[FairfieldLife] Re: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[TurquoiseB]

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

 On the topic of religious rituals - and to take this thread even
further away from Mani - were there ever any group ceremonies (puja)
performed at the various HQs where Maharishi established himself in
Switzerland and Holland?

  And did those attending training courses as TM teachers ever have
communal puja chanting or anything else suggesting a cult? Maybe the
sacrifice of a maiden on a stone slab?

  Or did it never deviate from individual and group TM/Sidhi practice
and SCI lectures?

Since no one else seems to be willing to deal with this, I will. :-)
The answer, of course, is Is the Pope Catholic? *Of course*
there were mass pujas and celebrations performed to the
various Hindu gods and goddesses in these locations. The
general public probably never knew much about them, not
being allowed on the premises, but they definitely took place,
and undoubtedly do to this day. Many people suspected,
because the people on the courses rarely came into town
and when they did, they were as spaced out as zombies.
In St. Moritz, on my last long TM course, the townspeople
referred to the folks up in the hotel on top of the mountain,
possibly taking a cue from the Beatles, as the fools on
the hill.  :-)

To deal with other of your recent questions, there was always
a public teaching and a private or real teaching w.r.t.
the TMO and Maharishi. For the public (and for those TMers
who never ventured any further into the org) it was 20
minutes twice a day and no belief or lifestyle changes. But
for those who went on to become TM teachers, it was very,
very different. Much of the teaching centered around oft-
repeated stories extolling the benefits of and necessity of
devotion to one's master. MMY would tell the story of
Trotakacharya over and over, as if that exemplified what
a spiritual seeker's life and relationship to one's teacher
should be like, and in practice he pretty much demanded
to be treated as if he were the master in question. Refuse
to do something he had commanded you to do (for
example, Deepak Chopra, preferring to have a life and
a medical practice not directly linked to the TMO) and
you were outa there faster than shit through a goose.
Those held up as role models were the ones with near-
absolute and unquestioning devotion to and obeisance
to Maharishi.

As for the name itself, the question is not so much How
is it pronounced? but Was the name deserved? Even
according to Maharishi's version, people started calling
him that, and he allowed them to. Bottom line, however,
is that the title was neither conferred on him by any
legitimate lineage, or deserved. Heck, he wasn't even a
yogi.

If you were one of those lucky TMers who avoided the
TM organization and just meditated, you probably missed
a lot of the drama that people on this forum talk about,
and that the cult apologists -- many of whom never
became teachers themselves and never did more than
dip their toe in the TMO as it really was -- try to excuse.
For anyone who became a TM teacher, it was *very much*
about lifestyle changes, and obeisance to one's master.
And there was simply *no question* that Maharishi both
allowed this to happen, and encouraged it.

[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[s3raphita]

People should have taken a leaf out of John Lennon's book - respectful but not 
in awe of Maharishi. When Lennon first arrived at the Rishikesh ashram during 
an awkward silence Lennon walked across the room and patted Maharishi on the 
head, saying, There's a good little guru which broke the ice.
 

 Can't imagine any of the suits ever doing that.
 

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

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

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote:

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

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

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

  
 

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

 authfriend wrote:
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 As a kind of space case, perhaps I was attracted to a less concrete 

[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[s3raphita]

Since no one else seems to be willing to deal with this, I will. :
 

 Thanks - sounds intriguing. I wish someone had taken candid-camera footage for 
the rest of us to enjoy. 
 

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
wrote:
 
  On the topic of religious rituals - and to take this thread even
 further away from Mani - were there ever any group ceremonies (puja)
 performed at the various HQs where Maharishi established himself in
 Switzerland and Holland?
 
  And did those attending training courses as TM teachers ever have
 communal puja chanting or anything else suggesting a cult? Maybe the
 sacrifice of a maiden on a stone slab?
 
  Or did it never deviate from individual and group TM/Sidhi practice
 and SCI lectures?
 
 Since no one else seems to be willing to deal with this, I will. :-)
 The answer, of course, is Is the Pope Catholic? *Of course*
 there were mass pujas and celebrations performed to the
 various Hindu gods and goddesses in these locations. The
 general public probably never knew much about them, not
 being allowed on the premises, but they definitely took place,
 and undoubtedly do to this day. Many people suspected,
 because the people on the courses rarely came into town
 and when they did, they were as spaced out as zombies.
 In St. Moritz, on my last long TM course, the townspeople
 referred to the folks up in the hotel on top of the mountain,
 possibly taking a cue from the Beatles, as the fools on
 the hill. :-)
 
 To deal with other of your recent questions, there was always
 a public teaching and a private or real teaching w.r.t.
 the TMO and Maharishi. For the public (and for those TMers
 who never ventured any further into the org) it was 20
 minutes twice a day and no belief or lifestyle changes. But
 for those who went on to become TM teachers, it was very,
 very different. Much of the teaching centered around oft-
 repeated stories extolling the benefits of and necessity of
 devotion to one's master. MMY would tell the story of
 Trotakacharya over and over, as if that exemplified what
 a spiritual seeker's life and relationship to one's teacher
 should be like, and in practice he pretty much demanded
 to be treated as if he were the master in question. Refuse
 to do something he had commanded you to do (for
 example, Deepak Chopra, preferring to have a life and
 a medical practice not directly linked to the TMO) and
 you were outa there faster than shit through a goose.
 Those held up as role models were the ones with near-
 absolute and unquestioning devotion to and obeisance
 to Maharishi.
 
 As for the name itself, the question is not so much How
 is it pronounced? but Was the name deserved? Even
 according to Maharishi's version, people started calling
 him that, and he allowed them to. Bottom line, however,
 is that the title was neither conferred on him by any
 legitimate lineage, or deserved. Heck, he wasn't even a
 yogi.
 
 If you were one of those lucky TMers who avoided the
 TM organization and just meditated, you probably missed
 a lot of the drama that people on this forum talk about,
 and that the cult apologists -- many of whom never
 became teachers themselves and never did more than
 dip their toe in the TMO as it really was -- try to excuse.
 For anyone who became a TM teacher, it was *very much*
 about lifestyle changes, and obeisance to one's master.
 And there was simply *no question* that Maharishi both
 allowed this to happen, and encouraged it.
 

[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[s3raphita]

Maharishi explained that the invisibility technique wouldn't work because it 
could be used for bad purposes.:
 

 That's the Catch-22.  Only ordinary folks would want the super powers but are 
excluded by their ordinariness; only advanced saints could develop the super 
powers but by then they wouldn't be interested. 
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[Share Long]

Seraphita my understanding of the TMSP, especially yogic flying, is that their 
purpose is to develop mind body coordination. I think such integration is very 
healthy spiritually, mentally, emotionally and physically. I'm aware of what 
some spiritual teachers think of sidhis in general. But in my experience, Being 
itself is running the show and one simply has to flow down the river without 
fighting it. I admit I find it hard to explain. I often suggest that people 
come and visit FF and see for themselves.   





On Friday, November 8, 2013 11:15 AM, s3raph...@yahoo.com 
s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote:
 
  
Maharishi explained that the invisibility technique wouldn't work because it 
could be used for bad purposes.:

That's the Catch-22.  Only ordinary folks would want the super powers but are 
excluded by their ordinariness; only advanced saints could develop the super 
powers but by then they wouldn't be interested. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[Richard J. Williams]

This thread is looking like it's headed for the outhouse.

On 11/6/2013 10:10 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote:


You're all sounding like desiccated corpses drying in the desert.

There is another type of Christian life here in America.


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



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

*Seraphita wrote: *


 Re Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship
context and joined the

 church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple of years
but wasn't inspired

 enoughto continue, since I really wasn't into the Personal God aspect of
the belief system

 (orChrist as savior). God as Unified Field, the ultimate (and
unworshipable) abstraction, is

 about as far as I can go. :



 Again very close to my view. Here in the UK, the Anglican Church is
essentially a wishy-

 washy nostalgia circus for reminding grown-ups of their childhood.
(With bits of Arthurian

 romance added to the mix.) So all pretty harmless. Even arch-atheist
Richard Dawkins has

 confessed to occasionally popping into a church just to enjoy the 
aesthetic
experience!


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


*
*

**

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


 Catholic position: the Mass as a magical ritual and the unembarrassed 
veneration of those

 medieval mystics. Even such unregenerates as Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire  and 
Huysmans

 finallyturned to Rome as they sensed it was the more poetical religion.


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


*
*

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



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

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

[sharelong60]

Richard! Did you even look at the clip?! It's beautiful, not outhousy at all! 
Go figure! 

 

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

 This thread is looking like it's headed for the outhouse.
 
 On 11/6/2013 10:10 PM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote:
 
   You're all sounding like desiccated corpses drying in the desert. 
 There is another type of Christian life here in America.
 
 
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0M94z3Pev4 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0M94z3Pev4
 
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, 
authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
 Seraphita wrote: 
 
  Re Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship context and 
  joined the 
  church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple of years but wasn't 
  inspired 
  enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the Personal God aspect of 
  the belief system 
  (or Christ as savior). God as Unified Field, the ultimate (and 
  unworshipable) abstraction, is 
  about as far as I can go. :
 
  Again very close to my view. Here in the UK, the Anglican Church is 
  essentially a wishy- 
  washy nostalgia circus for reminding grown-ups of their childhood. (With 
  bits of Arthurian 
  romance added to the mix.) So all pretty harmless. Even arch-atheist Richard 
  Dawkins has 
  confessed to occasionally popping into a church just to enjoy the aesthetic 
  experience!
 
 
 
 Heehee. Be fun to see that guy Spufford look up from his prayers and clap eyes 
on Dawkins.
 
 
  Having always been intrigued by the occult fringe, I've also seen some 
  attraction in the 
 
  Catholic position: the Mass as a magical ritual and the unembarrassed 
  veneration of those 
  medieval mystics. Even such unregenerates as Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire  and 
  Huysmans 
  finally turned to Rome as they sensed it was the more poetical religion.
 
 
 Huh, I'm attracted by the poetry/music/incense/art/theatrical aspects as well. 
Goes way back with me to the (wonderful) Audrey Hepburn film The Nun's Story. 
I think I'd need a Peter Finch equivalent, though.
 
 
 To this day I have no idea whether my late father had any religious 
sensibility whatsoever, but he adored churches and religious music and 
painting. I guess it's in the genes.
 
 
 
 I might be tempted to pop into a Catholic church at some point if they were 
doing a mass in Latin. There's something really magical about Latin. Like 
Sanskrit, I suppose, but the music is a lot better. ;-) I once memorized the 
Hail Mary in Latin just because I loved the sound of it. My Presbyterian 
ancestors (Huguenots, no less) must have spun themselves nearly out of their 
graves.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[s3raphita]

On the topic of religious rituals - and to take this thread even further away 
from Mani - were there ever any group ceremonies (puja) performed at the 
various HQs where Maharishi established himself in Switzerland and Holland? 
 

 And did those attending training courses as TM teachers ever have communal 
puja chanting or anything else suggesting a cult? Maybe the sacrifice of a 
maiden on a stone slab?
 

 Or did it never deviate from individual and group TM/Sidhi practice and SCI 
lectures?
 

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



 



 

[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[s3raphita]

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

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

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

  
 

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

 authfriend wrote:
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 As a kind of space case, perhaps I was attracted to a less concrete view of 
the universe. For example, without wanting to be a Buddhist, I was attracted to 
its Zen lineage because of the lack of conceptualisation and emphasis on direct 
experience. I found the emphasis on devotion to the guru in the TM movement 
always disconcerting as it did not seem to have any relevance to my so-called 
path. Others, of course, found devotion quite amenable to them, if it was 
natural; but faking devotion because one sees others doing it that way probably 
would be a disaster. I have seen people in the movement live and on tape 
seemingly straining to appear devoted when it seemed (as it appeared to me) 
they were just doing it out of peer pressure. Devotion is a property of what 
you like the most, whatever is most likable to you, that is your devotion, what 
you pursue, and that pursuit continues until it is fulfilled, or completely 
thwarted.
 

  
 






 

[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[emptybill]

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

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote:

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

 

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

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


 

[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[dhamiltony2k5]

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

 

 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote:

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

 

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

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


 

[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[s3raphita]

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

 So you did. Sorry.
 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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



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

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




 



 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[Richard J. Williams]

Around here, if it looks like a Buddha, it's probably a Buddhist of some 
kind. MMY lived in the Himalayas with masters; MMY came out of the 
Himalayas and he looks like a Himalayan Master, so he is probably a 
Himalayan Master of some kind. Around here, if it looks like a duck, 
quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck of some 
kind.


On 11/6/2013 8:08 AM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote:


Share,

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




---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote:

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




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

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

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


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


Yes, according to MMY.



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


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


*-Buck*



---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com 
mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... 
mailto:s3raphita@... wrote:


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



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


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




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


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

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


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


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



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


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

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


MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM


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

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

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[Richard J. Williams]

If he lived in the Himalayas with yogis; and if he came out of the 
Himalayas looking like a yogi; and he talks and looks like a yogi; and 
they call him a yogi; then he must be a yogi of some kind.


On 11/6/2013 9:00 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote:


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





---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote:

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




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

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

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


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


Yes, according to MMY.



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


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


*-Buck*



---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com 
mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... 
mailto:s3raphita@... wrote:


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



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


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




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


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

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


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


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



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


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

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


MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM


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

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

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[Share Long]

Richard, it sounds like you're saying that anyone who is aspiring to be like 
Buddha is a Bhudhist. Would you also say that anyone who aspires to be like 
Christ is a Christian? If you are, it's kind of an interesting perspective on 
the whole thing.





On Wednesday, November 6, 2013 12:31 PM, Richard J. Williams 
pundits...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  
If he lived in the Himalayas with yogis; and if he came out of the Himalayas 
looking like a yogi; and he talks and looks like a yogi; and they call him a 
yogi; then he must be a yogi of some kind. 

On 11/6/2013 9:00 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote:

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






---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote:


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



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


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


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

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


Yes, according to MMY. 


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


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


---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote:


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


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


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


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

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

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

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



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

  
 No wonder the Near-Eastern realm got so mixed 

[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[s3raphita]

Re Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship context and 
joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple of years 
but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the Personal 
God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified Field, 
the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can go. :
 Again very close to my view. Here in the UK, the Anglican Church is 
essentially a wishy-washy nostalgia circus for reminding grown-ups of their 
childhood. (With bits of Arthurian romance added to the mix.) So all pretty 
harmless. Even arch-atheist Richard Dawkins has confessed to occasionally 
popping into a church just to enjoy the aesthetic experience! 
 Having always been intrigued by the occult fringe, I've also seen some 
attraction in the Catholic position: the Mass as a magical ritual and the 
unembarrassed veneration of those medieval mystics. Even such unregenerates as 
Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire  and Huysmans finally turned to Rome as they sensed it 
was the more poetical religion.
 

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

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

 My parents sent me to Sunday School at a nearby nondenominational Christian 
church a couple of times when I was around 10 or so, feeling they should at 
least give me some exposure to religion. I didn't like it, and they didn't make 
me go again. I had a brief flirtation with Unitarianism in my teens, but it 
didn't last. Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship 
context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple 
of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the 
Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified 
Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can 
go.
 
 
  Re Robin Carlsen converted while he was still adventuring . . . he rejected 
  Catholicism as well.:
  His jumping from MMY to Ayatollahs to Popes suggest someone in search of an 
  authority figure, no?
 
 
 Could be (but he never jumped to the Ayatollah; Islam wasn't his bag--he was 
really just curious, and then very impressed by the Ayatollah as a presumably 
enlightened being, but not as a guru or authority figure).
 

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

 The group collapsed in chaos not long after that, and he went into seclusion 
for 25 years to sort himself out. He decided shortly after he began this 
recovery process that TM and Catholicism weren't compatible after all and 
rejected TM. A few 

[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[emptybill]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



 

[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[s3raphita]

Augustine of Hippo, who claimed to have been a dualistic Manichaen for ten 
years. The radical dualism of Manichaeism is evident in many Gnostic sects: 
Isn't the vulgar notion of Christianity held by most believers radically 
dualist? (Which isn't surprising as western Christianity flows from Augustine.) 
Your standard Christian believes God is good and Satan is evil and History will 
end with a stand-up fight between the angels of light and the demons with the 
good angels destined to prevail. 
 A non-dualist sees that the world is perfect as it is right now. If people 
don't see that it's because their ignorant minds project on to what they 
experience human ideas of what's good and what's bad.
 
So, the dualism of Gnosticism has been pretty much established. Manichaeism is 
based on the doctrine that the entire world of material bodies are all 
constructions of Satan. 
 In Vedanta, Maya is the deity that perpetuates the illusion of duality in the 
phenomenal Universe. One has to see through the illusion and so break the 
spell. Isn't that view on a continuum with Gnostic dualism? I'm sure you'd find 
lots of Vedantists and Buddhists with a life-hating, body-despising approach 
and I'm betting you could have found some Gnostics with a more relaxed attitude 
to the material world. 
 

 Yin and Yang are complimentary forces rather than opposing forces:
 In Taoist metaphysics, good-bad distinctions are perceptual, not real. As they 
are not real what we think are opposing forces are in opposition at a 
superficial level only. At a deeper level they're engaged in a dance. 
Tweedledum and Tweedledee *agreed* to have a battle.

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

 

 
 

[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[s3raphita]

Should I assume that you are Roman Catholic? Or at least a fellow traveller? I 
understand Robin Carlsen became a Catholic convert - indeed a Catholic priest 
(?) after his adventures on the new-age circuit. Are you one of his former 
acolytes?
 

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

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

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




 

[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[awoelflebater]

 
 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 Sounds about right to me. Interestingly, I was the only one in the group who, 
having been raised Catholic, started to lose interest quite profoundly once RC 
began on his Catholic binge.  This was all known territory for me and the group 
started to lose its intensity and fascination for me. It was like they had 
arrived really late to a party I had already left hours before. Then all hell 
broke loose (ironically) and I was kicked out anyway. I guess maybe I wasn't 
showing enough devoutness to the cause. 
 

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

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



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

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




 



 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[Share Long]

Seraphita, would it be an error because Taoists believe that the Tao is always 
keeping good and evil in balance? And what is meant by a vulgar error?

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




On Sunday, November 3, 2013 4:10 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com 
s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote:
 
  
Re The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle 
between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the 
material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a 
battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both 
good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, 
and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would 
probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang.:

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


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


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

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

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

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



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

  
 No wonder the Near-Eastern realm got so mixed up.   
 
It seems that as Manichean ideology spread to the East it incorporated 
Buddhist concepts along the way in a effort to show the superiority of the 
Religion of Light. Mani lived during the third century of the current era. 
Mani used the epitaph Buddha of Light and identified himself as Maitreya. He 
and his followers specifically borrowed from early Pure Land Sutras and 
Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy. As it entered the region of Gandhara and 
spread to China it used the Buddhist Hinayana tradition to support its views 
of matter, the body and the world.
MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM


David A. Scott 
Christ Church College of Higher Education 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[Richard J. Williams]

We know mostly about Mani from The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Enochan 
literature and the writings of Augustine of Hippo, who claimed to have 
been a dualistic Manichaen for ten years. The radical dualism of 
Manichaeism is evident in many Gnostic sects but mainly in the 
Paulicans, Bogomils and the Cathars.


So, the dualism of Gnoticisim has been pretty much established. 
Manichaeism is based on the doctrine that the entire world of material 
bodies are all constructions of Satan. Numerous themes in the religious 
beliefs of Mani were derived from Buddhist influences when Mani lived in 
Buddhist Ghandara. Yin and Yang are complimentary forces rather than 
opposing forces which, when taken together in various proportions, turn 
into a whole. It's not complicated.


According to Foltz, Taoism is also based on Yin Yang and many Buddhist 
elements have been incorporated into Taoism, such as supporting 
monesterys, monks, vegetarianism, and adopting the Buddhist doctrine of 
emptiness. Taoism in turn influenced the Buddhist Chan school and 
Japanese Zen school.


Work cited:

'Religions of the Silk Road'
Richard Foltz
Palgrave Macmillan, 2010
p. 71

Read more:

Subject: The Silk Road
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Author: Willytex
Date: March 10, 2004
http://tinyurl.com/yjs4uv4

Subject: Foreign Devils on the Silk Road!
Author: Willytex
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental, alt.religion.gnostic
Date: February 6, 2005
http://tinyurl.com/yb2275p

On 11/3/2013 4:10 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote:


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



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


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




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

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

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


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


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



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


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

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


MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM


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

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

[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[s3raphita]

Seraphita, would it be an error because Taoists believe that the Tao is always 
keeping good and evil in balance? 
 Yes
 And what is meant by a vulgar error? 
 Simply that Lao-Tse would have regarded most people as too ignorant to 
understand his teaching. 
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote:

 Seraphita, would it be an error because Taoists believe that the Tao is always 
keeping good and evil in balance? And what is meant by a vulgar error?

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

 
 
 On Sunday, November 3, 2013 4:10 PM, s3raphita@... s3raphita@... wrote:
 
   Re The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle 
between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the 
material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a 
battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both 
good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, 
and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would 
probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang.:
 

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

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

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

 
 



 
 
 
 


 

[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[s3raphita]

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

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

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

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

[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[dhamiltony2k5]

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

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote:

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

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

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

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

 

[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[emptybill]

 
 The Mahasiddha Tilopa’s six essential points of
 meditation contain the basic principles of placement
 meditation. 
  
 1. The first point is not to be distracted
 by, dwell upon, get involved
 in, get lost in, nourish, encourage,
 or follow thoughts about the past.
 Anything that arises concerning
 anything that occurred or one
 thought prior to the current moment,
 one should simply let go of it.
 Ultimately,one should develop the
 discipline or the automatic habit of
 letting go of such thoughts instantly,
 on the spot, and one should
 learn to remain in such a state of
 .permanent let-go..
  
 2. The second point is not to be distracted by,
 dwell upon, get involved in, get lost in, nourish,
 encourage, get fixated on, or follow thoughts about
 the present. In particular, one should not fixate on
 either outer phenomena or inner experiences.
  
 3. The third point is not to be distracted by, dwell
 upon, get involved in, get lost in, nourish, encourage,
 or speculate about the future or thoughts of the future, 

 but to let go of them instantly as well.
  
 4. The fourth point is not to meditate. One should
 resist, or let go of the temptation, which at some
 point always arises in the experience of beginning
 meditators, to improve or make better one’s meditation 

 by meditating on tranquility, or on the experience of 

 openness or on clarity or on bliss or by fabricating or
 contriving any strategy to improve one’s meditation. 

 All such attempts to improve one’s meditation by meditating are cul-de-
 sacs, and, as such, obstacles to meditation.
  
 5. The fifth point is not to analyze. Although there
 are other forms of meditation that teach one to
 analyze one’s experience, the ultimate goal of such
 analysis is to transcend analytical and conceptual
 impositions upon one’s experience altogether, so that 

 one will finally experience directly the true nature of mind, 

 the true nature of experience, the true nature of reality. 

 So in this approach, according to the fifth point, one 

 should not analyze; one should not engage in the asking 

 of such questions as … What is its nature? Where does 

 it really reside? How does appear here? Why is it at all?
 Does it exist outside or inside the mind? What are its other characteristics?. 
One should let go of all tendencies to 

 analyze one’s experience.
  
 So, then, if one is not to be distracted by thoughts of past,
 present, or future; and if one is not to meditate and not to 

 analyze,then what should one be doing? What is one’s mind 

 to hang on to? The answer is “nothing”. Tilopa's sixth point 

 is just to “leave it to itself”. Whatever arises in the mind, 

 one should neither welcome nor reject, neither encourage nor
 suppress, nor should one get lost in thoughts. In the words 

 of Bokar Rinpoche there is “nothing to do”; nothing to do
 beyond resting in the awareness of the freshness of 

 whatever arises.
  
 The style of breathing meditation that many of
 us in the Kagyu and Nyingma schools of Tibetan
 Buddhism begin with combines shamatha with the
 placement meditation style of vipashyana. When
 we are going out with the out-breath, which involves 

 the sense of uniting mind and breath, and mind and 

 breath with space, we are practicing shamatha.
  
 When we abandon this discipline at the end of the
 out-breath and simply rest in the space between the
 end of the out-breath and the beginning of the next
 out-breath, without any particular attention to the
 in-breath, we are practicing placement meditation.
  
 If, in our practice of this discipline, we find
 our experience during the “gap” has the
 quality of Tilopa’s six points of meditation, 

 then it is no longer necessary to make a point of 
following the breath. It can drop away just as a leaf
 drops off of a tree. 

 

 However, if any form of mental dullness is
not dissolved co-emergently as it arises, 

 or if one becomes distracted by or lost in 

 thoughts, one should return to one’s shamatha 

 discipline of following the breath.
 
 


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

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