Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
On Mar 17, 2009, at 9:28 AM, raunchydog wrote: More nonsense. Rape is rarely about desire and usually much more about power. O.K. Sal, I'll can accept your qualifier power and say desire for power Happy now? No, it's still a silly point, raunch. Stealing: A rapist covets a woman then he takes her. A thief covets something before he steals it too, but that didn't stop them from spelling it out. A woman owns her body. Taking a woman's body by force without her permission is rape/stealing. Murder: Rape is an act of violence intended to destroy a woman's right to self-preservation. Rape often engenders permanent damage to the woman's sense of well being, if not a murderous end to her life. Gosh...really?? Why do you think I wondered why it didn't appear. Sal Then I guess we agree. Your point was that rape was not in the Commandments. My point is, it is implied under coveting, stealing and murder. Now that I have made an argument to support your query, you're giving me flack for pointing out the obvious, which you obviously missed. Thanks for reminding me that talking to a bucket of rocks ends in getting beaned with one on the noggin'. Gratuitous slams do not help make your point. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
On Mar 17, 2009, at 9:57 AM, raunchydog wrote: Maybe the Biblical God of the Old Testament is pro slavery and pro rape. I wouldn't know. But you had no trouble tossing my insult my way for asking about it. Maybe it's time to clear the rocks out of your own head? But IMO the wrathful God argument you made is a red herring you tossed my way to argue against my point. I answered Sal within the narrow frame she presented. The Commandments, just taken at face value, prohibit violating the rights of others. Jesus summarized the Commandments in the Golden Rule: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew 7:12, King James Version. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. Luke 6:31, King James Version. ...and don't do what you hate..., Gospel of Thomas 6. The Gospel of Thomas is one of about 40 gospels that were widely accepted among early Christians, but which never made it into the Christian Scriptures Jesus doesn't make an appearance in the OT, in case you hadn't noticed. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
Vivekananda's Raja Yoga was probably the first book on Hinduism I read, which somehow probably led me directly to the TM Sidhis later. I think I read it at about age 12. - Original Message - From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 10:53 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@... wrote: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Let's see, a self-proclaimed yogi comes to America, gains a following including Hollywood actors and entertainment business people by offering a method for inner peace for the East. It's not only comparable the guys almost all ran the same campaign. If you read Vivekananda and Yogananda it is clear. They believed that their spirituality contained Jesus as some sort of minor avatar. Okay, I'm jumping into this thread without a lot of background. But from past comments, I gather you are skeptical about Yogananda. I think you have implied that he was a phony. Same for Vivekananda? I mention this because I have always held both in high regard. I do find Yogananda's miracle saint stories far fetched and a bit naive. He seems inclined to take claims at face value. His experience of seeing Krishna waving at him seems very, very silly to me. I forget what I read from Vivekananda but I do remember that he got physically pushed around by Westerners who didn't appreciate his Eastern message which makes me think he was pretty brave. He was a real trail blazer. I should read his biography, I'll bet it is very interesting. If you see value in either of their teachings good on ya mate. My loss, your gain. To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
On Mar 16, 2009, at 10:00 AM, raunchydog wrote: Isn't it interesting that in the 10 Comms there's no commandment against rape? Sal It's just interesting or do you have an opinion about it? IMO rape is included in the commandments against coveting, stealing and murder. That's just nonsense, raunch. Coveting precedes rape: A rapist craves a woman to satisfy his desire. More nonsense. Rape is rarely about desire and usually much more about power. Stealing: A rapist covets a woman then he takes her. A woman owns her body. Taking a woman's body by force without her permission is rape/stealing. Murder: Rape is an act of violence intended to destroy a woman's right to self-preservation. Rape often engenders permanent damage to the woman's sense of well being, if not a murderous end to her life. Gosh...really?? Why do you think I wondered why it didn't appear. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
On Mar 16, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Kirk wrote: ---Men get raped by women too, In your dreams, Kirk. :) as well as by each other as well as the others by the others. ---Let's face it 'getting used' is just a subtle form of rape. Men 'get used' just as women, so some women think it's open season. It's not always fun or nice. hehe Yeah...hehe... Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
On Mar 16, 2009, at 9:51 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Isn't it interesting that in the 10 Comms there's no commandment against rape? Sal Or slavery. Holding up the 10 Commandments as some sort of moral guide is one of my pet peeves. There are actually two versions of them in the Bible. And the penalty is death. So the same people who recognize that killing someone for sleeping with another person's wife is ridiculous, still think it is appropriate to hold up this nonsense as a profound insight for society. Only 2 of them are widely enforced by our legal system. As one of the New Atheists pointed out...I think it might have been Dawkins...do people really think that the ancient Israelites (or any other group) thought killing, stealing etc was OK *before* the Coms? Doubtful. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Mar 16, 2009, at 9:51 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Isn't it interesting that in the 10 Comms there's no commandment against rape? Or slavery. Holding up the 10 Commandments as some sort of moral guide is one of my pet peeves. There are actually two versions of them in the Bible. And the penalty is death. So the same people who recognize that killing someone for sleeping with another person's wife is ridiculous, still think it is appropriate to hold up this nonsense as a profound insight for society. Only 2 of them are widely enforced by our legal system. As one of the New Atheists pointed out...I think it might have been Dawkins...do people really think that the ancient Israelites (or any other group) thought killing, stealing etc was OK *before* the Coms? Doubtful. Why I agree with Curtis that the Ten Commandments are nonsense and should not be held up as some kind of moral guide is more fundamental than that. All but one of them (Honor thy father and mother.) are PROHIBITIONs, Thou shalt nots. Prohibition, historically, DOES NOT WORK. Nowhere is this pointed out more succinctly than in one of the recent documentaries about the decrimin- alization of marijuana from Canada. The speaker says, I want you to think back to the *first* prohibition. What was that about? The interviewer says, Alcohol, right? The speaker says, No, the *first* prohibition. It was in the garden of Eden: 'Thou shalt not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.' And who was it who had to *enforce* this prohibition? The interviewer doesn't say anything, so the speaker just points upwards. And then he says, And all He had to do was watch *two people*. And how did *that* turn out? If you want to encourage better behavior, IMO how you do it is DEMONSTRATE better behavior. Prohibiting lesser behavior is what people who are unwilling or unable to do that do instead.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Mar 16, 2009, at 10:00 AM, raunchydog wrote: Isn't it interesting that in the 10 Comms there's no commandment against rape? Sal It's just interesting or do you have an opinion about it? IMO rape is included in the commandments against coveting, stealing and murder. That's just nonsense, raunch. Coveting precedes rape: A rapist craves a woman to satisfy his desire. More nonsense. Rape is rarely about desire and usually much more about power. O.K. Sal, I'll can accept your qualifier power and say desire for power Happy now? Stealing: A rapist covets a woman then he takes her. A woman owns her body. Taking a woman's body by force without her permission is rape/stealing. Murder: Rape is an act of violence intended to destroy a woman's right to self-preservation. Rape often engenders permanent damage to the woman's sense of well being, if not a murderous end to her life. Gosh...really?? Why do you think I wondered why it didn't appear. Sal Then I guess we agree. Your point was that rape was not in the Commandments. My point is, it is implied under coveting, stealing and murder. Now that I have made an argument to support your query, you're giving me flack for pointing out the obvious, which you obviously missed. Thanks for reminding me that talking to a bucket of rocks ends in getting beaned with one on the noggin'.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: The speaker says, No, the *first* prohibition. It was in the garden of Eden: 'Thou shalt not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.' And who was it who had to *enforce* this prohibition? The interviewer doesn't say anything, so the speaker just points upwards. And then he says, And all He had to do was watch *two people*. And how did *that* turn out? This was a real gem! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Mar 16, 2009, at 9:51 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Isn't it interesting that in the 10 Comms there's no commandment against rape? Or slavery. Holding up the 10 Commandments as some sort of moral guide is one of my pet peeves. There are actually two versions of them in the Bible. And the penalty is death. So the same people who recognize that killing someone for sleeping with another person's wife is ridiculous, still think it is appropriate to hold up this nonsense as a profound insight for society. Only 2 of them are widely enforced by our legal system. As one of the New Atheists pointed out...I think it might have been Dawkins...do people really think that the ancient Israelites (or any other group) thought killing, stealing etc was OK *before* the Coms? Doubtful. Why I agree with Curtis that the Ten Commandments are nonsense and should not be held up as some kind of moral guide is more fundamental than that. All but one of them (Honor thy father and mother.) are PROHIBITIONs, Thou shalt nots. Prohibition, historically, DOES NOT WORK. Nowhere is this pointed out more succinctly than in one of the recent documentaries about the decrimin- alization of marijuana from Canada. The speaker says, I want you to think back to the *first* prohibition. What was that about? The interviewer says, Alcohol, right? The speaker says, No, the *first* prohibition. It was in the garden of Eden: 'Thou shalt not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.' And who was it who had to *enforce* this prohibition? The interviewer doesn't say anything, so the speaker just points upwards. And then he says, And all He had to do was watch *two people*. And how did *that* turn out? If you want to encourage better behavior, IMO how you do it is DEMONSTRATE better behavior. Prohibiting lesser behavior is what people who are unwilling or unable to do that do instead.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Mar 15, 2009, at 6:25 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I think once you are discussing the perspective of the 10 commandments you are assuming that. Thou shalt not have other Gods before thee contains the assumption that this is an option. So I don't believe that most Christians don't have a problem with this since it is the first commandment. By the time they get to adultery they seem to get more casual... Isn't it interesting that in the 10 Comms there's no commandment against rape? Sal It's just interesting or do you have an opinion about it? IMO rape is included in the commandments against coveting, stealing and murder. Coveting precedes rape: A rapist craves a woman to satisfy his desire. Stealing: A rapist covets a woman then he takes her. A woman owns her body. Taking a woman's body by force without her permission is rape/stealing. Murder: Rape is an act of violence intended to destroy a woman's right to self-preservation. Rape often engenders permanent damage to the woman's sense of well being, if not a murderous end to her life. God gives women to certain men in the Bible as slaves for a reward. The Biblical God is not only NOT insinuating an anti rape and slavery message in his 10 Commandments, he is explicitly PRO rape and slavery. You are reading much too much into the commandments which start with a self-serving no-compete clause worthy of a car dealership franchise. I am a fan of the Bible as important literature, but on the human rights scale it gets an F. Maybe the Biblical God of the Old Testament is pro slavery and pro rape. I wouldn't know. But IMO the wrathful God argument you made is a red herring you tossed my way to argue against my point. I answered Sal within the narrow frame she presented. The Commandments, just taken at face value, prohibit violating the rights of others. Jesus summarized the Commandments in the Golden Rule: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew 7:12, King James Version. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. Luke 6:31, King James Version. ...and don't do what you hate..., Gospel of Thomas 6. The Gospel of Thomas is one of about 40 gospels that were widely accepted among early Christians, but which never made it into the Christian Scriptures
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: Maybe the Biblical God of the Old Testament is pro slavery and pro rape. I wouldn't know. Just read what is in the book, it isn't a very subtle point and is often repeated as well as his fondness for mass murders. But IMO the wrathful God argument you made is a red herring you tossed my way to argue against my point. Not a red herring, I was giving counter evidence to your claim that the 10 commandments covered rape within them. This interpretation is directly contradicted by the actions of their so-called auther. I answered Sal within the narrow frame she presented. The Commandments, just taken at face value, prohibit violating the rights of others. Ignoring the more complete context of the rest of the Bible is not a valid way to look at it IMO. Otherwise why spell out 10, just say be nice. But there is a context of these commandments in the rest of the actions of this version of god that makes it very clear, he is not anti slavery or rape, he promotes it when convenient. (As well as God setting a bear upon 42 children just for teasing a prophet (2 Kings 2:23-24 Jesus summarized the Commandments in the Golden Rule: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew 7:12, King James Version. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. Luke 6:31, King James Version. ...and don't do what you hate..., Gospel of Thomas 6. The Gospel of Thomas is one of about 40 gospels that were widely accepted among early Christians, but which never made it into the Christian Scriptures I am not a fan of the Golden rule as a guide for ethics either, it is too self-centered. If I do to a Muslim what I would do for myself I would cut off a nice hunk of the smoked pork shoulder I slow cooked for hours yesterday, put it on a bun with some fresh cole slaw and offend every religious bone in his body. What it should be is Do unto others as they want you to do to them, with a bit of cultural sensitivity to the fact that everyone is NOT like you! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Mar 15, 2009, at 6:25 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I think once you are discussing the perspective of the 10 commandments you are assuming that. Thou shalt not have other Gods before thee contains the assumption that this is an option. So I don't believe that most Christians don't have a problem with this since it is the first commandment. By the time they get to adultery they seem to get more casual... Isn't it interesting that in the 10 Comms there's no commandment against rape? Sal It's just interesting or do you have an opinion about it? IMO rape is included in the commandments against coveting, stealing and murder. Coveting precedes rape: A rapist craves a woman to satisfy his desire. Stealing: A rapist covets a woman then he takes her. A woman owns her body. Taking a woman's body by force without her permission is rape/stealing. Murder: Rape is an act of violence intended to destroy a woman's right to self-preservation. Rape often engenders permanent damage to the woman's sense of well being, if not a murderous end to her life. God gives women to certain men in the Bible as slaves for a reward. The Biblical God is not only NOT insinuating an anti rape and slavery message in his 10 Commandments, he is explicitly PRO rape and slavery. You are reading much too much into the commandments which start with a self-serving no-compete clause worthy of a car dealership franchise. I am a fan of the Bible as important literature, but on the human rights scale it gets an F. Maybe the Biblical God of the Old Testament is pro slavery and pro rape. I wouldn't know. But IMO the wrathful God argument you made is a red herring you tossed my way to argue against my point. I answered Sal within the narrow frame she presented. The Commandments, just taken at face value, prohibit violating the rights of others. Jesus summarized the Commandments in the Golden Rule: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew 7:12, King James Version. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. Luke 6:31, King James Version. ...and don't do what you hate..., Gospel of Thomas 6. The Gospel of Thomas is one of about 40 gospels that were widely accepted among early Christians, but which never made it into the Christian Scriptures
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Mar 15, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Duveyoung wrote: The Christians whom I've banged against think that TM's pure being is the Devil's Playground -- one is opening one's self to demonic possession, ya see? Maybe that comes not from TM itself, but from the people practicing it. Do you remember the Domes during the heyday of screaming and yelling? Imagine what they would have thought in Fiuggi, with dozens of people sitting in lecture halls twitching uncontrollably, their bodies shaking, their arms spasming out of control like Doctor Absoderlickliebe (Strangelove).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
On Mar 16, 2009, at 5:20 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Mar 15, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Duveyoung wrote: The Christians whom I've banged against think that TM's pure being is the Devil's Playground -- one is opening one's self to demonic possession, ya see? Maybe that comes not from TM itself, but from the people practicing it. Do you remember the Domes during the heyday of screaming and yelling? Imagine what they would have thought in Fiuggi, with dozens of people sitting in lecture halls twitching uncontrollably, their bodies shaking, their arms spasming out of control like Doctor Absoderlickliebe (Strangelove). Or the TMSP folks who couldn't stop twitching. Now there's research I'd like to have seen: TM-Sidhi Induced Tourrette Syndrome in Young College Students, a Longitudinal Study of fMRI and PET Imaging Outcomes Hey unstressing's good for you, so why study it? Duh. It would be interesting to compare them to Fundie Christians who fall on the floor and quake, rattle and twitch also.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
On Mar 15, 2009, at 6:25 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I think once you are discussing the perspective of the 10 commandments you are assuming that. Thou shalt not have other Gods before thee contains the assumption that this is an option. So I don't believe that most Christians don't have a problem with this since it is the first commandment. By the time they get to adultery they seem to get more casual... Isn't it interesting that in the 10 Comms there's no commandment against rape? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: snip The Buddhists and other more honestly Hindu groups seem to do an OK job of this disclosure. I don't think it's comparable, though. The Hindu groups don't think of themselves as not conflicting with other religions, and Buddhists don't have gods. Many Hindus believe that all other religions are contained within Hinduism. Plenty of Indians spiritual masters have claimed this about Christianity including Yogananda and his predecessor in the West Swami Vivekananda. I don't think they're comparable. Let's see, a self-proclaimed yogi comes to America, gains a following including Hollywood actors and entertainment business people by offering a method for inner peace for the East. It's not only comparable the guys almost all ran the same campaign. If you read Vivekananda and Yogananda it is clear. They believed that their spirituality contained Jesus as some sort of minor avatar. And plenty of versions of Buddhism does include Gods. The most common form in Thailand, Theravada Buddhism has all sorts of beings to propitiate. But they are not evangelical. And Thailand isn't the West. The refutation was about your claim that Buddhists don't have gods. This is false. I don't understand the relevance in pointing out the geographic location of Thailand. There are thousands of South East Asians in my area and I've been to their temples and seen their gods. snip I don't think what you find on the Internet amounts to a comprehensive understanding. If someone can't form an educated opinion of the different sides of this issue from the material that has been generated on this site and ALT TM they are pretty thick. Biases can be noted and a person can find out that the brochure version of the TM teaching is not the whole story. Alt.m.t and FFL are about the *last* places I'd recommend for a clear and comprehensive understanding. snip But you have been an enthusiastic advocate of your position and that is all on record so I don't know why you don't feel more positively towards the work we have all done to make our view known. On FFL we all, or almost all, have a common basis of understanding, and that was largely true on alt.m.t as well. That's the big missing piece, experience of the practice and also of the instruction. I thought we were discussing people who wanted more information about TM BEFORE they start. snip More to the point, what difference does it make to the 2x20 practitioner what MMY's religious practices were as long as he wasn't teaching them? In my campaign to phone the 10,000 TM initiates at the DC center in '84, I found that this demographic is a myth, even back then. The number of people who continue the practice without going on is insignificant. Again you are deciding what difference it makes to the person who doesn't know the history of their practice. I am in favor of more disclosure and you seem reluctant to worry their pretty little heads. I think we disagree about the religious nature of japa meditation using TM mantras. I don't even think TM can be called japa. Or if TM is japa, then what's currently taught as japa isn't japa. In his earlier works Maharishi defined TM in exactly the same way. He even taught it that way in India, asking for a person's Istadeva. If he respected Western religions as he did his own precious Hinduism he would have given Christians the name of Jesus as their mantra as the the monks do in the Jesus prayer. But as a triumphalist he kept it Hindu. That aside, you and I have very different understandings of the nature of religion and the nature of TM. Yes. And you didn't answer my question. You lost me here, snip Seems to me the folks who could benefit most from TM are the ones who either wouldn't want to go to the trouble of personalizing it or would consider doing so anathema. I really haven't found one of the benifits of TM is making someone more open minded have you? I've seen it, but that's not the point. But believing that you might know what is best for a person and withholding full disclosure about the TM practice seem to be far apart on the ethics spectrum. I don't think that's some kind of absolute. I think it's all much more complicated than that. I am advocating the the new meditator gets to be the judge of that. I also think this ethics of full disclosure issue is often more something to bash MMY with than it is a concern for the sensibilities of religionists. Here you use a Sophist trick to imply that my motives are somehow suspect. Even the term bash Maharishi is full of spin. After researching his teaching for 15 years I have concluded that Maharishi is wrong about his theories of human consciousness and development. I have concluded after being trained as a
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Mar 15, 2009, at 6:25 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I think once you are discussing the perspective of the 10 commandments you are assuming that. Thou shalt not have other Gods before thee contains the assumption that this is an option. So I don't believe that most Christians don't have a problem with this since it is the first commandment. By the time they get to adultery they seem to get more casual... Isn't it interesting that in the 10 Comms there's no commandment against rape? Sal Or slavery. Holding up the 10 Commandments as some sort of moral guide is one of my pet peeves. There are actually two versions of them in the Bible. And the penalty is death. So the same people who recognize that killing someone for sleeping with another person's wife is ridiculous, still think it is appropriate to hold up this nonsense as a profound insight for society. Only 2 of them are widely enforced by our legal system.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: Or the TMSP folks who couldn't stop twitching. Now there's research I'd like to have seen: TM-Sidhi Induced Tourrette Syndrome in Young College Students, a Longitudinal Study of fMRI and PET Imaging Outcomes Hey unstressing's good for you, so why study it? Duh. It would be interesting to compare them to Fundie Christians who fall on the floor and quake, rattle and twitch also. I believe there is a direct connection between flying and the speaking in tongues experience with the use of a trance state within a social belief context as the link. On Mar 16, 2009, at 5:20 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Mar 15, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Duveyoung wrote: The Christians whom I've banged against think that TM's pure being is the Devil's Playground -- one is opening one's self to demonic possession, ya see? Maybe that comes not from TM itself, but from the people practicing it. Do you remember the Domes during the heyday of screaming and yelling? Imagine what they would have thought in Fiuggi, with dozens of people sitting in lecture halls twitching uncontrollably, their bodies shaking, their arms spasming out of control like Doctor Absoderlickliebe (Strangelove). Or the TMSP folks who couldn't stop twitching. Now there's research I'd like to have seen: TM-Sidhi Induced Tourrette Syndrome in Young College Students, a Longitudinal Study of fMRI and PET Imaging Outcomes Hey unstressing's good for you, so why study it? Duh. It would be interesting to compare them to Fundie Christians who fall on the floor and quake, rattle and twitch also.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Mar 15, 2009, at 6:25 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I think once you are discussing the perspective of the 10 commandments you are assuming that. Thou shalt not have other Gods before thee contains the assumption that this is an option. So I don't believe that most Christians don't have a problem with this since it is the first commandment. By the time they get to adultery they seem to get more casual... Isn't it interesting that in the 10 Comms there's no commandment against rape? Sal It's just interesting or do you have an opinion about it? IMO rape is included in the commandments against coveting, stealing and murder. Coveting precedes rape: A rapist craves a woman to satisfy his desire. Stealing: A rapist covets a woman then he takes her. A woman owns her body. Taking a woman's body by force without her permission is rape/stealing. Murder: Rape is an act of violence intended to destroy a woman's right to self-preservation. Rape often engenders permanent damage to the woman's sense of well being, if not a murderous end to her life.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
---Men get raped by women too, as well as by each other as well as the others by the others. ---Let's face it 'getting used' is just a subtle form of rape. Men 'get used' just as women, so some women think it's open season. It's not always fun or nice. hehe :) Isn't it interesting that in the 10 Comms there's no commandment against rape? Sal It's just interesting or do you have an opinion about it? IMO rape is included in the commandments against coveting, stealing and murder. Coveting precedes rape: A rapist craves a woman to satisfy his desire. Stealing: A rapist covets a woman then he takes her. A woman owns her body. Taking a woman's body by force without her permission is rape/stealing. Murder: Rape is an act of violence intended to destroy a woman's right to self-preservation. Rape often engenders permanent damage to the woman's sense of well being, if not a murderous end to her life. To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Mar 15, 2009, at 6:25 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I think once you are discussing the perspective of the 10 commandments you are assuming that. Thou shalt not have other Gods before thee contains the assumption that this is an option. So I don't believe that most Christians don't have a problem with this since it is the first commandment. By the time they get to adultery they seem to get more casual... Isn't it interesting that in the 10 Comms there's no commandment against rape? Sal It's just interesting or do you have an opinion about it? IMO rape is included in the commandments against coveting, stealing and murder. Coveting precedes rape: A rapist craves a woman to satisfy his desire. Stealing: A rapist covets a woman then he takes her. A woman owns her body. Taking a woman's body by force without her permission is rape/stealing. Murder: Rape is an act of violence intended to destroy a woman's right to self-preservation. Rape often engenders permanent damage to the woman's sense of well being, if not a murderous end to her life. God gives women to certain men in the Bible as slaves for a reward. The Biblical God is not only NOT insinuating an anti rape and slavery message in his 10 Commandments, he is explicitly PRO rape and slavery. You are reading much too much into the commandments which start with a self-serving no-compete clause worthy of a car dealership franchise. I am a fan of the Bible as important literature, but on the human rights scale it gets an F.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
On Mar 16, 2009, at 10:54 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: Or the TMSP folks who couldn't stop twitching. Now there's research I'd like to have seen: TM-Sidhi Induced Tourrette Syndrome in Young College Students, a Longitudinal Study of fMRI and PET Imaging Outcomes Hey unstressing's good for you, so why study it? Duh. It would be interesting to compare them to Fundie Christians who fall on the floor and quake, rattle and twitch also. I believe there is a direct connection between flying and the speaking in tongues experience with the use of a trance state within a social belief context as the link. It would probably be harder to convince non-evangelicals however that speaking in tongues creates coherence in brain waves. :-) The bubbling bliss TMSP experience is also popular in some churches, and known as Holy Laughter Anointing. Same phenomenon, different context. In fact, Sarah Pailin is a bubbling blisser. The idea of Sarah's brain emitting coherence of any kind is indeed quite interesting! Nonetheless, comparing the two would be a very interesting study! Bubbling Bliss, Jesus-style: ON A RECENT WEEKNIGHT IN TORONTO, 1,500 worshipers gathered in the Vineyard Christian Church and had a good laugh. It began when a dozen pilgrims from Oregon got up to introduce themselves and then began to fall to the floor, laughing uncontrollably. An hour later, the huge new church looked like a field hospital. Dozens of men and women of all ages were lying on the floor: some were jerking spasmodically; others closed their eyes in silent ecstasy. A middle-aged woman kicked off her pumps and began whooping and trilling in a delicate dance. (Newsweek)
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: Or the TMSP folks who couldn't stop twitching. Now there's research I'd like to have seen: TM-Sidhi Induced Tourrette Syndrome in Young College Students, a Longitudinal Study of fMRI and PET Imaging Outcomes Hey unstressing's good for you, so why study it? Duh. It would be interesting to compare them to Fundie Christians who fall on the floor and quake, rattle and twitch also. I believe there is a direct connection between flying and the speaking in tongues experience with the use of a trance state within a social belief context as the link. Perhaps, but have you seen the eeg of people speaking in tongues? L
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: The bubbling bliss TMSP experience is also popular in some churches, and known as Holy Laughter Anointing. One of the annoying personality characteristics I see in many heavy religious groups is the I'm happier than you plastered on smile. Gurus like Maharishi and Shri Ravi pull this one. I guess if a person meeting them is a bit insecure or unhappy this has an effect. But under that smile is just another human with the same happiness and sadness as the rest of us. When I talk to a super religious person (my hobby) I often feel that this mask has a bit of condescension. Of course this could just me my stuff projected onto them. But the tendency to show the outsider the happy face to make them believe your system of belief is all that, is pretty common. I remember the love bombing we used to do to non meditating visitors to MIU. Some like the poet Robert Bly saw through the ploy and called us out on it. That was an amazing moment in retrospect. But in my business dealings I have learned that the always happy mask is a deception to watch out for. It often hides a personal bitterness as I found out when I opened for one of my blues heroes. He was a big smiler whenever I meet him but once I got to know what a miserable fuck he was, I realized the smile was all an act. On Mar 16, 2009, at 10:54 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: Or the TMSP folks who couldn't stop twitching. Now there's research I'd like to have seen: TM-Sidhi Induced Tourrette Syndrome in Young College Students, a Longitudinal Study of fMRI and PET Imaging Outcomes Hey unstressing's good for you, so why study it? Duh. It would be interesting to compare them to Fundie Christians who fall on the floor and quake, rattle and twitch also. I believe there is a direct connection between flying and the speaking in tongues experience with the use of a trance state within a social belief context as the link. It would probably be harder to convince non-evangelicals however that speaking in tongues creates coherence in brain waves. :-) The bubbling bliss TMSP experience is also popular in some churches, and known as Holy Laughter Anointing. Same phenomenon, different context. In fact, Sarah Pailin is a bubbling blisser. The idea of Sarah's brain emitting coherence of any kind is indeed quite interesting! Nonetheless, comparing the two would be a very interesting study! Bubbling Bliss, Jesus-style: ON A RECENT WEEKNIGHT IN TORONTO, 1,500 worshipers gathered in the Vineyard Christian Church and had a good laugh. It began when a dozen pilgrims from Oregon got up to introduce themselves and then began to fall to the floor, laughing uncontrollably. An hour later, the huge new church looked like a field hospital. Dozens of men and women of all ages were lying on the floor: some were jerking spasmodically; others closed their eyes in silent ecstasy. A middle-aged woman kicked off her pumps and began whooping and trilling in a delicate dance. (Newsweek)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
Fascinating, really! - Original Message - From: Vaj To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 10:45 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson. On Mar 16, 2009, at 10:54 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: Or the TMSP folks who couldn't stop twitching. Now there's research I'd like to have seen: TM-Sidhi Induced Tourrette Syndrome in Young College Students, a Longitudinal Study of fMRI and PET Imaging Outcomes Hey unstressing's good for you, so why study it? Duh. It would be interesting to compare them to Fundie Christians who fall on the floor and quake, rattle and twitch also. I believe there is a direct connection between flying and the speaking in tongues experience with the use of a trance state within a social belief context as the link. It would probably be harder to convince non-evangelicals however that speaking in tongues creates coherence in brain waves. :-) The bubbling bliss TMSP experience is also popular in some churches, and known as Holy Laughter Anointing. Same phenomenon, different context. In fact, Sarah Pailin is a bubbling blisser. The idea of Sarah's brain emitting coherence of any kind is indeed quite interesting! Nonetheless, comparing the two would be a very interesting study! Bubbling Bliss, Jesus-style: ON A RECENT WEEKNIGHT IN TORONTO, 1,500 worshipers gathered in the Vineyard Christian Church and had a good laugh. It began when a dozen pilgrims from Oregon got up to introduce themselves and then began to fall to the floor, laughing uncontrollably. An hour later, the huge new church looked like a field hospital. Dozens of men and women of all ages were lying on the floor: some were jerking spasmodically; others closed their eyes in silent ecstasy. A middle-aged woman kicked off her pumps and began whooping and trilling in a delicate dance. (Newsweek)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
On Mar 16, 2009, at 12:10 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Some like the poet Robert Bly saw through the ploy and called us out on it. Do you remember what he said? I've seen both sides of it. I've definitely seen the smarmy, condescending, put on smile. But I've also seen actual ecstasy in Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Vodouisants, Shamans and Buddhists. The most useful seem to be those who knew how to use it deliberately and purposefully, rather than the more overt public display of their devotion, but I also repsect that it also is a community phenomenon. More numbers = greater coherence. Interesting to me is that Christians, once one has the experience of some Charismatic siddhi, they can pass it on, i.e. shaktipat of the Holy Spirit. It appears to be a universal phenomenon.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
On Mar 16, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Kirk wrote: Fascinating, really! How much do you wanna bet that the more people who are present, the more powerful the laughter, divine drunkedness and divine slaying (passing out), etc.? Some of the people scream or make animal noises. Sound familiar? In India they call it bhava samadhi.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Mar 16, 2009, at 12:10 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Some like the poet Robert Bly saw through the ploy and called us out on it. Do you remember what he said? He called us out for not showing him our real human face with all our smiling. Of course I'm a happy smiley person usually so perhaps he was just a bitter old fuck! He said we were trying to be more than human with the full range of experiences with our bliss fixation. He felt our over the top standing ovations were manipulative. He actually got kind of pissed off at us and gave us quite a lecture. I've seen both sides of it. I've definitely seen the smarmy, condescending, put on smile. But I've also seen actual ecstasy in Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Vodouisants, Shamans and Buddhists. Yeah I was giving the most negitive interpretation. I've also met plenty of people who exude a lot of happiness, myself included. It can be a natural aspect of your neurology and POV and isn't necessarily evidence of some supernatural attainment. People who are fit, eat right, and don't have a shitty life, often project vitality and happiness. And some of them believe it is a result of their lifestyle and can be quite smug about it too. The most useful seem to be those who knew how to use it deliberately and purposefully, rather than the more overt public display of their devotion, but I also repsect that it also is a community phenomenon. More numbers = greater coherence. Interesting to me is that Christians, once one has the experience of some Charismatic siddhi, they can pass it on, i.e. shaktipat of the Holy Spirit. It appears to be a universal phenomenon.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip The Buddhists and other more honestly Hindu groups seem to do an OK job of this disclosure. I don't think it's comparable, though. The Hindu groups don't think of themselves as not conflicting with other religions, and Buddhists don't have gods. Many Hindus believe that all other religions are contained within Hinduism. Plenty of Indians spiritual masters have claimed this about Christianity including Yogananda and his predecessor in the West Swami Vivekananda. I don't think they're comparable. Let's see, a self-proclaimed yogi comes to America, gains a following including Hollywood actors and entertainment business people by offering a method for inner peace for the East. Difference in *scope*. Plus which, Yogananda's students can't just get a quickie technique. Even the mail-order home-study course involves a year's study of Yogananda's metaphysical and how-to-live teachings and preliminary practices before they can even apply to learn Kriya Yoga (which involves formal commitment to a guru-disciple relationship). snip And plenty of versions of Buddhism does include Gods. The most common form in Thailand, Theravada Buddhism has all sorts of beings to propitiate. But they are not evangelical. And Thailand isn't the West. The refutation was about your claim that Buddhists don't have gods. I should have said Buddhism *as generally taught in the West to Westerners* doesn't have gods. I thought that would be understood. Thailand is a red herring in the context of this discussion. snip But you have been an enthusiastic advocate of your position and that is all on record so I don't know why you don't feel more positively towards the work we have all done to make our view known. On FFL we all, or almost all, have a common basis of understanding, and that was largely true on alt.m.t as well. That's the big missing piece, experience of the practice and also of the instruction. I thought we were discussing people who wanted more information about TM BEFORE they start. Exactly my point. On alt.m.t and FFL, with very few exceptions, we're talking to each other, not to wannabes. The wannabes are obviously missing our basis of experience for what we say. More to the point, what difference does it make to the 2x20 practitioner what MMY's religious practices were as long as he wasn't teaching them? In my campaign to phone the 10,000 TM initiates at the DC center in '84, I found that this demographic is a myth, even back then. The number of people who continue the practice without going on is insignificant. Even if that were the case globally, the folks I've been talking about are the ones who don't go on. I'm not making any claims about those who do. In any case, those who *do* go on discover what the story is for themselves. Just out of curiosity, how many people have you encountered who did go on who became upset because they felt they'd discovered that TM was in conflict with their religion? Again you are deciding what difference it makes to the person who doesn't know the history of their practice. I am in favor of more disclosure and you seem reluctant to worry their pretty little heads. I'm not deciding anything. And I made it very clear I was ambivalent about which way to go. I think we disagree about the religious nature of japa meditation using TM mantras. I don't even think TM can be called japa. Or if TM is japa, then what's currently taught as japa isn't japa. In his earlier works Maharishi defined TM in exactly the same way. He even taught it that way in India, asking for a person's Istadeva. I'm talking about the method itself. In everything I've ever read about japa, the point is the repetition, to say or think the mantra as many times as possible. Obviously that isn't the case with TM. If he respected Western religions as he did his own precious Hinduism he would have given Christians the name of Jesus as their mantra Unless he didn't think the name worked as a mantra.(*) If he didn't think Jesus would work as a mantra but gave it to Christians anyway, he'd be pandering to their religious beliefs just to get their $$$. But believing that you might know what is best for a person and withholding full disclosure about the TM practice seem to be far apart on the ethics spectrum. I don't think that's some kind of absolute. I think it's all much more complicated than that. I am advocating the the new meditator gets to be the judge of that. Yes, I know. I'm saying I'm not sure they can be given enough information in an intro lecture or even get it messing around on the Web to enable them to make a fully informed judgment, and that partially informed judgments
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
Uh, during the Eighties we cut out all that weird shit from the Domes. Some didn't stop, the butt bouncing seeming to emanate from someplace more what is it - brain stemmy?! As you are well aware the butt bouncing occurs in other Eastern religions as well. No different from sufis dancing or me dancing like I will be in a few minutes cause I have basic Spring Fever. Gotta clean, so play music. I was just impressed by her that's all. I just dig on women a bit too much. Is all. She wouldn't be less in touch with herself for the experience. I like women to be self actualized. It's a turn on. I liked her whether I care about politics or not. Anyone watching, Kings? - Original Message - From: Vaj To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 11:53 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson. On Mar 16, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Kirk wrote: Fascinating, really! How much do you wanna bet that the more people who are present, the more powerful the laughter, divine drunkedness and divine slaying (passing out), etc.? Some of the people scream or make animal noises. Sound familiar? In India they call it bhava samadhi.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
On Mar 16, 2009, at 1:28 PM, Kirk wrote: Uh, during the Eighties we cut out all that weird shit from the Domes. Some didn't stop, the butt bouncing seeming to emanate from someplace more what is it - brain stemmy?! As you are well aware the butt bouncing occurs in other Eastern religions as well. No different from sufis dancing or me dancing like I will be in a few minutes cause I have basic Spring Fever. Gotta clean, so play music. I was just impressed by her that's all. I just dig on women a bit too much. Is all. She wouldn't be less in touch with herself for the experience. I like women to be self actualized. It's a turn on. I liked her whether I care about politics or not. Anyone watching, Kings? Yeah, I watched it. The Davey and Goliath redux was a bit much, but it was entertaining--other than the commercials. I'll record it next time so i can skip 'em. It was funny seeing Al Swearingen as King.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Well, not everyone accepts the universal being schtick that is basically a Hindu interpretation of the TC state. As I have pointed out before, a strong atheist might well attain God Consciousness or Unity Consciousness' ala MMY's definitions and still remain a strong atheist. Just because YOU can't conceive of that happening doesn't mean its impossible, or even unlikely. If these states really ARE natural states of consciousness, then the number of interpretations of the states will be unlimited. L Lawson, your point of view is interesting. But why do you believe that these states may really be natural states of consciousness? Shurg, why not? Recent research on sucesful athletic champions and managers shows they fall closer to the enlightened part of the Brain Coherence Index than non-champions/unsucessful managers. If that research is replicated by idependents it might lend credibility to MMY's theory that enlightenment is natural whlie non-enlightenment indicates sub-optimal functioning. Even if you accept this, isn't it a huge step from here to God consciousness or Unity consciousness? Of course it is. Even Fred Travis won't discuss scientific research on GC/UC, at least with me. And even if long term meditators and champion athletes had similar brain patterns we don't know why and it doesn't say anything about whether the meditators are also now better, faster, smarter and closer to enlightenment. But I understand your interest. This was my interest years ago, I just didn't see things panning out. The meditators simply are not exhibiting characteristics of highly effective people in any noticable way. COmpared to WHOM? Someone else, or their younger selves? I can assure you that people DID notice a change when I first learned TM and when I first learned the TM-Sidhis. Whether or not this change was a result of TM/TM-Sidhis practice or not, I couldn't say. Likewise people notice when I have NOT meditated on a given day at least once. Whether this is a sign of not receiving ongoing benefits, a sign of the body lacking a specific physiological state it's used to or even a sign of addiction- withdrawal, I couldn't say. Thanks for your thoughts. I have many friends that have meditated for years. When they first learned the siddhis, they were very excited and happy. That faded years ago. Now they are a bunch of people in their late 50s. Two have serious health problems. One has serious mental health problems. None seem to have improved lives as a result of meditation or the siddhis. Irritability runs a bit high. But as you say, we can't have an experiment of one. I do not know what they would have been like without the TM. However, I have not met long term meditators that have created a strong positive impression on me, and often the impression is negative. Eg, Bevan and Haglin. I also know that meditation can be a habit so if you stop there might be some discomfort from breaking the habit for a couple of weeks. Do you believe that TM can be taught without the puja? What is the purpose of the puja? I know that MMY was always super paranoid about the puja. That may have been due to some mystical belief about its power, or a marekting belief, or simply him covering his mystical derriere since he was never supposed to become a guru but ended up fulfilling that function for many people anyway and the pujah was his way of claiming that he wasn't the guru, Gurudev was. Thanks! I like how you do not enthrone anyone. God consciousness by MMY: In Maharishi's (1972) description of higher states of consciousness, the sixth state of consciousness, God consciousness, is defined by the unbounded, self-referral awareness of cosmic consciousness coexisting with the development of refined sensory perception during the three relative states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping. Perception and feeling reach their most sublime level, the finer and more glorious levels of creation are appreciated, and every impulse of thought and action is enriching to life (pp. 23-6?23-7). The sixth state is referred to as God consciousness, because the individual is capable of perceiving and appreciating the full range and mechanics of creation and experiences waves of love and devotion for the creation and its creator. Thus, in this state one not only experiences inner peace, but profoundly loving and peaceful relationships are cultivated with all
(Was:Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson) Now: Kings!
Kirk, Kings! Wasn't that good? I really enjoyed it. Like an alternate reality.
I like how the blond hero is being presented as this sattvic guy that simply
follows his integrity while most about him plot and scheme for power. I think
the show is based on the real life inner workings of Raja Wynne and Vedic City.
;-)
--- On Mon, 3/16/09, Kirk kirk_bernha...@cox.net wrote:
From: Kirk kirk_bernha...@cox.net
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, March 16, 2009, 1:28 PM
#yiv1373678280 .ygrp-photo-title {
CLEAR:both;FONT-SIZE:smaller;OVERFLOW:hidden;WIDTH:75px;HEIGHT:15px;TEXT-ALIGN:center;}
#yiv1373678280 DIV.ygrp-photo {
BORDER-RIGHT:black 1px solid;BACKGROUND-POSITION:center 50%;BORDER-TOP:black
1px solid;BORDER-LEFT:black 1px solid;WIDTH:62px;BORDER-BOTTOM:black 1px
solid;BACKGROUND-REPEAT:no-repeat;HEIGHT:62px;BACKGROUND-COLOR:white;}
#yiv1373678280 DIV.photo-title A {
TEXT-DECORATION:none;}
#yiv1373678280 DIV.photo-title A:active {
TEXT-DECORATION:none;}
#yiv1373678280 DIV.photo-title A:hover {
TEXT-DECORATION:none;}
#yiv1373678280 DIV.photo-title A:visited {
TEXT-DECORATION:none;}
#yiv1373678280 DIV.attach-table DIV.attach-row {
CLEAR:both;}
#yiv1373678280 DIV.attach-table DIV.attach-row DIV {
FLOAT:left;}
#yiv1373678280 P {
CLEAR:both;PADDING-RIGHT:0px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;PADDING-BOTTOM:3px;OVERFLOW:hidden;PADDING-TOP:15px;}
#yiv1373678280 P SPAN {
COLOR:#628c2a;}
#yiv1373678280 DIV.ygrp-file {
WIDTH:30px;}
#yiv1373678280 DIV.attach-table DIV.attach-row DIV DIV A {
TEXT-DECORATION:none;}
#yiv1373678280 DIV.attach-table DIV.attach-row DIV DIV SPAN {
FONT-WEIGHT:normal;}
#yiv1373678280 DIV.ygrp-file-title {
FONT-WEIGHT:bold;}
Uh, during the Eighties we cut out all that weird
shit from the Domes. Some didn't stop, the butt bouncing seeming to emanate
from
someplace more what is it - brain stemmy?! As you are well aware the butt
bouncing occurs in other Eastern religions as well. No different from sufis
dancing or me dancing like I will be in a few minutes cause I have basic
Spring Fever. Gotta clean, so play music. I was just impressed by her that's
all. I just dig on women a bit too much. Is all. She wouldn't be less in touch
with herself for the experience. I like women to be self actualized. It's a
turn
on. I liked her whether I care about politics or not.
Â
Anyone watching, Kings?
Â
Â
Â
- Original Message -
From:
Vaj
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 11:53
AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My
response to David Orme-Johnson.
On Mar 16, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Kirk wrote:
Fascinating,
really!
How much do you wanna bet that the more people who are present, the more
powerful the laughter, divine drunkedness and divine slaying (passing out),
etc.? Some of the people scream or make animal noises.Â
Sound familiar?
In India they call it bhava samadhi.Â
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip The Buddhists and other more honestly Hindu groups seem to do an OK job of this disclosure. I don't think it's comparable, though. The Hindu groups don't think of themselves as not conflicting with other religions, and Buddhists don't have gods. Many Hindus believe that all other religions are contained within Hinduism. Plenty of Indians spiritual masters have claimed this about Christianity including Yogananda and his predecessor in the West Swami Vivekananda. I don't think they're comparable. Let's see, a self-proclaimed yogi comes to America, gains a following including Hollywood actors and entertainment business people by offering a method for inner peace for the East. Difference in *scope*. Didn't become as big of a fad? I just read an interesting account of Elvis's experiences at the Self Realization Fellowship. That group like Maharishi was able to fast track celebrities. Plus which, Yogananda's students can't just get a quickie technique. Even the mail-order home-study course involves a year's study of Yogananda's metaphysical and how-to-live teachings and preliminary practices before they can even apply to learn Kriya Yoga (which involves formal commitment to a guru-disciple relationship). This has nothing to do with my point that the three biggest Hindu evangelists in the West did present Christianity as an aspect of Hinduism which is a view I came across a lot in India and in Indian books. They fight with Buddhist who dismiss the caste system and Muslims over turf and power. They are usually pretty cool with Christians and view Christ as a minor Avatar. snip And plenty of versions of Buddhism does include Gods. The most common form in Thailand, Theravada Buddhism has all sorts of beings to propitiate. But they are not evangelical. And Thailand isn't the West. The refutation was about your claim that Buddhists don't have gods. I should have said Buddhism *as generally taught in the West to Westerners* doesn't have gods. I thought that would be understood. I don't know why you think this helps your point. By the numbers, most Buddhists believe in Gods. Thailand is a red herring in the context of this discussion. I may have lost your original point then. Most Buddhists do believe in gods was my correction. snip But you have been an enthusiastic advocate of your position and that is all on record so I don't know why you don't feel more positively towards the work we have all done to make our view known. On FFL we all, or almost all, have a common basis of understanding, and that was largely true on alt.m.t as well. That's the big missing piece, experience of the practice and also of the instruction. I thought we were discussing people who wanted more information about TM BEFORE they start. Exactly my point. On alt.m.t and FFL, with very few exceptions, we're talking to each other, not to wannabes. The wannabes are obviously missing our basis of experience for what we say. I thought the premise of most of your corrections to my posts was for the benefit of such an audience. In any case my contributions certainly were me going on record with my POV and I'm proud of the work we did together, that is now eternally recorded on the Web till the next ice age. I think we did some good work delineating where we disagree and consider it a genuine contribution to perspectives on TM for anyone interested. It is even searchable! More to the point, what difference does it make to the 2x20 practitioner what MMY's religious practices were as long as he wasn't teaching them? In my campaign to phone the 10,000 TM initiates at the DC center in '84, I found that this demographic is a myth, even back then. The number of people who continue the practice without going on is insignificant. Even if that were the case globally, the folks I've been talking about are the ones who don't go on. I'm not making any claims about those who do. In any case, those who *do* go on discover what the story is for themselves. Just out of curiosity, how many people have you encountered who did go on who became upset because they felt they'd discovered that TM was in conflict with their religion? All the monks who were initiated at Spencer Mass monastery eventually withdrew their support for TM once they got into it deeply enough to understand the hidden theological basis that conflicted with their religion. Most people I know who got into it deeply replaced their religion with TM. The deeper you go into the organization the more clearly it is
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip I certainly am not a biblical expert, Nope. Neither am I. I read the bible back in college years ago. So the current message of accepting Jesus as your lord and savior isn't enough, you have to fear and tremble too. At least according to Paul. It's more complicated than that. If you sincerely ask for God's forgiveness, you get it unconditionally. But that doesn't mean you sit back and coast. As my favorite minister, William Sloane Coffin, was fond of saying, Christianity hasn't been tried and found wanting, it's been tried and found difficult. Where for Christianity, God is there, you just accept it. Some say you need to ask for forgiveness to get to heaven or to be part of the kingdom of God, others say Jesus took on your sins so all is already forgiven. Jesus wasn't exactly straightforward about what exactly is the kingdom of god. But I am not aware of any sort of meditative process to reach this kingdom of god. The basic theory of Christianity seems to be that Jesus did the work for you. That's how the Christian Scriptures have been interpreted. My original point, of course, which you appear to have missed entirely, is that there may be other valid interpretations (not least because what has come down to us in written form may not be exactly what Jesus actually taught--the notion that Jesus did the work for you comes from Paul, who never met him, at least in the flesh). That Jesus may have taught some form of meditation is a fairly widespread notion, not limited to TMers by any means. Some of the extracanonical texts such as the Gnostic Gospels contain pretty pointed suggestions to that effect. Plus which, if he did teach meditation, it would likely have been an oral teaching that got lost or was even suppressed when Christianity became organized and created a hierarchy on which one was dependent for the sacraments. And in any case, Christianity is not devoid of meditation techniques by any means (e.g., centering prayer), some of which are quite similar to TM. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cloud_of_Unknowing In a follow-up to The Cloud, called The Book of Privy Counseling, the author characterizes the practice of contemplative unknowing as worshiping God with one's 'substance,' coming to rest in a 'naked blind feeling of being,' and ultimately finding thereby that God is one's being. The Cloud of Unknowing draws on the mystical tradition of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, which has reputedly inspired generations of mystical searchers from John Scotus Erigena, through Book of Taliesin, Nicholas of Cusa and St. John of the Cross to Teilhard de Chardin. ... It has been described as Christianity with a Zen outlook, but has also been derided by some as anti- intellectual. And then there's always Meister Eckhart, of whom Schopenhauer wrote: If we turn from the forms, produced by external circumstances, and go to the root of things, we shall find that Sakyamuni [the Buddha] and Meister Eckhart teach the same thing; only that the former dared to express his ideas plainly and positively, whereas Eckhart is obliged to clothe them in the garment of the Christian myth, and to adapt his expressions thereto. The point is, we don't know how much clothing in the garment of Christian myth has taken place since Jesus' day. We don't even know how much Paul himself did to create the myth to serve his own purposes, or how much the institutionalized Church did to protect its own interests. But as Karen Armstrong pointed out in what I quoted in my original post, it's only in relatively modern times that forming new interpretations of scripture has been discouraged. A religion was only born after Jesus died and it is a collection of stories and myths, the focus of which was resurrection. If Jesus was trying to promote something else, like a meditative practice or a search for advanced stages of consciousness, he was not very successful. I do know that the gnostic gospels have a less literal flavor than the biblical version. But they did not make the history that is the Bible did and did not become a major religion. I am less interested in what a religious teacher has to say than how the myths and legends develop after the fact to make the religion. I think it is the myths that people want and maybe often need. The myths of life after death. Of superhuman powers. Anything that indicates we might be more than flesh and blood. Why did MMY not just stick to TM 2 times 20 but get into superhuman powers? It is what people want to see. Frankly, whether a gospel is gnostic or bibical, I think that they are all myths and who knows anything for sure about Jesus or
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: It could be because consciousness is just us, flesh and blood, neurons firing and hormones secreting. And enlightenment is accepting this and being joyful and at peace with the instant we exist and with the connections we make in the natural world. Tip of the hat and deep bow. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip I certainly am not a biblical expert, Nope. Neither am I. I read the bible back in college years ago. So the current message of accepting Jesus as your lord and savior isn't enough, you have to fear and tremble too. At least according to Paul. It's more complicated than that. If you sincerely ask for God's forgiveness, you get it unconditionally. But that doesn't mean you sit back and coast. As my favorite minister, William Sloane Coffin, was fond of saying, Christianity hasn't been tried and found wanting, it's been tried and found difficult. Where for Christianity, God is there, you just accept it. Some say you need to ask for forgiveness to get to heaven or to be part of the kingdom of God, others say Jesus took on your sins so all is already forgiven. Jesus wasn't exactly straightforward about what exactly is the kingdom of god. But I am not aware of any sort of meditative process to reach this kingdom of god. The basic theory of Christianity seems to be that Jesus did the work for you. That's how the Christian Scriptures have been interpreted. My original point, of course, which you appear to have missed entirely, is that there may be other valid interpretations (not least because what has come down to us in written form may not be exactly what Jesus actually taught--the notion that Jesus did the work for you comes from Paul, who never met him, at least in the flesh). That Jesus may have taught some form of meditation is a fairly widespread notion, not limited to TMers by any means. Some of the extracanonical texts such as the Gnostic Gospels contain pretty pointed suggestions to that effect. Plus which, if he did teach meditation, it would likely have been an oral teaching that got lost or was even suppressed when Christianity became organized and created a hierarchy on which one was dependent for the sacraments. And in any case, Christianity is not devoid of meditation techniques by any means (e.g., centering prayer), some of which are quite similar to TM. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cloud_of_Unknowing In a follow-up to The Cloud, called The Book of Privy Counseling, the author characterizes the practice of contemplative unknowing as worshiping God with one's 'substance,' coming to rest in a 'naked blind feeling of being,' and ultimately finding thereby that God is one's being. The Cloud of Unknowing draws on the mystical tradition of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, which has reputedly inspired generations of mystical searchers from John Scotus Erigena, through Book of Taliesin, Nicholas of Cusa and St. John of the Cross to Teilhard de Chardin. ... It has been described as Christianity with a Zen outlook, but has also been derided by some as anti- intellectual. And then there's always Meister Eckhart, of whom Schopenhauer wrote: If we turn from the forms, produced by external circumstances, and go to the root of things, we shall find that Sakyamuni [the Buddha] and Meister Eckhart teach the same thing; only that the former dared to express his ideas plainly and positively, whereas Eckhart is obliged to clothe them in the garment of the Christian myth, and to adapt his expressions thereto. The point is, we don't know how much clothing in the garment of Christian myth has taken place since Jesus' day. We don't even know how much Paul himself did to create the myth to serve his own purposes, or how much the institutionalized Church did to protect its own interests. But as Karen Armstrong pointed out in what I quoted in my original post, it's only in relatively modern times that forming new interpretations of scripture has been discouraged. A religion was only born after Jesus died and it is a collection of stories and myths, the focus of which was resurrection. If Jesus was trying to promote something else, like a meditative practice or a search for advanced stages of consciousness, he was not very successful. I do know that the gnostic gospels have a less literal flavor than the biblical version. But they did not make the history that is the Bible did and did not become a major religion. I am less interested in what a religious teacher has to say than how the myths and legends
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: None of which you have any need to deal with if all you want is a simple relaxation technique. What if that is what you want and then later find out the religious overtones? That might be disturbing to you and you might find that it is inconsistent with your religious beliefs. That was my point, the simple technique comes with baggage. I you are going to pay big bucks for TM, the TMO owes you an education. And not a blown out of proportion pseudo scientific slide show on the physiological effects of TM. As an aside, if a simple relaxation technique is what you want, then why pay $2500 or $1500 whatever it is now when there are plenty of free techniques? I wonder how many people have been taught at these prices in the last 10 years. My hunch is that the high price weeded out those looking for simple relaxation.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
On Mar 16, 2009, at 3:32 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: None of which you have any need to deal with if all you want is a simple relaxation technique. What if that is what you want and then later find out the religious overtones? That might be disturbing to you and you might find that it is inconsistent with your religious beliefs. That was my point, the simple technique comes with baggage. I you are going to pay big bucks for TM, the TMO owes you an education. And not a blown out of proportion pseudo scientific slide show on the physiological effects of TM. As an aside, if a simple relaxation technique is what you want, then why pay $2500 or $1500 whatever it is now when there are plenty of free techniques?I wonder how many people have been taught at these prices in the last 10 years. My hunch is that the high price weeded out those looking for simple relaxation. This is precisely why I've commented here before I fully support the modern trend towards a totally scientific and humanist adbhidharma (Buddhist metaphysical base behind a meditation technique) based meditation method, and indeed that's what many scientists, humanists and atheists like Sam Harris are egging for. It's actually already here. What the west wants and needs is a total no bullshit meditation method that contains no cosmic and religious bullshit, but is completely based on solid science of the human condition, as we now know it and as we are just beginning to see it through honest, no holds barred 'western enlightenment' approaches. Interestingly, one of the most religious persons you could think of-- the Dalai Lama--fully supports this. In fact he supports this to the extent that if scientific research discounts Buddhist texts, we need to instead modify our mindsets to the scientific one, in deference to the Buddhist textual one. Most are already painfully aware of the lie that MMY's technology was and still is. If they are honest with themselves, they know this. Others will have built in blinders to certain aspects of his teaching or will be so gushingly liberal and bent towards imagining some common, underlying basis of all religion (which of course blindly ignores the important uniqueness' of these same religions) that they will instinctively gloss TM as some universal panacea. That's also why TM Inc. remains dangerous: because it remains a marketed lie which never honestly discloses it's real nature and design.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: This is precisely why I've commented here before I fully support the modern trend towards a totally scientific and humanist adbhidharma (Buddhist metaphysical base behind a meditation technique) based meditation method, and indeed that's what many scientists, humanists and atheists like Sam Harris are egging for. It's actually already here. What the west wants and needs is a total no bullshit meditation method that contains no cosmic and religious bullshit, but is completely based on solid science of the human condition, as we now know it and as we are just beginning to see it through honest, no holds barred 'western enlightenment' approaches. Interestingly, one of the most religious persons you could think of-- the Dalai Lama--fully supports this. In fact he supports this to the extent that if scientific research discounts Buddhist texts, we need to instead modify our mindsets to the scientific one, in deference to the Buddhist textual one. Most are already painfully aware of the lie that MMY's technology was and still is. If they are honest with themselves, they know this. Others will have built in blinders to certain aspects of his teaching or will be so gushingly liberal and bent towards imagining some common, underlying basis of all religion (which of course blindly ignores the important uniqueness' of these same religions) that they will instinctively gloss TM as some universal panacea. That's also why TM Inc. remains dangerous: because it remains a marketed lie which never honestly discloses it's real nature and design. Many excellent points Vaj. On Mar 16, 2009, at 3:32 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: None of which you have any need to deal with if all you want is a simple relaxation technique. What if that is what you want and then later find out the religious overtones? That might be disturbing to you and you might find that it is inconsistent with your religious beliefs. That was my point, the simple technique comes with baggage. I you are going to pay big bucks for TM, the TMO owes you an education. And not a blown out of proportion pseudo scientific slide show on the physiological effects of TM. As an aside, if a simple relaxation technique is what you want, then why pay $2500 or $1500 whatever it is now when there are plenty of free techniques?I wonder how many people have been taught at these prices in the last 10 years. My hunch is that the high price weeded out those looking for simple relaxation. This is precisely why I've commented here before I fully support the modern trend towards a totally scientific and humanist adbhidharma (Buddhist metaphysical base behind a meditation technique) based meditation method, and indeed that's what many scientists, humanists and atheists like Sam Harris are egging for. It's actually already here. What the west wants and needs is a total no bullshit meditation method that contains no cosmic and religious bullshit, but is completely based on solid science of the human condition, as we now know it and as we are just beginning to see it through honest, no holds barred 'western enlightenment' approaches. Interestingly, one of the most religious persons you could think of-- the Dalai Lama--fully supports this. In fact he supports this to the extent that if scientific research discounts Buddhist texts, we need to instead modify our mindsets to the scientific one, in deference to the Buddhist textual one. Most are already painfully aware of the lie that MMY's technology was and still is. If they are honest with themselves, they know this. Others will have built in blinders to certain aspects of his teaching or will be so gushingly liberal and bent towards imagining some common, underlying basis of all religion (which of course blindly ignores the important uniqueness' of these same religions) that they will instinctively gloss TM as some universal panacea. That's also why TM Inc. remains dangerous: because it remains a marketed lie which never honestly discloses it's real nature and design.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: Let's see, a self-proclaimed yogi comes to America, gains a following including Hollywood actors and entertainment business people by offering a method for inner peace for the East. It's not only comparable the guys almost all ran the same campaign. If you read Vivekananda and Yogananda it is clear. They believed that their spirituality contained Jesus as some sort of minor avatar. Okay, I'm jumping into this thread without a lot of background. But from past comments, I gather you are skeptical about Yogananda. I think you have implied that he was a phony. Same for Vivekananda? I mention this because I have always held both in high regard.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@... wrote: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Let's see, a self-proclaimed yogi comes to America, gains a following including Hollywood actors and entertainment business people by offering a method for inner peace for the East. It's not only comparable the guys almost all ran the same campaign. If you read Vivekananda and Yogananda it is clear. They believed that their spirituality contained Jesus as some sort of minor avatar. Okay, I'm jumping into this thread without a lot of background. But from past comments, I gather you are skeptical about Yogananda. I think you have implied that he was a phony. Same for Vivekananda? I mention this because I have always held both in high regard. I do find Yogananda's miracle saint stories far fetched and a bit naive. He seems inclined to take claims at face value. His experience of seeing Krishna waving at him seems very, very silly to me. I forget what I read from Vivekananda but I do remember that he got physically pushed around by Westerners who didn't appreciate his Eastern message which makes me think he was pretty brave. He was a real trail blazer. I should read his biography, I'll bet it is very interesting. If you see value in either of their teachings good on ya mate. My loss, your gain.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: I do find Yogananda's miracle saint stories far fetched and a bit naive. He seems inclined to take claims at face value. His experience of seeing Krishna waving at him seems very, very silly to me. I forget what I read from Vivekananda but I do remember that he got physically pushed around by Westerners who didn't appreciate his Eastern message which makes me think he was pretty brave. He was a real trail blazer. I should read his biography, I'll bet it is very interesting. I had a Ramakrishna/Vivekananda phase. Very fulfilling time. Yes, I did take something away from it. Autobiography of a Yogi was one of my first spirtitual reads. Made a big impact on me. If you see value in either of their teachings good on ya mate. My loss, your gain.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
its a tiny minority you are talking about. Just a tiny minority of Protestants and some Wahabists who think they have a conflict to be concerned about.TM has now or has had considerable success in conservative Catholic(esp.Peru and virtually all of Central and South America -and Muslim (Palestinians and UAE, Iran)areas. Even the current Pope gave his blessing while he was Cardinal Ratzinger, and he is a very much a conservative. And with Buddhist (Sri Lanka , Thailand, Tibetan Buddhists in India)monks. Winnebago,Salish and Mayan traditionalists. As a scientifically proven technique for individual restoration and collective peace. The populace seems to have some unimaginable sophistication. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaram gave a brilliant speech about this kind of thing this Jan 12th. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 shukra69@ wrote: There is nothing in doing TM that conflicts with doing any religion as currently practiced. There is no insult to any intelligence. There are specific religions which followers of obsess about the fact that TM mantras are used in religious ceremonies in India. These same people become very worried when I point out that some religions consider photocopying of religious art for any reason (including homework assignments for art class) to be a religious act in that religion or that witnessing the local Indian dancers doing a rain dance would be participation in someone else's religion. Likewise with hearing sacred music from the wrong religion (or any music at all) on the radio. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 shukr...@... wrote: Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaram gave a brilliant speech about this kind of thing this Jan 12th. NOT to get sucked into the infinity minus 1th iteration of this religion argument, IMO anyone who calls King Tony by that name would probably think he was giving a bril- liant speech if all he did was sneeze. :-) In other words, this whole argument appeals only to those who think they have something to prove, one way or another. And IMO that level of fanaticism is surpassed in its silli- ness only by trying TO prove it every time the subject comes up. Let it GO, people. You're pissing into the wind, trying to establish opinion as fact.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
Judy, Your comments are excellent and very well constructed. We wish the same could be said about some people here on this list. Or rather than weeding them out, one could understand them differently. Repent, for example, is the term used in English translations of the Gospels for the Greek word metanoia. But going back to the Greek, it turns out that metanoia can also be understood to mean transcend (beyond-mind). So John the Baptist may have been crying in the wilderness, Transcend! For the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Jesus is recorded as having said, in the Sermon on the Mount, Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect. We think of this as an impossible demand. Jesus must have meant that we should *strive* to be perfect, knowing that we could never achieve perfection. But again, the Greek word translated perfect can also mean whole, complete. In the Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna, Be without the three gunas, freed from duality, ever firm in purity, independent of possessions, possessed of the Self (MMY's translation). MMY has interpreted Be without the three gunas to mean, Transcend! Could that also be the meaning of Be complete, as your Father in heaven is complete? Freed from duality, possessed of the Self? Was Jesus telling us to transcend? In an interview with PBS's Bill Moyers, scholar of religion (and winner of the 2008 TED Prize) Karen Armstrong had this to say about interpreting scripture: In the pre-modern world, what you see are the early Christian and Jewish commentators saying you must find new meaning in the Bible. And the rabbis would change the words of scripture to make a point to their pupils. Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible, said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, 'God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning.' And the Koran is the same. The Koran says every single one of its verses is an ayah, a symbol or a parable. Because you can only talk about God analogically, in terms of signs and symbols The three monotheisms, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, they have besetting problem, a besetting tendency. That is idolatry. Taking a human idea, a human idea of God, a human doctrine and making it absolute. Putting it in the place of God. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html http://tinyurl.com/az3ue7 The whole interview is worth watching; there's also a transcript.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Or rather than weeding them out, one could understand them differently. Thanks, that is pretty much my point. In fact in some cases you 'must' understand them differently to still remain in that Religion, but then the question arises are you 'really' still in that Religion. Contemporary Religions are full of misunderstandings and downright nonsense, we all know that! Repent, for example, is the term used in English translations of the Gospels for the Greek word metanoia. But going back to the Greek, it turns out that metanoia can also be understood to mean transcend (beyond-mind). So John the Baptist may have been crying in the wilderness, Transcend! For the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Jesus is recorded as having said, in the Sermon on the Mount, Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect. We think of this as an impossible demand. Jesus must have meant that we should *strive* to be perfect, knowing that we could never achieve perfection. But again, the Greek word translated perfect can also mean whole, complete. In the Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna, Be without the three gunas, freed from duality, ever firm in purity, independent of possessions, possessed of the Self (MMY's translation). FWIW, I seem to recall that verse has been rather problematic for many commentators, because Krishna tells Arjuna: nis-trai-guNyo bhavaarjuna (bhava+arjuna) that is, not-three-'guNaic' be, Arjuna! In the next phrase Krishna sez: (Be instead:) nitya-sattva-stho... (without sandhi: -staH) that is, ever sattva-staying. The problem is that 'sattva', of course, is one of the tree guNas, from which Krishna tells Arjuna to free himself! MMY's interpretation seems to indicate that he doesn't think 'sattva' in that phrase refers to one of the guNas?
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
MMY is not the only one with this interpretation though, even dualists like the Gaudya Vaishnavas believe that the goal is to be without, go beyond the three gunas. They have a different idea of what that is though. You can transcend and then abide in Sattwa.There is no contradiction on level of human reality. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Or rather than weeding them out, one could understand them differently. Thanks, that is pretty much my point. In fact in some cases you 'must' understand them differently to still remain in that Religion, but then the question arises are you 'really' still in that Religion. Contemporary Religions are full of misunderstandings and downright nonsense, we all know that! Repent, for example, is the term used in English translations of the Gospels for the Greek word metanoia. But going back to the Greek, it turns out that metanoia can also be understood to mean transcend (beyond-mind). So John the Baptist may have been crying in the wilderness, Transcend! For the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Jesus is recorded as having said, in the Sermon on the Mount, Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect. We think of this as an impossible demand. Jesus must have meant that we should *strive* to be perfect, knowing that we could never achieve perfection. But again, the Greek word translated perfect can also mean whole, complete. In the Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna, Be without the three gunas, freed from duality, ever firm in purity, independent of possessions, possessed of the Self (MMY's translation). FWIW, I seem to recall that verse has been rather problematic for many commentators, because Krishna tells Arjuna: nis-trai-guNyo bhavaarjuna (bhava+arjuna) that is, not-three-'guNaic' be, Arjuna! In the next phrase Krishna sez: (Be instead:) nitya-sattva-stho... (without sandhi: -staH) that is, ever sattva-staying. The problem is that 'sattva', of course, is one of the tree guNas, from which Krishna tells Arjuna to free himself! MMY's interpretation seems to indicate that he doesn't think 'sattva' in that phrase refers to one of the guNas?
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
I agree that it is very tiresome to read here or anywhere those who expressions are guided only what can rhetorically be advantageous to their firmly held preconceptions. I can only suggest that you listen to that address if you have the chance and inclination and you might agree and understand why he is worthy of the name. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 shukra69@ wrote: Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaram gave a brilliant speech about this kind of thing this Jan 12th. NOT to get sucked into the infinity minus 1th iteration of this religion argument, IMO anyone who calls King Tony by that name would probably think he was giving a bril- liant speech if all he did was sneeze. :-) In other words, this whole argument appeals only to those who think they have something to prove, one way or another. And IMO that level of fanaticism is surpassed in its silli- ness only by trying TO prove it every time the subject comes up. Let it GO, people. You're pissing into the wind, trying to establish opinion as fact.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_re...@... wrote: FWIW, I seem to recall that verse has been rather problematic for many commentators, because Krishna tells Arjuna: nis-trai-guNyo bhavaarjuna (bhava+arjuna) that is, not-three-'guNaic' be, Arjuna! In the next phrase Krishna sez: (Be instead:) nitya-sattva-stho... (without sandhi: -staH) that is, ever sattva-staying. The problem is that 'sattva', of course, is one of the tree guNas, from which Krishna tells Arjuna to free himself! MMY's interpretation seems to indicate that he doesn't think 'sattva' in that phrase refers to one of the guNas? I think in this case the sattva is meant to refer to the soul or Being-(Sanskrit sattva purity, literally existence, reality; adjectival s#257;ttvika pure).
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 shukra69@ wrote: There is nothing in doing TM that conflicts with doing any religion as currently practiced. There is no insult to any intelligence. There are specific religions which followers of obsess about the fact that TM mantras are used in religious ceremonies in India. These same people become very worried when I point out that some religions consider photocopying of religious art for any reason (including homework assignments for art class) to be a religious act in that religion or that witnessing the local Indian dancers doing a rain dance would be participation in someone else's religion. Likewise with hearing sacred music from the wrong religion (or any music at all) on the radio. According the tm movt if a meditator attends a lecture by some guru or saint then that person has jeopardized their meditation practice and cannot be allowed to meditate in the domes because they will contaminate the experience. I'm not even talking about doing some other practice, just attending a meeting. Yet you seem to agree with the tmo that spending many hrs per day mentally doing mantras and sutras taken from classic hindu texts and ceremonies has nothing to do with hinduism. This seems a contradiction to me. personally i don't think the tm/sidhi program is necessarily hindu, though i do think most people in the domes are part of the maharishiism religion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives boo_li...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 shukra69@ wrote: There is nothing in doing TM that conflicts with doing any religion as currently practiced. There is no insult to any intelligence. There are specific religions which followers of obsess about the fact that TM mantras are used in religious ceremonies in India. These same people become very worried when I point out that some religions consider photocopying of religious art for any reason (including homework assignments for art class) to be a religious act in that religion or that witnessing the local Indian dancers doing a rain dance would be participation in someone else's religion. Likewise with hearing sacred music from the wrong religion (or any music at all) on the radio. According the tm movt if a meditator attends a lecture by some guru or saint then that person has jeopardized their meditation practice and cannot be allowed to meditate in the domes because they will contaminate the experience. I'm not even talking about doing some other practice, just attending a meeting. Yet you seem to agree with the tmo that spending many hrs per day mentally doing mantras and sutras taken from classic hindu texts and ceremonies has nothing to do with hinduism. This seems a contradiction to me. Don't know whether that's what Lawson had in mind, but shukra's original assertion (quoted at the top) to which Lawson was responding refers only to practicing TM, not the TM-Sidhis, much less group program in the Fairfield domes. Vaj's objection was also couched only in terms of doing plain-vanilla TM: I'm speaking in general of Abrahamic religions. If they were told and given full disclosure up front: hey guys and gals, this is a meditation method based on mentally repeating the seed syllables of Indian Tantric pagan goddesses to awaken this goddess within you (creative intelligence) and allow you to achieve a thought-free (transcendental), peaceful state--they most likely wouldn't go for it. (The allow you part of the above isn't accurate, of course, except as something that may happen during meditation. Achieving a thought-free state is a means to an end, not the final goal.) Don't know whether shukra would limit his assertion to plain-vanilla TM either, but only if he did would I agree without qualification. The more one gets into the teachings and the advanced practices, the dicier it gets. personally i don't think the tm/sidhi program is necessarily hindu, Doesn't have to be for there to be conflicts with non- Hindu religions. (On the other hand, some of MMY's teaching conflicts with some traditional understandings of Hinduism.) though i do think most people in the domes are part of the maharishiism religion. Ultimately, I think it's possible to understand religions in general, including Maharishiism, as versions of a subjective science (in the Ken Wilber sense) rather than as purely belief systems. In that case, conflicts would have to do with what *works*, which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. And most religions these days have lost touch with their subjective-science nature in any case. I still think the most important thing to bear in mind is that if, as a religious person, you don't believe in what another religion teaches, practices of that other religion that don't involve conscious professions of faith in its teachings cannot conflict with your own beliefs, just as a matter of logic.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 shukr...@... wrote: snip Even the current Pope gave his blessing while he was Cardinal Ratzinger, and he is a very much a conservative. Er, no, he didn't. From 1989: Vatican Warns About Zen, Yoga VATICAN CITY (AP) - The Vatican Thursday cautioned Roman Catholics that Eastern meditation practices such as Zen and yoga can degenerate into a cult of the body that debases Christian prayer. The love of God, the sole object of Christian contemplation, is a reality which cannot be `mastered' by any method or technique, said a document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The document, approved by Pope John Paul II and addressed to bishops, said attempts to combine Christian meditation with Eastern techniques were fraught with danger although they can have positive uses. The 23-page document, signed by the West German congregation head Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was believed the first time the Vatican sought to respond to the pull of Eastern religious practices. Ratzinger told a news conference that the document was not condemning Eastern meditation practices, but was elaborating on guidelines for proper Christian prayer. By Eastern methods, the document said, it was referring to practices inspired by Hinduism and Buddhism such as Zen, Transcendental Meditation and yoga, which [may] involve prescribed postures and controlled breathing. Some Christians, caught up in the movement toward openness and exchanges between various religions and cultures, are of the opinion that their prayer has much to gain from these methods, the document said. But, it said, such practices can degenerate into a cult of the body and can lead surreptitiously to considering all bodily sensations as spiritual experiences. The document defined Christian prayer as a personal, intimate and profound dialogue between man and God. Such prayer flees from impersonal techniques or from concentrating on oneself, which can create a kind of rut, imprisoning the person praying in a spiritual privatism. Attempts to combine Christian and non-Christian meditation are not free from dangers and errors, the document said. It expressed particular concern over misconceptions about body postures in meditation. Some physical exercises automatically produce a feeling of quiet and relaxation, pleasing sensations, perhaps even phenomena of light and of warmth, which resemble spiritual well-being. To take such feelings for the authentic consolations of the Holy Spirit would be a totally erroneous way of conceiving the spiritual life. Giving them a symbolic significance typical of the mystical experience, when the moral condition of the person concerned does not correspond to such an experience, would represent a kind of mental schizophrenia which could also lead to psychic disturbance and, at times, to moral deviations. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the Vatican's watchdog body for doctrinal orthodoxy. The document did not name any particular individuals, groups or religious movements that have strayed in the use of Eastern meditation practices but the congregation often acts in response to complaints. AP-NY-12-14-89 0937EST (C) Copyright 1989, Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. The AP story provides only selected quotes, some of which have almost nothing to do with TM, from the much longer document. The whole letter was reproduced on alt.m.t awhile back, in two parts (with commentary by a Catholic who was in agreement with it): http://groups.google.com/group/alt.meditation.transcendental/msg/7684e5f6c2949d18 http://tinyurl.com/d68jj9 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.meditation.transcendental/msg/c1c50a7ebe3d826e http://tinyurl.com/cqnkoy (NOTE TO BARRY: Google Groups Advanced Search is working perfectly today, and without any alteration in how I used it from last week, when it was not working.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
shukra69 wrote: There is nothing in doing TM that conflicts with doing any religion as currently practiced. There is no insult to any intelligence. Actually, TM conflicts with TM. Eat what mother gives you. But not if she's a non-meditator and is a meat eater. A TM TB mother would have the vibes to give to the cooking, and any mother that starts TM will eventually purify her diet until she's only cooking sattvic foods that Hinduism long ago adopted. Cows are sacred and should be worshipped. Meditate twice a day and take it as it comes. But don't expect much if you're only doing 15-20 minutes twice a day and not participating in the other 99% of the program that involves massive expenditures of time and money. And never take it as it comes if what comes is in the least supportive of any other spiritual program. Never take it easy by reading anything not printed with gold ink. And by the way, no one in the entire history of TM has ever been instructed to do 15 minute sessions, and the 20 minutes is really 22 minutes if you follow the instructions, and if you really want to know what we think then you should lay down and rest for ten minutes after your twenty minutes, and, hey, if you're going to do that, then why not listen to some skinny nerd in a diaper chant ancient words too? Be without the three gunas. But you'd better be able to identify with tamas when you're crossing the border with a suitcase full of cash. TM is not a religion. But, of course, from the Latin we know that religion means to bind back, and so, yes, TM is a religion but is actually more than a mere religion, because it's a meta-religion, and that means we're in the best religion, and, hey, what's a religion without bearded, berobed, saints walking amongst us with golden crowns -- each a priest-king who will gladly take your donations. TM is scientifically proven. But if any scientist tries to create a perfect laboratory testing of TM's results, the TMO will have nothing to do with that effort unless the scientist guarantees the results up front and has most of the paper written already. No effort is involved in saying the mantra. But if the mantra does not come, we easily come back to the mantra -- don't just sit there, do something. Enlightenment is easily gained in as little as five to eight years. Since the 1950s, we have never identified a single person being enlightened except Maharishi or Guru Dev, and anyone who says they've reached enlightenment are stomped until they're but a stain on the ground. That is, unless you are Andy Rymer who took his enlightened ass over to India to become a devotee of a pedophile. Life is bliss But Maharishi gets to yell at your ass and make you feel like shit, and if you don't feel like shit, you'd better fake feeling like shit without the least nuance of bliss being sensed in your mind. The laws of a nation are the laws of God. But each law that we tell you to break must be broken, and all laws must be broken at one point or another or you're really not on the program. We don't rail on the leader because they are the innocent manifestation of the nation's consciousness. But Maharishi says that Bush is Satan, and all of England must not be allowed to learn TM, and if the leader is also a murdering cannibal who is willing to force his minions to meditate, then we can safely ignore the voice of the minions. Shukra69, um, does the 69 mean you were the 69th person to get the user name Shukra or does it mean, um, you know. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 shukr...@... wrote: There is nothing in doing TM that conflicts with doing any religion as currently practiced. There is no insult to any intelligence. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: I think when MMY states in the Science of Being that TM is compatible with any Religion he doesn't mean in the way they are currently being practiced, but in the way they were initially practiced. To suggest that TM is compatible with Religion in the way it is currently practiced today strikes me as an insult to ones intelligence. If the 'essence' of Religion (contact with Being as stated by MMY) is not in harmony with the 'body' of Religion (scripture) there will always be a conflict. MMY's suggestion that one can continue to practice their own Religion while practicing TM, would inevitably result in ones re-examining their Religion and unavoidably weeding out those aspects of their scripture which are inharmonious with the idea and practice of transcending (per their experience), leading one eventually to either reform their Religion or leave it all together. To conclude, in order for Religion, as it is being taught today to be in harmony with TM (or vis-a-versa) it would have to be reformed to be in harmony with the concept of a universal Being which through meditation can be experienced, here and now! I could go on, but I think you get the point (or should). P.S.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: [...] I still think the most important thing to bear in mind is that if, as a religious person, you don't believe in what another religion teaches, practices of that other religion that don't involve conscious professions of faith in its teachings cannot conflict with your own beliefs, Except when they do, of course. just as a matter of logic. Logic within religion? Some would claim that the ultimate oxymoron. I once got a call from a friend on Purusha warning me about my improper use of TM Speak. Seems that in theh course of talking on the phone with someone about how to set up some publicity, I said the maharishi instead of Maharishi and this set off alarm bells about my status as an insider that eventually reached the ears of my friend, who said he had smoothed things over but thought I should be aware of the situation. Another annecdote that comes to mind is the time that I said something that offended the sensibilities of the Unitarian Universalist church secretary, who blurted you just don't understand The Unitarian Universalist Way. When I mentioned this to my friend, the minister of the church, he laughed and said 'The Unitarian Universalist Way'... What a concept! No doubt people feel the same way about my beliefs but they'd be wrong because all MY beliefs are logical. ;-) L
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [...] I still think the most important thing to bear in mind is that if, as a religious person, you don't believe in what another religion teaches, practices of that other religion that don't involve conscious professions of faith in its teachings cannot conflict with your own beliefs, Except when they do, of course. Why, what a helpful comment, Lawson. (You don't think it would have been *more* helpful had you given an example, do you?) just as a matter of logic. Logic within religion? Some would claim that the ultimate oxymoron. Not within. It's just logic-logic, looking at the issue of competing belief systems from the outside, as it were. I would have thought you'd get my point. You mentioned Thor earlier. Does being awed by thunder mean you believe a god caused it? Not every monotheist is going to find the logic sufficient or compelling, certainly, but there *are* religious people who employ logic in the context of their religions, even if some of their specific beliefs are a-logical or even illogical. If you could bring yourself to rebut the logic of my statement, I'd be happy to try to refine it. I do think the basic point is a significant component of the argument, but it may require more qualification.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [...] I still think the most important thing to bear in mind is that if, as a religious person, you don't believe in what another religion teaches, practices of that other religion that don't involve conscious professions of faith in its teachings cannot conflict with your own beliefs, Except when they do, of course. Why, what a helpful comment, Lawson. (You don't think it would have been *more* helpful had you given an example, do you?) Great topic. I only went back a few posts on this so I may miss some things. But as far as if it matters to some religious people that they are using another form of religious practice, I think that is more the norm for even moderately religious people. Many modern thinkers take it all with a grain of salt but superstitions remain. The idea that you shouldn't worship false idols was made pretty clear by Charlton Heston with that unfortunate Golden Calf incident in the 10 Commandments movie. The idea that you might be invoking some being with a mantra unknowingly gives plenty of religious people pause. In any case more honesty would give people more of a choice in this. I approve of the movement's more overt Hindu practices as better disclosure over the slippery style of teaching we were taught when I was involved. just as a matter of logic. Logic within religion? Some would claim that the ultimate oxymoron. Not within. It's just logic-logic, looking at the issue of competing belief systems from the outside, as it were. Here is a connecting piece perhaps. Logic is a system of preserving the truth contained in the premises. If you start with bullshit assumptive premises, that is what you end up with through the manipulations of logic. All it can insure is that you haven't added logical fallacies to the list of reasons the assertion is bullshit. So I don't see logical religion as an oxymoron. Plenty of Maharishi's teaching is logical given his assumptive assertions based on his religious background. That doesn't mean he is right about them. I would have thought you'd get my point. You mentioned Thor earlier. Does being awed by thunder mean you believe a god caused it? As long as we can agree that it is caused by God dropping a deuce, yes. Not every monotheist is going to find the logic sufficient or compelling, certainly, but there *are* religious people who employ logic in the context of their religions, even if some of their specific beliefs are a-logical or even illogical. I think St. Thomas nailed this one. It is due to the fact that logic is an incomplete epistemological tool. It's value is in a very narrow range. If you could bring yourself to rebut the logic of my statement, I'd be happy to try to refine it. I do think the basic point is a significant component of the argument, but it may require more qualification. I think some religious people who have the logic skills can be extremely logical in expressing their assumptive premises. But because most people don't study logic's place in epistemology they are overly impressed with its display while ignoring the man behind the curtain. There is nothing illogical with claiming that 3 out of 4 dentist's prefer Crest toothpaste. But it is a bit moronic to ignore the reality of statistical sampling, the fallacy of inductive reasoning, or even how many Dental conference trips to the land of coke and hookers Crest doles out to the sampled dentists to create such a preference.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [...] I still think the most important thing to bear in mind is that if, as a religious person, you don't believe in what another religion teaches, practices of that other religion that don't involve conscious professions of faith in its teachings cannot conflict with your own beliefs, snip Great topic. I only went back a few posts on this so I may miss some things. But as far as if it matters to some religious people that they are using another form of religious practice, I think that is more the norm for even moderately religious people. Many modern thinkers take it all with a grain of salt but superstitions remain. The idea that you shouldn't worship false idols was made pretty clear by Charlton Heston with that unfortunate Golden Calf incident in the 10 Commandments movie. The idea that you might be invoking some being with a mantra unknowingly gives plenty of religious people pause. Just for one thing, the Golden Calf was supposed to be an idol *of Yahweh*, not of a different god. The big sin of the Israelites was that they weren't worshipping Yahweh directly as they'd been commanded to do. As to your second point, let me go back to my earlier comment on which the one above was based, responding to Vaj: - I'm speaking in general of Abrahamic religions. If they were told and given full disclosure up front: hey guys and gals, this is a meditation method based on mentally repeating the seed syllables of Indian Tantric pagan goddesses to awaken this goddess within you (creative intelligence) and allow you to achieve a thought-free (transcendental), peaceful state-- they most likely wouldn't go for it. [Moi:] However, none of the Abrahamic religions believes in the existence of Indian Tantric pagan goddesses. So according to their dogmas, it doesn't matter what Indian Tantrics think TM involves; it's just a fanciful story, completely irrelevant to the practice of TM by Christians, Jews, or Muslims. - If you don't believe in other competing beings, or don't believe they can be invoked by repeating a Sanskrit sound, how can you be concerned that this is what you may be doing when you practice TM? In any case more honesty would give people more of a choice in this. Would it? If by more honesty you mean telling people they're invoking a deity when they entertain the mantra, I'm not sure that's accurate. Seems to me there are at least two honest descriptions of TM. One is that it involves mentally entertaining a semantically meaningless sound; the other is that Hindus believe the sound invokes a pagan Tantric deity. To whom does this latter description give more of a choice? You're actually *eliminating* the choice to do TM for certain people who believe invoking such a deity would be a Bad Thing. snip If you could bring yourself to rebut the logic of my statement, I'd be happy to try to refine it. I do think the basic point is a significant component of the argument, but it may require more qualification. I think some religious people who have the logic skills can be extremely logical in expressing their assumptive premises. But because most people don't study logic's place in epistemology they are overly impressed with its display while ignoring the man behind the curtain. There is nothing illogical with claiming that 3 out of 4 dentist's prefer Crest toothpaste. But it is a bit moronic to ignore the reality of statistical sampling, the fallacy of inductive reasoning, or even how many Dental conference trips to the land of coke and hookers Crest doles out to the sampled dentists to create such a preference. Not a very good analogy for the logic of my statement with a view to adding necessary qualifications.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [...] I still think the most important thing to bear in mind is that if, as a religious person, you don't believe in what another religion teaches, practices of that other religion that don't involve conscious professions of faith in its teachings cannot conflict with your own beliefs, Just for one thing, the Golden Calf was supposed to be an idol *of Yahweh*, not of a different god. The big sin of the Israelites was that they weren't worshipping Yahweh directly as they'd been commanded to do. As to your second point, let me go back to my earlier comment on which the one above was based, responding to Vaj: - I'm speaking in general of Abrahamic religions. If they were told and given full disclosure up front: hey guys and gals, this is a meditation method based on mentally repeating the seed syllables of Indian Tantric pagan goddesses to awaken this goddess within you (creative intelligence) and allow you to achieve a thought-free (transcendental), peaceful state-- they most likely wouldn't go for it. [Moi:] However, none of the Abrahamic religions believes in the existence of Indian Tantric pagan goddesses. So according to their dogmas, it doesn't matter what Indian Tantrics think TM involves; it's just a fanciful story, completely irrelevant to the practice of TM by Christians, Jews, or Muslims. - If you don't believe in other competing beings, or don't believe they can be invoked by repeating a Sanskrit sound, how can you be concerned that this is what you may be doing when you practice TM? Excellent point. But I am sorting this out -- fusing the two points. Just for one thing, the Golden Calf was supposed to be an idol *of Yahweh*, not of a different god. The big sin of the Israelites was that they weren't worshipping Yahweh directly as they'd been commanded to do. So if Moses did not believe that idols represented Yahweh, then what harm could he see in some worshiping such? Other than wasting time, in his view. If the idol really had no juice then the idolaters were not counter to direct contact with Yahweh. They were just engaged in some other activity of no consequence to Yahweh. Similar with the claim that mantra is invoking hindu gods. If the mantra has no juice to do that -- or the gods themselves are fantasy, then what harm is there? Its hardly practicing another religion. The them brings up an interesting conversation, in my head. Xian: TM invokes hindu gods and therefore is anti-christian. Columbo: so, let me see if I got this straight. You believe that hindu gods exist. And that mantra is an effective way to get them all jazzed up. Xian: Well, yes, thats why TM is anti christian. Columbo: I don't know much about religions, but if hindu gods exist, them clearly there are at least two or more gods, your christian god and the hindu god(s)/ Do I have that right? Xian: No. thats heresy. there is only One God. Our God. Columbo: But you just said ... Xian: You misunerstood, the hindu gods are not real. Columbo So how can something be a religion if it doesn't have any Gods. Since Hindo gods don't exist, the mantras are just sort of, well, meaningless sounds. Xian: But hidnus think they are real, so its a religion, just a false religion Columbo: Agaim I don't know much about religions, but if an american who knows nothing of Hinduism and nothing of Hindu gods -- which you say don't exist anyway -- then how can the Amercian be practicing Hinduism? Xian: I JUST told you. They are worshiping Hindu gods even if they don't now they are. They are being tricked. Columbo: But the gods aren't real. An they don't even know anything about the myths of these gods Xian: Brother, the devil has you by the balls. Columbo ok , but just one last thing. Lets say there ARE hindu gods. Then TM is claiming a direct way to contact these gods. You say prayer is the direct way to contact your God. So in fairness, shouldn't we compare which method gets to A or THE god first? Xian: Exorcist, over her, quick -- we have one deeply seeded with the devil.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: Repent, for example, is the term used in English translations of the Gospels for the Greek word metanoia. But going back to the Greek, it turns out that metanoia can also be understood to mean transcend (beyond-mind). So John the Baptist may have been crying in the wilderness, Transcend! For the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Jesus is recorded as having said, in the Sermon on the Mount, Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect. We think of this as an impossible demand. Jesus must have meant that we should *strive* to be perfect, knowing that we could never achieve perfection. But again, the Greek word translated perfect can also mean whole, complete. In the Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna, Be without the three gunas, freed from duality, ever firm in purity, independent of possessions, possessed of the Self (MMY's translation). MMY has interpreted Be without the three gunas to mean, Transcend! Could that also be the meaning of Be complete, as your Father in heaven is complete? Freed from duality, possessed of the Self? Was Jesus telling us to transcend? My understanding is that metanoia meant change your mind or your outlook. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metanoia Which is somewhat similar to transcend if used in the sense of surpassing, leaving behind, or rising above. And of course intent of the biblical speakers was not for people to sit and meditate. It was more like change your outlook with a snap of your fingers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: snip Great topic. I only went back a few posts on this so I may miss some things. But as far as if it matters to some religious people that they are using another form of religious practice, I think that is more the norm for even moderately religious people. Many modern thinkers take it all with a grain of salt but superstitions remain. The idea that you shouldn't worship false idols was made pretty clear by Charlton Heston with that unfortunate Golden Calf incident in the 10 Commandments movie. The idea that you might be invoking some being with a mantra unknowingly gives plenty of religious people pause. Just for one thing, the Golden Calf was supposed to be an idol *of Yahweh*, not of a different god. The big sin of the Israelites was that they weren't worshipping Yahweh directly as they'd been commanded to do. Yes that's right, I stand corrected. They were violating the second commandment rather than the first: 1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 2) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, However my point still stands that this point got driven home to Christians, even casual ones and the dramatic movie is one of the ways that they imagine God laying down the law. As to your second point, let me go back to my earlier comment on which the one above was based, responding to Vaj: - I'm speaking in general of Abrahamic religions. If they were told and given full disclosure up front: hey guys and gals, this is a meditation method based on mentally repeating the seed syllables of Indian Tantric pagan goddesses to awaken this goddess within you (creative intelligence) and allow you to achieve a thought-free (transcendental), peaceful state-- they most likely wouldn't go for it. [Moi:] However, none of the Abrahamic religions believes in the existence of Indian Tantric pagan goddesses. So according to their dogmas, it doesn't matter what Indian Tantrics think TM involves; it's just a fanciful story, completely irrelevant to the practice of TM by Christians, Jews, or Muslims. - If you don't believe in other competing beings, or don't believe they can be invoked by repeating a Sanskrit sound, how can you be concerned that this is what you may be doing when you practice TM? It violates the first commandment still. In the ooga bugga world of religious beliefs many Christians view such Hindu gods as demonic forces. So I don't believe that most Christians are so free of a superstitious fear of worshiping other beings. They do believe that the devil can take any form to deceive you. In any case more honesty would give people more of a choice in this. Would it? If by more honesty you mean telling people they're invoking a deity when they entertain the mantra, I'm not sure that's accurate. Seems to me there are at least two honest descriptions of TM. One is that it involves mentally entertaining a semantically meaningless sound; the other is that Hindus believe the sound invokes a pagan Tantric deity. To whom does this latter description give more of a choice? You're actually *eliminating* the choice to do TM for certain people who believe invoking such a deity would be a Bad Thing. I agree that these are two different POV's on the mantras which have a certain amount of validity in context. I think full disclosure of the mantra's religious source is the right thing. If what you say is true, that the religious people don't believe in Hindu gods, then they wont have any problem. But they should be given the choice by not hiding their origin. We know from teaching TM in India that the whole meaningless sounds innocence argument is bogus. I am sensing a bit of withholding information for their own good in your last statement. I believe that is unethical. They can decide for themselves if they want to view it as a problem. Many have decided that it is not. But the TM technique is taught from the perspective that TM is tree and root and other religions are the branches. As we have discussed before, I believe this is an assumptively condescending position over other religions. That is one reason why Maharishi doesn't care about what other religious people believe in his triumphalist arrogance. snip If you could bring yourself to rebut the logic of my statement, I'd be happy to try to refine it. I do think the basic point is a significant component of the argument, but it may require more qualification. I think some religious people who have the logic skills can be extremely logical in expressing their assumptive premises. But because most people don't study logic's place in epistemology they are overly impressed with its display while ignoring the man behind the curtain. There is nothing illogical with claiming that 3 out of 4 dentist's prefer Crest
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote: Well, not everyone accepts the universal being schtick that is basically a Hindu interpretation of the TC state. As I have pointed out before, a strong atheist might well attain God Consciousness or Unity Consciousness' ala MMY's definitions and still remain a strong atheist. Just because YOU can't conceive of that happening doesn't mean its impossible, or even unlikely. If these states really ARE natural states of consciousness, then the number of interpretations of the states will be unlimited. L Lawson, your point of view is interesting. But why do you believe that these states may really be natural states of consciousness? Do you believe that TM can be taught without the puja? What is the purpose of the puja? God consciousness by MMY: In Maharishi's (1972) description of higher states of consciousness, the sixth state of consciousness, God consciousness, is defined by the unbounded, self-referral awareness of cosmic consciousness coexisting with the development of refined sensory perception during the three relative states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping. Perception and feeling reach their most sublime level, the finer and more glorious levels of creation are appreciated, and every impulse of thought and action is enriching to life (pp. 23-6?23-7). The sixth state is referred to as God consciousness, because the individual is capable of perceiving and appreciating the full range and mechanics of creation and experiences waves of love and devotion for the creation and its creator. Thus, in this state one not only experiences inner peace, but profoundly loving and peaceful relationships are cultivated with all others. http://www.mum.edu/m_effect/alexander/index.html How would an atheist interpret the part about experiencing love and devotion for the creator? I note the phrase profoundly loving and peaceful relationships are cultivated with all others. Do you believe that MMY was in this state? How do you reconcile it with his behavior which often showed impatience with others. You could also read this description as rather ordinary. I appreciate creation, and I have felt waves of love and devotion for creation. I think many have. Though it is a rare person who has profoundly loving and peaceful relationships cultivated with ALL others. I slack off there. I'm not touching unity consciousness yet.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip If you don't believe in other competing beings, or don't believe they can be invoked by repeating a Sanskrit sound, how can you be concerned that this is what you may be doing when you practice TM? Excellent point. But I am sorting this out -- fusing the two points. Just for one thing, the Golden Calf was supposed to be an idol *of Yahweh*, not of a different god. The big sin of the Israelites was that they weren't worshipping Yahweh directly as they'd been commanded to do. So if Moses did not believe that idols represented Yahweh, then what harm could he see in some worshiping such? It wasn't Moses's idea; it was what Yahweh had told the Israelites when he appeared to them at Sinai, after they agreed to the Covenant, but before Moses received the Ten Commandments. Yahweh wanted the Israelites to acknowledge him directly. Maybe he thought they could get confused if they used an idol, or maybe he just figured the direct approach was more effective. I don't think this is really all that germane to my point, though. I was just addressing Curtis's remark. Other than wasting time, in his view. If the idol really had no juice then the idolaters were not counter to direct contact with Yahweh. They were just engaged in some other activity of no consequence to Yahweh. Only if they were doing both...Yahweh may not have wanted to risk them substituting worshipping through an idol for doing it directly. Similar with the claim that mantra is invoking hindu gods. If the mantra has no juice to do that -- or the gods themselves are fantasy, then what harm is there? Its hardly practicing another religion. Exactly. But that's the whole point of doing TM as an *adjunct* to your religious practice, not as a substitute for it. I recall hearing from a TM teacher that MMY was asked whether TM was a substitute for prayer, and he said not at all, but that you should pray *after* you meditate. The them brings up an interesting conversation, in my head. snip Columbo ok , but just one last thing. Lets say there ARE hindu gods. Then TM is claiming a direct way to contact these gods. You say prayer is the direct way to contact your God. So in fairness, shouldn't we compare which method gets to A or THE god first? Xian: Exorcist, over her, quick -- we have one deeply seeded with the devil. grin
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: I agree that these are two different POV's on the mantras which have a certain amount of validity in context. I think full disclosure of the mantra's religious source is the right thing. If what you say is true, that the religious people don't believe in Hindu gods, then they wont have any problem. But they should be given the choice by not hiding their origin. We know from teaching TM in India that the whole meaningless sounds innocence argument is bogus. I am sensing a bit of withholding information for their own good in your last statement. I believe that is unethical. They can decide for themselves if they want to view it as a problem. Exploring the full disclosure thing. TM Lecture Lecturer: So TM is not a religion. Historically, it has religious roots, but so does yoga and helping the poor. Doing either deos not make you a convert to some religion. Questioner: But what about the hindu gods thing? L: Its just a mythical part of the culture from which this universal method comes. Another example. Fasting. It comes from religious traditions, but if you do a 3-day liver detox fast, you are hardly practicing a religion. Q: But specifically, what about the hindu gods and mantra thing? Do Hindu gods exist? A: Absolutely not. Otherwise, if they did, TM would be a religious practice -- as praying to the Christian god is a religious practice. Q: So if I practice TM, and actually do come face to face with a hindu god, I can have my money back. A: Absolutely. Q: But if I do see hindu gods, can I sue for the loss of my soul A: You have no soul, thats all a myth too Q: Well what does exist? A: Absolutely nothing Q: Well thanks for your candor he says while running for the door. Lecturer: Well, TM is not for the faint of heart. Most of you want the truth, but you can't handle the truth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
The Christians whom I've banged against think that TM's pure being is the Devil's Playground -- one is opening one's self to demonic possession, ya see? Tell them that the goal is thoughtlessness and they run away from such a state, since it has no stance and that leaves Jesus out in the cold without his worshiper's mind being focused on him. The whole idolatry issue could be being missed here. To me, Moses was angry that folks were looking in the relative for the Absolute, not that worshiping the Golden Calf was sinful but that worshiping any THING was sinful -- including one's own mind's ideas about the nature of God. God cannot be given a name lest it become an object of fixation. Any name would be a quality -- not all qualities. Even God refused to name Himself to Moses and was content to say He should be referred to by the phrase I am that I am. Clearly Moses' God knows He's amness -- not the Absolute -- and was instructing the faithful to have no truck with experiences or conclusions, but instead, be silent instead of worshiping, say, the burning bush Moses was given as an embodiment of God. Moses didn't tell everyone to run up the mountain and bow to the bush, so Moses got it too. That said, they did keep the two tablets in an ark, and it was the holy of holies, so somewhere along the line, someone got their jollies with materiality. It's a Doctor Seuss rhyme. My name is I am, and I am that I am I am I am. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Great topic. I only went back a few posts on this so I may miss some things. But as far as if it matters to some religious people that they are using another form of religious practice, I think that is more the norm for even moderately religious people. Many modern thinkers take it all with a grain of salt but superstitions remain. The idea that you shouldn't worship false idols was made pretty clear by Charlton Heston with that unfortunate Golden Calf incident in the 10 Commandments movie. The idea that you might be invoking some being with a mantra unknowingly gives plenty of religious people pause. Just for one thing, the Golden Calf was supposed to be an idol *of Yahweh*, not of a different god. The big sin of the Israelites was that they weren't worshipping Yahweh directly as they'd been commanded to do. Yes that's right, I stand corrected. They were violating the second commandment rather than the first: 1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 2) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, However my point still stands that this point got driven home to Christians, even casual ones and the dramatic movie is one of the ways that they imagine God laying down the law. As to your second point, let me go back to my earlier comment on which the one above was based, responding to Vaj: - I'm speaking in general of Abrahamic religions. If they were told and given full disclosure up front: hey guys and gals, this is a meditation method based on mentally repeating the seed syllables of Indian Tantric pagan goddesses to awaken this goddess within you (creative intelligence) and allow you to achieve a thought-free (transcendental), peaceful state-- they most likely wouldn't go for it. [Moi:] However, none of the Abrahamic religions believes in the existence of Indian Tantric pagan goddesses. So according to their dogmas, it doesn't matter what Indian Tantrics think TM involves; it's just a fanciful story, completely irrelevant to the practice of TM by Christians, Jews, or Muslims. - If you don't believe in other competing beings, or don't believe they can be invoked by repeating a Sanskrit sound, how can you be concerned that this is what you may be doing when you practice TM? It violates the first commandment still. In the ooga bugga world of religious beliefs many Christians view such Hindu gods as demonic forces. So I don't believe that most Christians are so free of a superstitious fear of worshiping other beings. They do believe that the devil can take any form to deceive you. In any case more honesty would give people more of a choice in this. Would it? If by more honesty you mean telling people they're invoking a deity when they entertain the mantra, I'm not sure that's accurate. Seems to me there are at least two honest descriptions of TM. One is that it involves mentally entertaining a semantically meaningless sound; the other is that Hindus believe the sound invokes a pagan Tantric deity. To whom does this latter description give more of a choice? You're actually *eliminating* the choice to do TM for certain people who believe invoking such a deity would be a Bad Thing. I agree that these are
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Repent, for example, is the term used in English translations of the Gospels for the Greek word metanoia. But going back to the Greek, it turns out that metanoia can also be understood to mean transcend (beyond-mind). So John the Baptist may have been crying in the wilderness, Transcend! For the kingdom of heaven is at hand. snip My understanding is that metanoia meant change your mind or your outlook. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metanoia Which is somewhat similar to transcend if used in the sense of surpassing, leaving behind, or rising above. From the Wikipedia entry: However, the prefix 'meta-' carries with it other variants that are consistent with the Eastern Greek philosophical mindset, and perhaps is at odds with Western views. 'Meta-' is additionally used to imply 'beyond' and 'outside of.' Obviously that's not the way Repent is traditionally explained in Christianity, but that was, you know, kind of my point (which you snipped). And of course intent of the biblical speakers was not for people to sit and meditate. It was more like change your outlook with a snap of your fingers. I'm not sure we can say with any certainty what the biblical speakers intended. And in any case, that isn't how repentance is generally taught; it's a process, not an instant transformation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
Here's something that would be a huge red flag to any Christian: Maharishi was asked if transcending was like dying. Maharishi closes his eyes for almost a minute, then opened them and said, Yes. Try that on your family members. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip If you don't believe in other competing beings, or don't believe they can be invoked by repeating a Sanskrit sound, how can you be concerned that this is what you may be doing when you practice TM? Excellent point. But I am sorting this out -- fusing the two points. Just for one thing, the Golden Calf was supposed to be an idol *of Yahweh*, not of a different god. The big sin of the Israelites was that they weren't worshipping Yahweh directly as they'd been commanded to do. So if Moses did not believe that idols represented Yahweh, then what harm could he see in some worshiping such? It wasn't Moses's idea; it was what Yahweh had told the Israelites when he appeared to them at Sinai, after they agreed to the Covenant, but before Moses received the Ten Commandments. Yahweh wanted the Israelites to acknowledge him directly. Maybe he thought they could get confused if they used an idol, or maybe he just figured the direct approach was more effective. I don't think this is really all that germane to my point, though. I was just addressing Curtis's remark. Other than wasting time, in his view. If the idol really had no juice then the idolaters were not counter to direct contact with Yahweh. They were just engaged in some other activity of no consequence to Yahweh. Only if they were doing both...Yahweh may not have wanted to risk them substituting worshipping through an idol for doing it directly. Similar with the claim that mantra is invoking hindu gods. If the mantra has no juice to do that -- or the gods themselves are fantasy, then what harm is there? Its hardly practicing another religion. Exactly. But that's the whole point of doing TM as an *adjunct* to your religious practice, not as a substitute for it. I recall hearing from a TM teacher that MMY was asked whether TM was a substitute for prayer, and he said not at all, but that you should pray *after* you meditate. The them brings up an interesting conversation, in my head. snip Columbo ok , but just one last thing. Lets say there ARE hindu gods. Then TM is claiming a direct way to contact these gods. You say prayer is the direct way to contact your God. So in fairness, shouldn't we compare which method gets to A or THE god first? Xian: Exorcist, over her, quick -- we have one deeply seeded with the devil. grin
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
On Mar 15, 2009, at 4:02 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: Repent, for example, is the term used in English translations of the Gospels for the Greek word metanoia. But going back to the Greek, it turns out that metanoia can also be understood to mean transcend (beyond-mind). So John the Baptist may have been crying in the wilderness, Transcend! For the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Jesus is recorded as having said, in the Sermon on the Mount, Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect. We think of this as an impossible demand. Jesus must have meant that we should *strive* to be perfect, knowing that we could never achieve perfection. But again, the Greek word translated perfect can also mean whole, complete. In the Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna, Be without the three gunas, freed from duality, ever firm in purity, independent of possessions, possessed of the Self (MMY's translation). MMY has interpreted Be without the three gunas to mean, Transcend! Could that also be the meaning of Be complete, as your Father in heaven is complete? Freed from duality, possessed of the Self? Was Jesus telling us to transcend? My understanding is that metanoia meant change your mind or your outlook. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metanoia Which is somewhat similar to transcend if used in the sense of surpassing, leaving behind, or rising above. And of course intent of the biblical speakers was not for people to sit and meditate. It was more like change your outlook with a snap of your fingers. Typical TM evangelistic apologism. The fact is TM, being mantras of goddesses of another religion break a number of Judaic laws, as would undergoing any TM initiation puja where you bow to a guy hailed Guru Deva, The Guru God, and most certainly yagyas would be forbidden: Not to entertain thoughts of other gods besides Him Ex. 20:3 Not to inquire into idolatry Lev. 19:4 (i.e. the Hindu use of yagyas) Since the TM puja requires kneeling before an alter with a guru-God, many prohibitions on idols would apply, heres a few: Not to worship idols in the manner they are worshiped Ex. 20:5 Not to make an idol for others Lev. 19:4 You shouldn't advise others undergo the TM puja: Not to missionize an individual to idol worship Deut. 13:12 Dating TM initiators is also taboo: Not to love the idolater Deut. 13:9 Not to save the idolater Deut. 13:9 MMY lectures also verboten: Not to listen to a false prophet Deut. 13:4 But it is legal to destroy puja sets: To destroy idols and their accessories Deut. 12:2 Not to derive benefit from idols and their accessories Deut. 7:26 Not to derive benefit from ornaments of idols Deut. 7:25 You wouldn't be allowed to sign the TM application form: Not to make a covenant with idolaters Deut. 7:2 Certain TM sidhi formulae would have to skipped: Not to go into a trance to foresee events, etc. Deut. 18:10 No Maharish Jyotish: Not to engage in astrology Lev. 19:26 Actually you can skip most of the TMSP: Not to perform acts of magic Deut. 18:10 And pronouncing HaShem, the secret name of god as shring, aing, eng, etc. is also forbidden: Not to take God's Name in vain Ex. 20:6
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: I'm not sure we can say with any certainty what the biblical speakers intended. And in any case, that isn't how repentance is generally taught; it's a process, not an instant transformation. It is instant enough to work at a death bed conversion in most forms of Christianity I am aware of. The process of confession in Catholicism requires a few minutes of reciting some Hail Mary's and Our Fathers. It is as instant as your intention is sincere in asking for forgiveness. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Repent, for example, is the term used in English translations of the Gospels for the Greek word metanoia. But going back to the Greek, it turns out that metanoia can also be understood to mean transcend (beyond-mind). So John the Baptist may have been crying in the wilderness, Transcend! For the kingdom of heaven is at hand. snip My understanding is that metanoia meant change your mind or your outlook. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metanoia Which is somewhat similar to transcend if used in the sense of surpassing, leaving behind, or rising above. From the Wikipedia entry: However, the prefix 'meta-' carries with it other variants that are consistent with the Eastern Greek philosophical mindset, and perhaps is at odds with Western views. 'Meta-' is additionally used to imply 'beyond' and 'outside of.' Obviously that's not the way Repent is traditionally explained in Christianity, but that was, you know, kind of my point (which you snipped). And of course intent of the biblical speakers was not for people to sit and meditate. It was more like change your outlook with a snap of your fingers. I'm not sure we can say with any certainty what the biblical speakers intended. And in any case, that isn't how repentance is generally taught; it's a process, not an instant transformation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip As to your second point, let me go back to my earlier comment on which the one above was based, responding to Vaj: - I'm speaking in general of Abrahamic religions. If they were told and given full disclosure up front: hey guys and gals, this is a meditation method based on mentally repeating the seed syllables of Indian Tantric pagan goddesses to awaken this goddess within you (creative intelligence) and allow you to achieve a thought-free (transcendental), peaceful state-- they most likely wouldn't go for it. [Moi:] However, none of the Abrahamic religions believes in the existence of Indian Tantric pagan goddesses. So according to their dogmas, it doesn't matter what Indian Tantrics think TM involves; it's just a fanciful story, completely irrelevant to the practice of TM by Christians, Jews, or Muslims. - If you don't believe in other competing beings, or don't believe they can be invoked by repeating a Sanskrit sound, how can you be concerned that this is what you may be doing when you practice TM? It violates the first commandment still. Not if you don't believe there are other gods, it doesn't. In the ooga bugga world of religious beliefs many Christians view such Hindu gods as demonic forces. So I don't believe that most Christians are so free of a superstitious fear of worshiping other beings. They do believe that the devil can take any form to deceive you. Yes, but Curtis, I *covered* that. Superstitious fear of worshipping other beings isn't part of orthodox (small o) Christianity, for one thing. And for another, my statement explicitly excluded such people. In any case more honesty would give people more of a choice in this. Would it? If by more honesty you mean telling people they're invoking a deity when they entertain the mantra, I'm not sure that's accurate. Seems to me there are at least two honest descriptions of TM. One is that it involves mentally entertaining a semantically meaningless sound; the other is that Hindus believe the sound invokes a pagan Tantric deity. To whom does this latter description give more of a choice? You're actually *eliminating* the choice to do TM for certain people who believe invoking such a deity would be a Bad Thing. I agree that these are two different POV's on the mantras which have a certain amount of validity in context. I think full disclosure of the mantra's religious source is the right thing. FWIW, I don't know what your approach was, but every time in my experience that a meditator asked about the Hindu connection, the teacher explained it (not in great detail, but enough to sound an alarm if one's trigger were delicate). I'm all for that. It seems to me, though, that if you're devoutly religious and are sitting there in an intro lecture with a picture of Guru Dev in front of you, hearing the teachings of somebody called Maharishi, who you're told is a Hindu monk, and you *don't ask* about the Hindu connection, it's because either you know already and don't care, or you don't want to know. (Or you're not as devout as you pretend.) If what you say is true, that the religious people don't believe in Hindu gods, then they wont have any problem. But they should be given the choice by not hiding their origin. We know from teaching TM in India that the whole meaningless sounds innocence argument is bogus. Not sure what you're referring to here exactly. I am sensing a bit of withholding information for their own good in your last statement. I believe that is unethical. What I'm trying to point out is that there are two sides to the issue. I don't know what the solution is. You can only do so much explaining of complex theological issues like this in an intro lecture without creating even more confusion. BTW, you don't believe in any of it, so why are you so solicitous of the sensibilities of religious people? They can decide for themselves if they want to view it as a problem. Many have decided that it is not. But the TM technique is taught from the perspective that TM is tree and root and other religions are the branches. Well, not until you get further into MMY's teaching. My points here are limited to learning and practicing plain-vanilla TM. As we have discussed before, I believe this is an assumptively condescending position over other religions. That is one reason why Maharishi doesn't care about what other religious people believe in his triumphalist arrogance. Yeah, I don't buy this as part of this particular argument. It's no more arrogant or condescending than most flavors of Christianity (or Islam, for that matter). snip If you could bring yourself to rebut the logic of my statement, I'd be happy to try to refine
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I'm not sure we can say with any certainty what the biblical speakers intended. And in any case, that isn't how repentance is generally taught; it's a process, not an instant transformation. It is instant enough to work at a death bed conversion in most forms of Christianity I am aware of. The process of confession in Catholicism requires a few minutes of reciting some Hail Mary's and Our Fathers. It is as instant as your intention is sincere in asking for forgiveness. I am focusing more on the forgiveness side. Forgiveness implies an insight that ones actions were less than fully productive. Perhaps hurtful to others. Confession of that, recognition of that, whether to someone else, to ourselves, or to some image we have of god, is human growth. It applies to stages of our life, or day to day. Born of the realization that Boy was I ever blind back then (yesterday or yesteryear) we take on larger perspectives and horizons.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: I'm not sure we can say with any certainty what the biblical speakers intended. And in any case, that isn't how repentance is generally taught; it's a process, not an instant transformation. But not a process of meditation with a mantra.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I'm not sure we can say with any certainty what the biblical speakers intended. And in any case, that isn't how repentance is generally taught; it's a process, not an instant transformation. It is instant enough to work at a death bed conversion in most forms of Christianity I am aware of. The process of confession in Catholicism requires a few minutes of reciting some Hail Mary's and Our Fathers. It is as instant as your intention is sincere in asking for forgiveness. I am focusing more on the forgiveness side. Forgiveness implies an insight that ones actions were less than fully productive. Perhaps hurtful to others. Confession of that, recognition of that, whether to someone else, to ourselves, or to some image we have of god, is human growth. It applies to stages of our life, or day to day. Born of the realization that Boy was I ever blind back then (yesterday or yesteryear) we take on larger perspectives and horizons.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I'm not sure we can say with any certainty what the biblical speakers intended. And in any case, that isn't how repentance is generally taught; it's a process, not an instant transformation. It is instant enough to work at a death bed conversion in most forms of Christianity I am aware of. The process of confession in Catholicism requires a few minutes of reciting some Hail Mary's and Our Fathers. It is as instant as your intention is sincere in asking for forgiveness. I am focusing more on the forgiveness side. Asking for forgiveness implies an insight that ones actions were less than fully productive. Perhaps hurtful to others. Confession of that, recognition of that, whether to someone else, to ourselves, or to some image we have of god, is human growth. It applies to stages of our life, or day to day. Born of the realization that Boy was I ever blind back then (yesterday or yesteryear) we take on larger perspectives and horizons. In that sense, recognition of better ways = asking for forgiveness is instant, in my experience. Ones we get it, we are transformed, we move on. Break old habits.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Here's something that would be a huge red flag to any Christian: Maharishi was asked if transcending was like dying. Maharishi closes his eyes for almost a minute, then opened them and said, Yes. Try that on your family members. I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.--St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:31
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I'm not sure we can say with any certainty what the biblical speakers intended. And in any case, that isn't how repentance is generally taught; it's a process, not an instant transformation. It is instant enough to work at a death bed conversion in most forms of Christianity I am aware of. The process of confession in Catholicism requires a few minutes of reciting some Hail Mary's and Our Fathers. It is as instant as your intention is sincere in asking for forgiveness. Boy, is that a non sequitur. It's instant only because you don't have any time left to continue the process. Plus which, if you've asked for it, you've already been thinking about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I'm not sure we can say with any certainty what the biblical speakers intended. And in any case, that isn't how repentance is generally taught; it's a process, not an instant transformation. But not a process of meditation with a mantra. Perhaps you should go back to my original post and see what my point was, rather than introducing all kinds of irrelevances.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I'm not sure we can say with any certainty what the biblical speakers intended. And in any case, that isn't how repentance is generally taught; it's a process, not an instant transformation. It is instant enough to work at a death bed conversion in most forms of Christianity I am aware of. The process of confession in Catholicism requires a few minutes of reciting some Hail Mary's and Our Fathers. It is as instant as your intention is sincere in asking for forgiveness. Yes, the idea is that it isn't work to find god. Like it or not, meditation is work Twenty minutes twice a day for year after year after year and you still probably have not reached god consciousness, much less unity consciousness. Where for Christianity, God is there, you just accept it. Snap!
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I'm not sure we can say with any certainty what the biblical speakers intended. And in any case, that isn't how repentance is generally taught; it's a process, not an instant transformation. It is instant enough to work at a death bed conversion in most forms of Christianity I am aware of. The process of confession in Catholicism requires a few minutes of reciting some Hail Mary's and Our Fathers. It is as instant as your intention is sincere in asking for forgiveness. Yes, the idea is that it isn't work to find god. Like it or not, meditation is work. No wonder you didn't stick with it! Twenty minutes twice a day for year after year after year and you still probably have not reached god consciousness, much less unity consciousness. Where for Christianity, God is there, you just accept it. Snap! Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed-- not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence-- continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.--St. Paul, Philippians 2:12-13
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Here's something that would be a huge red flag to any Christian: Maharishi was asked if transcending was like dying. Maharishi closes his eyes for almost a minute, then opened them and said, Yes. Try that on your family members. Edg * Since there are millions of so-called Christians that think of themselves as born-again (which obviously implies the death of the old person and rebirth anew), only the most retarded could have a problem with what MMY said. TM, in fact, gives meaning to the expression born-again, since it is necessary for a person to be reborn many times (by daily transcending the old limits one lived and being reborn with expanded awareness).
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
Judy: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I'm not sure we can say with any certainty what the biblical speakers intended. And in any case, that isn't how repentance is generally taught; it's a process, not an instant transformation. Curtis: It is instant enough to work at a death bed conversion in most forms of Christianity I am aware of. The process of confession in Catholicism requires a few minutes of reciting some Hail Mary's and Our Fathers. It is as instant as your intention is sincere in asking for forgiveness. Me: Yes, the idea is that it isn't work to find God. Like it or not, meditation is work. Twenty minutes twice a day for year after year after year and you still probably have not reached God consciousness, much less unity consciousness. Where for Christianity, God is there, you just accept it. Some say you need to ask for forgiveness to get to heaven or to be part of the kingdom of God, others say Jesus took on your sins so all is already forgiven. Jesus wasn't exactly straightforward about what exactly is the kingdom of god. But I am not aware of any sort of meditative process to reach this kingdom of god. The basic theory of Christianity seems to be that Jesus did the work for you. I tend to think that we blow religious texts out of proportion and tend to believe that there was more going on in the past than there was. Myths grow and take on a life of their own. Pretty soon we have people believing that the red sea parted for the Jews, Lazarus rose from the dead, and Nabby hopped 10 yards on his ass. And we forget inconvenient information, like that MMY did not exhibit the characteristics of an enlightened person which he himself outlined.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I'm not sure we can say with any certainty what the biblical speakers intended. And in any case, that isn't how repentance is generally taught; it's a process, not an instant transformation. It is instant enough to work at a death bed conversion in most forms of Christianity I am aware of. The process of confession in Catholicism requires a few minutes of reciting some Hail Mary's and Our Fathers. It is as instant as your intention is sincere in asking for forgiveness. Yes, the idea is that it isn't work to find god. Like it or not, meditation is work. No wonder you didn't stick with it! Twenty minutes twice a day for year after year after year and you still probably have not reached god consciousness, much less unity consciousness. Where for Christianity, God is there, you just accept it. Snap! Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed-- not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence-- continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.--St. Paul, Philippians 2:12-13 Well, it is work in that you have to do something. Even if that something is sitting and meditating. Time passes and you bring you mind to the mantra. It still is doing something. Given how much time people have spent meditating without enlightenment I am amazed that you continue! But to each their own. I certainly am not a biblical expert, I read the bible back in college years ago. So the current message of accepting Jesus as your lord and savior isn't enough, you have to fear and tremble too. At least according to Paul. Where for Christianity, God is there, you just accept it. Some say you need to ask for forgiveness to get to heaven or to be part of the kingdom of God, others say Jesus took on your sins so all is already forgiven. Jesus wasn't exactly straightforward about what exactly is the kingdom of god. But I am not aware of any sort of meditative process to reach this kingdom of god. The basic theory of Christianity seems to be that Jesus did the work for you. I tend to think that we blow religious texts out of proportion and tend to believe that there was more going on in the past than there was. Myths grow and take on a life of their own. Pretty soon we have people believing that the red sea parted for the Jews, Lazarus rose from the dead, and Nabby hopped 10 yards on his ass. And we forget inconvenient information, like the violence in religious texts. Like that MMY did not exhibit the characteristics of an enlightened person which he himself outlined.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Mar 15, 2009, at 4:02 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Repent, for example, is the term used in English translations of the Gospels for the Greek word metanoia. But going back to the Greek, it turns out that metanoia can also be understood to mean transcend (beyond-mind). So John the Baptist may have been crying in the wilderness, Transcend! For the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Jesus is recorded as having said, in the Sermon on the Mount, Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect. We think of this as an impossible demand. Jesus must have meant that we should *strive* to be perfect, knowing that we could never achieve perfection. But again, the Greek word translated perfect can also mean whole, complete. In the Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna, Be without the three gunas, freed from duality, ever firm in purity, independent of possessions, possessed of the Self (MMY's translation). MMY has interpreted Be without the three gunas to mean, Transcend! Could that also be the meaning of Be complete, as your Father in heaven is complete? Freed from duality, possessed of the Self? Was Jesus telling us to transcend? snip Typical TM evangelistic apologism. The fact is TM, being mantras of goddesses of another religion break a number of Judaic laws, Such as? as would undergoing any TM initiation puja where you bow to a guy hailed Guru Deva, The Guru God Except that, of course, the person being initiated into TM is not required to bow to Guru Dev. , and most certainly yagyas would be forbidden: Except that, as Vaj knows, I was discussing *only* the practice of plain-vanilla TM, so yagyas and most of the rest of his laboriously compiled list does not apply, and the remainder is opinion based on rather desperately stretched definitions. Non Sequitur City.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I'm not sure we can say with any certainty what the biblical speakers intended. And in any case, that isn't how repentance is generally taught; it's a process, not an instant transformation. But not a process of meditation with a mantra. Perhaps you should go back to my original post and see what my point was, rather than introducing all kinds of irrelevances. You think it is irrelevant. I think it is not. You do not control the conversation. The conversation goes where it goes.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
Well, it is work in that you have to do something. Even if that something is sitting and meditating. Time passes and you bring you mind to the mantra. It still is doing something. *** TM is called a natural technique because it is conducted by nature -- effort is not called for. Just as we do something to sleep -- another natural process -- by fluffing up a pillow and lying down, we easily introduce the mantra, and since, unlike sleep, we maintain awareness, we repeat that easy introduction of the mantra when we realize it's gone.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
One of my great uncles stopped TM for this reason, he said it felt like dying to him, and he didn't like that feeling.Not for any religious dogma. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Here's something that would be a huge red flag to any Christian: Maharishi was asked if transcending was like dying. Maharishi closes his eyes for almost a minute, then opened them and said, Yes. Try that on your family members. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip If you don't believe in other competing beings, or don't believe they can be invoked by repeating a Sanskrit sound, how can you be concerned that this is what you may be doing when you practice TM? Excellent point. But I am sorting this out -- fusing the two points. Just for one thing, the Golden Calf was supposed to be an idol *of Yahweh*, not of a different god. The big sin of the Israelites was that they weren't worshipping Yahweh directly as they'd been commanded to do. So if Moses did not believe that idols represented Yahweh, then what harm could he see in some worshiping such? It wasn't Moses's idea; it was what Yahweh had told the Israelites when he appeared to them at Sinai, after they agreed to the Covenant, but before Moses received the Ten Commandments. Yahweh wanted the Israelites to acknowledge him directly. Maybe he thought they could get confused if they used an idol, or maybe he just figured the direct approach was more effective. I don't think this is really all that germane to my point, though. I was just addressing Curtis's remark. Other than wasting time, in his view. If the idol really had no juice then the idolaters were not counter to direct contact with Yahweh. They were just engaged in some other activity of no consequence to Yahweh. Only if they were doing both...Yahweh may not have wanted to risk them substituting worshipping through an idol for doing it directly. Similar with the claim that mantra is invoking hindu gods. If the mantra has no juice to do that -- or the gods themselves are fantasy, then what harm is there? Its hardly practicing another religion. Exactly. But that's the whole point of doing TM as an *adjunct* to your religious practice, not as a substitute for it. I recall hearing from a TM teacher that MMY was asked whether TM was a substitute for prayer, and he said not at all, but that you should pray *after* you meditate. The them brings up an interesting conversation, in my head. snip Columbo ok , but just one last thing. Lets say there ARE hindu gods. Then TM is claiming a direct way to contact these gods. You say prayer is the direct way to contact your God. So in fairness, shouldn't we compare which method gets to A or THE god first? Xian: Exorcist, over her, quick -- we have one deeply seeded with the devil. grin
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: snip Non Sequitur City. Not really. You have to look at the whole package and part of the package is the puja and the siddhis and everything else that MMY branded as part of his enlightenment package. Especially given his comments such as all the lifetimes it would take to get enlightened through 2 times 20 TM, the other stuff is relevant in any discussion of TM. You could come to the conclusion that TM is part of a religion of MMY, essentially a false prophet. Or you could come to the conclusion that the whole thing is a fraud. Or you could come to the conclusion that TM is a relaxation technique but I would prefer one that doesn't have all these religious ambiguities. Everything MMY said is important to know in evaluating his claims. If are religious and knew all the things that the proponents of TM believed and supported, it may effect your interpretation of what exactly is TM, the mantras, and the purpose of the puja. The argument some use that TM is just a technique begs the question. What is the purpose of the technique? What does god consciousness mean? What does unity consciousness mean? Why all the other techniques if you get to unity consciousness through TM? How can you, if you are religious, say that TM is ok as a technique but the siddhis are over the line? Why all the supplements, the yagyas, the jyotish, the vaastu architecture? If these are not important to finding God, why are they promoted? How does heaven fit in with this? How does Jesus dying for my sins fit in with this? A lot of rationalizing has to go into making western religions and TM fit. But then again, a lot of rationalizing has to into meditating and doing the siddhis for 30 or more years without enlightenment.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
On Mar 15, 2009, at 6:34 PM, bob_brigante wrote: Well, it is work in that you have to do something. Even if that something is sitting and meditating. Time passes and you bring you mind to the mantra. It still is doing something. *** TM is called a natural technique because it is conducted by nature -- effort is not called for. Just as we do something to sleep -- another natural process -- by fluffing up a pillow and lying down, we easily introduce the mantra, and since, unlike sleep, we maintain awareness, we repeat that easy introduction of the mantra when we realize it's gone. Nonetheless, ask any good yogi of mantrashastra in the Shankaracharya Order, and they'll tell you flat out this is wrong. Whenever there is an object of meditation, there is a technique to work with that object. Whenever there is a technique, there is (subtle) effort always involved. Actually the Sanskrit word for technique also means effort. This is important in understanding the differences between different styles of meditation. The most common style of mediation in MMY's tradition that is really effortless is Nididhyanasana, Vedantic Contemplation. It's kinda funny to hear TM-bots repeat this false information over and over again as if they were experts, but it's also sad in a way. It's sad because while they're convinced they have the effortless technique, all the parroting shows is they're not even really familiar with meditation praxis at all. It would behoove TM proselytizers to think outside the box and learn a bit about meditation so the don't end up sounding so clueless, that 'my hygiene is so great, but you have a booger on your face kinda feeling'.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip I certainly am not a biblical expert, Nope. Neither am I. I read the bible back in college years ago. So the current message of accepting Jesus as your lord and savior isn't enough, you have to fear and tremble too. At least according to Paul. It's more complicated than that. If you sincerely ask for God's forgiveness, you get it unconditionally. But that doesn't mean you sit back and coast. As my favorite minister, William Sloane Coffin, was fond of saying, Christianity hasn't been tried and found wanting, it's been tried and found difficult. Where for Christianity, God is there, you just accept it. Some say you need to ask for forgiveness to get to heaven or to be part of the kingdom of God, others say Jesus took on your sins so all is already forgiven. Jesus wasn't exactly straightforward about what exactly is the kingdom of god. But I am not aware of any sort of meditative process to reach this kingdom of god. The basic theory of Christianity seems to be that Jesus did the work for you. That's how the Christian Scriptures have been interpreted. My original point, of course, which you appear to have missed entirely, is that there may be other valid interpretations (not least because what has come down to us in written form may not be exactly what Jesus actually taught--the notion that Jesus did the work for you comes from Paul, who never met him, at least in the flesh). That Jesus may have taught some form of meditation is a fairly widespread notion, not limited to TMers by any means. Some of the extracanonical texts such as the Gnostic Gospels contain pretty pointed suggestions to that effect. Plus which, if he did teach meditation, it would likely have been an oral teaching that got lost or was even suppressed when Christianity became organized and created a hierarchy on which one was dependent for the sacraments. And in any case, Christianity is not devoid of meditation techniques by any means (e.g., centering prayer), some of which are quite similar to TM. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cloud_of_Unknowing In a follow-up to The Cloud, called The Book of Privy Counseling, the author characterizes the practice of contemplative unknowing as worshiping God with one's 'substance,' coming to rest in a 'naked blind feeling of being,' and ultimately finding thereby that God is one's being. The Cloud of Unknowing draws on the mystical tradition of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, which has reputedly inspired generations of mystical searchers from John Scotus Erigena, through Book of Taliesin, Nicholas of Cusa and St. John of the Cross to Teilhard de Chardin. ... It has been described as Christianity with a Zen outlook, but has also been derided by some as anti- intellectual. And then there's always Meister Eckhart, of whom Schopenhauer wrote: If we turn from the forms, produced by external circumstances, and go to the root of things, we shall find that Sakyamuni [the Buddha] and Meister Eckhart teach the same thing; only that the former dared to express his ideas plainly and positively, whereas Eckhart is obliged to clothe them in the garment of the Christian myth, and to adapt his expressions thereto. The point is, we don't know how much clothing in the garment of Christian myth has taken place since Jesus' day. We don't even know how much Paul himself did to create the myth to serve his own purposes, or how much the institutionalized Church did to protect its own interests. But as Karen Armstrong pointed out in what I quoted in my original post, it's only in relatively modern times that forming new interpretations of scripture has been discouraged.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I'm not sure we can say with any certainty what the biblical speakers intended. And in any case, that isn't how repentance is generally taught; it's a process, not an instant transformation. But not a process of meditation with a mantra. Perhaps you should go back to my original post and see what my point was, rather than introducing all kinds of irrelevances. You think it is irrelevant. I think it is not. You do not control the conversation. The conversation goes where it goes. Please look up the word perhaps in Mr. Dictionary. You can take your own contribution anywhere you want. I'm not obliged to follow you there if it has nothing to do with what I was talking about, though, so you'll have to find somebody else to have a conversation with.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Non Sequitur City. Not really. You have to look at the whole package No, you don't, not with regard to the point I was making, which had to do only with whether the practice of plain-vanilla TM and no teaching beyond the three days of checking conflicts with anyone's religion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: Please look up the word perhaps in Mr. Dictionary. Perhaps you should look up pedantic in Mr. Dictionary.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: snip If you don't believe in other competing beings, or don't believe they can be invoked by repeating a Sanskrit sound, how can you be concerned that this is what you may be doing when you practice TM? It violates the first commandment still. Not if you don't believe there are other gods, it doesn't. I think once you are discussing the perspective of the 10 commandments you are assuming that. Thou shalt not have other Gods before thee contains the assumption that this is an option. So I don't believe that most Christians don't have a problem with this since it is the first commandment. By the time they get to adultery they seem to get more casual... In the ooga bugga world of religious beliefs many Christians view such Hindu gods as demonic forces. So I don't believe that most Christians are so free of a superstitious fear of worshiping other beings. They do believe that the devil can take any form to deceive you. Yes, but Curtis, I *covered* that. Superstitious fear of worshipping other beings isn't part of orthodox (small o) Christianity, for one thing. And for another, my statement explicitly excluded such people. I believe it is. My point was that people are vaguely superstitious about such things. In any case more honesty would give people more of a choice in this. Would it? If by more honesty you mean telling people they're invoking a deity when they entertain the mantra, I'm not sure that's accurate. Seems to me there are at least two honest descriptions of TM. One is that it involves mentally entertaining a semantically meaningless sound; the other is that Hindus believe the sound invokes a pagan Tantric deity. To whom does this latter description give more of a choice? You're actually *eliminating* the choice to do TM for certain people who believe invoking such a deity would be a Bad Thing. I agree that these are two different POV's on the mantras which have a certain amount of validity in context. I think full disclosure of the mantra's religious source is the right thing. FWIW, I don't know what your approach was, but every time in my experience that a meditator asked about the Hindu connection, the teacher explained it (not in great detail, but enough to sound an alarm if one's trigger were delicate). I'm all for that. It seems to me, though, that if you're devoutly religious and are sitting there in an intro lecture with a picture of Guru Dev in front of you, hearing the teachings of somebody called Maharishi, who you're told is a Hindu monk, and you *don't ask* about the Hindu connection, it's because either you know already and don't care, or you don't want to know. (Or you're not as devout as you pretend.) If what you say is true, that the religious people don't believe in Hindu gods, then they wont have any problem. But they should be given the choice by not hiding their origin. We know from teaching TM in India that the whole meaningless sounds innocence argument is bogus. Not sure what you're referring to here exactly. I am sensing a bit of withholding information for their own good in your last statement. I believe that is unethical. What I'm trying to point out is that there are two sides to the issue. I don't know what the solution is. You can only do so much explaining of complex theological issues like this in an intro lecture without creating even more confusion. Or giving people a chance to make up their minds with more of the facts. The idea that people have to be kept form being confused doesn't sit well. I'm not sure it is such a complex theological issue for people not into the belief system at your level. BTW, you don't believe in any of it, so why are you so solicitous of the sensibilities of religious people? The question of being straightforward and honest, respecting people's beliefs has nothing to do with sharing the beliefs. This is not only true for for non believers but for believers too. It is a basic quality of fairness and decency when promoting an idea like TM. The TM group has mostly dropped their facade so I don't have much issue with them now. But when I hear about it getting into schools it reminds me that their parents will not be given a more complete story, they will get the sanitized version so they wont be confused. They can decide for themselves if they want to view it as a problem. Many have decided that it is not. But the TM technique is taught from the perspective that TM is tree and root and other religions are the branches. Well, not until you get further into MMY's teaching. My points here are limited to learning and practicing plain-vanilla TM. That perspective is a part of plane vanilla TM. The concept is largely a myth because people don't continue with TM
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Non Sequitur City. Not really. You have to look at the whole package No, you don't, not with regard to the point I was making, which had to do only with whether the practice of plain-vanilla TM and no teaching beyond the three days of checking conflicts with anyone's religion. And I disagree with you. TM does not exist in a vacuum. If it did, I would not be on this board. It comes with baggage: the other techniques and claims about those techniques promoted by MMY. It comes with the need to have some trust in the TMO's claim that it is not religious and requires no lifestyle change. It comes with a puja ceremony, which could easily be interpreted as religious.It comes with claims that are in the province of religion, answers to the basic questions of life.So you evaluate that and come to the conclusion that the basic philosophy of simple 2 times 20 TM is religious and conflicts with your own religion. You could legitimately conclude that MMY is a false prophet and that you should have nothing to do with any technique he designed. Now me, I am not religious. But I do find that the TMO is a bit too disingenuous in trying to separate 2 times 20 TM from all the other stuff.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [...] I still think the most important thing to bear in mind is that if, as a religious person, you don't believe in what another religion teaches, practices of that other religion that don't involve conscious professions of faith in its teachings cannot conflict with your own beliefs, Except when they do, of course. Why, what a helpful comment, Lawson. (You don't think it would have been *more* helpful had you given an example, do you?) If your religion says explicitly: ractices of that other religion that don't involve conscious professions of faith in its teachings such practices conflict just because they came from another religion, then they conflict, period. Examples included listening to another religion's music, even by accident, or photocopying a religious icon for art class, when the origianl religion (not your own) says such activity, regardless of YOUR belief in the other religion, is still a religious practice. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Well, not everyone accepts the universal being schtick that is basically a Hindu interpretation of the TC state. As I have pointed out before, a strong atheist might well attain God Consciousness or Unity Consciousness' ala MMY's definitions and still remain a strong atheist. Just because YOU can't conceive of that happening doesn't mean its impossible, or even unlikely. If these states really ARE natural states of consciousness, then the number of interpretations of the states will be unlimited. L Lawson, your point of view is interesting. But why do you believe that these states may really be natural states of consciousness? Shurg, why not? Recent research on sucesful athletic champions and managers shows they fall closer to the enlightened part of the Brain Coherence Index than non-champions/unsucessful managers. If that research is replicated by idependents it might lend credibility to MMY's theory that enlightenment is natural whlie non-enlightenment indicates sub-optimal functioning. Do you believe that TM can be taught without the puja? What is the purpose of the puja? God consciousness by MMY: In Maharishi's (1972) description of higher states of consciousness, the sixth state of consciousness, God consciousness, is defined by the unbounded, self-referral awareness of cosmic consciousness coexisting with the development of refined sensory perception during the three relative states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping. Perception and feeling reach their most sublime level, the finer and more glorious levels of creation are appreciated, and every impulse of thought and action is enriching to life (pp. 23-6?23-7). The sixth state is referred to as God consciousness, because the individual is capable of perceiving and appreciating the full range and mechanics of creation and experiences waves of love and devotion for the creation and its creator. Thus, in this state one not only experiences inner peace, but profoundly loving and peaceful relationships are cultivated with all others. http://www.mum.edu/m_effect/alexander/index.html How would an atheist interpret the part about experiencing love and devotion for the creator? He's stated it different ways in other talks on the subject, IIRC. I note the phrase profoundly loving and peaceful relationships are cultivated with all others. Do you believe that MMY was in this state? How do you reconcile it with his behavior which often showed impatience with others. How do I not I recall the story of him screaming at the Indian workers who were slacking off while doing work, and when the TM students asked how he could justify that when he had said that one should always speak kindly to other people and his response was Yes, but you must speak to them in a language they can understand. You could also read this description as rather ordinary. I appreciate creation, and I have felt waves of love and devotion for creation. I think many have. Though it is a rare person who has profoundly loving and peaceful relationships cultivated with ALL others. I slack off there. I'm not touching unity consciousness yet. Shrugs L
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip I am sensing a bit of withholding information for their own good in your last statement. I believe that is unethical. What I'm trying to point out is that there are two sides to the issue. I don't know what the solution is. You can only do so much explaining of complex theological issues like this in an intro lecture without creating even more confusion. Or giving people a chance to make up their minds with more of the facts. The idea that people have to be kept form being confused doesn't sit well. I'm not sure it is such a complex theological issue for people not into the belief system at your level. The confusion arises when the issue isn't fully understood. I don't think there's any way it can possibly be explained well enough in an intro lecture for people to be able to make a fully informed choice, and they likely won't even be aware of it. It's a dilemma. Since I don't believe in either deities or Deity, and since I think TM practice has many benefits for many people, I lean toward giving them the no-semantic-meaning explanation and leaving it at that. I think the whole ethics issue is pretty much a red herring in a real-world (i.e., no gods) sense. I don't want anybody to be scared away from TM who might benefit by it, and on the other hand I don't want anybody to get upset if they find out later on what Hindus believe about mantras. But I can't have both.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Well, not everyone accepts the universal being schtick that is basically a Hindu interpretation of the TC state. As I have pointed out before, a strong atheist might well attain God Consciousness or Unity Consciousness' ala MMY's definitions and still remain a strong atheist. Just because YOU can't conceive of that happening doesn't mean its impossible, or even unlikely. If these states really ARE natural states of consciousness, then the number of interpretations of the states will be unlimited. L Lawson, your point of view is interesting. But why do you believe that these states may really be natural states of consciousness? Shurg, why not? Recent research on sucesful athletic champions and managers shows they fall closer to the enlightened part of the Brain Coherence Index than non-champions/unsucessful managers. If that research is replicated by idependents it might lend credibility to MMY's theory that enlightenment is natural whlie non-enlightenment indicates sub-optimal functioning. Even if you accept this, isn't it a huge step from here to God consciousness or Unity consciousness? And even if long term meditators and champion athletes had similar brain patterns we don't know why and it doesn't say anything about whether the meditators are also now better, faster, smarter and closer to enlightenment. But I understand your interest. This was my interest years ago, I just didn't see things panning out. The meditators simply are not exhibiting characteristics of highly effective people in any noticable way. Do you believe that TM can be taught without the puja? What is the purpose of the puja? God consciousness by MMY: In Maharishi's (1972) description of higher states of consciousness, the sixth state of consciousness, God consciousness, is defined by the unbounded, self-referral awareness of cosmic consciousness coexisting with the development of refined sensory perception during the three relative states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping. Perception and feeling reach their most sublime level, the finer and more glorious levels of creation are appreciated, and every impulse of thought and action is enriching to life (pp. 23-6?23-7). The sixth state is referred to as God consciousness, because the individual is capable of perceiving and appreciating the full range and mechanics of creation and experiences waves of love and devotion for the creation and its creator. Thus, in this state one not only experiences inner peace, but profoundly loving and peaceful relationships are cultivated with all others. http://www.mum.edu/m_effect/alexander/index.html How would an atheist interpret the part about experiencing love and devotion for the creator? He's stated it different ways in other talks on the subject, IIRC. I note the phrase profoundly loving and peaceful relationships are cultivated with all others. Do you believe that MMY was in this state? How do you reconcile it with his behavior which often showed impatience with others. How do I not I recall the story of him screaming at the Indian workers who were slacking off while doing work, and when the TM students asked how he could justify that when he had said that one should always speak kindly to other people and his response was Yes, but you must speak to them in a language they can understand. Well that story doesn't put MMY in a good light. You could also read this description as rather ordinary. I appreciate creation, and I have felt waves of love and devotion for creation. I think many have. Though it is a rare person who has profoundly loving and peaceful relationships cultivated with ALL others. I slack off there. I'm not touching unity consciousness yet. Shrugs L
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Non Sequitur City. Not really. You have to look at the whole package No, you don't, not with regard to the point I was making, which had to do only with whether the practice of plain-vanilla TM and no teaching beyond the three days of checking conflicts with anyone's religion. And I disagree with you. TM does not exist in a vacuum. If it did, I would not be on this board. It comes with baggage: None of which you have any need to deal with if all you want is a simple relaxation technique.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [...] I still think the most important thing to bear in mind is that if, as a religious person, you don't believe in what another religion teaches, practices of that other religion that don't involve conscious professions of faith in its teachings cannot conflict with your own beliefs, Except when they do, of course. Why, what a helpful comment, Lawson. (You don't think it would have been *more* helpful had you given an example, do you?) If your religion says explicitly: ractices of that other religion that don't involve conscious professions of faith in its teachings such practices conflict just because they came from another religion, then they conflict, period. OK, we can add that as a qualifier: If, as a religious person, you don't believe in what another religion teaches and don't believe its practices conflict with your religion just because they're from another religion, the practices of that other religion that don't involve conscious professions of faith in its teachings cannot conflict with your own beliefs.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 shukr...@... wrote: One of my great uncles stopped TM for this reason, he said it felt like dying to him, and he didn't like that feeling.Not for any religious dogma. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Here's something that would be a huge red flag to any Christian: Maharishi was asked if transcending was like dying. Maharishi closes his eyes for almost a minute, then opened them and said, Yes. Try that on your family members. Edg (snip) The small self dies, in order to experience the big self. The soul, is revealed. Jesus' teaching is not in conflict with this... I think he said, that 'Ye must be born again'...isn't that what we do when we transcend. So, when we die, we have to leave everything behind. This is the same, as 'Be in the world, but not of it'... The resurrection, is all about transcending death. Perhaps, many of the various dogmas of religion, are to satisfy the egos, and not so much soul realization... R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: snip The confusion arises when the issue isn't fully understood. I don't think there's any way it can possibly be explained well enough in an intro lecture for people to be able to make a fully informed choice, and they likely won't even be aware of it. The Buddhists and other more honestly Hindu groups seem to do an OK job of this disclosure. Maharishi was being a bit slick in his presentation and now it has all come out. With the Internet no one has to start TM without full disclosure. It's a dilemma. Since I don't believe in either deities or Deity, and since I think TM practice has many benefits for many people, I lean toward giving them the no-semantic-meaning explanation and leaving it at that. I think the whole ethics issue is pretty much a red herring in a real-world (i.e., no gods) sense. Because this is your own version of Maharishi's teaching it is perfectly legit for you. It doesn't seem to me to be a fair treatment of the public for a teacher. Maharishi advocating giving offerings to statures for magical effects so he is clearly a believer in the the most literal interpretation of his religion. I don't want anybody to be scared away from TM who might benefit by it, and on the other hand I don't want anybody to get upset if they find out later on what Hindus believe about mantras. But I can't have both. I can appreciate your desire to share something you find valuable. I can't agree with any version of spinning TM sanitized from its roots. People do all sorts of practices from religions and can do what you have done. personalize the teaching. But it can only happen with an upfront presentation of its Hindu context IMO. For a guy like me its cultural context make TM more appealing, not less.
