[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the term "neo-advaitin kids" reminds me of Charles Manson who used > that language - everything is one, good, God, no duality - to help > convince his followers that there was nothing wrong with murder. I > think many neo advaitins are either psychologically disturbed or have > screwed up kundalini. You may be right; I've certainly seen (and of course, been) would-be gurus who apparently warp and misuse the POV-4 one truth into an apology for the status quo of the guru's power-abuse, to perpetuate blame, shame, and truth-denial and thereby to repress the gurus' followers' natural impulses to free themselves from an autocratic, fundamentalist POV-2 regime. And again, *in no way* is this truth intended as a substitute for action/inaction, or as a prescription for any particular action/inaction. Rather, it is intended as an impetus for inquiry into one's own self- righteousness, projection, blame, victimization and above all, suffering. When one has healed most of these issues and is grounded in the love of Being the Self, one's natural humor and fearlessness shreds the cobwebs of such attempted manipulations around one, and erstwhile sleepwalkers appear naturally to begin to share in that humor and delight and strength and Being the Self. But again, it's all about how we (unconsciously or consciously) treat our own particles, for the eternally-pulsating nature of our Being- Consciousness-Bliss guarantees that however we think on the simplest levels (i.e. treat the particles of our Reality, our bodymind), we will then experience as our all-encompassing Reality (when we collapse into those particles and perceive our Reality through them). All of these particles are in actuality our own perfect radiance, the wholly innocent devas of our own body-mind, merely awaiting the programming we give them with our stories. This is why it generally behooves us to avoid "smudging" or "smearing" anyone or anything in our Reality, for in truth we are then only smudging and smearing our own bodymind, and our perception of Reality will suffer for it. Not that there's anything *wrong* with that, of course :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
> > But one of the great things about Earth is the sheer abundance of > > world-views it offers. If you don't like the "Neo-Advaitin" kids or > > the langauge they use, no one's making you hang out with them or > > speak their language, are they? > > the term "neo-advaitin kids" reminds me of Charles Manson who used that language - everything is one, good, God, no duality - to help convince his followers that there was nothing wrong with murder. I think many neo advaitins are either psychologically disturbed or have screwed up kundalini.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
Aargh! Stop! Life is supposed to be neat and orderly, linear and sequential! Enough with all this paradox stuff! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" wrote: > > > > ---the two modes exist simultaneously together, yet you insist on > > conflating them in the same context without clarifying which mode > you > > are referring to. > > Yes, I tend to conflate these two modes in my own Being, as for me > the Absolute is not really other than the relative and vice versa. > For me all the so-called opposites are merely multidimensional > labels, arbitrary placeholders to generate some story or other, > which can be a lot of fun if entered into in the right spirit (i.e, > of disbelief). > > I find this conflation is useful to relieve myself of the old > addictive need to think myself entirely within spacetime and so to > judge or blame or even recognize anyone or anything outside myself. > By holding myself entirely responsible for the quality of my own > creation, which is my own absolutely perfect mirror, I constantly > unfold new facets of myself I had never consciously imagined! Who > dreamed I would someday be a parent, and of such a multitude of > *odd*ly lovable children? :-) > > >The Neo-Advaitin aspect (i.e. the no need to > > rectify things, is obvious; even to Indian philosophy > intellectuals, > > or should be). > > I would like to object mildly to calling my Understanding Neo- > Advaitin, as I came by it (or it came by me) without study of or > particular respect for any of these currently-fashionable teachers. > Not that I have anything against them; many of them speak the Truth > more clearly than I. This self-evident recognition merely awoke in > me quite spontaneously when I saw that the so-called "path" was no > longer getting me anywhere, nor did I wish anymore to *go* anywhere, > or to measure myself anymore by any criteria but the Self alone. > Everything was the same, and it became self-evident, crystal-clear, > that all I ever wanted -- eternal perfection, outside space-time -- > was already being offered to me; I had but to surrender to/insist > upon it. > > > The other mode (relative-in-itself); is also obvious since even > > though you say there's no need to rectify the answer, you did > rectify > > it!. > > I believe I said I felt no need to rectify my impulse to clarify > your misapprehension. In other words, my statement stands that I > feel no need to rectify things, one of those things being the > aforesaid impulse. The understanding that everything is perfect as > it is (and as it IS) does *not* mean we are invested in its > remaining that way, or are attached to changing it. Whatever > emerges, we go with that, we let it be, and let it become, to > whatever density of manifestation -- thought, word, deed -- that it > wishes or needs, until love knows itself thoroughly to be love, and > we have fully digested some "new" particle of "Me". > > > Also, you previously referred to MMY as saying "I don't make > > mistakes"; which should be obvious re: the Neo-Advaitin mode. > It's > > also obvious that he makes an abundance of relative mistakes. > > Therefore, the two modes coexist perfectly. > > Yes! In fact, for me they are the same, appearing to change only in > response to the approach we take to it, like the quantum reality's > manifesting as wave or particle in response to the measuring > instrument used. > > > The problem arises when one party is referring to the relative > mode, > > and the inquiree plays the Neo-Advaitin shuffle by arbitrarily > > switching back from one mode to another...resulting in > ridiculously > > false Neo-Advaitin statements such as one might find coming from > the > > mouth of Ramesh Balsekar such as (there's no mistakes, no karma, > no > > suffering, )all Neo-Advaitin gobbledenonsense. > > See, calling this the Neo-Advaitin shuffle or gobbledenonsense is > kind of like the kid calling it a trick when we pour the water from > the tall, narrow glass into the fat, short glass. There *are* no > mistakes, no karma, no suffering. And of course these exist in > abundance. Simultaneously, and arising into our awareness depending > on the instrument of inquiry used -- heart or mind. > > We might even go so far as to say that suffering is the echo we > give ourselves as feedback to tell our mind it is thinking > incorrectly, in a heartless manner. With enough such feedback, > eventually we get it, and subside into our own love-Being! :-) > > But one of the great things about Earth is the sheer abundance of > world-views it offers. If you don't like the "Neo-Advaitin" kids or > the langauge they use, no one's making you hang out with them or > speak their language, are they? > > :-) > > *L*L*L* >
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ---the two modes exist simultaneously together, yet you insist on > conflating them in the same context without clarifying which mode you > are referring to. Yes, I tend to conflate these two modes in my own Being, as for me the Absolute is not really other than the relative and vice versa. For me all the so-called opposites are merely multidimensional labels, arbitrary placeholders to generate some story or other, which can be a lot of fun if entered into in the right spirit (i.e, of disbelief). I find this conflation is useful to relieve myself of the old addictive need to think myself entirely within spacetime and so to judge or blame or even recognize anyone or anything outside myself. By holding myself entirely responsible for the quality of my own creation, which is my own absolutely perfect mirror, I constantly unfold new facets of myself I had never consciously imagined! Who dreamed I would someday be a parent, and of such a multitude of *odd*ly lovable children? :-) >The Neo-Advaitin aspect (i.e. the no need to > rectify things, is obvious; even to Indian philosophy intellectuals, > or should be). I would like to object mildly to calling my Understanding Neo- Advaitin, as I came by it (or it came by me) without study of or particular respect for any of these currently-fashionable teachers. Not that I have anything against them; many of them speak the Truth more clearly than I. This self-evident recognition merely awoke in me quite spontaneously when I saw that the so-called "path" was no longer getting me anywhere, nor did I wish anymore to *go* anywhere, or to measure myself anymore by any criteria but the Self alone. Everything was the same, and it became self-evident, crystal-clear, that all I ever wanted -- eternal perfection, outside space-time -- was already being offered to me; I had but to surrender to/insist upon it. > The other mode (relative-in-itself); is also obvious since even > though you say there's no need to rectify the answer, you did rectify > it!. I believe I said I felt no need to rectify my impulse to clarify your misapprehension. In other words, my statement stands that I feel no need to rectify things, one of those things being the aforesaid impulse. The understanding that everything is perfect as it is (and as it IS) does *not* mean we are invested in its remaining that way, or are attached to changing it. Whatever emerges, we go with that, we let it be, and let it become, to whatever density of manifestation -- thought, word, deed -- that it wishes or needs, until love knows itself thoroughly to be love, and we have fully digested some "new" particle of "Me". > Also, you previously referred to MMY as saying "I don't make > mistakes"; which should be obvious re: the Neo-Advaitin mode. It's > also obvious that he makes an abundance of relative mistakes. > Therefore, the two modes coexist perfectly. Yes! In fact, for me they are the same, appearing to change only in response to the approach we take to it, like the quantum reality's manifesting as wave or particle in response to the measuring instrument used. > The problem arises when one party is referring to the relative mode, > and the inquiree plays the Neo-Advaitin shuffle by arbitrarily > switching back from one mode to another...resulting in ridiculously > false Neo-Advaitin statements such as one might find coming from the > mouth of Ramesh Balsekar such as (there's no mistakes, no karma, no > suffering, )all Neo-Advaitin gobbledenonsense. See, calling this the Neo-Advaitin shuffle or gobbledenonsense is kind of like the kid calling it a trick when we pour the water from the tall, narrow glass into the fat, short glass. There *are* no mistakes, no karma, no suffering. And of course these exist in abundance. Simultaneously, and arising into our awareness depending on the instrument of inquiry used -- heart or mind. We might even go so far as to say that suffering is the echo we give ourselves as feedback to tell our mind it is thinking incorrectly, in a heartless manner. With enough such feedback, eventually we get it, and subside into our own love-Being! :-) But one of the great things about Earth is the sheer abundance of world-views it offers. If you don't like the "Neo-Advaitin" kids or the langauge they use, no one's making you hang out with them or speak their language, are they? :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
---the two modes exist simultaneously together, yet you insist on conflating them in the same context without clarifying which mode you are referring to. The Neo-Advaitin aspect (i.e. the no need to rectify things, is obvious; even to Indian philosophy intellectuals, or should be). The other mode (relative-in-itself); is also obvious since even though you say there's no need to rectify the answer, you did rectify it!. Also, you previously referred to MMY as saying "I don't make mistakes"; which should be obvious re: the Neo-Advaitin mode. It's also obvious that he makes an abundance of relative mistakes. Therefore, the two modes coexist perfectly. The problem arises when one party is referring to the relative mode, and the inquiree plays the Neo-Advaitin shuffle by arbitrarily switching back from one mode to another...resulting in ridiculously false Neo-Advaitin statements such as one might find coming from the mouth of Ramesh Balsekar such as (there's no mistakes, no karma, no suffering, )all Neo-Advaitin gobbledenonsense. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Jun 20, 2007, at 2:06 AM, tertonzeno wrote: > > > > > --- > > > So, Rory; you see no need to rectify anything? Sounds like a typical > > > Neo-Advaitin-ism. I suppose that if some home invaders took over > > > your neighbor's house and threatened to kill everybody, you wouldn't > > > take measures to "rectify" the situation? (i.e. make it go away, > > > change it in some way?). At the very least, call the cops. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > It's all one, so why bother? > > Because it's all one, we "bother". > > There is no need to rectify anything, *including* my current impulse to > clarify your apparent misapprehensions of my position(s). > > I write this despite my suspicion that you really do *get* this, and > you're just pulling my leg, because I do remember when I didn't get it, > for many years, so I know that hypothetically not-getting this is > indeed possible and probably prevalent. So even if you *do* get this > and are just playing dumb, there are others who don't, so this may be > actually heard somewhere, somewhen, by some Being actually seeking to > come back to "Me." > > I also suspect that (as someone on FFL said recently -- was it Curtis? > Or Judy?) not-getting this is a Piaget-like stage of Being, like a kid > who doesn't get it that a tall narrow glass and a short fat one contain > the same amount of water. He won't get it even if we pour the water > back and forth between the glasses all day long; he thinks it's some > kind of a trick. He thinks either the tall glass is bigger, or the fat > glass is bigger -- he can't see that tall+thin = short+fat. > > Nonetheless, I'll pour the water a few more times, just for the fun of > it. > > There is no need to rectify anything, *including* my hypothetical > impulse to call the cops in your hypothetical home-invasion scenario. > > My appreciation of the perfection of what IS *includes* all our > particular dynamic attempts to change what IS. It is both utterly still > *and* utterly dynamic, simultaneously. It is both silent *and* noisy, > simultaneously. It is both mistake-laden *and* error-free, > simultaneously. > > It contains all the slippery opposites in spacetime, because it is US, > and we're more than spacetime, more than any particular story. > > It is -- we are -- whatever we put our attention on and thereby evoke > from the vasty deep. > > Chopra has a good analogy -- if we look at the movement of the crowd in > a train station, we see people rushing everywhere in apparent chaos, > and yet there is an underlying order; everyone's needs are being met. > > To me, that's a great description of Life -- everyone's needs are being > met. If we don't think our needs are being met, we look closer, feel > the emotion(s), be open to our deepest need in this moment, open our > heart to receive the divine perfection being offered to us in this > moment, be open to receiving both subtler and infinitely more fullness > more than we expected, almost certainly in a different flavor than we > expected. If we're completely honest with ourself, completely open, we > will find what we've been craving, and infinitely more. But again, > maybe only when we're ready to see the two glasses of water are > equivalent! :-) > > *L*L*L* >
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > wrote: > > > > > > Oh no, not the dreaded pair o' d' ox(zen)!! :-) > > Paired ox(zen), Pair o' dice, > Snake-eyes, boxcars, fire and ice > > One and one and one makes three, > Cube those cubes and get one free > > Three-eyed Devi, freightcar from hell, > All is Sushumna; all is well, > All is Tiphareth; all is well, > All things large and small are well :-) > > *L*L*L* I like it!:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Oh no, not the dreaded pair o' d' ox(zen)!! :-) Paired ox(zen), Pair o' dice, Snake-eyes, boxcars, fire and ice One and one and one makes three, Cube those cubes and get one free Three-eyed Devi, freightcar from hell, All is Sushumna; all is well, All is Tiphareth; all is well, All things large and small are well :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > wrote: > > So...Rory...[imagine me with my fingers steepled, sitting in a > > leather armchair, brandy and cigar at my side] you are saying, if I > > am not mistaken, and forgive me if my summation is overly academic, > > for I know of the great and learned minds on this august forum, and > > wish to provide something equal in stature at least to those most > > highly esteemed and towering giants of intellect: "you gots to know > > when to hold 'em, and you gots to know when to fold 'em".:-) > > I don't know, Jim-ji; is that what I'm saying? Your summation is very > academic indeed for this poor scholar who speaks but little Latin and > less Greek. > Yes, I've never known you to speak Greek, though sometimes it is Greek to me :-) > But if I will shake a spear, and tilt quixotically at your wind- mill > (not unlike a quiet round of miniature golf), I might propose that > maybe that we're holding 'em *and* folding 'em, simultaneously? :-) > > *L*L*L* > Oh no, not the dreaded pair o' d' ox(zen)!! :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" wrote: > > > But if I will shake a spear, and tilt quixotically at your wind- mill > > (not unlike a quiet round of miniature golf), I might propose that > maybe we're holding 'em *and* folding 'em, simultaneously? :-) > > > And please accept my heartiest wishes for a very happy birthday, Jim! > It sounds as if you have a great day planned! :-) > > *L*L*L* > Thanks Rory! Yes, just got back from the museum and enjoyed it thoroughly!:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But if I will shake a spear, and tilt quixotically at your wind-mill > (not unlike a quiet round of miniature golf), I might propose that maybe we're holding 'em *and* folding 'em, simultaneously? :-) And please accept my heartiest wishes for a very happy birthday, Jim! It sounds as if you have a great day planned! :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So...Rory...[imagine me with my fingers steepled, sitting in a > leather armchair, brandy and cigar at my side] you are saying, if I > am not mistaken, and forgive me if my summation is overly academic, > for I know of the great and learned minds on this august forum, and > wish to provide something equal in stature at least to those most > highly esteemed and towering giants of intellect: "you gots to know > when to hold 'em, and you gots to know when to fold 'em".:-) I don't know, Jim-ji; is that what I'm saying? Your summation is very academic indeed for this poor scholar who speaks but little Latin and less Greek. But if I will shake a spear, and tilt quixotically at your wind-mill (not unlike a quiet round of miniature golf), I might propose that maybe that we're holding 'em *and* folding 'em, simultaneously? :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Jun 20, 2007, at 2:06 AM, tertonzeno wrote: > > > > > --- > > > So, Rory; you see no need to rectify anything? Sounds like a typical > > > Neo-Advaitin-ism. I suppose that if some home invaders took over > > > your neighbor's house and threatened to kill everybody, you wouldn't > > > take measures to "rectify" the situation? (i.e. make it go away, > > > change it in some way?). At the very least, call the cops. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > It's all one, so why bother? > > Because it's all one, we "bother". > > There is no need to rectify anything, *including* my current impulse to > clarify your apparent misapprehensions of my position(s). > > I write this despite my suspicion that you really do *get* this, and > you're just pulling my leg, because I do remember when I didn't get it, > for many years, so I know that hypothetically not-getting this is > indeed possible and probably prevalent. So even if you *do* get this > and are just playing dumb, there are others who don't, so this may be > actually heard somewhere, somewhen, by some Being actually seeking to > come back to "Me." > > I also suspect that (as someone on FFL said recently -- was it Curtis? > Or Judy?) not-getting this is a Piaget-like stage of Being, like a kid > who doesn't get it that a tall narrow glass and a short fat one contain > the same amount of water. He won't get it even if we pour the water > back and forth between the glasses all day long; he thinks it's some > kind of a trick. He thinks either the tall glass is bigger, or the fat > glass is bigger -- he can't see that tall+thin = short+fat. > > Nonetheless, I'll pour the water a few more times, just for the fun of > it. > > There is no need to rectify anything, *including* my hypothetical > impulse to call the cops in your hypothetical home-invasion scenario. > > My appreciation of the perfection of what IS *includes* all our > particular dynamic attempts to change what IS. It is both utterly still > *and* utterly dynamic, simultaneously. It is both silent *and* noisy, > simultaneously. It is both mistake-laden *and* error-free, > simultaneously. > > It contains all the slippery opposites in spacetime, because it is US, > and we're more than spacetime, more than any particular story. > > It is -- we are -- whatever we put our attention on and thereby evoke > from the vasty deep. > > Chopra has a good analogy -- if we look at the movement of the crowd in > a train station, we see people rushing everywhere in apparent chaos, > and yet there is an underlying order; everyone's needs are being met. > > To me, that's a great description of Life -- everyone's needs are being > met. If we don't think our needs are being met, we look closer, feel > the emotion(s), be open to our deepest need in this moment, open our > heart to receive the divine perfection being offered to us in this > moment, be open to receiving both subtler and infinitely more fullness > more than we expected, almost certainly in a different flavor than we > expected. If we're completely honest with ourself, completely open, we > will find what we've been craving, and infinitely more. But again, > maybe only when we're ready to see the two glasses of water are > equivalent! :-) > > *L*L*L* > So...Rory...[imagine me with my fingers steepled, sitting in a leather armchair, brandy and cigar at my side] you are saying, if I am not mistaken, and forgive me if my summation is overly academic, for I know of the great and learned minds on this august forum, and wish to provide something equal in stature at least to those most highly esteemed and towering giants of intellect: "you gots to know when to hold 'em, and you gots to know when to fold 'em".:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
> On Jun 20, 2007, at 2:06 AM, tertonzeno wrote: > > > --- > > So, Rory; you see no need to rectify anything? Sounds like a typical > > Neo-Advaitin-ism. I suppose that if some home invaders took over > > your neighbor's house and threatened to kill everybody, you wouldn't > > take measures to "rectify" the situation? (i.e. make it go away, > > change it in some way?). At the very least, call the cops. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's all one, so why bother? Because it's all one, we "bother". There is no need to rectify anything, *including* my current impulse to clarify your apparent misapprehensions of my position(s). I write this despite my suspicion that you really do *get* this, and you're just pulling my leg, because I do remember when I didn't get it, for many years, so I know that hypothetically not-getting this is indeed possible and probably prevalent. So even if you *do* get this and are just playing dumb, there are others who don't, so this may be actually heard somewhere, somewhen, by some Being actually seeking to come back to "Me." I also suspect that (as someone on FFL said recently -- was it Curtis? Or Judy?) not-getting this is a Piaget-like stage of Being, like a kid who doesn't get it that a tall narrow glass and a short fat one contain the same amount of water. He won't get it even if we pour the water back and forth between the glasses all day long; he thinks it's some kind of a trick. He thinks either the tall glass is bigger, or the fat glass is bigger -- he can't see that tall+thin = short+fat. Nonetheless, I'll pour the water a few more times, just for the fun of it. There is no need to rectify anything, *including* my hypothetical impulse to call the cops in your hypothetical home-invasion scenario. My appreciation of the perfection of what IS *includes* all our particular dynamic attempts to change what IS. It is both utterly still *and* utterly dynamic, simultaneously. It is both silent *and* noisy, simultaneously. It is both mistake-laden *and* error-free, simultaneously. It contains all the slippery opposites in spacetime, because it is US, and we're more than spacetime, more than any particular story. It is -- we are -- whatever we put our attention on and thereby evoke from the vasty deep. Chopra has a good analogy -- if we look at the movement of the crowd in a train station, we see people rushing everywhere in apparent chaos, and yet there is an underlying order; everyone's needs are being met. To me, that's a great description of Life -- everyone's needs are being met. If we don't think our needs are being met, we look closer, feel the emotion(s), be open to our deepest need in this moment, open our heart to receive the divine perfection being offered to us in this moment, be open to receiving both subtler and infinitely more fullness more than we expected, almost certainly in a different flavor than we expected. If we're completely honest with ourself, completely open, we will find what we've been craving, and infinitely more. But again, maybe only when we're ready to see the two glasses of water are equivalent! :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > wrote: > > > > > I'm stickin' to my guns on this one, but I am > > > curious as to whether anyone else here (many of > > > you, after all, have far more experience being > > > close to Maharishi than I have) has heard quotes > > > that indicate that Maharishi *does* self-reflect, > > > in a manner that can be interpreted as viewing his > > > own actions critically, admitting mistakes, and > > > attempting to learn from them and not make similar > > > mistakes in the future. I've racked my tiny brain, > > > and I can't remember even a single instance of > > > this. Perhaps someone here can help out and prove > > > me wrong. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > wrote: > > > > > I am not trying to prove you wrong, but if you reflect for a minute > > or less on Brahmananda Saraswati, Guru Dev, and recall what > > Maharishi said when asked what Guru Dev did, and he replied, "He > > made me", that says all anyone should need to know about > Maharishi's > > capacity for and capability of self-reflection. > > > > As I've mentioned, without living that silent subtle level of life > > where Maharishi's darshan is always apparent it is easy to get > > snared in the multifold traps he has laid for those who treasure > and > > hoard the surface values of life.:-) > > This reminds me of that Science & Veda course in New Delhi in '80- '81 > when MMY said, "I never make mistakes". This really poked me in my > small-mindedness and I must have radiated some pretty strong > incredulity, as MMY then looked over in my direction and added more > softly, "at least I don't think so." At the time I felt great outrage > at such rampant self-deception; now looking back I see how incredibly > *funny* he was Being. That is a good one! God, it must have been lonely to be the only > one in on the constant joke! (Or maybe he wasn't; I don't know. I > only know I wasn't consciously in on it.) > > It's become so abundantly clear since then that the only *I* he has > ever been speaking from or of is my own Self; I just was never quite > Self-aware enough to see it then. And again, all gratitude to MMY and > the TMO for providing the latest course to really hammer it home to > those of us who have like me been a little slow to really get it! :-) > > *L*L*L* Hey shouldn't that be *L*L*L*L*, for Light, Love, Laughter and Latin?:-) I don't remember any more when it occurred, probably slowly over time as most things do, though it has been awhile since I saw Maharishi as anything less than an incomprehensibly powerful and all encompassing force of the Divine. Even such a description doesn't do my feelings justice. Not the feelings of someone looking at him or a picture of him, but soul to soul, he just always blows me away. I don't feel any particular reverence for him personally. Admiration, yes, and a large measure of awe, and respect. But I wouldn't follow him around. Not my dharma and not his either. Like the two gunslingers in the western, this town ain't big enough for the both of us. In any case, he truly lives up to his name. With TM and the focus on every word he says, enlightenment, powerful, lasting enlightenment is inevitable. Or if our limited selves try to figure him out and fit him into our box with us, a lifetime of imprisonment and misery and disappointment. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
On Jun 20, 2007, at 2:06 AM, tertonzeno wrote: --- So, Rory; you see no need to rectify anything? Sounds like a typical Neo-Advaitin-ism. I suppose that if some home invaders took over your neighbor's house and threatened to kill everybody, you wouldn't take measures to "rectify" the situation? (i.e. make it go away, change it in some way?). At the very least, call the cops. It's all one, so why bother?
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tertonzeno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- > So, Rory; you see no need to rectify anything? Sounds like a typical > Neo-Advaitin-ism. I suppose that if some home invaders took over > your neighbor's house and threatened to kill everybody, you wouldn't > take measures to "rectify" the situation? (i.e. make it go away, > change it in some way?). At the very least, call the cops. Perhaps I wasn't clear; I am constantly rectifying my "mistakes" as seen from my limited (particular) perspectives, and at the same time appreciating the perfection of everything as it IS, *including* the limitations of the dynamic particle-movements. From a limited perspective, I am *constantly* making mistakes; from a whole-hearted perspective I *never* make mistakes. As Turq has been known to say, Nature is a tragedy in close-up, and a comedy in long-shot. (Did I get that right, Turq?) Great drama, either way. (The analogy breaks down when we look at the close-up closely enough, and see it to be the same as the long-shot.) Believe in our stories, believe the movie, and we're suffering, right there in the theatre with our mate on one hand and our popcorn on the other. And yet, it's a great movie, isn't it? :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
---
So, Rory; you see no need to rectify anything? Sounds like a typical
Neo-Advaitin-ism. I suppose that if some home invaders took over
your neighbor's house and threatened to kill everybody, you wouldn't
take measures to "rectify" the situation? (i.e. make it go away,
change it in some way?). At the very least, call the cops.
In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Semi-demi-hemi-quavering responses interleaved...
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" wrote:
> >
> > --good points, but within the holographic "you", there are
> countless
> > people making (apparent) genuine mistakes; so even if MMY is not
> > among those,
>
> Oh, but he is ... making (apparent) genuine mistakes; we all are :-)
>
> >just cross him off the list and count the countless
> > billions of genuine mistake particles within the holographic you
> that
> > need to be rectified.
>
> I see no need to rectify anything ... (Not implying that I'm
> homophobic :-) ) ... Nor would I wish to rectify the attitudes and
> activities of those who *do* wish to rectify things. It is *all*
> error-free, but only from the all-inclusive ("Heart") perspective
of
> utter appreciation. This too is perfect.
>
> > Same with suffering. Forget mistakes for a minute. It's obvious
> MMY
> > has medical problems which can be conceived as being errors
against
> > physical immortality. Thus, genuine suffering particles exist
> within
> > the holographic you.
>
> Absolutely genuine from the noninclusive perspective, yes. This
> suffering provides one of the best ways I have found for my
> noninclusive perspectives to remember themselves, to provide the
> impetus to continue searching until they have come home to "Me" and
> to remember they have always been and shall always be "Me."
>
> > Or, perhaps you may be refusing to accept the existence of the
> > genuine MMY mistake particles; or are attempting to rationalize
> them
> > away. That could be a mistake.
>
> Could be. Wouldn't be the first, or even the first trillionth, I've
> made today! But taken as a whole, it's all always only perfect, in
> stilly dynamic, ever-unfolding (p)re-cognition of amazement and
> astonishment, the Greatest Show on (H)eart(h) :-)
>
> *L*L*L*
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
Semi-demi-hemi-quavering responses interleaved...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --good points, but within the holographic "you", there are
countless
> people making (apparent) genuine mistakes; so even if MMY is not
> among those,
Oh, but he is ... making (apparent) genuine mistakes; we all are :-)
>just cross him off the list and count the countless
> billions of genuine mistake particles within the holographic you
that
> need to be rectified.
I see no need to rectify anything ... (Not implying that I'm
homophobic :-) ) ... Nor would I wish to rectify the attitudes and
activities of those who *do* wish to rectify things. It is *all*
error-free, but only from the all-inclusive ("Heart") perspective of
utter appreciation. This too is perfect.
> Same with suffering. Forget mistakes for a minute. It's obvious
MMY
> has medical problems which can be conceived as being errors against
> physical immortality. Thus, genuine suffering particles exist
within
> the holographic you.
Absolutely genuine from the noninclusive perspective, yes. This
suffering provides one of the best ways I have found for my
noninclusive perspectives to remember themselves, to provide the
impetus to continue searching until they have come home to "Me" and
to remember they have always been and shall always be "Me."
> Or, perhaps you may be refusing to accept the existence of the
> genuine MMY mistake particles; or are attempting to rationalize
them
> away. That could be a mistake.
Could be. Wouldn't be the first, or even the first trillionth, I've
made today! But taken as a whole, it's all always only perfect, in
stilly dynamic, ever-unfolding (p)re-cognition of amazement and
astonishment, the Greatest Show on (H)eart(h) :-)
*L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--good points, but within the holographic "you", there are countless people making (apparent) genuine mistakes; so even if MMY is not among those, just cross him off the list and count the countless billions of genuine mistake particles within the holographic you that need to be rectified. Same with suffering. Forget mistakes for a minute. It's obvious MMY has medical problems which can be conceived as being errors against physical immortality. Thus, genuine suffering particles exist within the holographic you. Or, perhaps you may be refusing to accept the existence of the genuine MMY mistake particles; or are attempting to rationalize them away. That could be a mistake. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > wrote: > > > > > I'm stickin' to my guns on this one, but I am > > > curious as to whether anyone else here (many of > > > you, after all, have far more experience being > > > close to Maharishi than I have) has heard quotes > > > that indicate that Maharishi *does* self-reflect, > > > in a manner that can be interpreted as viewing his > > > own actions critically, admitting mistakes, and > > > attempting to learn from them and not make similar > > > mistakes in the future. I've racked my tiny brain, > > > and I can't remember even a single instance of > > > this. Perhaps someone here can help out and prove > > > me wrong. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > wrote: > > > > > I am not trying to prove you wrong, but if you reflect for a minute > > or less on Brahmananda Saraswati, Guru Dev, and recall what > > Maharishi said when asked what Guru Dev did, and he replied, "He > > made me", that says all anyone should need to know about > Maharishi's > > capacity for and capability of self-reflection. > > > > As I've mentioned, without living that silent subtle level of life > > where Maharishi's darshan is always apparent it is easy to get > > snared in the multifold traps he has laid for those who treasure > and > > hoard the surface values of life.:-) > > This reminds me of that Science & Veda course in New Delhi in '80- '81 > when MMY said, "I never make mistakes". This really poked me in my > small-mindedness and I must have radiated some pretty strong > incredulity, as MMY then looked over in my direction and added more > softly, "at least I don't think so." At the time I felt great outrage > at such rampant self-deception; now looking back I see how incredibly > *funny* he was Being. God, it must have been lonely to be the only > one in on the constant joke! (Or maybe he wasn't; I don't know. I > only know I wasn't consciously in on it.) > > It's become so abundantly clear since then that the only *I* he has > ever been speaking from or of is my own Self; I just was never quite > Self-aware enough to see it then. And again, all gratitude to MMY and > the TMO for providing the latest course to really hammer it home to > those of us who have like me been a little slow to really get it! :- ) > > *L*L*L* >
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > wrote: > > I'm stickin' to my guns on this one, but I am > > curious as to whether anyone else here (many of > > you, after all, have far more experience being > > close to Maharishi than I have) has heard quotes > > that indicate that Maharishi *does* self-reflect, > > in a manner that can be interpreted as viewing his > > own actions critically, admitting mistakes, and > > attempting to learn from them and not make similar > > mistakes in the future. I've racked my tiny brain, > > and I can't remember even a single instance of > > this. Perhaps someone here can help out and prove > > me wrong. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am not trying to prove you wrong, but if you reflect for a minute > or less on Brahmananda Saraswati, Guru Dev, and recall what > Maharishi said when asked what Guru Dev did, and he replied, "He > made me", that says all anyone should need to know about Maharishi's > capacity for and capability of self-reflection. > > As I've mentioned, without living that silent subtle level of life > where Maharishi's darshan is always apparent it is easy to get > snared in the multifold traps he has laid for those who treasure and > hoard the surface values of life.:-) This reminds me of that Science & Veda course in New Delhi in '80-'81 when MMY said, "I never make mistakes". This really poked me in my small-mindedness and I must have radiated some pretty strong incredulity, as MMY then looked over in my direction and added more softly, "at least I don't think so." At the time I felt great outrage at such rampant self-deception; now looking back I see how incredibly *funny* he was Being. God, it must have been lonely to be the only one in on the constant joke! (Or maybe he wasn't; I don't know. I only know I wasn't consciously in on it.) It's become so abundantly clear since then that the only *I* he has ever been speaking from or of is my own Self; I just was never quite Self-aware enough to see it then. And again, all gratitude to MMY and the TMO for providing the latest course to really hammer it home to those of us who have like me been a little slow to really get it! :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Vaj > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 9:13 AM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU > > On Jun 18, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Duveyoung wrote: > > > > > > When I taught one of the first SCI courses using those huge cassettes, > they recalled the physics and biology tapes -- if I remember them > correctly, they were really goofyassed and would turn off any > scientist in about two sentences. > > I kept the tapes Never sent them back. One of my first > rebellions against the TMO. I wonder if they're still playable...in a > storage unit in CA right now. > > > > Put 'em on YouTube! > > > > He would need an old player to play them. Those weren't standard VCR > cassettes. > I have the tapes and an old player, but I doubt if the player would work after sitting all this time. JohnY
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
On Jun 18, 2007, at 10:42 AM, Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 9:13 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU On Jun 18, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Duveyoung wrote: When I taught one of the first SCI courses using those huge cassettes, they recalled the physics and biology tapes -- if I remember them correctly, they were really goofyassed and would turn off any scientist in about two sentences. I kept the tapes Never sent them back. One of my first rebellions against the TMO. I wonder if they're still playable...in a storage unit in CA right now. Put 'em on YouTube! He would need an old player to play them. Those weren’t standard VCR cassettes. Yes I remember those big honkin' things...but there has to be a way to convert them!
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "george_deforest" > wrote: > > > > > TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > I kinda doubt there would be much cud to chew. > > > My take on Maharishi is that he *doesn't* self reflect > > > like all of us. I'm sitting here racking my brain > > > trying to remember any example of seeing him do so ... > > > > > > Maybe someone else here can, but it appeared to me that > > > self-reflection, especially if it required him to assess > > > his own actions critically, was just [not] among the tools > > > in his toolbox. > > > > well there is one phrase that shows up now and then...roughly, > > "after 50 years - the time for talking is over, now it is > > time to produce the effect" > > > > This is rather revealing, that he knows that so far he has only > > talked the talk, but not yet walked the walk, so to speak. > > > > two examples him saying this, there are others > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/112521 > > http://www.rickross.com/reference/tm/tm127.html > > While yours is a positive and, IMO, generous POV > on Maharishi's use of that phrase, George, I don't > quite see it that way. When I've heard him use it, > its intent seems tied to who he's talking to, and > about. That is, the followers, his students. It's > time for *them* to stop talking, and sign up for > the course the way he wants them to (first link > you cite). Or contribute big bucks so that he can > pursue another of his world-saving schemes. > > I'm stickin' to my guns on this one, but I am > curious as to whether anyone else here (many of > you, after all, have far more experience being > close to Maharishi than I have) has heard quotes > that indicate that Maharishi *does* self-reflect, > in a manner that can be interpreted as viewing his > own actions critically, admitting mistakes, and > attempting to learn from them and not make similar > mistakes in the future. I've racked my tiny brain, > and I can't remember even a single instance of > this. Perhaps someone here can help out and prove > me wrong. > I am not trying to prove you wrong, but if you reflect for a minute or less on Brahmananda Saraswati, Guru Dev, and recall what Maharishi said when asked what Guru Dev did, and he replied, "He made me", that says all anyone should need to know about Maharishi's capacity for and capability of self-reflection. As I've mentioned, without living that silent subtle level of life where Maharishi's darshan is always apparent it is easy to get snared in the multifold traps he has laid for those who treasure and hoard the surface values of life.:-)
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 9:13 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU On Jun 18, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Duveyoung wrote: When I taught one of the first SCI courses using those huge cassettes, they recalled the physics and biology tapes -- if I remember them correctly, they were really goofyassed and would turn off any scientist in about two sentences. I kept the tapes Never sent them back. One of my first rebellions against the TMO. I wonder if they're still playable...in a storage unit in CA right now. Put 'em on YouTube! He would need an old player to play them. Those weren’t standard VCR cassettes. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/852 - Release Date: 6/17/2007 8:23 AM
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
On Jun 18, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Duveyoung wrote: When I taught one of the first SCI courses using those huge cassettes, they recalled the physics and biology tapes -- if I remember them correctly, they were really goofyassed and would turn off any scientist in about two sentences. I kept the tapes Never sent them back. One of my first rebellions against the TMO. I wonder if they're still playable...in a storage unit in CA right now. Put 'em on YouTube!
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
When I taught one of the first SCI courses using those huge cassettes, they recalled the physics and biology tapes -- if I remember them correctly, they were really goofyassed and would turn off any scientist in about two sentences. I kept the tapes Never sent them back. One of my first rebellions against the TMO. I wonder if they're still playable...in a storage unit in CA right now. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "george_deforest" > wrote: > > > > > TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > I kinda doubt there would be much cud to chew. > > > My take on Maharishi is that he *doesn't* self reflect > > > like all of us. I'm sitting here racking my brain > > > trying to remember any example of seeing him do so ... > > > > > > Maybe someone else here can, but it appeared to me that > > > self-reflection, especially if it required him to assess > > > his own actions critically, was just [not] among the tools > > > in his toolbox. > > > > well there is one phrase that shows up now and then...roughly, > > "after 50 years - the time for talking is over, now it is > > time to produce the effect" > > > > This is rather revealing, that he knows that so far he has only > > talked the talk, but not yet walked the walk, so to speak. > > > > two examples him saying this, there are others > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/112521 > > http://www.rickross.com/reference/tm/tm127.html > > While yours is a positive and, IMO, generous POV > on Maharishi's use of that phrase, George, I don't > quite see it that way. When I've heard him use it, > its intent seems tied to who he's talking to, and > about. That is, the followers, his students. It's > time for *them* to stop talking, and sign up for > the course the way he wants them to (first link > you cite). Or contribute big bucks so that he can > pursue another of his world-saving schemes. > > I'm stickin' to my guns on this one, but I am > curious as to whether anyone else here (many of > you, after all, have far more experience being > close to Maharishi than I have) has heard quotes > that indicate that Maharishi *does* self-reflect, > in a manner that can be interpreted as viewing his > own actions critically, admitting mistakes, and > attempting to learn from them and not make similar > mistakes in the future. I've racked my tiny brain, > and I can't remember even a single instance of > this. Perhaps someone here can help out and prove > me wrong. > > I just don't think his wetware is wired that way, > that's all. He doesn't question his own actions or > second-guess them because he *assumes* that they > are "in accord with the laws of nature." His con- > sistent actions and words when one of his schemes > blows up and/or produces negative reactions has > been (in my experience) to hide the evidence and > blame someone else. > > Case in point -- the first court case over whether > TM was not religious in nature and thus could be > taught in public school systems. When that court > case hit the fan, I was working in the Regional > Office in L.A. We received a demand from Maharishi > (through another Regional Coordinator who was with > him when he made the decree) that certain audio and > videotapes we had in the offices in which he used > language that could be interpreted as religious were > to be "recalled," and sent back immediately to > Switzerland. We were instructed to enforce this in > the individual TM centers as well, and force them > to send the tapes back as well. We were told to > promise them that they would be reimbursed by > National for the expense of the tapes they were > sending back. No one was ever reimbursed. All of > the tapes disappeared, as far as I can tell, into > the black hole of covering Maharishi's ass. > > And at the same time, Maharishi gave several talks > blaming the whole situation on TM teachers who had > "strayed from the purity of the teaching," by > repeating in public *his own words*. > > I stand ready to be corrected on this by anyone who > has more knowledge and experience than I on this > subject. But for right now, I have to stick with my > original assessment -- self reflection and the ability > to admit one's mistakes and learn from them is just > not one of the tools in Maharishi's spiritual toolbox. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "george_deforest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > I kinda doubt there would be much cud to chew. > > My take on Maharishi is that he *doesn't* self reflect > > like all of us. I'm sitting here racking my brain > > trying to remember any example of seeing him do so ... > > > > Maybe someone else here can, but it appeared to me that > > self-reflection, especially if it required him to assess > > his own actions critically, was just [not] among the tools > > in his toolbox. > > well there is one phrase that shows up now and then...roughly, > "after 50 years - the time for talking is over, now it is > time to produce the effect" > > This is rather revealing, that he knows that so far he has only > talked the talk, but not yet walked the walk, so to speak. > > two examples him saying this, there are others > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/112521 > http://www.rickross.com/reference/tm/tm127.html While yours is a positive and, IMO, generous POV on Maharishi's use of that phrase, George, I don't quite see it that way. When I've heard him use it, its intent seems tied to who he's talking to, and about. That is, the followers, his students. It's time for *them* to stop talking, and sign up for the course the way he wants them to (first link you cite). Or contribute big bucks so that he can pursue another of his world-saving schemes. I'm stickin' to my guns on this one, but I am curious as to whether anyone else here (many of you, after all, have far more experience being close to Maharishi than I have) has heard quotes that indicate that Maharishi *does* self-reflect, in a manner that can be interpreted as viewing his own actions critically, admitting mistakes, and attempting to learn from them and not make similar mistakes in the future. I've racked my tiny brain, and I can't remember even a single instance of this. Perhaps someone here can help out and prove me wrong. I just don't think his wetware is wired that way, that's all. He doesn't question his own actions or second-guess them because he *assumes* that they are "in accord with the laws of nature." His con- sistent actions and words when one of his schemes blows up and/or produces negative reactions has been (in my experience) to hide the evidence and blame someone else. Case in point -- the first court case over whether TM was not religious in nature and thus could be taught in public school systems. When that court case hit the fan, I was working in the Regional Office in L.A. We received a demand from Maharishi (through another Regional Coordinator who was with him when he made the decree) that certain audio and videotapes we had in the offices in which he used language that could be interpreted as religious were to be "recalled," and sent back immediately to Switzerland. We were instructed to enforce this in the individual TM centers as well, and force them to send the tapes back as well. We were told to promise them that they would be reimbursed by National for the expense of the tapes they were sending back. No one was ever reimbursed. All of the tapes disappeared, as far as I can tell, into the black hole of covering Maharishi's ass. And at the same time, Maharishi gave several talks blaming the whole situation on TM teachers who had "strayed from the purity of the teaching," by repeating in public *his own words*. I stand ready to be corrected on this by anyone who has more knowledge and experience than I on this subject. But for right now, I have to stick with my original assessment -- self reflection and the ability to admit one's mistakes and learn from them is just not one of the tools in Maharishi's spiritual toolbox.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
> TurquoiseB wrote: > > I kinda doubt there would be much cud to chew. > My take on Maharishi is that he *doesn't* self reflect > like all of us. I'm sitting here racking my brain > trying to remember any example of seeing him do so ... > > Maybe someone else here can, but it appeared to me that > self-reflection, especially if it required him to assess > his own actions critically, was just [not] among the tools > in his toolbox. well there is one phrase that shows up now and then...roughly, "after 50 years - the time for talking is over, now it is time to produce the effect" This is rather revealing, that he knows that so far he has only talked the talk, but not yet walked the walk, so to speak. two examples him saying this, there are others http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/112521 http://www.rickross.com/reference/tm/tm127.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
Yes that was the photo. I guess I sent to you. David
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Fiske Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 8:22 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU I forgot to add that the South African Sunday Times carried a similar report in which Linda said that when she tried to decline Maharishi he told her not "to have sexual hang ups." Any chance you could dig up a copy of that? Somewhere I have a nice slide of Linda and Maharishi walking along the path from his quarters to come to a meeting. This one?: http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/view/cb34?b=2 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/852 - Release Date: 6/17/2007 8:23 AM
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
Good comments, David. Very real. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "David Fiske" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Face dog I don't think he attracted a lot of conmen. I think > he attracted a lot of young people who felt inspired to feel > that working for him might well make a huge difference in > the world. Gotta agree with this one. On the whole, the people I met in the TM movement were enthusiastic, dedicated seekers, not just for themselves, but for the world as well. Their enthusiasm often exceeded their abilities, but I don't think that any of them started out as conmen. Over time some of them became conmen, and the lack of discrimination in the environment helped them to do so, but on the whole the TMO attracted pretty nice people. > It causes great grief that all those hard efforts from so many > people have ended up with a movement about as far removed from > any positive influence as one could imagine. If I were Maharishi > I would feel despair. He must self reflect like us all. I wish, > like a good friend, I could chew the cud with him as, late in > life, he weighs up things.. I kinda doubt there would be much cud to chew. My take on Maharishi is that he *doesn't* self reflect like all of us. I'm sitting here racking my brain trying to remember any example of seeing him do so publicly, or having heard stories from others who spent a great deal more time around him than I did, and I can't remember a one. Maybe someone else here can, but it appeared to me that self-reflection, especially if it required him to assess his own actions critically, was just among the tools in his toolbox. I've seen him actively participate in revising his own history (that is, going back and editing passages out of movement books that had proven embarrassing in the time since they were first published, ordering the "recall" of audio or videotapes that, again, had been deemed dogmatically incorrect) too often to believe that he will ever spend much time in self-reflection. Maharishi *shapes* his image; he doesn't examine it critically. Just my opinion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
In an idle moment I clicked on TMNews and a few more clicks led me to Paul Mason's newspaper article on Linda Pearce on thr TMFree blog site where I posted a few things. Then I wondered this morning whether there had been anything on FFL and a search proved right with usual scuffle over it. I post now an amaglam of what I wrote on TMFree blog just in case anyoine can stomach any more. I was in India with Linda, an attractive young girl. When she married Peter Pearce I became godfather to their daughter. I can't comment on the veracity of her assertions but find it hard to believe she would make them if they were untrue. Poor girl seems to be a bit of victim as Peter was a pathological liar and con man. We were for a brief period partners in an art business so I know his ins and outs. I gathered from Peter that Linda was a few years ago dying of MS in an Indian village. For myself who was around Maharishi since 1962 I found the stories of his behaviour startling as I never got a sense of him being sexual. It is too bad it couldn't have been discussed as it would be interesting to have a frank talk of sex and spirituality. It seems the three temptations money, seems the three temptations money, sex and power follow many of us up the ladder. David Fiske| Homepage | 06.14.07 - 7:44 pm | # I did not mean to suggest that Peter Pearce invented Linda's story and that as he is untrustworthy it isn't true. A charming chap but..! Linda might have been charmed by him but I think she told that story on her own. I forgot to add that the South African Sunday Times carried a similar report in which Linda said that when she tried to decline Maharishi he told her not "to have sexual hang ups." A letter this morning from Conny to me says his book on MMY has secured a big publisher in Sweden and will tell all. David David Fiske | Homepage | 06.16.07 - 7:24 am | # Sorry Paul I don't. It was sent to me after emigrating to Canada and I seem to have lost it. At the time like you I dismissed it as it seemed so improbable to me. However with so much directed at him it would seem now most improbable that he wasn't a man like anyone else and like many Indians who meet free moving western women untrained on how to deal with them. One false step can lead to yet another and soon a taste gets developed. Any person can feel lonely and all bodies need caresses. Maybe he loved them as well. I am so glad I never felt he was my guru, never had any. Yet he remains someone who profoundly influenced my life, mostly positively and for that he has my gratitude and very warm feelings of love. Face dog I don't think he attracted a lot of conmen. I think he attracted a lot of young people who felt inspired to feel that working for him might well make a huge difference in the world. I once complained bitterly, on my SCI course, that to the movement's discredit their good intentions were used as a trap. As I had, I suppose, some status the poor lad taking the course face fell. I gather from Conny who has led a justified campaign against Sai Baba that they have got Mark Landau to say Conny was hardly ever MMY's secretary, only for 3 weeks. I guess trying to discredit him. Somewhere I have a nice slide of Linda and Maharishi walking along the path from his quarters to come to a meeting. I now wonder how many of the young ladies I knew with him had encounters. Merilyn Jest? She and I were close and for a while she was close to MMY. I think things fell apart in her life. It causes great grief that all those hard efforts from so many people have ended up with a movement about as far removed from any positive influence as one could imagine. If I were Maharishi I would feel despair. He must self reflect like us all. I wish, like a good friend, I could chew the cud with him as, late in life, he weighs up things.. love, David
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
No one suggest that he screwed Mia Farrow. Not even Mia Farrow.?? Does Farrow make a big deal about the hugging incident.?? Did Maharishi sent Brahmacharis to track her after she left.?? Geezerfreak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 00:45:37 - Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU What kind of man is he? A man who, in the 60s and 70s, bedded those he could when the opportunity arose. A man who probably backed off, when it was apparent that his advances were unwelcome. That's pretty much it. No one suggests that he screwed Mia Farrow. She reacted negatively to his putting his arms around her and he backed off. But he was also busy with others at the time. He had his hands more than full in those years. - Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So from this link you posted, what it shows is that Mia Farrow > thought Maharishi liked her, but never tried to have sex with her. > Wow, what kind of man is he !? > > OffWorld What kind of man is he? A man who, in the 60s and 70s, bedded those he could when the opportunity arose. A man who probably backed off, when it was apparent that his advances were unwelcome. That's pretty much it. No one suggests that he screwed Mia Farrow. She reacted negatively to his putting his arms around her and he backed off. But he was also busy with others at the time. He had his hands more than full in those years.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://tinyurl.com/2gpq7x Yes Folks,as you can see on Amazon's list of used book sellers for this book, for $.01 you too can purchase a pristine, used copy of this incredibly well received memoir from Mia Farrow. Its ongoing resale value gives credibility to her well-constructed memories of her past.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So from this link you posted, what it shows is that Mia Farrow thought Maharishi liked her, but never tried to have sex with her. Wow, what kind of man is he !? OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://tinyurl.com/2gpq7x > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" > > wrote: > > > > > >> geezerfreak wrote: > > > > You know, WillyTex, this topic clearly sends you > > > > over the edge every time. > > > > > > > Oh! So, now you're picking this one single topic out > > > of over 10, topic messages that I've posted on > > > newsgroups, but this one topic sends ME over the edge? > > > > > > > Let me ask you this: if it could be proven beyond > > > > a shadow of a doubt that MMY indeed had sex with > > > > these women, would it bother you? > > > > > > > So, you don't have all the answers. > > Is that suppossed to be an answer? It isn't. > > > - Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. - Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
So from this link you posted, what it shows is that Mia Farrow thought Maharishi liked her, but never tried to have sex with her. Wow, what kind of man is he !? OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://tinyurl.com/2gpq7x > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" > > wrote: > > > > > >> geezerfreak wrote: > > > > You know, WillyTex, this topic clearly sends you > > > > over the edge every time. > > > > > > > Oh! So, now you're picking this one single topic out > > > of over 10, topic messages that I've posted on > > > newsgroups, but this one topic sends ME over the edge? > > > > > > > Let me ask you this: if it could be proven beyond > > > > a shadow of a doubt that MMY indeed had sex with > > > > these women, would it bother you? > > > > > > > So, you don't have all the answers. > > Is that suppossed to be an answer? It isn't. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
http://tinyurl.com/2gpq7x --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" > wrote: > > > >> geezerfreak wrote: > > > You know, WillyTex, this topic clearly sends you > > > over the edge every time. > > > > > Oh! So, now you're picking this one single topic out > > of over 10, topic messages that I've posted on > > newsgroups, but this one topic sends ME over the edge? > > > > > Let me ask you this: if it could be proven beyond > > > a shadow of a doubt that MMY indeed had sex with > > > these women, would it bother you? > > > > > So, you don't have all the answers. > Is that suppossed to be an answer? It isn't. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "purushaz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --Thanks, Richard, as always. Qntmpkt is my e mail name, not > my real name, which I prefer to keep anonymous. Oh please! http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Qntmpkt&btnG=Google+Search
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
> Let me ask you this: if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a
doubt
> that MMY indeed had sex with these women, would it bother you?
Well, karmaashuklaakRSNaM [karma+ashukla+akRSNam) yoginaH... (IV 7)
azukla mf(%{A})n. not white S3Br.vii.
akRSNanot black
>
> Or are you of the group that doesn't care, one way or another? In
> which casewhy do you get all bent out of shape every time this
> comes up?
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> geezerfreak wrote: > > You know, WillyTex, this topic clearly sends you > > over the edge every time. > > > Oh! So, now you're picking this one single topic out > of over 10, topic messages that I've posted on > newsgroups, but this one topic sends ME over the edge? > > > Let me ask you this: if it could be proven beyond > > a shadow of a doubt that MMY indeed had sex with > > these women, would it bother you? > > > So, you don't have all the answers. Is that suppossed to be an answer? It isn't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- Richard, you're beginning to make a fool out of yourself. Let me explain. The fact that MMY was "into" sex doesn't impact my practice of TM one bit. MMY is also one of my Gurus - that means I'm personally "devoted" to him as a door into the Absolute, but if there's some flakes on the door paint, who cares? Pass THROUGH the door, don't stop on the way through and nitpick on the dimensions of the door. He's one of my Gurus since I regularly play a video of MMY along with 15 Pundits doing the traditional puja followed by a very long puja to Mahakali. Jerry Jarvis sent me the video, and I sincerely appreciate it it (along with TM) is another tool needed to vanquish false identification. My foremost Guru however, is Ramana Maharshi, followed by Hsuan Hua, a Pure Land Buddhist whom I used to sit at the feet of and eat lunch with at the same table on occasion. (he ate only one meal per day). In the latest issue of WIE, Tom Huston has an excellent article called "Everyday Advaita" in which he critiques an "executive coach", Robert Rabbin. Huston states, "Delving into the fall from grace of Advaita gurus Eli Jaxon-Bear, 60, and his wife, Gangaji, 65 -- who, last Oct., went public with an admission that Eli had engaged in a 3 year affir with a student half his age - Rabbin held nothing back in his assault on their spiritual philosophy." That is, Rabbin is assaulting the Neo-Advaitin position that one can't be an "ordinary" person in the true sense - engaging in wholesale pursuits - and still be considered to be a Neo-Advaitin; since such persons (refer to Vaj's excellent post) are "supposed" to act in a certain way. Huston states, "Rabbin is pointing to what numerous contemporary spiritual teachers believe to be the cutting edge of mystical spirituality--namely, learning to integrate our deepest realizations of transcendent Being with our ordinary, everyday, fully human lifes. And how do they propose we do that? Simple: by accepting ourselves, warts and all, exactly as we are". [end quote], WIE, April-June, 2007, page 49. My advice, accept MMY, (any another Gurus, as they are in the relative sense - warts an all. Don't get into "truthiness"...what you WANT to be true or impose on such Gurus, with all of their warts, an artificial code of moral behavior of your own construction. Should anybody find some "dirt" on Ramana Maharshi or Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche (another one of my teachers), fine; show me the facts, circumstantial or otherwise, and I will plug that information into my data bank. back to Huston's article, p. 49: "Relating this back to the Eli Jaxon-Bear affair, Rabbin writes: "I don't think Eli is flawed, and I don't think he should stop teaching. In fact, I believe only now is he qualified to teach, now that Toto has shown us the man behind the curtainEli's humanity is not the flaw; the flaw is a teaching that forces us to live in shadows and carry secrets". But then Huston faults Rabbin for going too far into the relative spectrum; and then goes into a brief discussion consistent with Andrew Cohen's overall quest to understand the "true" nature of evolutionary Enlightenement. Huston says "And call me idealistic, but when I think of aspiring toward spiritual Enlightenment, a state of profound and perpetual transformation is honestly the only thing I have in mind.". In the spirit of Huston's article, one should look for signs of evolutionary transformation in Gurus, Movements, religions, and cultures. Is there an openness and transparancy about the facts, or is there a veil of secrecy and censorship? Thanks again! In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > purushaz wrote: > > To summarize: Jerry Jarvis initiated me into TM in > > July, 1967... > > > Look, whoever you are - just post some PROOF or shut > your pie hole and stop the nit-picking. I read Mia's > book 'Not Fade Away' and she says nothing about standing > in no doorway in front of no barber. Read it for yourself. > > Billy can drive over to Jerry's house anytime he wants > to and talk to him - we don't need his P.O. Box. But > what would be the point? Jerry never said anything > about MMY having sex in front of no barber. > > You need to get some smarts - you've probably been > watching too many soap operas on TV. A barber told you? > And monkeys are flying out of your butt. > > > > qntmpkt wrote: > > > > The Barber saw MMY having sex. > > > > > > > It has NOT been established that a "Barber" saw > > > MMY having sex. All we have established is that > > > you made the claim that a barber once told you > > > such-and-such. Do you have any proof other than > > > just plain hearsay that MMY was having sex? > > > > > > Has the MMY been cross-examined? I think not. > > > > > > > The barber told me in 1973. > > > > > > > The barber story is now three times removed from > > > the actual purported event. Why sh
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > purushaz wrote: > > To summarize: Jerry Jarvis initiated me into TM in > > July, 1967... > > > Look, whoever you are - just post some PROOF or shut > your pie hole and stop the nit-picking. I read Mia's > book 'Not Fade Away' and she says nothing about standing > in no doorway in front of no barber. Read it for yourself. > Has anyone here claimed that MMY had sex with Mia Farrow? Nope, not a one. I have no doubt that he wanted to, but he didn't get there with her. It seems he was smart enough to back off when resistence was encountered from everything I have heard.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
Richard J. Williams wrote: > > > > Now that is impressive for a 106 year old man! > > > > geezerfreak wrote: > You know, WillyTex, this topic clearly sends you > over the edge every time. > Oh! So, now you're picking this one single topic out of over 10, topic messages that I've posted on newsgroups, but this one topic sends ME over the edge? > Let me ask you this: if it could be proven beyond > a shadow of a doubt that MMY indeed had sex with > these women, would it bother you? > So, you don't have all the answers. Let me ask you this: Do you have any DNA evidence? Have you given MMY the cross examination? Until then, you are just passing rumors. Put the pipe down and step away from the keyboard. Now apologize to the Duke lacrosse team. > Or are you of the group that doesn't care, one > way or another? In which casewhy do you get > all bent out of shape every time this comes up? > Except I didn't bring it up - I'm responding to Rick's favorite topic and I guess, now your favorite topic, and now you seem bent out of shape. Why does it bother you what I think? And who is this Willytex? Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
purushaz wrote: > To summarize: Jerry Jarvis initiated me into TM in > July, 1967... > Look, whoever you are - just post some PROOF or shut your pie hole and stop the nit-picking. I read Mia's book 'Not Fade Away' and she says nothing about standing in no doorway in front of no barber. Read it for yourself. Billy can drive over to Jerry's house anytime he wants to and talk to him - we don't need his P.O. Box. But what would be the point? Jerry never said anything about MMY having sex in front of no barber. You need to get some smarts - you've probably been watching too many soap operas on TV. A barber told you? And monkeys are flying out of your butt. > > qntmpkt wrote: > > > The Barber saw MMY having sex. > > > > > It has NOT been established that a "Barber" saw > > MMY having sex. All we have established is that > > you made the claim that a barber once told you > > such-and-such. Do you have any proof other than > > just plain hearsay that MMY was having sex? > > > > Has the MMY been cross-examined? I think not. > > > > > The barber told me in 1973. > > > > > The barber story is now three times removed from > > the actual purported event. Why should I even > > believe that a barber once told you anything except > > that your hair was dirty? > > > > Never heard of a "qntmpkt" at TTC. You're not listed > > on the approved TMer list at the TM Center at Fairfield. > > Never heard of a "qntmpkt" Minister or Governor in > > the TMO either. Have you Billy? Who is this guy that > > hangs out with barber rumor-mongers? > > > > > (went over this 12 times)...if you can't > > > accept the truth, you have some type of blockage. > > > > > The truth is that the barber was probably lying > > and you've apparently accepted his word for it, > > now you have a blockage to using plain logic. > > > > Now who would you believe: > > > > A very large group of people, all standing on the > > corner, who all said that they never saw a big > > blue bus go by. > > > > Or, a nameless barber, standing on the same street > > corner, who said that a big blue bus just drove by. > > > > Billy wrote: > > > > > The 'article' is in error as you mentioned, > > > > > *because* she said the affair started in > > > > > 1969 at the (reported) age of MMY at 68 > > > > > years old. > > > > > > > Richard J. Williams wrote: > > > > So, she is saying that MMY was celibate up to > > > > the age of 68, then, for one year he wasn't > > > > celibate, then from 1969 till today he was > > > > celibate. So, he must have had sexual relations > > > > with females for a year, yet neither Ms Pittman > > > > nor Nandi Keshore, Magic Alex, John, Paul, George, > > > > Ringo, Mike, Donovan or any skin boy or personal > > > > secretary, such as Tom Anderson, ever saw him > > > > actually doing it, even with the door wide open > > > > and with thousands of students passing by on a > > > > daily basis for over fifty years. And that the > > > > Indian press never suspected a thing. > > > > > > > > Now that is impressive for a 106 year old man! > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > qntmpkt wrote: > > The Barber saw MMY having sex. > > > It has NOT been established that a "Barber" saw > MMY having sex. All we have established is that > you made the claim that a barber once told you > such-and-such. Do you have any proof other than > just plain hearsay that MMY was having sex? > > Has the MMY been cross-examined? I think not. > > > The barber told me in 1973. > > > The barber story is now three times removed from > the actual purported event. Why should I even > believe that a barber once told you anything except > that your hair was dirty? > > Never heard of a "qntmpkt" at TTC. You're not listed > on the approved TMer list at the TM Center at Fairfield. > Never heard of a "qntmpkt" Minister or Governor in > the TMO either. Have you Billy? Who is this guy that > hangs out with barber rumor-mongers? > > > (went over this 12 times)...if you can't > > accept the truth, you have some type of blockage. > > > The truth is that the barber was probably lying > and you've apparently accepted his word for it, > now you have a blockage to using plain logic. > > Now who would you believe: > > A very large group of people, all standing on the > corner, who all said that they never saw a big > blue bus go by. > > Or, a nameless barber, standing on the same street > corner, who said that a big blue bus just drove by. > > Billy wrote: > > > > The 'article' is in error as you mentioned, > > > > *because* she said the affair started in > > > > 1969 at the (reported) age of MMY at 68 > > > > years old. > > > > > Richard J. Williams wrote: > > > So, she is saying that MMY was celibate up to > > > the age of 68, then, for one year he wasn't > > > celibate, then from 1969 till today he was > > > celibate. So, he must have had sexual relations > > > with females for a year, yet neither Ms Pittman > > > nor Nandi Keshore, Magic Alex, John, Paul, George, > > > Ringo, Mike, Donovan or any skin boy or personal > > > secretary, such as Tom Anderson, ever saw him > > > actually doing it, even with the door wide open > > > and with thousands of students passing by on a > > > daily basis for over fifty years. And that the > > > Indian press never suspected a thing. > > > > > > Now that is impressive for a 106 year old man! > > > You know, WillyTex, this topic clearly sends you over the edge every time. Let me ask you this: if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that MMY indeed had sex with these women, would it bother you? Or are you of the group that doesn't care, one way or another? In which casewhy do you get all bent out of shape every time this comes up?
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --Nope. The Barber saw MMY having sex. The barber told me in 1973. > (went over this 12 times)...if you can't accept the truth, you have > some type of blockage. > > - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" > wrote: > > > > Billy wrote: > > > The 'article' is in error as you mentioned, > > > *because* she said the affair started in > > > 1969 at the (reported) age of MMY at 68 > > > years old. > > > > > So, she is saying that MMY was celibate up to > > the age of 68, then, for one year he wasn't > > celibate, then from 1969 till today he was > > celibate. So, he must have had sexual relations > > with females for a year, yet neither Ms Pittman > > nor Nandi Keshore, Magic Alex, John, Paul, George, > > Ringo, Mike, Donovan or any skin boy or personal > > secretary, such as Tom Anderson, ever saw him > > actually doing it, even with the door wide open > > and with thousands of students passing by on a > > daily basis for over fifty years. And that the > > Indian press never suspected a thing. > > > > Now that is impressive for a 106 year old man! > > Don't bother communicating with WillyTex about this. He's brain dead on this issue.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
purushaz wrote: > nitpicking the details won't change the overall > conclusion. > What details? Oh, so now I'm the nitpicker after Rick brought up the subject again, but you're not nit-picking for responding to my nitpicking. Go figure. > MMY has some chinks in his armor, and he's by no > means "impeccable" in the Castaneda-ian sense. > Well, why not post a single report from any of the main eight Indian media outlets where there has ever been an accusation about MMY having sex with female students. The Indian press usually doesn't just ignore such stories, so why not just link us to a single one, so we can read it for ourselves and then decide. Just one. I mean, give me a break - Ken Wilber's parents started TM. Don't you think he'd be alerting them if this were true? He's got a blog so I guess if he knew about anything improper we could read about the details there, right? Have you ever attended a Ken Wilber forum - I have. Have you read Ken Wilber's 'Spiritual Choices'? http://tinyurl.com/2hn8dd > Who are some impeccable Gurus? > 1. Guru Dev > 2. Ramana Maharshi > 3. Namkhai Chogyal Rinpoche > 4. Sri Aurobindo > 5. Possibly SSRS > 6. Ammachi, and the various "Divine Mothers"; > such as Karunamayi. I don't see anything wrong > with counting the numbers of people Amma > hugs. > 7. Various Sages of the past: Ramakrishna, > Sakyamuni Buddha and countless Sages of Tibet > and India. > 8. Jesus, definitely!. > > We can construct a very lengthy list of > impeccable Gurus, but I wouldn't put MMY on it. > Well, obviously you're far from being a devotee, but it's obvious you're a dilletante. > Nevertheless, the technique of TM > is "uuu".! > MMY never made the claim to be a "guru" and the TM technique can stand by itself. But, with the exception of maybe Ammachi, you probably haven't even met any of the other "impeccable gurus" that you mention. And even if you did, what would lead you to assume that they're impeccable? What's up with that? > > Richard J. Williams wrote: > > > > So, she is saying that MMY was celibate up to > > > > the age of 68, then, for one year he wasn't > > > > celibate, then from 1969 till today he was > > > > celibate. So, he must have had sexual relations > > > > with females for a year, yet neither Ms Pittman > > > > nor Nandi Keshore, Magic Alex, John, Paul, George, > > > > Ringo, Mike, Donovan or any skin boy or personal > > > > secretary, such as Tom Anderson, ever saw him > > > > actually doing it, even with the door wide open > > > > and with thousands of students passing by on a > > > > daily basis for over fifty years. And that the > > > > Indian press never suspected a thing. > > > > > > > > Now that is impressive for a 106 year old man! > > > > > > Billy wrote: > > > When 'the reporter stated' the below comment he > > > was refering to MMY 'in 1981' (the date of the > > > article) though it's a little confusing because > > > it is in italic type print in the newspaper > > > article. He should have said the 'now' 68 year > > > old MMY...at any rate the rest of your comment > > > checks out! > > > > > So, Billy, Mia got the MMY down into a dark > > cave underneath his house and tried to wrestle > > him down to the floor for a quick one. Then she > > writes a book, Not Fade Away, describing her > > relations with Frank Sinatra and Woody Allen, > > but in it she writes that MMY tried to give > > her a hairy bear hug. And Cynthia Lennon > > writes a book, Twist of Lennon, in which she > > totally discredits Magic Alex and John Lennon. > > And Paul McCartney says the rumors are bollocks. > > > > Now we have Linda expecting us to believe that > > MMY got her into bed on numerous occasions. And > > this is the extent of the published evidence that > > MMY had sexual relations with any females! And > > not a single word from any of the eight main > > Indian media outlets in over fifty years. And > > not a single eye-witness who is credible. And > > not a single person has ever cross-examined MMY. > > > > But my questions is, why on earth would MMY > > need to have sex with Linda when he had Ms > > Pittman? And why on earth would he need a > > personal secretary when he had Nandi Keshore? > > And why would he need a skin boy when he had > > Satyanand? > > > > Ned Wynn spent all of what, about five minutes > > in a one-on-one encounter with MMY in Italy > > and Ned carried MMY's antelope skin back to > > the house for all of about one minute. I'd > > probably guess that most people responding > > here probably never got more than within > > fifteen feet of the MMY in their entire life. > > And I'm beginning to think that not a single > > respondent on this forum has been inside a MMY > > Golden Dome in years. Go figure. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--Thanks, Richard, as always. Qntmpkt is my e mail name, not my real name, which I prefer to keep anonymous. To summarize: Jerry Jarvis initiated me into TM in July, 1967. I worked at SIMS in L.A. as a paid employee from 1970 through 1973 (where Jerry worked also, being Chairman of SIMS).; and I became acquainted with MMY's barber who also worked there, whose name has already been mentioned. The barber was well known on the West Coast. You are indeed correct. This is 2nd hand information since I was not a witness to MMY's philandering. The barber was; and this type of evidence (I'm in law); can be used in court proceedings although the weight of such evidence is obviously downgraded from first-hand eyewitness accounts. When coming to your own conclusion, collect as much evidence as possible and then make your decision. Again, if you have any doubts that MMY's barber worked at SIMS, feel free to contact Jerry Jarvis at PO Box 4052, Malibu, CA 90264. Sincerely, and JGD, qntmpkt In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > qntmpkt wrote: > > The Barber saw MMY having sex. > > > It has NOT been established that a "Barber" saw > MMY having sex. All we have established is that > you made the claim that a barber once told you > such-and-such. Do you have any proof other than > just plain hearsay that MMY was having sex? > > Has the MMY been cross-examined? I think not. > > > The barber told me in 1973. > > > The barber story is now three times removed from > the actual purported event. Why should I even > believe that a barber once told you anything except > that your hair was dirty? > > Never heard of a "qntmpkt" at TTC. You're not listed > on the approved TMer list at the TM Center at Fairfield. > Never heard of a "qntmpkt" Minister or Governor in > the TMO either. Have you Billy? Who is this guy that > hangs out with barber rumor-mongers? > > > (went over this 12 times)...if you can't > > accept the truth, you have some type of blockage. > > > The truth is that the barber was probably lying > and you've apparently accepted his word for it, > now you have a blockage to using plain logic. > > Now who would you believe: > > A very large group of people, all standing on the > corner, who all said that they never saw a big > blue bus go by. > > Or, a nameless barber, standing on the same street > corner, who said that a big blue bus just drove by. > > Billy wrote: > > > > The 'article' is in error as you mentioned, > > > > *because* she said the affair started in > > > > 1969 at the (reported) age of MMY at 68 > > > > years old. > > > > > Richard J. Williams wrote: > > > So, she is saying that MMY was celibate up to > > > the age of 68, then, for one year he wasn't > > > celibate, then from 1969 till today he was > > > celibate. So, he must have had sexual relations > > > with females for a year, yet neither Ms Pittman > > > nor Nandi Keshore, Magic Alex, John, Paul, George, > > > Ringo, Mike, Donovan or any skin boy or personal > > > secretary, such as Tom Anderson, ever saw him > > > actually doing it, even with the door wide open > > > and with thousands of students passing by on a > > > daily basis for over fifty years. And that the > > > Indian press never suspected a thing. > > > > > > Now that is impressive for a 106 year old man! > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
qntmpkt wrote: > The Barber saw MMY having sex. > It has NOT been established that a "Barber" saw MMY having sex. All we have established is that you made the claim that a barber once told you such-and-such. Do you have any proof other than just plain hearsay that MMY was having sex? Has the MMY been cross-examined? I think not. > The barber told me in 1973. > The barber story is now three times removed from the actual purported event. Why should I even believe that a barber once told you anything except that your hair was dirty? Never heard of a "qntmpkt" at TTC. You're not listed on the approved TMer list at the TM Center at Fairfield. Never heard of a "qntmpkt" Minister or Governor in the TMO either. Have you Billy? Who is this guy that hangs out with barber rumor-mongers? > (went over this 12 times)...if you can't > accept the truth, you have some type of blockage. > The truth is that the barber was probably lying and you've apparently accepted his word for it, now you have a blockage to using plain logic. Now who would you believe: A very large group of people, all standing on the corner, who all said that they never saw a big blue bus go by. Or, a nameless barber, standing on the same street corner, who said that a big blue bus just drove by. Billy wrote: > > > The 'article' is in error as you mentioned, > > > *because* she said the affair started in > > > 1969 at the (reported) age of MMY at 68 > > > years old. > > > Richard J. Williams wrote: > > So, she is saying that MMY was celibate up to > > the age of 68, then, for one year he wasn't > > celibate, then from 1969 till today he was > > celibate. So, he must have had sexual relations > > with females for a year, yet neither Ms Pittman > > nor Nandi Keshore, Magic Alex, John, Paul, George, > > Ringo, Mike, Donovan or any skin boy or personal > > secretary, such as Tom Anderson, ever saw him > > actually doing it, even with the door wide open > > and with thousands of students passing by on a > > daily basis for over fifty years. And that the > > Indian press never suspected a thing. > > > > Now that is impressive for a 106 year old man! > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--Richard, nitpicking the details won't change the overall conclusion. MMY has some chinks in his armor, and he's by no means "impeccable" in the Castaneda-ian sense. Who are some impeccable Gurus? 1. Guru Dev 2. Ramana Maharshi 3. Namkhai Chogyal Rinpoche 4. Sri Aurobindo 5. Possibly SSRS 6. Ammachi, and the various "Divine Mothers"; such as Karunamayi. I don't see anything wrong with counting the numbers of people Amma hugs. 7. Various Sages of the past: Ramakrishna, Sakyamuni Buddha and countless Sages of Tibet and India. 8. Jesus, definitely!. We can construct a very lengthy list of impeccable Gurus, but I wouldn't put MMY on it. Nevertheless, the technique of TM is "uuu".! - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Richard J. Williams wrote: > > > So, she is saying that MMY was celibate up to > > > the age of 68, then, for one year he wasn't > > > celibate, then from 1969 till today he was > > > celibate. So, he must have had sexual relations > > > with females for a year, yet neither Ms Pittman > > > nor Nandi Keshore, Magic Alex, John, Paul, George, > > > Ringo, Mike, Donovan or any skin boy or personal > > > secretary, such as Tom Anderson, ever saw him > > > actually doing it, even with the door wide open > > > and with thousands of students passing by on a > > > daily basis for over fifty years. And that the > > > Indian press never suspected a thing. > > > > > > Now that is impressive for a 106 year old man! > > > > Billy wrote: > > When 'the reporter stated' the below comment he > > was refering to MMY 'in 1981' (the date of the > > article) though it's a little confusing because > > it is in italic type print in the newspaper > > article. He should have said the 'now' 68 year > > old MMY...at any rate the rest of your comment > > checks out! > > > So, Billy, Mia got the MMY down into a dark > cave underneath his house and tried to wrestle > him down to the floor for a quick one. Then she > writes a book, Not Fade Away, describing her > relations with Frank Sinatra and Woody Allen, > but in it she writes that MMY tried to give > her a hairy bear hug. And Cynthia Lennon > writes a book, Twist of Lennon, in which she > totally discredits Magic Alex and John Lennon. > And Paul McCartney says the rumors are bollocks. > > Now we have Linda expecting us to believe that > MMY got her into bed on numerous occasions. And > this is the extent of the published evidence that > MMY had sexual relations with any females! And > not a single word from any of the eight main > Indian media outlets in over fifty years. And > not a single eye-witness who is credible. And > not a single person has ever cross-examined MMY. > > But my questions is, why on earth would MMY > need to have sex with Linda when he had Ms > Pittman? And why on earth would he need a > personal secretary when he had Nandi Keshore? > And why would he need a skin boy when he had > Satyanand? > > Ned Wynn spent all of what, about five minutes > in a one-on-one encounter with MMY in Italy > and Ned carried MMY's antelope skin back to > the house for all of about one minute. I'd > probably guess that most people responding > here probably never got more than within > fifteen feet of the MMY in their entire life. > And I'm beginning to think that not a single > respondent on this forum has been inside a MMY > Golden Dome in years. Go figure. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
Richard J. Williams wrote: > > So, she is saying that MMY was celibate up to > > the age of 68, then, for one year he wasn't > > celibate, then from 1969 till today he was > > celibate. So, he must have had sexual relations > > with females for a year, yet neither Ms Pittman > > nor Nandi Keshore, Magic Alex, John, Paul, George, > > Ringo, Mike, Donovan or any skin boy or personal > > secretary, such as Tom Anderson, ever saw him > > actually doing it, even with the door wide open > > and with thousands of students passing by on a > > daily basis for over fifty years. And that the > > Indian press never suspected a thing. > > > > Now that is impressive for a 106 year old man! > > Billy wrote: > When 'the reporter stated' the below comment he > was refering to MMY 'in 1981' (the date of the > article) though it's a little confusing because > it is in italic type print in the newspaper > article. He should have said the 'now' 68 year > old MMY...at any rate the rest of your comment > checks out! > So, Billy, Mia got the MMY down into a dark cave underneath his house and tried to wrestle him down to the floor for a quick one. Then she writes a book, Not Fade Away, describing her relations with Frank Sinatra and Woody Allen, but in it she writes that MMY tried to give her a hairy bear hug. And Cynthia Lennon writes a book, Twist of Lennon, in which she totally discredits Magic Alex and John Lennon. And Paul McCartney says the rumors are bollocks. Now we have Linda expecting us to believe that MMY got her into bed on numerous occasions. And this is the extent of the published evidence that MMY had sexual relations with any females! And not a single word from any of the eight main Indian media outlets in over fifty years. And not a single eye-witness who is credible. And not a single person has ever cross-examined MMY. But my questions is, why on earth would MMY need to have sex with Linda when he had Ms Pittman? And why on earth would he need a personal secretary when he had Nandi Keshore? And why would he need a skin boy when he had Satyanand? Ned Wynn spent all of what, about five minutes in a one-on-one encounter with MMY in Italy and Ned carried MMY's antelope skin back to the house for all of about one minute. I'd probably guess that most people responding here probably never got more than within fifteen feet of the MMY in their entire life. And I'm beginning to think that not a single respondent on this forum has been inside a MMY Golden Dome in years. Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
Dude, don't embarrass yourself. The News of the World is like that newspaper you have in US that makes up stories about "Baby born with Aliens Head", and "Man grows Dragon's Tail". It is in the same category. OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > News of the World Sunday 23rd August 1981 (page 6) > > > > EXCLUSIVE BY DAVID MERTENS > > > > SEXY ROMPS OF > THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU > > > > 'I gave my mind to the Maharishi and he took my body' > > > > A YOUNG mother who became a top disciple of the Beatles' former guru, > Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, claims he seduced her - although he professes to be a > celibate monk. > > > > After travelling to India to join the Transcendental Meditation movement, > Mrs Linda Pearce says she fell completely under the Maharishi's spell. And > then into his bed. > > > > "I was a virgin and knew nothing about sex," said 34-year-old Mrs Pearce. > "He said he loved me and that I was the only one. 'You make my life so > good,' he told me. > > "When I asked about his celibacy he said: 'There are exceptions to every > rule.' > > "He was a brilliant manipulator. I just couldn't see that he was a dirty old > man. > > "We made love regularly. And I don't think I was the only girl. At one stage > I thought I was pregnant by him." > > > > Floating > > > > Now, after 12 years in the T.M. movement during which she reached the > position of Governor, Mrs Pearce has quit. And she says, "It was all a load > of rubbish". > > In her final year she set up an "academy" in the Scottish Highlands to teach > the Maharishi's followers to "fly" - a deep state of meditation in which > people are supposed to be floating around the room. > > "We were all completely taken in," she says. "We only taught people how to > hop around like frogs. Nobody ever learned to fly. It was nonsense." > > Mrs Pearce who has a seven-year-old daughter and a ten-month-old baby joined > the Maharishi's movement, now called the World Government or the Age of > Enlightenment, in 1967 - the same year as the Beatles joined the bandwagon. > > At the time Mrs Pearce, grand-daughter of the late Duke of Grafton, was a > student at Bedford College, London University. > > "At my first meeting in London, I was dead bored," she said. > > "But I realised it could help you to relax. And I was so tense, over-tired > and run-down. > > "A few months later I went to Paris for an art exhibition. And the Maharishi > was there staying in a really posh hotel. > > "He was surrounded by lots of pop singers and I was taken in by them. > > "The first time I saw the Maharishi he was rather a small creature, holding > court cross-legged in this sumptuous room. > > "He had a powerful personality and if anybody queried him, he'd ridicule > them and laugh at them. > > > > Power > > > > "He thought I had a few bob - a trust fund of about £40,000 - and he thought > I could be useful because I spoke French. > > "He told me to leave university but I wouldn't. Then I went back and within > eight months I was totally convinced. > > "I was going to meetings and got to the position where I was recruiting > people into the movement. I was totally brainwashed. > > "I paid £200 to go to Squaw Valley, California, for a course. That was in > the late Sixties when the Maharishi was taking over flower-power and using > it for his own ends. > > "In January 1969, I went to India. I aimed to be a teacher and always had a > great feeling that I wanted to make the world a better place. I was there > for three months. > > "At the time the Maharishi was recruiting his troops rather than coining in > the money. We sat and meditated all day and got dozier and dozier. > > "The Maharishi was there all the time. He used to give us lectures. We > thought it was great wisdom. > > It was then, she says, that the 68-year-old Maharishi, known as the Giggling > Guru, started their affair. > > "Others told me I wasn't his first girl," says Mrs Pearce. "There was a lot > of talk that he'd tried to rape Mia Farrow. > > "When I went back to my studies in England, I found I was besotted by T.M. > and I took to teaching in my spare time. > > "I returned to India the following Christmas and the relationship just > started up again. But by then I thought it was wrong and immoral. > > "The Maharishi just laughed that off. > > "In 1970, I finished my university course and followed him to the U.S., > Austria and Italy. But although he always tried to get me working close to > him, I just had a desire to stay as far away from him as possible. > > "The way he had treated me didn't change my views about the movement. I had > this great idea that his techniques were the best." > > Three years later, Linda met her husband, Peter Pearce, a South African, on > a TM course in Spain. > > The couple became Governors in the movement and went t
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
Tillich was perhaps the leading Protestant theologian of the 20th Century. From his description of God as the Ground of Being to his concept of ecstatic reason (not to mention his conventionally-conflicted sex life), Tillich has much in common with M. Tillich was famous, appearing on the cover of Time Magazine in 1955 when he was University Professor at Harvard. My own teacher, Lee Rouner, studied with Tillich then went on to teach in India: in fact Rouner used to claim that Tillich was best viewed as a closet advocate of the Advaita. By the way, the context of this article is: Tillich directed May's Ph.D. dissertation at Columbia (later published at The Meaning of Anxiety); the story also goes that around this time May was hospitalized when Tillich seduced May's wife. Paul Tillich as Hero: An Interview with Rollo May by Eliott Wright Mr. Wright is on the staff of Religious News service, New York City. This article appeared in the Christian Century, May 15, 1974, pp. 530-533. Copyright by The Christian Century Foundation; used by permission. Current articles and subscription information can be fond at www.christiancentury.org. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock. - "Im not afraid to admire Paul Tillich. He has been my spiritual father. I learned from him and loved him. Strangely, that seems to enrage many people." Rollo May, the psychoanalyst and author who is well known in religious circles, sat in his Manhattan office discussing with me critics reactions to his Paulus, a small appreciative volume subtitled "Reminiscences of a Friendship," which was published (by Harper & Row) in October 1973. In the same month and year Hannah Tillich, widow of the theologian who died in 1965 at the age of 79. issued an autobiography, From Time to Time (Stein & Day), which presents a more ambivalent, perhaps bizarre, picture of her husband. The interview he granted me was the first in which May talked about the background of Paulus, its contents in relation to Mrs. Tillichs account, and his concern over what the reception of both books says about contemporary culture. "My book has elicited so much anger," he said. "It seems to me its anger that one should present a man as a hero. Some people say that I thought too much of Paulus, that I dont make him flesh and blood. One review complained that I compared Pauluss death with Socrates. Well, I must say that is a bit idealized. Yet its a very real thing which I felt. Hannah shows him at his death with his bowels erupting, which strikes me as typical of what we do with our great men: show them defecating, no different from you and me." I Paulus and From Time to Time were inevitably reviewed together. And practically all the reviews -- from the scintillating paragraphs in Time magazines October 8, 1973, issue to the impassioned piece in Psychology Today for April 1974 -- stressed the widows description of Tillich as "lover of myriad women" (to use a southern papers phrase). By comparison, many reviewers treated Mays interpretation of Tillichs sensuality as demure. "It saddens me to say this, but I must speak out: I dont think Hannahs book presents an accurate picture of Paulus," May declared. "It presents him as a kind of adolescent voyeur and implies there were actual sexual relationships between him and a long series of women. Thats not true. "Now Paulus did greatly admire women and could be quite sensuous. He loved to hold a womans hand, talk intimately with her. . . well, one could call it a spiritual seduction that had little to do with sexual intercourse. "Hannah also distorts Pauluss life by saying almost nothing about his intellectual greatness, nothing about his being an impressive writer, nothing about his ecstatic reason. The things that make Tillich significant are left out. What this does, unless a reader already knows him, is to give a warped portrait; another dirty old man." The Psychology Today review, written by John Wren-Lewis, says that Paulus "appears to be a hasty production, so much so as to suggest the nasty suspicion that it might have been rushed out in the hope of counterbalancing the possible scandal of Hannahs revelations." A review appearing in Newsday last December said the same thing, but in the form of a question. "Nonsense," May retorted. The truth is that he agreed to write the book only at the Tillich familys request. He explained: "Hannah actively urged me over several years to write what she called the authorized biography. I had known her and Paulus since a month after they arrived in the U.S. in 1933, when I was a student at Union Seminary. As I began making notes, I saw that I had neither the time nor the facts on the German period to write an authorized biography. I decided to concentrate on where our two lives overlapped." Records made avai
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--Nope. The Barber saw MMY having sex. The barber told me in 1973. (went over this 12 times)...if you can't accept the truth, you have some type of blockage. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Billy wrote: > > The 'article' is in error as you mentioned, > > *because* she said the affair started in > > 1969 at the (reported) age of MMY at 68 > > years old. > > > So, she is saying that MMY was celibate up to > the age of 68, then, for one year he wasn't > celibate, then from 1969 till today he was > celibate. So, he must have had sexual relations > with females for a year, yet neither Ms Pittman > nor Nandi Keshore, Magic Alex, John, Paul, George, > Ringo, Mike, Donovan or any skin boy or personal > secretary, such as Tom Anderson, ever saw him > actually doing it, even with the door wide open > and with thousands of students passing by on a > daily basis for over fifty years. And that the > Indian press never suspected a thing. > > Now that is impressive for a 106 year old man! >
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Billy wrote: > > The 'article' is in error as you mentioned, > > *because* she said the affair started in > > 1969 at the (reported) age of MMY at 68 > > years old. > > > So, she is saying that MMY was celibate up to > the age of 68, then, for one year he wasn't > celibate, then from 1969 till today he was > celibate. So, he must have had sexual relations > with females for a year, yet neither Ms Pittman > nor Nandi Keshore, Magic Alex, John, Paul, George, > Ringo, Mike, Donovan or any skin boy or personal > secretary, such as Tom Anderson, ever saw him > actually doing it, even with the door wide open > and with thousands of students passing by on a > daily basis for over fifty years. And that the > Indian press never suspected a thing. > > Now that is impressive for a 106 year old man! When 'the reporter stated' the below comment he was refering to MMY 'in 1981' (the date of the article) though it's a little confusing because it is in italic type print in the newspaper article. He should have said the 'now' 68 year old MMY...at any rate the rest of your comment checks out! (It was then, she says, that the 68-year-old Maharishi, known as the Giggling Guru, started their affair.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
Billy wrote: > The 'article' is in error as you mentioned, > *because* she said the affair started in > 1969 at the (reported) age of MMY at 68 > years old. > So, she is saying that MMY was celibate up to the age of 68, then, for one year he wasn't celibate, then from 1969 till today he was celibate. So, he must have had sexual relations with females for a year, yet neither Ms Pittman nor Nandi Keshore, Magic Alex, John, Paul, George, Ringo, Mike, Donovan or any skin boy or personal secretary, such as Tom Anderson, ever saw him actually doing it, even with the door wide open and with thousands of students passing by on a daily basis for over fifty years. And that the Indian press never suspected a thing. Now that is impressive for a 106 year old man!
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of BillyG. > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 11:47 AM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU > > > > Hey Rick-FYI, that would make MMY 106 years old today, look at the dates.. > > In 1981, he was 64, not 68 as the article states. If he had been 68 then, he > would have been 94 now, not 90, as he is. Not sure how you came up with 106. I misinterpreted the article, it appeared to me that she was speaking at the time, since it was in slightly in different print, but now I see that all of what she was saying was in proper quotation marks, it was the reporter that was accentuating HIS comments...sorry!
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey Rick-FYI, that would make MMY 106 years old today, look at the dates.. > > In 1981, he was 64, not 68 as the article states. If he had been 68 then, he > would have been 94 now, not 90, as he is. Not sure how you came up with 106. The 'article' is in error as you mentioned, *because* she said the affair started in 1969 at the (reported) age of MMY at 68 years old. Add 38 intervening years to today of 2007 and you get MMY at the age of 106. So (if it happened at all) MMY would have to have been 56 years old in 1969. If MMY is 94 today deduct the intervening years back to 1969 (38 years ago), and you get MMY's true age in 1969. P.S. Basically the article is in error, probably do to the *reporter* not doing his homework.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
---Thanks, MMY born in 1918. Charlie Lutes, 1913, Scorpio; Jerry Jarvis, June 30th, 1932 - I'm not sure where, but possibly in Illinois. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of BillyG. > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 11:47 AM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU > > > > Hey Rick-FYI, that would make MMY 106 years old today, look at the dates.. > > In 1981, he was 64, not 68 as the article states. If he had been 68 then, he > would have been 94 now, not 90, as he is. Not sure how you came up with 106. >
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
In From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of BillyG. Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 11:47 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU Hey Rick-FYI, that would make MMY 106 years old today, look at the dates.. In 1981, he was 64, not 68 as the article states. If he had been 68 then, he would have been 94 now, not 90, as he is. Not sure how you came up with 106.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SEXY ROMPS OF THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU
Hey Rick-FYI, that would make MMY 106 years old today, look at the dates.. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > News of the World Sunday 23rd August 1981 (page 6) > > > > EXCLUSIVE BY DAVID MERTENS > > > > SEXY ROMPS OF > THE BEATLES' GIGGLING GURU > > > > 'I gave my mind to the Maharishi and he took my body' > > > > A YOUNG mother who became a top disciple of the Beatles' former guru, > Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, claims he seduced her - although he professes to be a > celibate monk. > > > > After travelling to India to join the Transcendental Meditation movement, > Mrs Linda Pearce says she fell completely under the Maharishi's spell. And > then into his bed. > > > > "I was a virgin and knew nothing about sex," said 34-year-old Mrs Pearce. > "He said he loved me and that I was the only one. 'You make my life so > good,' he told me. > > "When I asked about his celibacy he said: 'There are exceptions to every > rule.' > > "He was a brilliant manipulator. I just couldn't see that he was a dirty old > man. > > "We made love regularly. And I don't think I was the only girl. At one stage > I thought I was pregnant by him." > > > > Floating > > > > Now, after 12 years in the T.M. movement during which she reached the > position of Governor, Mrs Pearce has quit. And she says, "It was all a load > of rubbish". > > In her final year she set up an "academy" in the Scottish Highlands to teach > the Maharishi's followers to "fly" - a deep state of meditation in which > people are supposed to be floating around the room. > > "We were all completely taken in," she says. "We only taught people how to > hop around like frogs. Nobody ever learned to fly. It was nonsense." > > Mrs Pearce who has a seven-year-old daughter and a ten-month-old baby joined > the Maharishi's movement, now called the World Government or the Age of > Enlightenment, in 1967 - the same year as the Beatles joined the bandwagon. > > At the time Mrs Pearce, grand-daughter of the late Duke of Grafton, was a > student at Bedford College, London University. > > "At my first meeting in London, I was dead bored," she said. > > "But I realised it could help you to relax. And I was so tense, over-tired > and run-down. > > "A few months later I went to Paris for an art exhibition. And the Maharishi > was there staying in a really posh hotel. > > "He was surrounded by lots of pop singers and I was taken in by them. > > "The first time I saw the Maharishi he was rather a small creature, holding > court cross-legged in this sumptuous room. > > "He had a powerful personality and if anybody queried him, he'd ridicule > them and laugh at them. > > > > Power > > > > "He thought I had a few bob - a trust fund of about £40,000 - and he thought > I could be useful because I spoke French. > > "He told me to leave university but I wouldn't. Then I went back and within > eight months I was totally convinced. > > "I was going to meetings and got to the position where I was recruiting > people into the movement. I was totally brainwashed. > > "I paid £200 to go to Squaw Valley, California, for a course. That was in > the late Sixties when the Maharishi was taking over flower-power and using > it for his own ends. > > "In January 1969, I went to India. I aimed to be a teacher and always had a > great feeling that I wanted to make the world a better place. I was there > for three months. > > "At the time the Maharishi was recruiting his troops rather than coining in > the money. We sat and meditated all day and got dozier and dozier. > > "The Maharishi was there all the time. He used to give us lectures. We > thought it was great wisdom. > > It was then, she says, that the 68-year-old Maharishi, known as the Giggling > Guru, started their affair. > > "Others told me I wasn't his first girl," says Mrs Pearce. "There was a lot > of talk that he'd tried to rape Mia Farrow. > > "When I went back to my studies in England, I found I was besotted by T.M. > and I took to teaching in my spare time. > > "I returned to India the following Christmas and the relationship just > started up again. But by then I thought it was wrong and immoral. > > "The Maharishi just laughed that off. > > "In 1970, I finished my university course and followed him to the U.S., > Austria and Italy. But although he always tried to get me working close to > him, I just had a desire to stay as far away from him as possible. > > "The way he had treated me didn't change my views about the movement. I had > this great idea that his techniques were the best." > > Three years later, Linda met her husband, Peter Pearce, a South African, on > a TM course in Spain. > > The couple became Governors in the movement and went to South Africa to > teach its beliefs. > > > > Celibate > > > > But when they opened their academy at Crosscraig in Scotland, things started > to go wrong. > > Linda said: "I really
