical religion. Huh, I'm attracted by the poetry/music/incense/art/theatrical aspects as well. Goes way back with me to the (wonderful) Audrey Hepburn film The Nun's Story. I think I'd need a Peter Finch equivalent, though. To this day I have no idea whether my late father had any religious sensibility whatsoever, but he adored churches and religious music and painting. I guess it's in the genes. I might be tempted to pop into a Catholic church at some point if they were doing a mass in Latin. There's something really magical about Latin. Like Sanskrit, I suppose, but the music is a lot better. ;-) I once memorized the Hail Mary in Latin just because I loved the sound of it. My Presbyterian ancestors (Huguenots, no less) must have spun themselves nearly out of their graves.
[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
Re I found the emphasis on devotion to the guru in the TM movement always disconcerting: What emphasis? Maharishi was never a guru - he was a teacher of meditation. The guru-shishya tradition is the transmission of teachings from a guru to a disciple. In this relationship, subtle and advanced knowledge is conveyed and received through the student's respect, commitment, devotion and obedience. That sounds nothing like the usual experience of learning TM in which one is given a mantra and left to get on with it on one's own. No devotion or obedience was ever expected. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote: authfriend wrote: 'My parents sent me to Sunday School at a nearby nondenominational Christian church a couple of times when I was around 10 or so, feeling they should at least give me some exposure to religion. I didn't like it, and they didn't make me go again. I had a brief flirtation with Unitarianism in my teens, but it didn't last. Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can go.' My exposure to religion was rather slight, and by high school I was essentially agnostic although at times early influences would kick in on the emotional level. What you said here is pretty much what is available to agnostics, atheists, and non-theistic religions or philosophies (such as Zen Buddhism; Tao). One pretty much has to bypass that conception of a personal level of 'creation' (assuming there really is creation). It is possible other conceptual states might take the place of the personal god concept. What I found as time went on was I would make the attempt not to visualise the goal, I would easily try to deflect the tendency to give it a form. This worked for me. But a lot of people have trouble without some kind of concrete image in the mind, I find it interesting that TM takes the mind away from concrete imaging, yet when people come out of the meditation, it does not seem to register that that experience of formlessness has something to do with what one experiences through the senses. Ultimately that empty blank is what is experienced as being all the forms. The Bhagavad-Gita says that those bent on the unmanifest may have a tough time of it - a few translations follow, Chapter 12 Verse 5: 'For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.' 'Those whose minds are attached to the unmanifest aspect have much greater tribulations, because devoid of any perceptible form and attributes, success is achieved with great difficulty due to the beings identifying with the body.' 'There is greater trouble for those whose minds are attached to the unmanifest. For, the path of the unmanifest is difficult to attain by the embodied.' As a kind of space case, perhaps I was attracted to a less concrete view of the universe. For example, without wanting to be a Buddhist, I was attracted to its Zen lineage because of the lack of conceptualisation and emphasis on direct experience. I found the emphasis on devotion to the guru in the TM movement always disconcerting as it did not seem to have any relevance to my so-called path. Others, of course, found devotion quite amenable to them, if it was natural; but faking devotion because one sees others doing it that way probably would be a disaster. I have seen people in the movement live and on tape seemingly straining to appear devoted when it seemed (as it appeared to me) they were just doing it out of peer pressure. Devotion is a property of what you like the most, whatever is most likable to you, that is your devotion, what you pursue, and that pursuit continues until it is fulfilled, or completely thwarted.
[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
Share, Professor Troll is throwing out a fishing line to troll-in anyone who will bite. Don’t be a fish. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Ok, Richard, nobody else is gonna challenge you on this. Actually I'm not either. But it would be great if you could say more about it. Seems revolutionary (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist. On 11/3/2013 4:42 PM, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: Is it possible to be a Buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly? Yes, according to MMY. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Should TM'er Buddhists even be allowed to have a Dome badge? Is it possible to be a buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly? -Buck ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: Re The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang.: The Yin and Yang concepts point to a Tao that includes the opposites. Imagining that one side of a pair of opposites could gain the upper hand over the other would be a vulgar error. As the little we know about Manichaeism and similar dualist religions/philosophies comes to us from hostile sources isn't it possible that these beliefs weren't as dualist as they've been painted but perhaps also had the idea of a Transcendence that reconciled the positive and negative aspects of life? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... mailto:punditster@... wrote: So, let's review what we know about the prophet Mani. The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang, which is probably derived from the Indian Sankhya, a radical dualism, and later tantra- a theory of polarity which posits male and female energies. The name 'Mani' is Sanskrit. Mani traveled and lived in India for several years, visiting Buddhist lands such as Bamiyan in Afghanistan, so it is not surprising that Buddhist influences would be apparent. Mani apparently adopted his theory of the reincarnation (transmigration of souls) from the Buddhists. Mani's sect structure was apparently based on the Buddhist Sangha, that is, Arhants and the lay follower community. On 11/2/2013 11:31 AM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: No wonder the Near-Eastern realm got so mixed up. It seems that as Manichean ideology spread to the East it incorporated Buddhist concepts along the way in a effort to show the superiority of the Religion of Light. Mani lived during the third century of the current era. Mani used the epitaph Buddha of Light and identified himself as Maitreya. He and his followers specifically borrowed from early Pure Land Sutras and Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy. As it entered the region of Gandhara and spread to China it used the Buddhist Hinayana tradition to support its views of matter, the body and the world. MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM David A. Scott Christ Church College of Higher Education
[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
It is said, Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Ok, Richard, nobody else is gonna challenge you on this. Actually I'm not either. But it would be great if you could say more about it. Seems revolutionary (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist. On 11/3/2013 4:42 PM, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: Is it possible to be a Buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly? Yes, according to MMY. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Should TM'er Buddhists even be allowed to have a Dome badge? Is it possible to be a buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly? -Buck ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: Re The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang.: The Yin and Yang concepts point to a Tao that includes the opposites. Imagining that one side of a pair of opposites could gain the upper hand over the other would be a vulgar error. As the little we know about Manichaeism and similar dualist religions/philosophies comes to us from hostile sources isn't it possible that these beliefs weren't as dualist as they've been painted but perhaps also had the idea of a Transcendence that reconciled the positive and negative aspects of life? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... mailto:punditster@... wrote: So, let's review what we know about the prophet Mani. The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang, which is probably derived from the Indian Sankhya, a radical dualism, and later tantra- a theory of polarity which posits male and female energies. The name 'Mani' is Sanskrit. Mani traveled and lived in India for several years, visiting Buddhist lands such as Bamiyan in Afghanistan, so it is not surprising that Buddhist influences would be apparent. Mani apparently adopted his theory of the reincarnation (transmigration of souls) from the Buddhists. Mani's sect structure was apparently based on the Buddhist Sangha, that is, Arhants and the lay follower community. On 11/2/2013 11:31 AM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: No wonder the Near-Eastern realm got so mixed up. It seems that as Manichean ideology spread to the East it incorporated Buddhist concepts along the way in a effort to show the superiority of the Religion of Light. Mani lived during the third century of the current era. Mani used the epitaph Buddha of Light and identified himself as Maitreya. He and his followers specifically borrowed from early Pure Land Sutras and Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy. As it entered the region of Gandhara and spread to China it used the Buddhist Hinayana tradition to support its views of matter, the body and the world. MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM David A. Scott Christ Church College of Higher Education
[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
Re No. I responded to an earlier question from you about my religious leanings a week or so ago; did you miss it?: So you did. Sorry. Re You could say I'm sympathetic to religions generally; I've read a good bit of theology because it interests me, but that's about it.: Sounds like me. Except I went to a Moravian school originally founded in 1753 as a utopian community. Re Robin Carlsen converted while he was still adventuring . . . he rejected Catholicism as well.: His jumping from MMY to Ayatollahs to Popes suggest someone in search of an authority figure, no? Re He didn't become a priest. Not sure where you got that.: It was a rumour - I'm sure I saw it mentioned on FFL long, long ago. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Seraphita wrote: Should I assume that you are Roman Catholic? Or at least a fellow traveller? No. I responded to an earlier question from you about my religious leanings a week or so ago; did you miss it? My family heritage is Christian (Presbyterian), but I didn't have a religious upbringing and am not a believer. You could say I'm sympathetic to religions generally; I've read a good bit of theology because it interests me, but that's about it. I understand Robin Carlsen became a Catholic convert - indeed a Catholic priest (?) after his adventures on the new-age circuit. He converted while he was still adventuring, actually. (Not sure I'd call those adventures New Age, unless you want to put TM in that category.) He convinced many of his followers to convert as well; a number of them are still devout Catholics. At the time, he thought Catholicism could be reconciled with TM. The group collapsed in chaos not long after that, and he went into seclusion for 25 years to sort himself out. He decided shortly after he began this recovery process that TM and Catholicism weren't compatible after all and rejected TM. A few years after that he decided the Church was no longer what it had been and had lost its divine authority with regard to salvation. At that point he rejected Catholicism as well. (Ann, I think I have the chronology straight here; if not, corrections are welcome.) He didn't become a priest. Not sure where you got that. Are you one of his former acolytes? Nope. I encountered him for the first time here on FFL, summer of 2011. Seraphita wrote: (snip) Isn't the vulgar notion of Christianity held by most believers radically dualist? (Which isn't surprising as western Christianity flows from Augustine.) Your standard Christian believes God is good and Satan is evil and History will end with a stand-up fight between the angels of light and the demons with the good angels destined to prevail. Christianity is dualistic, yes, but what you describe above really isn't what the standard Christian believes (at least not in the U.S.). It's various fundamentalist-type denominations and sects that are preoccupied with the End Times and Armageddon and the Rapture and so on. Standard or mainline Christians don't necessarily disbelieve in the prophecies of Revelation, but they don't tend to take them literally, and they don't focus on them.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
Around here, if it looks like a Buddha, it's probably a Buddhist of some kind. MMY lived in the Himalayas with masters; MMY came out of the Himalayas and he looks like a Himalayan Master, so he is probably a Himalayan Master of some kind. Around here, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck of some kind. On 11/6/2013 8:08 AM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: Share, Professor Troll is throwing out a fishing line to troll-in anyone who will bite. Don’t be a fish. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Ok, Richard, nobody else is gonna challenge you on this. Actually I'm not either. But it would be great if you could say more about it. Seems revolutionary (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist. On 11/3/2013 4:42 PM, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: *Is it possible to be a Buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly?* Yes, according to MMY. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com wrote: *Should TM'er Buddhists even be allowed to have a Dome badge? Is it possible to be a buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly?* *-Buck* ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: Re The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang.: The Yin and Yang concepts point to a Tao that includes the opposites. Imagining that one side of a pair of opposites could gain the upper hand over the other would be a vulgar error. As the little we know about Manichaeism and similar dualist religions/philosophies comes to us from hostile sources isn't it possible that these beliefs weren't as dualist as they've been painted but perhaps also had the idea of a Transcendence that reconciled the positive and negative aspects of life? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... mailto:punditster@... wrote: So, let's review what we know about the prophet Mani. The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang, which is probably derived from the Indian Sankhya, a radical dualism, and later tantra- a theory of polarity which posits male and female energies. The name 'Mani' is Sanskrit. Mani traveled and lived in India for several years, visiting Buddhist lands such as Bamiyan in Afghanistan, so it is not surprising that Buddhist influences would be apparent. Mani apparently adopted his theory of the reincarnation (transmigration of souls) from the Buddhists. Mani's sect structure was apparently based on the Buddhist Sangha, that is, Arhants and the lay follower community. On 11/2/2013 11:31 AM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: No wonder the Near-Eastern realm got so mixed up. *//* It seems that as Manichean ideology spread to the East it incorporated Buddhist concepts along the way in a effort to show the superiority of the Religion of Light. Mani lived during the third century of the current era. Mani used the epitaph Buddha of Light and identified himself as Maitreya. He and his followers specifically borrowed from early Pure Land Sutras and Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy. As it entered the region of Gandhara and spread to China it used the Buddhist Hinayana tradition to support its views of matter, the body and the world. MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM */David A. Scott /* *//* */Christ Church College /**/of /**/Higher Education/*
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
If he lived in the Himalayas with yogis; and if he came out of the Himalayas looking like a yogi; and he talks and looks like a yogi; and they call him a yogi; then he must be a yogi of some kind. On 11/6/2013 9:00 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: It is said, Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Ok, Richard, nobody else is gonna challenge you on this. Actually I'm not either. But it would be great if you could say more about it. Seems revolutionary (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist. On 11/3/2013 4:42 PM, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: *Is it possible to be a Buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly?* Yes, according to MMY. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com wrote: *Should TM'er Buddhists even be allowed to have a Dome badge? Is it possible to be a buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly?* *-Buck* ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: Re The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang.: The Yin and Yang concepts point to a Tao that includes the opposites. Imagining that one side of a pair of opposites could gain the upper hand over the other would be a vulgar error. As the little we know about Manichaeism and similar dualist religions/philosophies comes to us from hostile sources isn't it possible that these beliefs weren't as dualist as they've been painted but perhaps also had the idea of a Transcendence that reconciled the positive and negative aspects of life? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... mailto:punditster@... wrote: So, let's review what we know about the prophet Mani. The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang, which is probably derived from the Indian Sankhya, a radical dualism, and later tantra- a theory of polarity which posits male and female energies. The name 'Mani' is Sanskrit. Mani traveled and lived in India for several years, visiting Buddhist lands such as Bamiyan in Afghanistan, so it is not surprising that Buddhist influences would be apparent. Mani apparently adopted his theory of the reincarnation (transmigration of souls) from the Buddhists. Mani's sect structure was apparently based on the Buddhist Sangha, that is, Arhants and the lay follower community. On 11/2/2013 11:31 AM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: No wonder the Near-Eastern realm got so mixed up. *//* It seems that as Manichean ideology spread to the East it incorporated Buddhist concepts along the way in a effort to show the superiority of the Religion of Light. Mani lived during the third century of the current era. Mani used the epitaph Buddha of Light and identified himself as Maitreya. He and his followers specifically borrowed from early Pure Land Sutras and Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy. As it entered the region of Gandhara and spread to China it used the Buddhist Hinayana tradition to support its views of matter, the body and the world. MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM */David A. Scott /* *//* */Christ Church College /**/of /**/Higher Education/*
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
Richard, it sounds like you're saying that anyone who is aspiring to be like Buddha is a Bhudhist. Would you also say that anyone who aspires to be like Christ is a Christian? If you are, it's kind of an interesting perspective on the whole thing. On Wednesday, November 6, 2013 12:31 PM, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: If he lived in the Himalayas with yogis; and if he came out of the Himalayas looking like a yogi; and he talks and looks like a yogi; and they call him a yogi; then he must be a yogi of some kind. On 11/6/2013 9:00 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: It is said, Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Ok, Richard, nobody else is gonna challenge you on this. Actually I'm not either. But it would be great if you could say more about it. Seems revolutionary (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist. On 11/3/2013 4:42 PM, s3raphita@... wrote: Is it possible to be a Buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly? Yes, according to MMY. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Should TM'er Buddhists even be allowed to have a Dome badge? Is it possible to be a buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly? -Buck ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang.: The Yin and Yang concepts point to a Tao that includes the opposites. Imagining that one side of a pair of opposites could gain the upper hand over the other would be a vulgar error. As the little we know about Manichaeism and similar dualist religions/philosophies comes to us from hostile sources isn't it possible that these beliefs weren't as dualist as they've been painted but perhaps also had the idea of a Transcendence that reconciled the positive and negative aspects of life? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: So, let's review what we know about the prophet Mani. The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang, which is probably derived from the Indian Sankhya, a radical dualism, and later tantra- a theory of polarity which posits male and female energies. The name 'Mani' is Sanskrit. Mani traveled and lived in India for several years, visiting Buddhist lands such as Bamiyan in Afghanistan, so it is not surprising that Buddhist influences would be apparent. Mani apparently adopted his theory of the reincarnation (transmigration of souls) from the Buddhists. Mani's sect structure was apparently based on the Buddhist Sangha, that is, Arhants and the lay follower community. On 11/2/2013 11:31 AM, emptybill@... wrote: No wonder the Near-Eastern realm got so mixed
[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
Re Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can go. : Again very close to my view. Here in the UK, the Anglican Church is essentially a wishy-washy nostalgia circus for reminding grown-ups of their childhood. (With bits of Arthurian romance added to the mix.) So all pretty harmless. Even arch-atheist Richard Dawkins has confessed to occasionally popping into a church just to enjoy the aesthetic experience! Having always been intrigued by the occult fringe, I've also seen some attraction in the Catholic position: the Mass as a magical ritual and the unembarrassed veneration of those medieval mystics. Even such unregenerates as Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire and Huysmans finally turned to Rome as they sensed it was the more poetical religion. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Seraphita wrote: (snip) Re You could say I'm sympathetic to religions generally; I've read a good bit of theology because it interests me, but that's about it.: Sounds like me. Except I went to a Moravian school originally founded in 1753 as a utopian community. My parents sent me to Sunday School at a nearby nondenominational Christian church a couple of times when I was around 10 or so, feeling they should at least give me some exposure to religion. I didn't like it, and they didn't make me go again. I had a brief flirtation with Unitarianism in my teens, but it didn't last. Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can go. Re Robin Carlsen converted while he was still adventuring . . . he rejected Catholicism as well.: His jumping from MMY to Ayatollahs to Popes suggest someone in search of an authority figure, no? Could be (but he never jumped to the Ayatollah; Islam wasn't his bag--he was really just curious, and then very impressed by the Ayatollah as a presumably enlightened being, but not as a guru or authority figure). Robin's an extraordinarily complicated and unusual fellow with a unique history. I don't think you can apply standard psychological interpretations to his behavior or motivations. I'm not sure he ever jumped to the pope either as an authority figure, except nominally as part of Catholic doctrine; and his devotion to Maharishi was more of a spiritual bromance based on his profound experience of TM than a need for authority per se, if you see the distinction I'm making. Re He didn't become a priest. Not sure where you got that.: It was a rumour - I'm sure I saw it mentioned on FFL long, long ago. Oh, I see. Lots of rumors about Robin given that he effectively disappeared after the group collapsed. He was also said to have committed suicide and to have been institutionalized. In fact, he was living with his best friend, with no contact with anyone from his past, including his family, and going through extreme agonies trying to get himself straightened out with his friend's guidance. When he showed up here two years ago, he was--at least from the descriptions of those who knew him in his enlightened period--a different person. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Seraphita wrote: Should I assume that you are Roman Catholic? Or at least a fellow traveller? No. I responded to an earlier question from you about my religious leanings a week or so ago; did you miss it? My family heritage is Christian (Presbyterian), but I didn't have a religious upbringing and am not a believer. You could say I'm sympathetic to religions generally; I've read a good bit of theology because it interests me, but that's about it. I understand Robin Carlsen became a Catholic convert - indeed a Catholic priest (?) after his adventures on the new-age circuit. He converted while he was still adventuring, actually. (Not sure I'd call those adventures New Age, unless you want to put TM in that category.) He convinced many of his followers to convert as well; a number of them are still devout Catholics. At the time, he thought Catholicism could be reconciled with TM. The group collapsed in chaos not long after that, and he went into seclusion for 25 years to sort himself out. He decided shortly after he began this recovery process that TM and Catholicism weren't compatible after all and rejected TM. A few
[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
You're all sounding like desiccated corpses drying in the desert. There is another type of Christian life here in America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0M94z3Pev4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0M94z3Pev4 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Seraphita wrote: Re Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can go. : Again very close to my view. Here in the UK, the Anglican Church is essentially a wishy- washy nostalgia circus for reminding grown-ups of their childhood. (With bits of Arthurian romance added to the mix.) So all pretty harmless. Even arch-atheist Richard Dawkins has confessed to occasionally popping into a church just to enjoy the aesthetic experience! Heehee. Be fun to see that guy Spufford look up from his prayers and clap eyes on Dawkins. Having always been intrigued by the occult fringe, I've also seen some attraction in the Catholic position: the Mass as a magical ritual and the unembarrassed veneration of those medieval mystics. Even such unregenerates as Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire and Huysmans finally turned to Rome as they sensed it was the more poetical religion. Huh, I'm attracted by the poetry/music/incense/art/theatrical aspects as well. Goes way back with me to the (wonderful) Audrey Hepburn film The Nun's Story. I think I'd need a Peter Finch equivalent, though. To this day I have no idea whether my late father had any religious sensibility whatsoever, but he adored churches and religious music and painting. I guess it's in the genes. I might be tempted to pop into a Catholic church at some point if they were doing a mass in Latin. There's something really magical about Latin. Like Sanskrit, I suppose, but the music is a lot better. ;-) I once memorized the Hail Mary in Latin just because I loved the sound of it. My Presbyterian ancestors (Huguenots, no less) must have spun themselves nearly out of their graves.
[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
Augustine of Hippo, who claimed to have been a dualistic Manichaen for ten years. The radical dualism of Manichaeism is evident in many Gnostic sects: Isn't the vulgar notion of Christianity held by most believers radically dualist? (Which isn't surprising as western Christianity flows from Augustine.) Your standard Christian believes God is good and Satan is evil and History will end with a stand-up fight between the angels of light and the demons with the good angels destined to prevail. A non-dualist sees that the world is perfect as it is right now. If people don't see that it's because their ignorant minds project on to what they experience human ideas of what's good and what's bad. So, the dualism of Gnosticism has been pretty much established. Manichaeism is based on the doctrine that the entire world of material bodies are all constructions of Satan. In Vedanta, Maya is the deity that perpetuates the illusion of duality in the phenomenal Universe. One has to see through the illusion and so break the spell. Isn't that view on a continuum with Gnostic dualism? I'm sure you'd find lots of Vedantists and Buddhists with a life-hating, body-despising approach and I'm betting you could have found some Gnostics with a more relaxed attitude to the material world. Yin and Yang are complimentary forces rather than opposing forces: In Taoist metaphysics, good-bad distinctions are perceptual, not real. As they are not real what we think are opposing forces are in opposition at a superficial level only. At a deeper level they're engaged in a dance. Tweedledum and Tweedledee *agreed* to have a battle. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote:
[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
Should I assume that you are Roman Catholic? Or at least a fellow traveller? I understand Robin Carlsen became a Catholic convert - indeed a Catholic priest (?) after his adventures on the new-age circuit. Are you one of his former acolytes? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Seraphita wrote: (snip) Isn't the vulgar notion of Christianity held by most believers radically dualist? (Which isn't surprising as western Christianity flows from Augustine.) Your standard Christian believes God is good and Satan is evil and History will end with a stand-up fight between the angels of light and the demons with the good angels destined to prevail. Christianity is dualistic, yes, but what you describe above really isn't what the standard Christian believes (at least not in the U.S.). It's various fundamentalist-type denominations and sects that are preoccupied with the End Times and Armageddon and the Rapture and so on. Standard or mainline Christians don't necessarily disbelieve in the prophecies of Revelation, but they don't tend to take them literally, and they don't focus on them.
[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Seraphita wrote: Should I assume that you are Roman Catholic? Or at least a fellow traveller? No. I responded to an earlier question from you about my religious leanings a week or so ago; did you miss it? My family heritage is Christian (Presbyterian), but I didn't have a religious upbringing and am not a believer. You could say I'm sympathetic to religions generally; I've read a good bit of theology because it interests me, but that's about it. I understand Robin Carlsen became a Catholic convert - indeed a Catholic priest (?) after his adventures on the new-age circuit. He converted while he was still adventuring, actually. (Not sure I'd call those adventures New Age, unless you want to put TM in that category.) He convinced many of his followers to convert as well; a number of them are still devout Catholics. At the time, he thought Catholicism could be reconciled with TM. The group collapsed in chaos not long after that, and he went into seclusion for 25 years to sort himself out. He decided shortly after he began this recovery process that TM and Catholicism weren't compatible after all and rejected TM. A few years after that he decided the Church was no longer what it had been and had lost its divine authority with regard to salvation. At that point he rejected Catholicism as well. (Ann, I think I have the chronology straight here; if not, corrections are welcome.) Sounds about right to me. Interestingly, I was the only one in the group who, having been raised Catholic, started to lose interest quite profoundly once RC began on his Catholic binge. This was all known territory for me and the group started to lose its intensity and fascination for me. It was like they had arrived really late to a party I had already left hours before. Then all hell broke loose (ironically) and I was kicked out anyway. I guess maybe I wasn't showing enough devoutness to the cause. He didn't become a priest. Not sure where you got that. Are you one of his former acolytes? Nope. I encountered him for the first time here on FFL, summer of 2011. Seraphita wrote: (snip) Isn't the vulgar notion of Christianity held by most believers radically dualist? (Which isn't surprising as western Christianity flows from Augustine.) Your standard Christian believes God is good and Satan is evil and History will end with a stand-up fight between the angels of light and the demons with the good angels destined to prevail. Christianity is dualistic, yes, but what you describe above really isn't what the standard Christian believes (at least not in the U.S.). It's various fundamentalist-type denominations and sects that are preoccupied with the End Times and Armageddon and the Rapture and so on. Standard or mainline Christians don't necessarily disbelieve in the prophecies of Revelation, but they don't tend to take them literally, and they don't focus on them.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
Seraphita, would it be an error because Taoists believe that the Tao is always keeping good and evil in balance? And what is meant by a vulgar error? Seraphita wrote: The Yin and Yang concepts point to a Tao that includes the opposites. Imagining that one side of a pair of opposites could gain the upper hand over the other would be a vulgar error. On Sunday, November 3, 2013 4:10 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: Re The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang.: The Yin and Yang concepts point to a Tao that includes the opposites. Imagining that one side of a pair of opposites could gain the upper hand over the other would be a vulgar error. As the little we know about Manichaeism and similar dualist religions/philosophies comes to us from hostile sources isn't it possible that these beliefs weren't as dualist as they've been painted but perhaps also had the idea of a Transcendence that reconciled the positive and negative aspects of life? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: So, let's review what we know about the prophet Mani. The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang, which is probably derived from the Indian Sankhya, a radical dualism, and later tantra- a theory of polarity which posits male and female energies. The name 'Mani' is Sanskrit. Mani traveled and lived in India for several years, visiting Buddhist lands such as Bamiyan in Afghanistan, so it is not surprising that Buddhist influences would be apparent. Mani apparently adopted his theory of the reincarnation (transmigration of souls) from the Buddhists. Mani's sect structure was apparently based on the Buddhist Sangha, that is, Arhants and the lay follower community. On 11/2/2013 11:31 AM, emptybill@... wrote: No wonder the Near-Eastern realm got so mixed up. It seems that as Manichean ideology spread to the East it incorporated Buddhist concepts along the way in a effort to show the superiority of the Religion of Light. Mani lived during the third century of the current era. Mani used the epitaph Buddha of Light and identified himself as Maitreya. He and his followers specifically borrowed from early Pure Land Sutras and Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy. As it entered the region of Gandhara and spread to China it used the Buddhist Hinayana tradition to support its views of matter, the body and the world. MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM David A. Scott Christ Church College of Higher Education
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
We know mostly about Mani from The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Enochan literature and the writings of Augustine of Hippo, who claimed to have been a dualistic Manichaen for ten years. The radical dualism of Manichaeism is evident in many Gnostic sects but mainly in the Paulicans, Bogomils and the Cathars. So, the dualism of Gnoticisim has been pretty much established. Manichaeism is based on the doctrine that the entire world of material bodies are all constructions of Satan. Numerous themes in the religious beliefs of Mani were derived from Buddhist influences when Mani lived in Buddhist Ghandara. Yin and Yang are complimentary forces rather than opposing forces which, when taken together in various proportions, turn into a whole. It's not complicated. According to Foltz, Taoism is also based on Yin Yang and many Buddhist elements have been incorporated into Taoism, such as supporting monesterys, monks, vegetarianism, and adopting the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness. Taoism in turn influenced the Buddhist Chan school and Japanese Zen school. Work cited: 'Religions of the Silk Road' Richard Foltz Palgrave Macmillan, 2010 p. 71 Read more: Subject: The Silk Road Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Author: Willytex Date: March 10, 2004 http://tinyurl.com/yjs4uv4 Subject: Foreign Devils on the Silk Road! Author: Willytex Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental, alt.religion.gnostic Date: February 6, 2005 http://tinyurl.com/yb2275p On 11/3/2013 4:10 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: Re The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang.: The Yin and Yang concepts point to a Tao that includes the opposites. Imagining that one side of a pair of opposites could gain the upper hand over the other would be a vulgar error. As the little we know about Manichaeism and similar dualist religions/philosophies comes to us from hostile sources isn't it possible that these beliefs weren't as dualist as they've been painted but perhaps also had the idea of a Transcendence that reconciled the positive and negative aspects of life? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: So, let's review what we know about the prophet Mani. The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang, which is probably derived from the Indian Sankhya, a radical dualism, and later tantra- a theory of polarity which posits male and female energies. The name 'Mani' is Sanskrit. Mani traveled and lived in India for several years, visiting Buddhist lands such as Bamiyan in Afghanistan, so it is not surprising that Buddhist influences would be apparent. Mani apparently adopted his theory of the reincarnation (transmigration of souls) from the Buddhists. Mani's sect structure was apparently based on the Buddhist Sangha, that is, Arhants and the lay follower community. On 11/2/2013 11:31 AM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: No wonder the Near-Eastern realm got so mixed up. *//* It seems that as Manichean ideology spread to the East it incorporated Buddhist concepts along the way in a effort to show the superiority of the Religion of Light. Mani lived during the third century of the current era. Mani used the epitaph Buddha of Light and identified himself as Maitreya. He and his followers specifically borrowed from early Pure Land Sutras and Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy. As it entered the region of Gandhara and spread to China it used the Buddhist Hinayana tradition to support its views of matter, the body and the world. MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM */David A. Scott /* *//* */Christ Church College /**/of /**/Higher Education/*
[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
Seraphita, would it be an error because Taoists believe that the Tao is always keeping good and evil in balance? Yes And what is meant by a vulgar error? Simply that Lao-Tse would have regarded most people as too ignorant to understand his teaching. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Seraphita, would it be an error because Taoists believe that the Tao is always keeping good and evil in balance? And what is meant by a vulgar error? Seraphita wrote: The Yin and Yang concepts point to a Tao that includes the opposites. Imagining that one side of a pair of opposites could gain the upper hand over the other would be a vulgar error. On Sunday, November 3, 2013 4:10 PM, s3raphita@... s3raphita@... wrote: Re The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang.: The Yin and Yang concepts point to a Tao that includes the opposites. Imagining that one side of a pair of opposites could gain the upper hand over the other would be a vulgar error. As the little we know about Manichaeism and similar dualist religions/philosophies comes to us from hostile sources isn't it possible that these beliefs weren't as dualist as they've been painted but perhaps also had the idea of a Transcendence that reconciled the positive and negative aspects of life? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: So, let's review what we know about the prophet Mani. The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang, which is probably derived from the Indian Sankhya, a radical dualism, and later tantra- a theory of polarity which posits male and female energies. The name 'Mani' is Sanskrit. Mani traveled and lived in India for several years, visiting Buddhist lands such as Bamiyan in Afghanistan, so it is not surprising that Buddhist influences would be apparent. Mani apparently adopted his theory of the reincarnation (transmigration of souls) from the Buddhists. Mani's sect structure was apparently based on the Buddhist Sangha, that is, Arhants and the lay follower community. On 11/2/2013 11:31 AM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: No wonder the Near-Eastern realm got so mixed up. It seems that as Manichean ideology spread to the East it incorporated Buddhist concepts along the way in a effort to show the superiority of the Religion of Light. Mani lived during the third century of the current era. Mani used the epitaph Buddha of Light and identified himself as Maitreya. He and his followers specifically borrowed from early Pure Land Sutras and Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy. As it entered the region of Gandhara and spread to China it used the Buddhist Hinayana tradition to support its views of matter, the body and the world. MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM David A. Scott Christ Church College of Higher Education
[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
Re The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang.: The Yin and Yang concepts point to a Tao that includes the opposites. Imagining that one side of a pair of opposites could gain the upper hand over the other would be a vulgar error. As the little we know about Manichaeism and similar dualist religions/philosophies comes to us from hostile sources isn't it possible that these beliefs weren't as dualist as they've been painted but perhaps also had the idea of a Transcendence that reconciled the positive and negative aspects of life? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: So, let's review what we know about the prophet Mani. The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang, which is probably derived from the Indian Sankhya, a radical dualism, and later tantra- a theory of polarity which posits male and female energies. The name 'Mani' is Sanskrit. Mani traveled and lived in India for several years, visiting Buddhist lands such as Bamiyan in Afghanistan, so it is not surprising that Buddhist influences would be apparent. Mani apparently adopted his theory of the reincarnation (transmigration of souls) from the Buddhists. Mani's sect structure was apparently based on the Buddhist Sangha, that is, Arhants and the lay follower community. On 11/2/2013 11:31 AM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: No wonder the Near-Eastern realm got so mixed up. It seems that as Manichean ideology spread to the East it incorporated Buddhist concepts along the way in a effort to show the superiority of the Religion of Light. Mani lived during the third century of the current era. Mani used the epitaph Buddha of Light and identified himself as Maitreya. He and his followers specifically borrowed from early Pure Land Sutras and Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy. As it entered the region of Gandhara and spread to China it used the Buddhist Hinayana tradition to support its views of matter, the body and the world. MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM David A. Scott Christ Church College of Higher Education
[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
Should TM'er Buddhists even be allowed to have a Dome badge? Is it possible to be a buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly? -Buck ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang.: The Yin and Yang concepts point to a Tao that includes the opposites. Imagining that one side of a pair of opposites could gain the upper hand over the other would be a vulgar error. As the little we know about Manichaeism and similar dualist religions/philosophies comes to us from hostile sources isn't it possible that these beliefs weren't as dualist as they've been painted but perhaps also had the idea of a Transcendence that reconciled the positive and negative aspects of life? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: So, let's review what we know about the prophet Mani. The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang, which is probably derived from the Indian Sankhya, a radical dualism, and later tantra- a theory of polarity which posits male and female energies. The name 'Mani' is Sanskrit. Mani traveled and lived in India for several years, visiting Buddhist lands such as Bamiyan in Afghanistan, so it is not surprising that Buddhist influences would be apparent. Mani apparently adopted his theory of the reincarnation (transmigration of souls) from the Buddhists. Mani's sect structure was apparently based on the Buddhist Sangha, that is, Arhants and the lay follower community. On 11/2/2013 11:31 AM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: No wonder the Near-Eastern realm got so mixed up. It seems that as Manichean ideology spread to the East it incorporated Buddhist concepts along the way in a effort to show the superiority of the Religion of Light. Mani lived during the third century of the current era. Mani used the epitaph Buddha of Light and identified himself as Maitreya. He and his followers specifically borrowed from early Pure Land Sutras and Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy. As it entered the region of Gandhara and spread to China it used the Buddhist Hinayana tradition to support its views of matter, the body and the world. MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM David A. Scott Christ Church College of Higher Education
[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
The Mahasiddha Tilopa’s six essential points of meditation contain the basic principles of placement meditation. 1. The first point is not to be distracted by, dwell upon, get involved in, get lost in, nourish, encourage, or follow thoughts about the past. Anything that arises concerning anything that occurred or one thought prior to the current moment, one should simply let go of it. Ultimately,one should develop the discipline or the automatic habit of letting go of such thoughts instantly, on the spot, and one should learn to remain in such a state of .permanent let-go.. 2. The second point is not to be distracted by, dwell upon, get involved in, get lost in, nourish, encourage, get fixated on, or follow thoughts about the present. In particular, one should not fixate on either outer phenomena or inner experiences. 3. The third point is not to be distracted by, dwell upon, get involved in, get lost in, nourish, encourage, or speculate about the future or thoughts of the future, but to let go of them instantly as well. 4. The fourth point is not to meditate. One should resist, or let go of the temptation, which at some point always arises in the experience of beginning meditators, to improve or make better one’s meditation by meditating on tranquility, or on the experience of openness or on clarity or on bliss or by fabricating or contriving any strategy to improve one’s meditation. All such attempts to improve one’s meditation by meditating are cul-de- sacs, and, as such, obstacles to meditation. 5. The fifth point is not to analyze. Although there are other forms of meditation that teach one to analyze one’s experience, the ultimate goal of such analysis is to transcend analytical and conceptual impositions upon one’s experience altogether, so that one will finally experience directly the true nature of mind, the true nature of experience, the true nature of reality. So in this approach, according to the fifth point, one should not analyze; one should not engage in the asking of such questions as … What is its nature? Where does it really reside? How does appear here? Why is it at all? Does it exist outside or inside the mind? What are its other characteristics?. One should let go of all tendencies to analyze one’s experience. So, then, if one is not to be distracted by thoughts of past, present, or future; and if one is not to meditate and not to analyze,then what should one be doing? What is one’s mind to hang on to? The answer is “nothing”. Tilopa's sixth point is just to “leave it to itself”. Whatever arises in the mind, one should neither welcome nor reject, neither encourage nor suppress, nor should one get lost in thoughts. In the words of Bokar Rinpoche there is “nothing to do”; nothing to do beyond resting in the awareness of the freshness of whatever arises. The style of breathing meditation that many of us in the Kagyu and Nyingma schools of Tibetan Buddhism begin with combines shamatha with the placement meditation style of vipashyana. When we are going out with the out-breath, which involves the sense of uniting mind and breath, and mind and breath with space, we are practicing shamatha. When we abandon this discipline at the end of the out-breath and simply rest in the space between the end of the out-breath and the beginning of the next out-breath, without any particular attention to the in-breath, we are practicing placement meditation. If, in our practice of this discipline, we find our experience during the “gap” has the quality of Tilopa’s six points of meditation, then it is no longer necessary to make a point of following the breath. It can drop away just as a leaf drops off of a tree. However, if any form of mental dullness is not dissolved co-emergently as it arises, or if one becomes distracted by or lost in thoughts, one should return to one’s shamatha discipline of following the breath. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Should TM'er Buddhists even be allowed to have a Dome badge? Is it possible to be a buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly? -Buck