subject:"\[FairfieldLife\] Re\: S U P E R BLOG\/ CLIP ON TM"


 
  
  On Jun 9, 2012, at 5:02 PM, sparaig wrote:
  
  
   Me thinks someone needs to read a bit more. THere were 
   two claimants to Jyotirmath after Gurudev died: his  
   nephew, named in Gurudev's will and a guy hand-picked 
   by the conclave of punduts scholars and priests who  
   had picked Gurudev in the first place.
   
   Gurudev's nephew supported MMY. The other guy did not. 
   Gurudev's nephew was installed in the same ashram that 
   Gurudev lived in, complete with all the relics that  
   Gurudev used to haul around., The other guy was  
   installed elsewhere.
   
   The court case to decide who was going to be the  
   real Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath was never settled 
   until all people named in Gurudev's will had passed  
   away and a second generation student was named to fill 
   the slot. At this point, the courts ruled in favor of 
   the choice of the conclave, who had studied with  
   Gurudev for a few years before he died before he went 
   to study with someone else. THAT person was  
   interviewed in David Wants to Fly,
   
   
  
 ---  Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
  
 
  You seem to have missed the salient point here Lawson:  
  Mahesh was never even a sishya of SBS, and thus has no  
  (none, zero, zip, nada) lineal connection to SBS despite 
  all the posing to the contrary. So if you have a picture 
  of the 'Holy Tradition' in your home, you can cross 
  out all of the people except Mahesh - and then you'd  
  have it right.
  
 
  
---  sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote:

 
 You'll notice that MMY is NOT directly below Gurudev, but 
 to the left and he is standing, not sitting, like nearly  
 everyone else is. He is also wearing white not red.
 
 He makes it clear pictorially that he is NOT an heir to  
 the tradition, and he has always claimed that he is an  
 exponent of his teacher's teachings, not the originator or 
 in any way a successor.
 
 Fine lines, I agree.
 
 
 L


Spot on observations Lawson.

Let's say it's a Gray area.  It's a non-linear succession 
like a branch of a tree giving shoots.

The 'conclave picked guy' is the linear successor.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-10 Thread iranitea



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams richard@... wrote:

 
 
   So Willy why haven't we gotten this information 
   from the TMorg?
  
 Vaj:
  
  Because Willy is distorting the Transcendental 
  Meditation tradition by making up fantasies.
 
 You are mistaken: the primary scripture of the 
 Sri Vidya Tradition is the 'Soundarya Lahari' 
 which was composed by the Adi Shankara. 

Well, you should know that in all likelihood the 'Soundarya Lahari' was not 
written by Adi Shankara, but is only attributed to him, as scholars agree. But 
as such, it does play a big role in the Dasanami Sampradaya. The truth is, that 
, as with any great author, such attribution of scriptures are commonplace, 
many scholars today even doubt that the Vivekachudamani is by Shankara. Neiter 
is Bhaja Govindam. Nevertheless it's an important Advaita Vedanta text.

 The Saunda contains all the TM bija mantras used 
 by all the Saraswati Sannyasins. The Saunda is 
 the main and most important tantra in the Shankara 
 Saraswati Order, according to Sri Chandrasekharendra 
 Saraswati Swamigal of Sringeri Matha.
 
 SBS's succussor, Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati of 
 Jotirmath, is the only surviving direct desciple 
 of SBS in the guru parampara, and Vasudevanand 
 fully supports MMY's TM movement. 
 
 Subject: Re: Guru Dev and Sri Vidya
 From: James Duffy
 Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
 Date: April 28, 2003
 http://tinyurl.com/2drn7gp

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM


Could it be that I am getting old and my memory is failing 
me?  You certainly sounded like you're justifing it.

  --beyond the bounds of what is expected, usual, normal,
  or appropriate
  
  There's also the Crazy Wisdom tradition, as you most
  likely know; and the Advahuts zarzari talks about.  
  (#301362)
  
  Crazy wisdom is all well and good, but it doesn't work
  unless the folks to whom you're dishing it out have
  accepted you as a teacher. And you can't force that on
  anybody. (#297295)


---  authfriend jstein@... wrote:


 I did no such thing. Man, can't anybody on this forum
 *read English*??
 
 In fact, I *castigated* him for his cranky behavior.
 


 ---  Jason jedi_spock@ wrote:
  
  This is interesting.  You actually justified Ravi's
  cranky behaviour as 'crazy wisdom' and 'holy madness'.
 
  
  Where was your objectivity then?
  
 
  ---  authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   
   You want to rethink your claim that you don't engage in
   mind-reading?
   
   Yes, I have a pro-TM bias, I've never denied that. But as
   any objective person who has followed my posts would tell
   you, I'm not a TB; I can be very critical of the TMO and
   even of MMY.
   
   To criticize me for acknowledging uncertainty because I
   don't have the facts makes you look like a fool.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-10 Thread iranitea



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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote:
  
  This is interesting.  You actually justified Ravi's
  cranky behaviour as 'crazy wisdom' and 'holy madness'.
 
 I did no such thing. 

Yes you did.

 Man, can't anybody on this forum
 *read English*??

I take note that you start accusing more and more people of this. 

Seems to be you new tactics: others don't understand what you said, because 
their English isn't good enough or fluent. In my case you used to praise me for 
my English in the past, when we were on more friendly terms and before my eyes 
opened. Why can't you express in good, understandable, colloquial English 
yourself? 

But maybe that is not enough for the kind of meaningless sophistries you are 
involving yourself.

 
 In fact, I *castigated* him for his cranky behavior.
 
 
  
  Where was your objectivity then?
  
  ---  authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   
   You want to rethink your claim that you don't engage in
   mind-reading?
   
   Yes, I have a pro-TM bias, I've never denied that. But as
   any objective person who has followed my posts would tell
   you, I'm not a TB; I can be very critical of the TMO and
   even of MMY.
   
   To criticize me for acknowledging uncertainty because I
   don't have the facts makes you look like a fool.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-10 Thread Richard J. Williams



   Because Willy is distorting the Transcendental
   Meditation tradition by making up fantasies.
  
  You are mistaken: the primary scripture of the
  Sri Vidya Tradition is the 'Soundarya Lahari'
  which was composed by the Adi Shankara.
 
iranitea:
 Well, you should know that in all likelihood the 
 'Soundarya Lahari' was not written by Adi Shankara, 
 but is only attributed to him, as scholars agree.

Get a grip! The Saraswati sanyasins of Sringeri don't
care what you or your scholars think about the 
authorship of their sacred scriptures such as the 
'Ananda Lahari'. 

For this dialog it is enough to establish that all 
the Saraswati sanyasins meditate at least twice a 
day using the Saraswati bija mantra. This is a fact 
that most scholars agree on.

In addition to twice daily meditation on the bija 
mantra of Saraswati, the dasnamis of the Saraswati 
Order, perform the Saraswati Puja on the 5th day of 
Magha month, known as Basant Panchami. 

 But as such, it does play a big role in the Dasanami 
 Sampradaya. The truth is, that, as with any great 
 author, such attribution of scriptures are commonplace, 
 many scholars today even doubt that the Vivekachudamani 
 is by Shankara. Neiter is Bhaja Govindam. Nevertheless 
 it's an important Advaita Vedanta text.

Can you present any evidence that SBS did not meditate 
on the TM bija mantra of Saraswati? 

If SBS got the bija from his master, SKS, why couldn't 
GD have given it to MMY for his meditation practice?

According to Swami Svarupanand Saraswati, SBS used to 
give out to aspirants the mantra of their ista-devata 
to use in their meditations, according to the Kropinsky
interview.

 The Saunda contains all the TM bija mantras used
 by all the Saraswati Sannyasins. The Saunda is
 the main and most important tantra in the Shankara
 Saraswati Order, according to Sri Chandrasekharendra
 Saraswati Swamigal of Sringeri Matha.

 SBS's succussor, Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati of
 Jotirmath, is the only surviving direct desciple
 of SBS in the guru parampara, and Vasudevanand
 fully supports MMY's TM movement.

 Subject: Re: Guru Dev and Sri Vidya
 From: James Duffy
 Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
 Date: April 28, 2003
 http://tinyurl.com/2drn7gp

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-10 Thread Richard J. Williams



  Gurudev's nephew supported MMY.
 
Vaj:
 You seem to have missed the salient point here 
 Lawson...

You seem to have missed the salient point here, Vaj.

MMY got the TM bija mantras came from Guru Dev, who 
was a member of the Dasanami Order of the Saraswati 
Dandi sannyasins, founded by the Adi Shankara. Guru 
Dev's teacher was Swami Krishnanada Saraswati of 
Uttar Kashi.

Can you post any evidence that MMY got the bijas
from another source?

All of the Saraswati dasanamis are adherents of the 
Sri Vidya sect and they follow the teachings contained 
in the Saunadryalahari which was composed by the Adi 
Shankara, containing the fifteen TM bija mantras.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-10 Thread Richard J. Williams



  The 'conclave picked guy' is the linear successor.
 
sparaig:
 Not according to Gurudev's will.
 
Only the lineage of Vasudevananda (through Santananda) 
can be traced directly to Brahmananda, without any 
interruptions. - Vidyasankar Sundaresan 

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/dating-Sankara.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-10 Thread nablusoss1008



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

 
 On Jun 9, 2012, at 9:32 PM, sparaig wrote:
 
  You'll notice that MMY is NOT directly below Gurudev, but to the left and 
  he is standing, not sitting, like nearly everyone else is.
 
 
 The original painting did NOT have Maheshiji in the painting. He was 
 airbrushed in later.



Nonsense as usual. Who told you this, or did you just cook it up as with so 
much else you claim in your neverending smearcampaign ala Goebbels against the 
TMO ?

Maharishi worked very closely with the artist who painted the Holy Tradition in 
the 1980's, I know this for a fact. If not for Maharishi's close interaction he 
probably would have been seated directly under Guru Dev.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM



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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote:
 
 On Jun 9, 2012, at 5:02 PM, sparaig wrote:
 
  Me thinks someone needs to read a bit more. THere were 
  two claimants to Jyotirmath after Gurudev died: his  
  nephew, named in Gurudev's will and a guy hand-picked 
  by the conclave of punduts scholars and priests who  
  had picked Gurudev in the first place.
  
  Gurudev's nephew supported MMY. The other guy did not. 
  Gurudev's nephew was installed in the same ashram that 
  Gurudev lived in, complete with all the relics that  
  Gurudev used to haul around., The other guy was  
  installed elsewhere.
  
  The court case to decide who was going to be the  
  real Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath was never settled 
  until all people named in Gurudev's will had passed  
  away and a second generation student was named to fill 
  the slot. At this point, the courts ruled in favor of 
  the choice of the conclave, who had studied with  
  Gurudev for a few years before he died before he went 
  to study with someone else. THAT person was  
  interviewed in David Wants to Fly,

---  Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 
 You seem to have missed the salient point here Lawson:  
 Mahesh was never even a sishya of SBS, and thus has no  
 (none, zero, zip, nada) lineal connection to SBS despite 
 all the posing to the contrary. So if you have a picture 
 of the 'Holy Tradition' in your home, you can cross 
 out all of the people except Mahesh - and then you'd  
 have it right.
 
   ---  sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:

You'll notice that MMY is NOT directly below Gurudev, but 
to the left and he is standing, not sitting, like nearly  
everyone else is. He is also wearing white not red.

He makes it clear pictorially that he is NOT an heir to  
the tradition, and he has always claimed that he is an  
exponent of his teacher's teachings, not the originator or 
in any way a successor.

Fine lines, I agree.
   
   Spot on observations Lawson.
   
   Let's say it's a Gray area.  It's a non-linear succession 
   like a branch of a tree giving shoots.
   
   The 'conclave picked guy' is the linear successor.
  
  Not according to Gurudev's will.
 
 Ahem. It seems to me that both sparaig and Jason are 
 trying to obfuscate the issue. 
 
 It's not *about* whether Maharishi was *ever* in line
 to be Brahmananda Saraswati's successor in the Shankara-
 charya tradition.

Ahem. Neither of them claimed he was--to the contrary,
in fact. As is so often the case, Barry has fantasized
an entirely different discussion than the one he's
commenting on, so as to give himself yet another
opportunity to demonize TMers.

snip
 The idea that these two common forms of meditation are
 somehow mutually exclusive is pretty much a TM-only
 piece of dogma, and IMO based on the simple fact that
 Maharishi had only one product to sell.

Barry is entitled to his opinion. Another possibility
is that MMY genuinely believed effortlessness was
superior to concentration where meditation was concerned.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@... wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote:
   
   This is interesting.  You actually justified Ravi's
   cranky behaviour as 'crazy wisdom' and 'holy madness'.
  
  I did no such thing. 
 
 Yes you did.

Let me say it another way: I did no such thing.

  Man, can't anybody on this forum *read English*??
 
 I take note that you start accusing more and more people
 of this.

No, it's always been a problem with certain people.
Every once in a while it gets especially amusing.

 Seems to be you new tactics: others don't understand what
 you said, because their English isn't good enough or fluent.
 In my case you used to praise me for my English in the past,
 when we were on more friendly terms

You do fine when you're not engaging in a hostile
argument. When you get into hostile mode, you let
yourself get so angry that your English comprehension
goes in the toilet. Or you become so anxious to get
the person you're hating on that your integrity goes
in the toilet. Or both.

 and before my eyes opened.

guffaw

 Why can't you express in good, understandable, colloquial
 English yourself?

I do, actually. Sorry you have such trouble with it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM



 ---  Jason jedi_spock@ wrote:
 
  Could it be that I am getting old and my memory is failing 
  me?  You certainly sounded like you're justifing it.
  
--beyond the bounds of what is expected, usual, normal,
or appropriate

There's also the Crazy Wisdom tradition, as you most
likely know; and the Advahuts zarzari talks about.  
(#301362)


---  authfriend jstein@... wrote:
 
 And you imagine that this was a justification for
 Ravi's cranky behavior on what basis, exactly?
 Did you read the whole post, or just what you
 quote here?
 
Crazy wisdom is all well and good, but it doesn't work
unless the folks to whom you're dishing it out have
accepted you as a teacher. And you can't force that on
anybody. (#297295)
   
 
---  authfriend jstein@... wrote:

 It's even weirder that you would think this was an
 attempt to justify Ravi's cranky behavior. I was
 doing precisely the opposite, and that should have
 been evident just from what you quote.
 
 If you'd bothered to read what I said to Ravi
 immediately above what you quote, you wouldn't have
 made even that mistake:
 
 IMHO, you need to take some responsibility for how you
 affect others. You can't expect that if you just say, 'I'm
 a narcissistic enlightened asshole and I love everybody
 with as much intensity as I love myself,' they're going
 to go, Oh, well, that's all right then, he can insult me
 as much as he likes and I won't take offense.
 
 IOW, as I already pointed out, I was *castigating*
 him for his cranky behavior, not trying to justify
 it.
 
 Ask iranitea to lend you the cloth he's using to wipe
 the egg of his face when he's finished. Or maybe you
 need to get a fresh one to get the egg off yours.


Judy, the term 'narcissistic enlightened asshole' is an 
oxymoron, an inherent contradiction.

You were indirectly telling Ravi that if someone accepts him 
as his teacher, his 'crazy wisdom is all well and good.'

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM



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

 
 
  ---  Jason jedi_spock@ wrote:
  
   Could it be that I am getting old and my memory is failing 
   me?  You certainly sounded like you're justifing it.
   
 --beyond the bounds of what is expected, usual, normal,
 or appropriate
 
 There's also the Crazy Wisdom tradition, as you most
 likely know; and the Advahuts zarzari talks about.  
 (#301362)
 
 
 ---  authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
  And you imagine that this was a justification for
  Ravi's cranky behavior on what basis, exactly?
  Did you read the whole post, or just what you
  quote here?
  
 Crazy wisdom is all well and good, but it doesn't work
 unless the folks to whom you're dishing it out have
 accepted you as a teacher. And you can't force that on
 anybody. (#297295)

  
 ---  authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  It's even weirder that you would think this was an
  attempt to justify Ravi's cranky behavior. I was
  doing precisely the opposite, and that should have
  been evident just from what you quote.
  
  If you'd bothered to read what I said to Ravi
  immediately above what you quote, you wouldn't have
  made even that mistake:
  
  IMHO, you need to take some responsibility for how you
  affect others. You can't expect that if you just say, 'I'm
  a narcissistic enlightened asshole and I love everybody
  with as much intensity as I love myself,' they're going
  to go, Oh, well, that's all right then, he can insult me
  as much as he likes and I won't take offense.
  
  IOW, as I already pointed out, I was *castigating*
  him for his cranky behavior, not trying to justify
  it.
  
  Ask iranitea to lend you the cloth he's using to wipe
  the egg of his face when he's finished. Or maybe you
  need to get a fresh one to get the egg off yours.
 
 Judy, the term 'narcissistic enlightened asshole' is an 
 oxymoron, an inherent contradiction.

Well, I'm not sure that's the case, actually; it
would depend on one's definition of enlightened.
But my point was that most people aren't going to
accept it as an excuse for cranky behavior.

 You were indirectly telling Ravi that if someone accepts
 him as his teacher, his 'crazy wisdom is all well and
 good.'

Wrong. Accepting someone as a teacher is a necessary
but not sufficient condition for crazy wisdom to be
well and good. IOW, one's crazy wisdom ain't gonna
work at all if one hasn't been accepted as a teacher.
If one *is* accepted as a teacher, one's crazy wisdom
*might* work; but that's not guaranteed.

Note that I didn't say, *Your* crazy wisdom. I wasn't
even validating that Ravi's behavior had anything to do
with crazy wisdom. Nor was I validating his claim to
enlightenment.

In any case, nobody here had accepted Ravi as a
teacher, so even if his cranky behavior *was* crazy
wisdom, it wasn't gonna work. He couldn't use that as
an excuse for insulting people and expect they'd just
smile and take it. He was saying that his claim to be
an enlightened asshole *justified* the cranky
behavior; I was telling him it didn't.

And finally, to go back to the beginning, Ravi's
cranky behavor and iranitea's claim that my
expressing doubt about his notion of the TMO
increasing the number of mantras so as to obscure
and deceive the public was itself somehow deceptive
and malign are not even remotely equivalent. That
wasn't just cranky behavior on iranitea's part.
Ravi enjoyed taking crude potshots at people just
for the fun of it, to shock them. Iranitea, in stark
contrast, is engaged in a determined and calculatedly
malicious campaign against me.

The genesis of this campaign goes back to December,
when I called him out for making some thoroughly
disgraceful comments about someone else.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-10 Thread Xenophaneros Anartaxius

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@... wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote:
 
 This is interesting.  You actually justified Ravi's
 cranky behaviour as 'crazy wisdom' and 'holy madness'.
 
 I did no such thing. 
 
 Yes you did.
 
 Man, can't anybody on this forum
 *read English*??
snip

I went and read posts #297295 and #297725 back in December 2011 (I had not 
followed this conversation at the time) and I think Judy's recounting of the 
exchange is correct. While she seemed to take a softer stance on Ravi than she 
does with Barry for example, she was chiding him for his behaviour and 
recommending he take a more comprehensive view of how he was affecting others 
with his oddities.

I do not see that she was justifying Ravi's behaviour at all.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM


 
  
  
   ---  Jason jedi_spock@ wrote:
   
Could it be that I am getting old and my memory is failing 
me?  You certainly sounded like you're justifing it.

  --beyond the bounds of what is expected, usual, normal,
  or appropriate
  
  There's also the Crazy Wisdom tradition, as you most
  likely know; and the Advahuts zarzari talks about.  
  (#301362)
  
  
  ---  authfriend jstein@ wrote:
   
   And you imagine that this was a justification for
   Ravi's cranky behavior on what basis, exactly?
   Did you read the whole post, or just what you
   quote here?
   
  Crazy wisdom is all well and good, but it doesn't work
  unless the folks to whom you're dishing it out have
  accepted you as a teacher. And you can't force that on
  anybody. (#297295)
 
   
  ---  authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   It's even weirder that you would think this was an
   attempt to justify Ravi's cranky behavior. I was
   doing precisely the opposite, and that should have
   been evident just from what you quote.
   
   If you'd bothered to read what I said to Ravi
   immediately above what you quote, you wouldn't have
   made even that mistake:
   
   IMHO, you need to take some responsibility for how you
   affect others. You can't expect that if you just say, 'I'm
   a narcissistic enlightened asshole and I love everybody
   with as much intensity as I love myself,' they're going
   to go, Oh, well, that's all right then, he can insult me
   as much as he likes and I won't take offense.
   
   IOW, as I already pointed out, I was *castigating*
   him for his cranky behavior, not trying to justify
   it.
   
   Ask iranitea to lend you the cloth he's using to wipe
   the egg of his face when he's finished. Or maybe you
   need to get a fresh one to get the egg off yours.
  
 ---  Jason jedi_spock@ wrote:
  
  Judy, the term 'narcissistic enlightened asshole' is an 
  oxymoron, an inherent contradiction.
 
 
---  authfriend jstein@... wrote:

 Well, I'm not sure that's the case, actually; it
 would depend on one's definition of enlightened.
 But my point was that most people aren't going to
 accept it as an excuse for cranky behavior.
 

 ---  Jason jedi_spock@ wrote:
 
  You were indirectly telling Ravi that if someone accepts
  him as his teacher, his 'crazy wisdom is all well and
  good.'
 
---  authfriend jstein@... wrote:

 Wrong. Accepting someone as a teacher is a necessary
 but not sufficient condition for crazy wisdom to be
 well and good. IOW, one's crazy wisdom ain't gonna
 work at all if one hasn't been accepted as a teacher.
 If one *is* accepted as a teacher, one's crazy wisdom
 *might* work; but that's not guaranteed.
 
 Note that I didn't say, *Your* crazy wisdom. I wasn't
 even validating that Ravi's behavior had anything to do
 with crazy wisdom. Nor was I validating his claim to
 enlightenment.
 
 In any case, nobody here had accepted Ravi as a
 teacher, so even if his cranky behavior *was* crazy
 wisdom, it wasn't gonna work. He couldn't use that as
 an excuse for insulting people and expect they'd just
 smile and take it. He was saying that his claim to be
 an enlightened asshole *justified* the cranky
 behavior; I was telling him it didn't.
 
 And finally, to go back to the beginning, Ravi's
 cranky behavor and iranitea's claim that my
 expressing doubt about his notion of the TMO
 increasing the number of mantras so as to obscure
 and deceive the public was itself somehow deceptive
 and malign are not even remotely equivalent. That
 wasn't just cranky behavior on iranitea's part.


 Ravi enjoyed taking crude potshots at people just
 for the fun of it, to shock them. 

Sometimes, your semantics does confuse me.

Are you sure he was taking crude potshots at people just for 
the fun of it?  You say he enjoyed it.

I guess we all have different standards of what 'fun' is.


 Iranitea, in stark
 contrast, is engaged in a determined and calculatedly
 malicious campaign against me.
 
 The genesis of this campaign goes back to December,
 when I called him out for making some thoroughly
 disgraceful comments about someone else.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-10 Thread iranitea



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

(Judy:)
  And finally, to go back to the beginning, Ravi's
  cranky behavor and iranitea's claim that my
  expressing doubt about his notion of the TMO
  increasing the number of mantras so as to obscure
  and deceive the public was itself somehow deceptive
  and malign are not even remotely equivalent. 

Well, I never said this. You create here a new connection between two 
arguments, that I never made, and THAT is insidious.

I start to believe, that you have really a problem of comprehension, Judy. You 
make connections that aren't there. I said that the increase of TM mantras is 
an attempt to obscure and deceive the public. This is admitted a negative 
formulation, I don't see it completely that negative. There are many arguments 
more to support this statement, in which I didn't go, it was just one of many 
arguments.  

And I also mocked at Judy of turning her eyes away from this, and she is 
purposefully vague, leaving a backdoor, but that is not the example of the way 
she obscures and deceives herself. I have already explained at length wherein 
her deception lies, it is basically to concentrate on small side remarks and 
character - assassination, in order to distract from the REAL larger issue.  I 
don't want to go in it all again, but this is the wrong example. But the way 
she tries to give it a spin here  - in this post - is of course malicious and 
deceptive in itself.

  That
  wasn't just cranky behavior on iranitea's part.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@... wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote:
 
 (Judy:)
   And finally, to go back to the beginning, Ravi's
   cranky behavor and iranitea's claim that my
   expressing doubt about his notion of the TMO
   increasing the number of mantras so as to obscure
   and deceive the public was itself somehow deceptive
   and malign are not even remotely equivalent. 
 
 Well, I never said this. You create here a new connection
 between two arguments, that I never made, and THAT is
 insidious.

No, sorry, your denial is insidious.

 I start to believe, that you have really a problem of 
 comprehension, Judy. You make connections that aren't
 there. I said that the increase of TM mantras is an
 attempt to obscure and deceive the public. This is
 admitted a negative formulation, I don't see it
 completely that negative.

Not negative to obscure and deceive the public?

 There are many arguments more to support this statement,
 in which I didn't go, it was just one of many arguments.

So what? You attacked me for doubting it.

 And I also mocked at Judy of turning her eyes away from
 this,

I didn't turn my eyes away from it. I looked at it
and found it a dubious claim.

 and she is purposefully vague, leaving a backdoor,

You're becoming more and more absurd. Were you hoping
I'd deny it outright so you could bring out more of
your arguments? Why on *earth* should anybody object
to an expression of uncertainty?

 but that is not the example of the way she obscures and
 deceives herself. I have already explained at length
 wherein her deception lies, it is basically to concentrate
 on small side remarks and character - assassination, in
 order to distract from the REAL larger issue.

Right. And I explained why that's pure bullshit, as
anyone who has followed my posts knows.

 I don't want to go in it all again, but this is the wrong
 example. But the way she tries to give it a spin here  - 
 in this post - is of course malicious and deceptive in
 itself.

Allow me to remind you of what you actually wrote:

Now, that is a classic answer. AVOID any answer, keep a
back door open so that nobody thinks you are in denial,
give it a negative taint, so that TBB's are not 
disappointed. Avoid the answers and quibble over
insignificant details.

The second sentence clearly implies an intent to deceive.
And the last sentence is the same accusation of deception
you made above.

Keep digging, iranitea.



   That
   wasn't just cranky behavior on iranitea's part.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote:
snip
[I wrote:]
  Ravi enjoyed taking crude potshots at people just
  for the fun of it, to shock them. 
 
 Sometimes, your semantics does confuse me.

What confuses you about what I wrote?

 Are you sure he was taking crude potshots at people just
 for the fun of it?  You say he enjoyed it.

Yup. He *admitted* it.

 I guess we all have different standards of what 'fun' is.

Yup. That's part of what I was pointing out to him.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
anartaxius@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote:
  
  This is interesting.  You actually justified Ravi's
  cranky behaviour as 'crazy wisdom' and 'holy madness'.
  
  I did no such thing. 
  
  Yes you did.
  
  Man, can't anybody on this forum
  *read English*??
 snip
 
 I went and read posts #297295 and #297725 back in December
 2011 (I had not followed this conversation at the time) and
 I think Judy's recounting of the exchange is correct.

Thank you, Xeno.

 While
 she seemed to take a softer stance on Ravi than she does
 with Barry for example,

Ravi was a *vastly* nicer person than Barry is. Ravi
would go off on somebody from time to time for no good
reason, but he was more often loving and sensitive and
quite witty and insightful.



 she was chiding him for his behaviour and recommending he
 take a more comprehensive view of how he was affecting
 others with his oddities.
 
 I do not see that she was justifying Ravi's behaviour at all.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-09 Thread iranitea



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

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote:
 
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote:
   
Why is it 'incorrect' if you say something wrong, deceptive
but a blatant lie if Barry does so?
  
   I don't say things with the intention to deceive, first
   of all, although I may say something wrong inadvertently.
 
  Can't argue with that, because, unlike others I am not into mind
  reading. But you should also be clear that it is obvious that
  you try to diminish points that are unfavorable to your arguments,
 
 Oh, that's very funny. You make it sound as though that
 weren't what everyone, including yourself, does in 
 debating a disagreement.
 
  as in this case.
  The point is that there are teachers, who still teach in this
  way, they are quite a few, so there is still a good chance to
  get one of those two mantras, and let me calculate, if the
  amount of teachers from that time would be 50%,
 
 Fifty percent of what?

Of all people starting TM at any given frame of time.

I'll try to explain it to you again: It is more or less just a graphic 
description of the 'weight' of those two, supposedly unused mantras (based on 
Ram) still being around. If you count together the 16 newer  (shakti related) 
mantras and the two old, you get 18. 100 divided by 18 is 5.555.. This would be 
the percentage of distribution of any mantra, if all the mantras were equally 
distributed, not regarding the different age groups and distribution schemes. 
That would require 5.55% of the old Ram based mantras, and since there are two, 
this figure would have to be doubled, so if 11.11% of initiations would be by 
'old' teachers (from before 1969), then the chance to learn one of the old 
mantras is as high as learning any of the new ones. Got that? Now the 
percentage of old teachers may be less than 11.11%, chances that you learn one 
of the old mantras is still considerable. In any case, there is no reason to 
deny it or neglect it in any way.

  it would be about 8 times higher than getting any other
  mantra, (16 divided by 2),  but let's assume it's just
  slightly over 10%, then chances are that you get the
  mantra Ram are about as much as that of any other of the
  later mantras. ;-)
 
 I doubt there's anywhere near that many pre-1969 teachers
 currently teaching.
 
   Second, not everything Barry says that is wrong is a
   blatant lie. Sometimes he gets things wrong inadvertently
   as well.
  
  Here you get so boring that I find it hard to take you
  seriously.
 
 Yeah, it can be really boring to have your points
 rebutted.

LOL

   If the above confuses you, please consult Mr. Dictionary
   for the meaning of to lie and to deceive.
 
  And maybe you conduct Mr. Dictionary about the difference
  between the active verb 'to deceive' and the adjective
  'deceptive'.
 
 Well, thank you for clarifying that you didn't intend
 to suggest I was attempting to deceive.

I didn't suggest it, which doesn't mean you couldn't have been.

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
  wrote:
  
Here's a question for you -- if I (trained as a
TM teacher by Maharishi) were to teach someone
to meditate and teach them according to the exact
instructions he told me to impart to students,
but changed only one thing -- the mantra -- would
it be the same technique, or a different one? What
if I taught them to use the mantra Ram (the one
Maharishi *started* teaching TM with, for everyone)
instead of one from the latest official list?
Would it be different than TM, or the same?
  
   It would be different than TM as taught by Maharishi
   Mahesh Yogi for decades, as Barry knows but figures
   Emily doesn't.
 
  This is a very deceptive answer.

 Well, no, it isn't. It may be *incorrect* in the case of
 TM teachers who got only the two early Rishikesh mantras
 and are still giving them out today, but how many such
 teachers are there? IOW, it's a minor inaccuracy.
   
First of all it may not be 'incorrect', it certainly IS
incorrect, wrong, false and misleading.
  
   Again your lack of fluency in English is causing problems,
   with regard to the It may be... construction.
 
  Why again? Stop patronizing me and making unfounded assumptions.
 
 Find an English teacher to explain it to you.
 
   Let me
   say it slightly differently: Even if I got that one point
   wrong, it was minor, because there aren't many from those
   days still teaching. Both versions of that statement
   acknowledge the inaccuracy. Well, no, it isn't referred
   to your

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-09 Thread iranitea



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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote:
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
   
 Barry's lying. I responded to that question. The
 response included pointing out that the question
 itself was designed to mislead. The TMO charges
 high fees in wealthy countries and low or no fees
 in poor ones.
   
So, is India a poor country or a wealthy one? Do you feel that
the following rates have been subsidised by the west?These
fees may not sound to be much if converting Rupees to Dollars,
but they still are a lot for the average Indian worker
http://www.peace-movement.net/participation.jsp
http://www.peace-movement.net/participation.jsp
  
   These amounts aren't fees to learn TM. They're donation
   amounts to be a participant in this peace movement,
   which appears to be a new program of the TMO in India.
  
  It's not new at all, it was the first step by Girish to
  separate the Indian movement from the west,
 
 Which happened when, exactly?

Can't you read?
http://www.peace-movement.net/Inauguration.jsp

  and of course the membership fees are a way of charging
  for TM
 
 I believe you're mistaken on that point. I don't think
 those fees cover instruction.

In some countries it is done that way, the instruction fees are membership 
fees. But the burden of proof is on to you for your claim, that the high TM 
fees in the west are subsidizing those of the people of poor nations. It's your 
claim, not mine.

You may also look here:
http://www.peace-movement.net/pprogram.jsp

Plans and Programmes for Participants

Maharishi World Peace Movement will do the following in the interest of the 
Participants:
1. Well designed informative and interactive web site www.peace-movement.net 
will provide all details on various plans and programmes of Maharishi World 
Peace Movement.
2. Will occasionally send E-News Letter or printed News Letter to all 
articipants containing plans, programmes and news up date.
3. Will make arrangements for learning Transcendental Meditation, Sidhi 
Programme, Yogic Flying and Advance Techniques.

All in all, it is easy to point to some obscure country, and
say, well we spend all the money for poor countries, but
where is the documentation?
  
   I didn't say spend ALL the money for poor countries.
   That certainly isn't the case. See my last paragraph
   below.
  
  Don't get hooked up on small formulations.
 
 Then don't exaggerate and put words in my mouth.
 
   As to documentation, I don't have any. However, on
   various TM forums and elsewhere I've heard people who
   have taught in India and other poor countries say that
   they charged a very low or no fee. Perhaps they're all
   lying, and a fee equivalent to that in the U.S. is
   charged everywhere. I've never heard anyone speak up
   to that effect, though.
  
  This was usually during special campaigns, during certain
  time periods. You won't find american teachers now teaching
  TM in India. It was also true in the Philippines, but all
  during a limited period of time.
 
 So you claim everyone in every country is normally 
 charged an equivalent fee to that charged in the U.S.?
 
 Also, $1,500 is well within the
 means of many people in this country; they'll
 easily spend that much and more on a week's
 vacation. And if someone really wants to learn
 and simply can't afford it, the TMO will usually
 work something out with them.
   
Typical answer: you have to really want it, and then
you can also afford it.
  
   More or less true of just about anything, no?
  
   You deleted the comment of Barry's I was responding
   to, so let's put it back in for context:
  
  As it was irrelevant, your favorite word, right?
 
 It was very relevant to my response to Barry.
 
Like the question all of the TM supporters are
avoiding like the plague -- WHY would an org
that claims it has the solution to all the prob-
lems of life want to charge so much for it that
very few will ever start?
  
   I submit that my response to this, quoted above, was
   accurate: TM does not cost so much that very few will
   ever start. In the U.S., the fee is steep but not
   prohibitive for many; in poorer countries, unless
   definitive testimony to the contrary is found, the fee
   is significantly less than it is in this country.
  
  In other European countries the fee is even higher (if 
  the movement still exists). You cannot see the fee outside
  of the contemporary context. If you want to sell one liter
  of water in a desert, you may get what you are asking for.
  But not if somebody stands next to you giving water freely.
  The question is, why should anybody in his

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM



On Jun 9, 2012, at 7:28 AM, iranitea no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:

 Now, that is a classic answer. AVOID any answer, keep a back door open so 
 that nobody thinks you are in denial, give it a negative taint, so that TBB's 
 are not disappointed. Avoid the answers and quibble over insignificant 
 details. Good lesson, thank you Mrs. Stein.

Yes old chap, I do believe you got it!

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@... wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote:
   
snip
   The point is that there are teachers, who still teach in this
   way, they are quite a few, so there is still a good chance to
   get one of those two mantras, and let me calculate, if the
   amount of teachers from that time would be 50%,
  
  Fifty percent of what?
 
 Of all people starting TM at any given frame of time.

The amount of teachers from that time would not be 50%
of all people starting TM at any given frame of time.

I think what you meant to say was that 50% of all people
starting TM at any given frame of time would be taught
by teachers from that time (1969 and before).

(BTW, you weren't calculating, you were estimating.)

 I'll try to explain it to you again: It is more or less just
 a graphic description of the 'weight' of those two,
 supposedly unused mantras (based on Ram) still being around.

Yes, I understood all this, just not your 50% statement.

 If you count together the 16 newer  (shakti related) mantras
 and the two old, you get 18. 100 divided by 18 is 5.555.. 
 This would be the percentage of distribution of any mantra,
 if all the mantras were equally distributed, not regarding
 the different age groups and distribution schemes. That
 would require 5.55% of the old Ram based mantras, and since
 there are two, this figure would have to be doubled, so if
 11.11% of initiations would be by 'old' teachers (from
 before 1969), then the chance to learn one of the old
 mantras is as high as learning any of the new ones. Got
 that? Now the percentage of old teachers may be less than
 11.11%, chances that you learn one of the old mantras is
 still considerable. In any case, there is no reason to deny
 it or neglect it in any way.

Right. Which is why I'm not denying or neglecting it. I do
question your 11.11% figure. I doubt it's that high.

snip
If the above confuses you, please consult Mr. Dictionary
for the meaning of to lie and to deceive.
  
   And maybe you conduct Mr. Dictionary about the difference
   between the active verb 'to deceive' and the adjective
   'deceptive'.
  
  Well, thank you for clarifying that you didn't intend
  to suggest I was attempting to deceive.
 
 I didn't suggest it,

Yes, I'm taking your word for that, as I indicated above.
Except...

 which doesn't mean you couldn't have been.

...now you're suggesting it.

snip
How many of them are still teaching? Because Barry's
question had to do with the present.
  
   How many are teaching at all? How much is TM still being
   taught?
  
  Oh, I thought you knew. You were making all kinds of
  calculations above.
 
 Look, I thought you know the English language: These were
 rhetorical questions, meaning to say, there are hardly
 people learning TM anyway.

Sorry, but your English isn't good enough and your
comprehension of the course of the discussion isn't
good enough for me to be able to tell whether your
questions are rhetorical or genuine.

   And then: many of them are teachers of the first hour, they
   are Rajas today.
  
  (By first hour, I assume you mean 1969 and before, right?)
 
 Riighty! You start thinking along.
  
  How many of the rajas actually teach?
 
 Is this a rhetorical question? The Rajas are just an example,
 they are the guys still on it,

On what?

 many of them are from this group.

Yes, I would assume that. The relevant question is how
many of them are actually still giving out mantras.

snip
 And even if they are just a 'minor inaccuracy' they prove
 the principle, what, so it seems you easily lose out of
 sight: One (or two) mantras are really enough. And that's
 all that Barry was trying to say.
   
Well, no, it isn't what he was trying to say. (I'm sure
he'll say it was *now*, but it wasn't to start with.)
   
   Yes he clearly said it. And you know it.
  
  Unlike Barry, I'm not in the habit of saying things
  that I know aren't true. And I thought you just said
  you weren't into mind-reading.
 
 Mind reading is not required here.

It is for you to say you know it.

 Ordinary reading capabilities are enough.

Unfortunately yours aren't quite up to snuff.

 As a proof reader, I suppose you have them. Except if you are
 in a habit of blanking out reality.

Ain't me blanking out reality.

 This is further substantiated by my further comment
 about the advanced techniques. Why have only one
 mantra in the advanced technique and 16 mantras for TM?
   
I retained my original bija mantra when I got my advanced
technique (I have only one).
   
   I said there are exceptions. But with a second advanced
   technique, you are likely to lose that one, with the third
   you are almost sure.
  
  I'm not sure that's the case now.
  
   So why you never got any more?
  
  There were other things I chose to spend my

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-09 Thread Jason



This is interesting.  You actually justified Ravi's cranky 
behaviour as 'crazy wisdom' and 'holy madness'.

Where was your objectivity then?

---  authfriend jstein@... wrote:

 
 You want to rethink your claim that you don't engage in
 mind-reading?
 
 Yes, I have a pro-TM bias, I've never denied that. But as
 any objective person who has followed my posts would tell
 you, I'm not a TB; I can be very critical of the TMO and
 even of MMY.
 
 To criticize me for acknowledging uncertainty because I
 don't have the facts makes you look like a fool.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM


On Jun 9, 2012, at 10:53 AM, wgm4u wrote:

 So Willy why haven't we gotten this information from the TMorg?


Because Willy is distorting the Transcendental Meditation tradition by making 
up fantasies.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-09 Thread turquoiseb

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

 On Jun 9, 2012, at 10:53 AM, wgm4u wrote:
 
  So Willy why haven't we gotten this information from the TMorg?
 
 Because Willy is distorting the Transcendental Meditation 
 tradition by making up fantasies.

For what should be obvious reasons (Willy is involved),
I haven't been following this topic. But I have to 
comment on Vaj's comment.

I would think that making up fantasies would be 
*perpetuating* the Transcendental Meditation tradition,
not distorting it. Just sayin'...

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM


On Jun 9, 2012, at 10:33 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote:

 iranitea:
  Even though many TM teachers would subscribe 
  to such a view, as they believe, that the 
  power of the mantra comes through the holy 
  tradition and more specifically GD...
 
 All the TM bija mantras come directly from GD 
 and the Sri Vidya tradition. All of them are 
 found in the Saundaryalahari composed by the 
 Adi Shankaracharya.


Actually, there is no lineal succession between Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Swami 
Brahmananda Saraswati (aka “Guru Dev”). So despite being an old TMO claim, it 
is now known to be a false claim (like many Transcendental Meditation claims). 
The Maharishi probably got them from a book in Hindi we’re not privy to. There 
were numerous mantra books in Hindi connecting mantra meditation to physics in 
the 1950’s Willy, get a clue will ya?

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote:
 
 This is interesting.  You actually justified Ravi's
 cranky behaviour as 'crazy wisdom' and 'holy madness'.

I did no such thing. Man, can't anybody on this forum
*read English*??

In fact, I *castigated* him for his cranky behavior.


 
 Where was your objectivity then?
 
 ---  authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  
  You want to rethink your claim that you don't engage in
  mind-reading?
  
  Yes, I have a pro-TM bias, I've never denied that. But as
  any objective person who has followed my posts would tell
  you, I'm not a TB; I can be very critical of the TMO and
  even of MMY.
  
  To criticize me for acknowledging uncertainty because I
  don't have the facts makes you look like a fool.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

It’s been long known that Judy is a TM TB, but not a TMO TB in some matters. 
Judy’s also a known dTMer, a practitioner of a discursive variant of actual TM. 
This happens when TMers do take TM “to heart” but are so dogmatically 
entrenched they cannot take it “to spirit”.

She also tried to cuddle up to Robin Woodsworth Carlsen, who considered her a 
demonic TMer. Demonic TMers are probably just more prone to accommodating 
people of questionable mental health.

On Jun 9, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Jason wrote:

 This is interesting. You actually justified Ravi's cranky 
 behaviour as 'crazy wisdom' and 'holy madness'.
 
 Where was your objectivity then?
 
 --- authfriend jstein@... wrote:
 
  
  You want to rethink your claim that you don't engage in
  mind-reading?
  
  Yes, I have a pro-TM bias, I've never denied that. But as
  any objective person who has followed my posts would tell
  you, I'm not a TB; I can be very critical of the TMO and
  even of MMY.
  
  To criticize me for acknowledging uncertainty because I
  don't have the facts makes you look like a fool.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM



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

 
 On Jun 9, 2012, at 7:28 AM, iranitea wrote:
 
   The bija mantra isn't a Sanskrit word. 
  
  It is, it is a Sanskrit letter, it is intricately connected with the way 
  Sanskrit letters are written. 
 
 
 Itâs both a Sanskrit letter and a Sanskrit word. 
 
 Itâs a word because old mantra dictionaries and monosyllabic
 dictionaries from the tantric tradition, bÄ«ja-koshas, define
 them.

But not as words with semantic meaning.

My advanced technique (don't know about the others)
*does* have semantic meaning. You could use it in a
sentence, e.g., to describe a physical action or a
mental attitude in a context that has nothing to do
with meditation.

You can't use a bija mantra in a sentence except in
reference to itself, e.g., My mantra is [mantra],
or In TM, we use the bija mantras [mantra 1, mantra 2,
mantra 3, etc.], or [Mantra] is a bija mantra, or
Hindus associate the bija mantra [mantra] with the
deity Saraswati.




 As anyone who took the time to actually learn mantra-shÄstra should be able 
to explain, the entire Sanskrit alphabet is âseededâ into your 
consciousness as part of the authorization to transmit mantra, so they are 
fundamentally derived from Sanskrit and other similar languages.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote:
snip 
 She also tried to cuddle up to Robin Woodsworth Carlsen, who 
 considered her a demonic TMer.

Actually Vaj made the mistake of thinking a playfully
ironic exchange between me and Robin was dead serious.

Most others here recognized the exchange for what it
was and enjoyed the humor.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-09 Thread Robert



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

 
 On Jun 9, 2012, at 10:33 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote:
 
  iranitea:
   Even though many TM teachers would subscribe 
   to such a view, as they believe, that the 
   power of the mantra comes through the holy 
   tradition and more specifically GD...
  
  All the TM bija mantras come directly from GD 
  and the Sri Vidya tradition. All of them are 
  found in the Saundaryalahari composed by the 
  Adi Shankaracharya.
 
 
 Actually, there is no lineal succession between Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and 
 Swami Brahmananda Saraswati (aka Guru Dev). So despite being an old TMO 
 claim, it is now known to be a false claim (like many Transcendental 
 Meditation claims). The Maharishi probably got them from a book in Hindi 
 we're not privy to. There were numerous mantra books in Hindi connecting 
 mantra meditation to physics in the 1950's Willy, get a clue will ya?

To say there is 'no lineal succession' between Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and Swami 
Brahmananda Saraswati, is simply and utterly ridiculous!~
As you are well aware, Maharishi was with Guru Dev, straight out of college, 
and remained with him until his passing...
He was his personal secretary, and studied, wrote and helped Guru Dev to 
propagate the knowledge throughout India...
Guru Dev was well aware of Maharishi's potential to continue to bring this 
teaching far and wide throughout the world...this is why he told Maharishi to 
finish his education before joining him..

To say there is no lineal connection, because Maharishi was not born a 
'Brahman' is silly...
The whole notion of the caste system in India, has been the cause of racism and 
all kinds of misunderstandings...

Now, with the Brahman Vedic Pundits learning under the auspicies of the TM 
movement, the notion that Maharishi was not prepared to succeed Guru Dev, is 
again simply ridiculous!

Robert

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM


On Jun 9, 2012, at 2:53 PM, Robert wrote:

 To say there is 'no lineal succession' between Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and 
 Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, is simply and utterly ridiculous!~
 As you are well aware, Maharishi was with Guru Dev, straight out of college, 
 and remained with him until his passing...
 He was his personal secretary, and studied, wrote and helped Guru Dev to 
 propagate the knowledge throughout India...
 Guru Dev was well aware of Maharishi's potential to continue to bring this 
 teaching far and wide throughout the world...this is why he told Maharishi to 
 finish his education before joining him..
 
 To say there is no lineal connection, because Maharishi was not born a 
 'Brahman' is silly...
 The whole notion of the caste system in India, has been the cause of racism 
 and all kinds of misunderstandings...
 
 Now, with the Brahman Vedic Pundits learning under the auspicies of the TM 
 movement, the notion that Maharishi was not prepared to succeed Guru Dev, is 
 again simply ridiculous!


Methinks someone needs to watch “David Wants to Fly” again

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-09 Thread sparaig



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

 
 On Jun 9, 2012, at 2:53 PM, Robert wrote:
 
  To say there is 'no lineal succession' between Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and 
  Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, is simply and utterly ridiculous!~
  As you are well aware, Maharishi was with Guru Dev, straight out of 
  college, and remained with him until his passing...
  He was his personal secretary, and studied, wrote and helped Guru Dev to 
  propagate the knowledge throughout India...
  Guru Dev was well aware of Maharishi's potential to continue to bring this 
  teaching far and wide throughout the world...this is why he told Maharishi 
  to finish his education before joining him..
  
  To say there is no lineal connection, because Maharishi was not born a 
  'Brahman' is silly...
  The whole notion of the caste system in India, has been the cause of racism 
  and all kinds of misunderstandings...
  
  Now, with the Brahman Vedic Pundits learning under the auspicies of the TM 
  movement, the notion that Maharishi was not prepared to succeed Guru Dev, 
  is again simply ridiculous!
 
 
 Methinks someone needs to watch ï¿½David Wants to Flyï¿½ again


Me thinks someone needs to read a bit more. THere were two claimants to 
Jyotirmath after Gurudev died: his nephew, named in Gurudev's will and a guy 
hand-picked by the conclave of punduts scholars and priests who had picked 
Gurudev in the first place.

Gurudev's nephew supported MMY. The other guy did not. Gurudev's nephew was 
installed in the same ashram that Gurudev lived in, complete with all the 
relics that Gurudev used to haul around., The other guy was installed elsewhere.

The court case to decide who was going to be the real Shankaracharya of 
Jyotirmath was never settled until all people named in Gurudev's will had 
passed away and a second generation student was named to fill the slot. At this 
point, the courts ruled in favor of the choice of the conclave, who had studied 
with Gurudev for a few years before he died before he went to study with 
someone else. THAT person was interviewed in David Wants to Fly,



L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-09 Thread nablusoss1008



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

 
 On Jun 9, 2012, at 5:02 PM, sparaig wrote:
 
  Me thinks someone needs to read a bit more. THere were two claimants to 
  Jyotirmath after Gurudev died: his nephew, named in Gurudev's will and a 
  guy hand-picked by the conclave of punduts scholars and priests who had 
  picked Gurudev in the first place.
  
  Gurudev's nephew supported MMY. The other guy did not. Gurudev's nephew was 
  installed in the same ashram that Gurudev lived in, complete with all the 
  relics that Gurudev used to haul around., The other guy was installed 
  elsewhere.
  
  The court case to decide who was going to be the real Shankaracharya of 
  Jyotirmath was never settled until all people named in Gurudev's will had 
  passed away and a second generation student was named to fill the slot. At 
  this point, the courts ruled in favor of the choice of the conclave, who 
  had studied with Gurudev for a few years before he died before he went to 
  study with someone else. THAT person was interviewed in David Wants to Fly,
 
 You seem to have missed the salient point here Lawson: Mahesh was never even 
 a sishya of SBS 


The Buddhist's in here are getting really, really desperate :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-09 Thread Richard J. Williams



wgm4u:
 So Willy why haven't we gotten this information 
 from the TMorg?

You'd have to ask them, I guess, but the facts are
the facts. Where do you think MMY got the TM bija
mantras? Didn't he say he got all his teaching
from his master, GD?

All the Saraswati sanyasins meditate on the bija
of Saraswati, so it's reasonable to infer that GD 
must have got the Saraswati bija when he got 
initiated by his master SKS. According to Swami
Rama, GD was a Sri Vidya adherent.

Bija mantras issued by TM are 'Sri Vidya' bija 
mantras. To be fair, I won't go into what they 
are, but if one listens to all TM mantras, except 
for 2, they are  2 or 3 syllable, and this is a 
very important component of the technique. 

From: Billy Smith 
Subject: Re: Guru Dev and Sri Vidya 
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental 
Date: 2003-04-22 13:20:33 PST 
http://tinyurl.com/ye8my2 

   Even though many TM teachers would subscribe 
   to such a view, as they believe, that the 
   power of the mantra comes through the holy 
   tradition and more specifically GD...
  
  All the TM bija mantras come directly from GD 
  and the Sri Vidya tradition. All of them are 
  found in the Saundaryalahari composed by the 
  Adi Shankaracharya.
  
  So, let's review what we know:
  
  Sringeri is the seat of the Saraswati Dasanami 
  lineage, founded by the Adi Shankaracharya in 
  the seventh centruy A.D. At Sringeri, the Adi 
  Shankaracharya placed a Sri Chakra (mystical 
  diagram) on the mandir with the TM bija 
  mantras inscribed thereon. 
  
  Shringeri:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shringeri
  
  Then, the Adi Shankaracharya composed the 
  Saundaryalahari, and included the sixteen TM 
  bija mantras therein. 
  
  According to historians, the sixteenth bija 
  mantra, 'Srim', was added to the fifteen as 
  fertilizer for the other fifteen.
  
  Soundarya Lahari:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundarya_Lahari
  
  All the Saraswati adherents worship the Sri 
  Vidya, which translated means, Auspicious 
  Knowledge of the Transcendent, that is, 
  'Knowledge is structured in Consciousness'.
  
  Sri Vidya:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_vidya
  
  Swami Brahmananda Saraswati's guru was 
  Krishnananda Saraswati. Swami Brahmananda 
  Saraswati was succeeed by Swami Shantananda 
  Saraswati at Jyotirmath. 
  
  According to Swami Rama of the Himalayas, 
  Guru Dev was a proponent of the Sri Vidya, 
  and that Guru Dev used to worship a 
  ruby-encrusted Sri Chakra with the TM 
  bijas mantras inscribed on it.
  
  'Living With the Himalayan Masters'
  By Swami Rama
  http://tinyurl.com/7fch3ea
  
  So, to sum up:
  
  So, since the TM bija mantras come from 
  the Adi Shankara, passed down through 
  Shantanand Saraswati, and are included in 
  the supreme scripture of the Sri Vidya, 
  the Saundaryalahari, we can conclude that 
  the MMY got the TM bija mantras from his 
  Master, SBS, who got them from his master 
  SKS. 
  
  James Duffy and Billy Smith both seem to 
  agree with this.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-09 Thread Richard J. Williams



  So Willy why haven't we gotten this information 
  from the TMorg?
 
Vaj:
 
 Because Willy is distorting the Transcendental 
 Meditation tradition by making up fantasies.

You are mistaken: the primary scripture of the 
Sri Vidya Tradition is the 'Soundarya Lahari' 
which was composed by the Adi Shankara. 

The Saunda contains all the TM bija mantras used 
by all the Saraswati Sannyasins. The Saunda is 
the main and most important tantra in the Shankara 
Saraswati Order, according to Sri Chandrasekharendra 
Saraswati Swamigal of Sringeri Matha.

SBS's succussor, Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati of 
Jotirmath, is the only surviving direct desciple 
of SBS in the guru parampara, and Vasudevanand 
fully supports MMY's TM movement. 

Subject: Re: Guru Dev and Sri Vidya
From: James Duffy
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: April 28, 2003
http://tinyurl.com/2drn7gp

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-09 Thread sparaig



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

 
 On Jun 9, 2012, at 5:02 PM, sparaig wrote:
 
  Me thinks someone needs to read a bit more. THere were two claimants to 
  Jyotirmath after Gurudev died: his nephew, named in Gurudev's will and a 
  guy hand-picked by the conclave of punduts scholars and priests who had 
  picked Gurudev in the first place.
  
  Gurudev's nephew supported MMY. The other guy did not. Gurudev's nephew was 
  installed in the same ashram that Gurudev lived in, complete with all the 
  relics that Gurudev used to haul around., The other guy was installed 
  elsewhere.
  
  The court case to decide who was going to be the real Shankaracharya of 
  Jyotirmath was never settled until all people named in Gurudev's will had 
  passed away and a second generation student was named to fill the slot. At 
  this point, the courts ruled in favor of the choice of the conclave, who 
  had studied with Gurudev for a few years before he died before he went to 
  study with someone else. THAT person was interviewed in David Wants to Fly,
 
 You seem to have missed the salient point here Lawson: Mahesh was never even 
 a sishya of SBS, and thus has no (none, zero, zip, nada) lineal connection to 
 SBS despite all the posing to the contrary. So if you have a picture of the 
 ï¿½Holy Traditionï¿½ in your home, you can cross out all of the people except 
 Mahesh - and then youï¿½d have it right.



You'll notice that MMY is NOT directly below Gurudev, but to the left and he is 
standing, not sitting, like nearly everyone else is. He is also wearing white 
not red

He makes it clear pictorially that he is NOT an heir to the tradition, and he 
has always claimed that he is an exponent of his teacher's teachings, not the 
originator or in any way a successor.

Fine lines, I agree.


L

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM


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


  Here's a question for you -- if I (trained as a
  TM teacher by Maharishi) were to teach someone
  to meditate and teach them according to the exact
  instructions he told me to impart to students,
  but changed only one thing -- the mantra -- would
  it be the same technique, or a different one? What
  if I taught them to use the mantra Ram (the one
  Maharishi *started* teaching TM with, for everyone)
  instead of one from the latest official list?
  Would it be different than TM, or the same?

 It would be different than TM as taught by Maharishi
 Mahesh Yogi for decades, as Barry knows but figures
 Emily doesn't.

This is a very deceptive answer. The truth is, as is obvious to any real
TM teacher, that each teacher carries the mantra list that he got on his
course, for the rest of his life. If anybody got to be a teacher before
a certain time, like the early courses in Rishikesh, he had indeed only
two mantra's to give, and if he got recertified (I didn't), he still
would only give out these two mantra's today. For decades at least, if
not until now, people get different mantras, according to the mantra
list at the time of their teachers TTC, as the OFFICIAL TM. And one
further truth is, that all people get the SAME mantra with their first
advanced technique. (Their may have been some exceptions to that rule,
that the original mantra was combined with the adjunct 'namah', but by
and large it was substituted completely, which also means that after a
few advanced techniques, all share the same mantra.) Now that, and a few
other observations should make it clear, that the policy of handing out
many different mantras, was simply to obscure and deceive the public (It
came about in Norway after newspapers started to discuss that all TM
meditators had the same mantra). It was never a real requirement.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM


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

 Barry's lying. I responded to that question. The
 response included pointing out that the question
 itself was designed to mislead. The TMO charges
 high fees in wealthy countries and low or no fees
 in poor ones.
So, is India a poor country or a wealthy one? Do you feel that the
following rates have been subsidised by the west?These fees may not
sound to be much if converting Rupees to Dollars, but they still are a
lot for the average Indian
worker.http://www.peace-movement.net/participation.jsp
http://www.peace-movement.net/participation.jsp
All in all, it is easy to point to some obscure country, and say, well
we spend all the money for poor countries, but where is the
documentation?
 Also, $1,500 is well within the
 means of many people in this country; they'll
 easily spend that much and more on a week's
 vacation. And if someone really wants to learn
 and simply can't afford it, the TMO will usually
 work something out with them.

Typical answer: you have to really want it, and then you can also afford
it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM



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

 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
 
   Here's a question for you -- if I (trained as a
   TM teacher by Maharishi) were to teach someone
   to meditate and teach them according to the exact
   instructions he told me to impart to students,
   but changed only one thing -- the mantra -- would
   it be the same technique, or a different one? What
   if I taught them to use the mantra Ram (the one
   Maharishi *started* teaching TM with, for everyone)
   instead of one from the latest official list?
   Would it be different than TM, or the same?
 
  It would be different than TM as taught by Maharishi
  Mahesh Yogi for decades, as Barry knows but figures
  Emily doesn't.
 
 This is a very deceptive answer.

Well, no, it isn't. It may be *incorrect* in the case of
TM teachers who got only the two early Rishikesh mantras
and are still giving them out today, but how many such
teachers are there? IOW, it's a minor inaccuracy.


 The truth is, as is obvious to any real
 TM teacher, that each teacher carries the mantra list that he got on his
 course, for the rest of his life. If anybody got to be a teacher before
 a certain time, like the early courses in Rishikesh, he had indeed only
 two mantra's to give, and if he got recertified (I didn't), he still
 would only give out these two mantra's today. For decades at least, if
 not until now, people get different mantras, according to the mantra
 list at the time of their teachers TTC, as the OFFICIAL TM. And one
 further truth is, that all people get the SAME mantra with their first
 advanced technique. (Their may have been some exceptions to that rule,
 that the original mantra was combined with the adjunct 'namah', but by
 and large it was substituted completely, which also means that after a
 few advanced techniques, all share the same mantra.) Now that, and a few
 other observations should make it clear, that the policy of handing out
 many different mantras, was simply to obscure and deceive the public (It
 came about in Norway after newspapers started to discuss that all TM
 meditators had the same mantra). It was never a real requirement.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@... wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  Barry's lying. I responded to that question. The
  response included pointing out that the question
  itself was designed to mislead. The TMO charges
  high fees in wealthy countries and low or no fees
  in poor ones.

 So, is India a poor country or a wealthy one? Do you feel that
 the following rates have been subsidised by the west?These
 fees may not sound to be much if converting Rupees to Dollars,
 but they still are a lot for the average Indian worker 
 http://www.peace-movement.net/participation.jsp
 http://www.peace-movement.net/participation.jsp

These amounts aren't fees to learn TM. They're donation
amounts to be a participant in this peace movement,
which appears to be a new program of the TMO in India.

 All in all, it is easy to point to some obscure country, and
 say, well we spend all the money for poor countries, but
 where is the documentation?

I didn't say spend ALL the money for poor countries.
That certainly isn't the case. See my last paragraph
below.

As to documentation, I don't have any. However, on
various TM forums and elsewhere I've heard people who
have taught in India and other poor countries say that
they charged a very low or no fee. Perhaps they're all
lying, and a fee equivalent to that in the U.S. is
charged everywhere. I've never heard anyone speak up
to that effect, though.

  Also, $1,500 is well within the
  means of many people in this country; they'll
  easily spend that much and more on a week's
  vacation. And if someone really wants to learn
  and simply can't afford it, the TMO will usually
  work something out with them.
 
 Typical answer: you have to really want it, and then
 you can also afford it.

More or less true of just about anything, no?

You deleted the comment of Barry's I was responding
to, so let's put it back in for context:

 Like the question all of the TM supporters are
 avoiding like the plague -- WHY would an org
 that claims it has the solution to all the prob-
 lems of life want to charge so much for it that
 very few will ever start?

I submit that my response to this, quoted above, was
accurate: TM does not cost so much that very few will
ever start. In the U.S., the fee is steep but not
prohibitive for many; in poorer countries, unless
definitive testimony to the contrary is found, the fee
is significantly less than it is in this country.

Most of us on this forum, including myself, however,
would much prefer to see lower fees in this and other
wealthy countries, along with a lot less of the costly
ceremonial stuff and nitwit promotion and absurd
projects. Far too much useless and even
counterproductive crap is subsidized by the high fees.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

Why is it 'incorrect' if you say something wrong, deceptive but a
blatant lie if Barry does so?

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



 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote:
 
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
 
Here's a question for you -- if I (trained as a
TM teacher by Maharishi) were to teach someone
to meditate and teach them according to the exact
instructions he told me to impart to students,
but changed only one thing -- the mantra -- would
it be the same technique, or a different one? What
if I taught them to use the mantra Ram (the one
Maharishi *started* teaching TM with, for everyone)
instead of one from the latest official list?
Would it be different than TM, or the same?
  
   It would be different than TM as taught by Maharishi
   Mahesh Yogi for decades, as Barry knows but figures
   Emily doesn't.
 
  This is a very deceptive answer.

 Well, no, it isn't. It may be *incorrect* in the case of
 TM teachers who got only the two early Rishikesh mantras
 and are still giving them out today, but how many such
 teachers are there? IOW, it's a minor inaccuracy.

First of all it may not be 'incorrect', it certainly IS incorrect,
wrong, false and misleading. And it is not minor, because you can not
determine how active early TM teachers still are. This is regarding any
teacher until 1969. Some of the most successful TM teachers were/are
from this time. These were the mantras - if everything followed the
usual course - the Beatles got. Many of these early TM teachers
initiated many thousands into TM. Many were early scientists who made
research on TM, I know one of them, who is now an independent teacher.
Many had charisma later TM teachers who were on the mass courses of La
Antilla or Mallorca didn't have.
And even if they are just a 'minor inaccuracy' they prove the principle,
what, so it seems you easily lose out of sight: One (or two) mantras are
really enough. And that's all that Barry was trying to say. This is
further substantiated by my further comment about the advanced
techniques. Why have only one mantra in the advanced technique and 16
mantras for TM?
The truth is the context, in which TM is presented: In many of the
mantra oriented traditions, actually only one mantra is given. Or
rather, stating it more clearly: all receive the same mantra. Many of
these traditions, like Surat Sabhd Yoga, or Rhadasoami give this mantra
in group initiations, the mantra may vary from group to group, but
initiation by a master is a necessity. Here in these groups, the context
is a different one from TM. The 'story' is that the master imbibes the
mantra with power, and the mantra connects therefore the master and the
disciple.
Even though many TM teachers would subscribe to such a view, as they
believe, that the power of the mantra comes through the holy tradition
and more specifically GD, this is not the official TM story. It's too
mystic, not scientific enough. Another story had to be created, and that
is that the mantras are secret, and were just revived by GD, and had to
be individually selected. This doesn't explain the need for the puja in
TM, but it very well explains the need of personal instruction. Thus an
old story (context) is substituted by a newer invention of the story,
but unfortunately this story works only as long, as people don't know
the secrets, that is the varying mantras over time, and the method of
selection. In a way, the variety of mantras in TM is just a concession
to this story, and the remedy is the first advanced technique, which is
again just one mantra for all.
My feeling is that this 'story' doesn't hold true for the internet age,
where you can't just keep these things, (mantras, method of selection)
secret anymore, that is to say, the story doesn't work anymore.
I find it also interesting, that while TM stresses so much on individual
instruction, that the siddhis  clearly mark the way to group
instruction. People seem to think that their mantra couldn't work,
unless they receive it in privacy, not the same is true for the siddhis,
which most people received via audiotape.


  The truth is, as is obvious to any real
  TM teacher, that each teacher carries the mantra list that he got on
his
  course, for the rest of his life. If anybody got to be a teacher
before
  a certain time, like the early courses in Rishikesh, he had indeed
only
  two mantra's to give, and if he got recertified (I didn't), he still
  would only give out these two mantra's today. For decades at least,
if
  not until now, people get different mantras, according to the mantra
  list at the time of their teachers TTC, as the OFFICIAL TM. And one
  further truth is, that all people get the SAME mantra with their
first
  advanced technique. (Their may have been some exceptions to that
rule,
  that the original mantra was combined with the adjunct 'namah', but
by
  and large

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM


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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
   Barry's lying. I responded to that question. The
   response included pointing out that the question
   itself was designed to mislead. The TMO charges
   high fees in wealthy countries and low or no fees
   in poor ones.
 
  So, is India a poor country or a wealthy one? Do you feel that
  the following rates have been subsidised by the west?These
  fees may not sound to be much if converting Rupees to Dollars,
  but they still are a lot for the average Indian worker
  http://www.peace-movement.net/participation.jsp
  http://www.peace-movement.net/participation.jsp

 These amounts aren't fees to learn TM. They're donation
 amounts to be a participant in this peace movement,
 which appears to be a new program of the TMO in India.


It's not new at all, it was the first step by Girish to separate the
Indian movement from the west, and of course the membership fees are a
way of charging for TM

  All in all, it is easy to point to some obscure country, and
  say, well we spend all the money for poor countries, but
  where is the documentation?

 I didn't say spend ALL the money for poor countries.
 That certainly isn't the case. See my last paragraph
 below.

Don't get hooked up on small formulations.

 As to documentation, I don't have any. However, on
 various TM forums and elsewhere I've heard people who
 have taught in India and other poor countries say that
 they charged a very low or no fee. Perhaps they're all
 lying, and a fee equivalent to that in the U.S. is
 charged everywhere. I've never heard anyone speak up
 to that effect, though.

This was usually during special campaigns, during certain time periods.
You won't find american teachers now teaching TM in India. It was also
true in the Philippines, but all during a limited period of time.


   Also, $1,500 is well within the
   means of many people in this country; they'll
   easily spend that much and more on a week's
   vacation. And if someone really wants to learn
   and simply can't afford it, the TMO will usually
   work something out with them.
 
  Typical answer: you have to really want it, and then
  you can also afford it.

 More or less true of just about anything, no?

 You deleted the comment of Barry's I was responding
 to, so let's put it back in for context:

As it was irrelevant, your favorite word, right?

  Like the question all of the TM supporters are
  avoiding like the plague -- WHY would an org
  that claims it has the solution to all the prob-
  lems of life want to charge so much for it that
  very few will ever start?

 I submit that my response to this, quoted above, was
 accurate: TM does not cost so much that very few will
 ever start. In the U.S., the fee is steep but not
 prohibitive for many; in poorer countries, unless
 definitive testimony to the contrary is found, the fee
 is significantly less than it is in this country.

In other European countries the fee is even higher (if the movement
still exists). You cannot see the fee outside of the contemporary
context. If you want to sell one liter of water in a desert, you may get
what you are asking for. But not if somebody stands next to you giving
water freely. The question is, why should anybody in his senses, make an
extraordinary effort learning something, he can get for cheaper
somewhere else? Especially when it is not clear if your 'product' has
really such an advantage. Through the internet, people compare more,
there are more offers on the market. I just have recently initiated 2
persons into TM for free, who wanted to learn it, but wouldn't have
wanted to turn out the amount of money it takes for two people to learn.
They are not poor, they have well to do jobs. It's a question of the
relation to other costs. You cannot make a statement, like, if they
really want it they can do it.  (For me it was an experiment, like a
flashback in time, btw. they did well.) And I would be banned in TM for
doing this.

 Most of us on this forum, including myself, however,
 would much prefer to see lower fees in this and other
 wealthy countries, along with a lot less of the costly
 ceremonial stuff and nitwit promotion and absurd
 projects. Far too much useless and even
 counterproductive crap is subsidized by the high fees.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

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

 Why is it 'incorrect' if you say something wrong, deceptive
 but a blatant lie if Barry does so?

I don't say things with the intention to deceive, first
of all, although I may say something wrong inadvertently.
Second, not everything Barry says that is wrong is a
blatant lie. Sometimes he gets things wrong inadvertently
as well.

If the above confuses you, please consult Mr. Dictionary
for the meaning of to lie and to deceive.

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
   
 Here's a question for you -- if I (trained as a
 TM teacher by Maharishi) were to teach someone
 to meditate and teach them according to the exact
 instructions he told me to impart to students,
 but changed only one thing -- the mantra -- would
 it be the same technique, or a different one? What
 if I taught them to use the mantra Ram (the one
 Maharishi *started* teaching TM with, for everyone)
 instead of one from the latest official list?
 Would it be different than TM, or the same?
   
It would be different than TM as taught by Maharishi
Mahesh Yogi for decades, as Barry knows but figures
Emily doesn't.
  
   This is a very deceptive answer.
 
  Well, no, it isn't. It may be *incorrect* in the case of
  TM teachers who got only the two early Rishikesh mantras
  and are still giving them out today, but how many such
  teachers are there? IOW, it's a minor inaccuracy.
 
 First of all it may not be 'incorrect', it certainly IS
 incorrect, wrong, false and misleading.

Again your lack of fluency in English is causing problems,
with regard to the It may be... construction. Let me
say it slightly differently: Even if I got that one point
wrong, it was minor, because there aren't many from those
days still teaching. Both versions of that statement
acknowledge the inaccuracy. Well, no, it isn't referred
to your deceptive characterization.

 And it is not minor, because you can not
 determine how active early TM teachers still are. This
 is regarding any teacher until 1969. Some of the most
 successful TM teachers were/are from this time. These
 were the mantras - if everything followed the usual
 course - the Beatles got.

How many of them are still teaching? Because Barry's
question had to do with the present.

 Many of these early TM teachers
 initiated many thousands into TM. Many were early scientists
 who made research on TM, I know one of them, who is now an 
 independent teacher. Many had charisma later TM teachers who
 were on the mass courses of La Antilla or Mallorca didn't have.

Fine, but irrelevant. Everything you go on to say is also
irrelevant to the question Barry asked.

 And even if they are just a 'minor inaccuracy' they prove
 the principle, what, so it seems you easily lose out of
 sight: One (or two) mantras are really enough. And that's
 all that Barry was trying to say.

Well, no, it isn't what he was trying to say. (I'm sure
he'll say it was *now*, but it wasn't to start with.)

 This is
 further substantiated by my further comment about the advanced
 techniques. Why have only one mantra in the advanced technique
 and 16 mantras for TM?

I retained my original bija mantra when I got my advanced
technique (I have only one).

 The truth is the context, in which TM is presented: In many
 of the mantra oriented traditions, actually only one mantra
 is given. Or rather, stating it more clearly: all receive
 the same mantra. Many of these traditions, like Surat Sabhd
 Yoga, or Rhadasoami give this mantra in group initiations,
 the mantra may vary from group to group, but initiation by
 a master is a necessity. Here in these groups, the context
 is a different one from TM. The 'story' is that the master
 imbibes the mantra with power, and the mantra connects
 therefore the master and the disciple.

Fine, but irrelevant in the context of what I said to Barry.
Different discussion.

 Even though many TM teachers would subscribe to such a view,
 as they believe, that the power of the mantra comes through
 the holy tradition and more specifically GD, this is not the
 official TM story. It's too mystic, not scientific enough.
 Another story had to be created, and that is that the mantras
 are secret, and were just revived by GD, and had to be
 individually selected.

I never heard the story that they were revived by GD,
by the way. (I learned TM in 1975.) I can't now recall
whether I knew at that time that they were chosen by age,
but if not I found out not long after.

 This doesn't explain the need for the
 puja in TM, but it very well explains the need of personal 
 instruction. Thus an old story (context) is substituted by a
 newer invention of the story, but unfortunately this story
 works only as long, as people don't know the secrets, that

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@... wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
Barry's lying. I responded to that question. The
response included pointing out that the question
itself was designed to mislead. The TMO charges
high fees in wealthy countries and low or no fees
in poor ones.
  
   So, is India a poor country or a wealthy one? Do you feel that
   the following rates have been subsidised by the west?These
   fees may not sound to be much if converting Rupees to Dollars,
   but they still are a lot for the average Indian worker
   http://www.peace-movement.net/participation.jsp
   http://www.peace-movement.net/participation.jsp
 
  These amounts aren't fees to learn TM. They're donation
  amounts to be a participant in this peace movement,
  which appears to be a new program of the TMO in India.
 
 It's not new at all, it was the first step by Girish to
 separate the Indian movement from the west,

Which happened when, exactly?

 and of course the membership fees are a way of charging
 for TM

I believe you're mistaken on that point. I don't think
those fees cover instruction.

   All in all, it is easy to point to some obscure country, and
   say, well we spend all the money for poor countries, but
   where is the documentation?
 
  I didn't say spend ALL the money for poor countries.
  That certainly isn't the case. See my last paragraph
  below.
 
 Don't get hooked up on small formulations.

Then don't exaggerate and put words in my mouth.

  As to documentation, I don't have any. However, on
  various TM forums and elsewhere I've heard people who
  have taught in India and other poor countries say that
  they charged a very low or no fee. Perhaps they're all
  lying, and a fee equivalent to that in the U.S. is
  charged everywhere. I've never heard anyone speak up
  to that effect, though.
 
 This was usually during special campaigns, during certain
 time periods. You won't find american teachers now teaching
 TM in India. It was also true in the Philippines, but all
 during a limited period of time.

So you claim everyone in every country is normally 
charged an equivalent fee to that charged in the U.S.?

Also, $1,500 is well within the
means of many people in this country; they'll
easily spend that much and more on a week's
vacation. And if someone really wants to learn
and simply can't afford it, the TMO will usually
work something out with them.
  
   Typical answer: you have to really want it, and then
   you can also afford it.
 
  More or less true of just about anything, no?
 
  You deleted the comment of Barry's I was responding
  to, so let's put it back in for context:
 
 As it was irrelevant, your favorite word, right?

It was very relevant to my response to Barry.

   Like the question all of the TM supporters are
   avoiding like the plague -- WHY would an org
   that claims it has the solution to all the prob-
   lems of life want to charge so much for it that
   very few will ever start?
 
  I submit that my response to this, quoted above, was
  accurate: TM does not cost so much that very few will
  ever start. In the U.S., the fee is steep but not
  prohibitive for many; in poorer countries, unless
  definitive testimony to the contrary is found, the fee
  is significantly less than it is in this country.
 
 In other European countries the fee is even higher (if 
 the movement still exists). You cannot see the fee outside
 of the contemporary context. If you want to sell one liter
 of water in a desert, you may get what you are asking for.
 But not if somebody stands next to you giving water freely.
 The question is, why should anybody in his senses, make an
 extraordinary effort learning something, he can get for
 cheaper somewhere else? Especially when it is not clear if 
 your 'product' has really such an advantage. Through the
 internet, people compare more, there are more offers on the
 market. I just have recently initiated 2 persons into TM
 for free, who wanted to learn it, but wouldn't have wanted
 to turn out the amount of money it takes for two people to
 learn. They are not poor, they have well to do jobs. It's a 
 question of the relation to other costs. You cannot make a 
 statement, like, if they really want it they can do it.

Why not?

 (For me it was an experiment, like a flashback in time, btw.
 they did well.) And I would be banned in TM for doing this.

I don't see the relevance of any of this to what I said
in response to Barry.

  Most of us on this forum, including myself, however,
  would much prefer to see lower fees in this and other
  wealthy countries, along with a lot less of the costly
  ceremonial stuff and nitwit promotion and absurd
  projects. Far too much useless and even
  counterproductive crap is

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM


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


So, is India a poor country or a wealthy one? Do you feel that
the following rates have been subsidised by the west?These
fees may not sound to be much if converting Rupees to Dollars,
but they still are a lot for the average Indian worker
http://www.peace-movement.net/participation.jsp
http://www.peace-movement.net/participation.jsp
  
   These amounts aren't fees to learn TM. They're donation
   amounts to be a participant in this peace movement,
   which appears to be a new program of the TMO in India.
 
  It's not new at all, it was the first step by Girish to
  separate the Indian movement from the west,

 Which happened when, exactly?
It's written on the webpage.

  and of course the membership fees are a way of charging
  for TM

 I believe you're mistaken on that point. I don't think
 those fees cover instruction.

Believe what you want, they certainly are.

All in all, it is easy to point to some obscure country, and
say, well we spend all the money for poor countries, but
where is the documentation?
  
   I didn't say spend ALL the money for poor countries.
   That certainly isn't the case. See my last paragraph
   below.
 
  Don't get hooked up on small formulations.

 Then don't exaggerate and put words in my mouth.
I didn't put anything in your mouth.  I said, it is easy to point to
some obscure country, etc. Where is any attribution to you? It's a
general attribution, don't play foul game.

   As to documentation, I don't have any. However, on
   various TM forums and elsewhere I've heard people who
   have taught in India and other poor countries say that
   they charged a very low or no fee. Perhaps they're all
   lying, and a fee equivalent to that in the U.S. is
   charged everywhere. I've never heard anyone speak up
   to that effect, though.
 
  This was usually during special campaigns, during certain
  time periods. You won't find american teachers now teaching
  TM in India. It was also true in the Philippines, but all
  during a limited period of time.

 So you claim everyone in every country is normally
 charged an equivalent fee to that charged in the U.S.?

Now you are putting things into my mouth. I am not saying that
everywhere the fee is equivalent to that charged in the USA. In some
countries it is even considerably more.  According to income this is in
fact impossible to compare in a country like India, where for the middle
class, it might be a comparable fee, but for the big mass of poor
people, it is even immensely  more. In any case, it doesn't give a
compensatory legitimacy to high fees in the west.

 Also, $1,500 is well within the
 means of many people in this country; they'll
 easily spend that much and more on a week's
 vacation. And if someone really wants to learn
 and simply can't afford it, the TMO will usually
 work something out with them.
   
Typical answer: you have to really want it, and then
you can also afford it.
  
   More or less true of just about anything, no?
  
   You deleted the comment of Barry's I was responding
   to, so let's put it back in for context:
 
  As it was irrelevant, your favorite word, right?

 It was very relevant to my response to Barry.
You keep pushing around this word relevance, but who judges it's
relevance, except yourself? It all depends on what you deem important or
not. You continue playing this petty game, and overlook the import of
the whole.
You only concentrate on certain unimportant parts of Barry's posts, some
rhetorical hook ups, and cover up the real points of his posts, which
are obviously true. In the same way you go into complete denial,
repeating that something is irrelevant to your question or what Barry
said, in order to escape the real questions. It's  lame tactics.

Like the question all of the TM supporters are
avoiding like the plague -- WHY would an org
that claims it has the solution to all the prob-
lems of life want to charge so much for it that
very few will ever start?
 
   I submit that my response to this, quoted above, was
   accurate: TM does not cost so much that very few will
   ever start. In the U.S., the fee is steep but not
   prohibitive for many; in poorer countries, unless
   definitive testimony to the contrary is found, the fee
   is significantly less than it is in this country.
 
  In other European countries the fee is even higher (if
  the movement still exists). You cannot see the fee outside
  of the contemporary context. If you want to sell one liter
  of water in a desert, you may get what you are asking for.
  But not if somebody stands next to you giving water freely.
  The question is, why should anybody in his senses, make an
  extraordinary effort learning something, he can get for
  cheaper somewhere else? Especially when it is not clear if
  your 'product' has really such an advantage. Through the
  internet,

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM


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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote:
 
  Why is it 'incorrect' if you say something wrong, deceptive
  but a blatant lie if Barry does so?

 I don't say things with the intention to deceive, first
 of all, although I may say something wrong inadvertently.
Can't argue with that, because, unlike others I am not into mind
reading. But you should also be clear that it is obvious that you try to
diminish points that are unfavorable to your arguments, as in this case.
The point is that there are teachers, who still teach in this way, they
are quite a few, so there is still a good chance to get one of those two
mantras, and let me calculate, if the amount of teachers from that time
would be 50%, it would be about 8 times higher than getting any other
mantra, (16 divided by 2),  but let's assume it's just slightly over
10%, then chances are that you get the mantra Ram are about  as much as
that of any other of the later mantras. ;-)
 Second, not everything Barry says that is wrong is a
 blatant lie. Sometimes he gets things wrong inadvertently
 as well.

Here you get so boring that I find it hard to take you seriously.

 If the above confuses you, please consult Mr. Dictionary
 for the meaning of to lie and to deceive.
And maybe you conduct Mr. Dictionary about the difference between the
active verb 'to deceive' and the adjective 'deceptive'.
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:

  Here's a question for you -- if I (trained as a
  TM teacher by Maharishi) were to teach someone
  to meditate and teach them according to the exact
  instructions he told me to impart to students,
  but changed only one thing -- the mantra -- would
  it be the same technique, or a different one? What
  if I taught them to use the mantra Ram (the one
  Maharishi *started* teaching TM with, for everyone)
  instead of one from the latest official list?
  Would it be different than TM, or the same?

 It would be different than TM as taught by Maharishi
 Mahesh Yogi for decades, as Barry knows but figures
 Emily doesn't.
   
This is a very deceptive answer.
  
   Well, no, it isn't. It may be *incorrect* in the case of
   TM teachers who got only the two early Rishikesh mantras
   and are still giving them out today, but how many such
   teachers are there? IOW, it's a minor inaccuracy.
 
  First of all it may not be 'incorrect', it certainly IS
  incorrect, wrong, false and misleading.

 Again your lack of fluency in English is causing problems,
 with regard to the It may be... construction.
Why again? Stop patronizing me and making unfounded assumptions.
 Let me
 say it slightly differently: Even if I got that one point
 wrong, it was minor, because there aren't many from those
 days still teaching. Both versions of that statement
 acknowledge the inaccuracy. Well, no, it isn't referred
 to your deceptive characterization.

  And it is not minor, because you can not
  determine how active early TM teachers still are. This
  is regarding any teacher until 1969. Some of the most
  successful TM teachers were/are from this time. These
  were the mantras - if everything followed the usual
  course - the Beatles got.

 How many of them are still teaching? Because Barry's
 question had to do with the present.
How many are teaching at all? How much is TM still being taught? And
then: many of them are teachers of the first hour, they are Rajas today.

  Many of these early TM teachers
  initiated many thousands into TM. Many were early scientists
  who made research on TM, I know one of them, who is now an
  independent teacher. Many had charisma later TM teachers who
  were on the mass courses of La Antilla or Mallorca didn't have.

 Fine, but irrelevant. Everything you go on to say is also
 irrelevant to the question Barry asked.

Not irrelevant to their influence today.

  And even if they are just a 'minor inaccuracy' they prove
  the principle, what, so it seems you easily lose out of
  sight: One (or two) mantras are really enough. And that's
  all that Barry was trying to say.

 Well, no, it isn't what he was trying to say. (I'm sure
 he'll say it was *now*, but it wasn't to start with.)

Yes he clearly said it. And you know it.

  This is
  further substantiated by my further comment about the advanced
  techniques. Why have only one mantra in the advanced technique
  and 16 mantras for TM?

 I retained my original bija mantra when I got my advanced
 technique (I have only one).

I said there are exceptions. But with a second advanced technique, you
are likely to lose that one, with the third you are almost sure. So why
you never got any more?

  The truth is the context, in which TM is presented: In many
  of

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@... wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
 So, is India a poor country or a wealthy one? Do you feel that
 the following rates have been subsidised by the west?These
 fees may not sound to be much if converting Rupees to Dollars,
 but they still are a lot for the average Indian worker
 http://www.peace-movement.net/participation.jsp
 http://www.peace-movement.net/participation.jsp
   
These amounts aren't fees to learn TM. They're donation
amounts to be a participant in this peace movement,
which appears to be a new program of the TMO in India.
  
   It's not new at all, it was the first step by Girish to
   separate the Indian movement from the west,
 
  Which happened when, exactly?

 It's written on the webpage.

Where?

   and of course the membership fees are a way of charging
   for TM
 
  I believe you're mistaken on that point. I don't think
  those fees cover instruction.
 
 Believe what you want, they certainly are.

I couldn't find anywhere on the Web site where it says
the membership fees cover instruction. The membership
application form asks whether the applicant practices
TM and the TM-Sidhis, but it doesn't mention a discount
if he or she does, nor does it say anything about the
fee including instruction.

If I missed it, I'm sure you'll be able to tell me
where to find it.

 All in all, it is easy to point to some obscure country, and
 say, well we spend all the money for poor countries, but
 where is the documentation?
   
I didn't say spend ALL the money for poor countries.
That certainly isn't the case. See my last paragraph
below.
  
   Don't get hooked up on small formulations.
 
  Then don't exaggerate and put words in my mouth.

 I didn't put anything in your mouth.  I said, it is easy to point to
 some obscure country, etc. Where is any attribution to you? It's a
 general attribution, don't play foul game.

I think you intended it to be understood as something
I'd said.

As to documentation, I don't have any. However, on
various TM forums and elsewhere I've heard people who
have taught in India and other poor countries say that
they charged a very low or no fee. Perhaps they're all
lying, and a fee equivalent to that in the U.S. is
charged everywhere. I've never heard anyone speak up
to that effect, though.
  
   This was usually during special campaigns, during certain
   time periods. You won't find american teachers now teaching
   TM in India. It was also true in the Philippines, but all
   during a limited period of time.
 
  So you claim everyone in every country is normally
  charged an equivalent fee to that charged in the U.S.?
 
 Now you are putting things into my mouth.

Did you miss the question mark? I'm *asking* whether 
that's your claim.

 I am not saying that
 everywhere the fee is equivalent to that charged in the USA.
 In some countries it is even considerably more.  According to
 income this is in fact impossible to compare in a country
 like India, where for the middle class, it might be a
 comparable fee, but for the big mass of poor people, it is
 even immensely  more.

Perhaps if we could find out what the fee actually is in
India, and what the policy is for the big mass of poor
people, we could make some judgments.

 In any case, it doesn't give a
 compensatory legitimacy to high fees in the west.

We don't know that unless we know what the fees are.

  Also, $1,500 is well within the
  means of many people in this country; they'll
  easily spend that much and more on a week's
  vacation. And if someone really wants to learn
  and simply can't afford it, the TMO will usually
  work something out with them.

 Typical answer: you have to really want it, and then
 you can also afford it.
   
More or less true of just about anything, no?
   
You deleted the comment of Barry's I was responding
to, so let's put it back in for context:
  
   As it was irrelevant, your favorite word, right?
 
  It was very relevant to my response to Barry.

 You keep pushing around this word relevance, but who judges it's
 relevance, except yourself?

I don't think you understand the term relevance in
the context of an electronic conversation. It doesn't
mean important or significant, it means it relates
directly to my response to Barry. You took that response
out of context and went off in a number of different
directions that did not address my point about what
Barry was saying.

 It all depends on what you deem important or not.

No, as I said, it doesn't have to do with importance
per se, it has to do with what specifically was at
issue.

 You continue playing this petty game, and overlook the
 import of the whole. You only concentrate on certain
 unimportant parts of Barry's posts, some rhetorical hook
 ups, and cover up the real points of his posts,

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM



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

 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote:
  
   Why is it 'incorrect' if you say something wrong, deceptive
   but a blatant lie if Barry does so?
 
  I don't say things with the intention to deceive, first
  of all, although I may say something wrong inadvertently.

 Can't argue with that, because, unlike others I am not into mind
 reading. But you should also be clear that it is obvious that
 you try to diminish points that are unfavorable to your arguments,

Oh, that's very funny. You make it sound as though that
weren't what everyone, including yourself, does in 
debating a disagreement.

 as in this case.
 The point is that there are teachers, who still teach in this
 way, they are quite a few, so there is still a good chance to
 get one of those two mantras, and let me calculate, if the
 amount of teachers from that time would be 50%,

Fifty percent of what?

 it would be about 8 times higher than getting any other
 mantra, (16 divided by 2),  but let's assume it's just
 slightly over 10%, then chances are that you get the
 mantra Ram are about as much as that of any other of the
 later mantras. ;-)

I doubt there's anywhere near that many pre-1969 teachers
currently teaching.

  Second, not everything Barry says that is wrong is a
  blatant lie. Sometimes he gets things wrong inadvertently
  as well.
 
 Here you get so boring that I find it hard to take you
 seriously.

Yeah, it can be really boring to have your points
rebutted.

  If the above confuses you, please consult Mr. Dictionary
  for the meaning of to lie and to deceive.

 And maybe you conduct Mr. Dictionary about the difference
 between the active verb 'to deceive' and the adjective
 'deceptive'.

Well, thank you for clarifying that you didn't intend
to suggest I was attempting to deceive.

   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
 wrote:
 
   Here's a question for you -- if I (trained as a
   TM teacher by Maharishi) were to teach someone
   to meditate and teach them according to the exact
   instructions he told me to impart to students,
   but changed only one thing -- the mantra -- would
   it be the same technique, or a different one? What
   if I taught them to use the mantra Ram (the one
   Maharishi *started* teaching TM with, for everyone)
   instead of one from the latest official list?
   Would it be different than TM, or the same?
 
  It would be different than TM as taught by Maharishi
  Mahesh Yogi for decades, as Barry knows but figures
  Emily doesn't.

 This is a very deceptive answer.
   
Well, no, it isn't. It may be *incorrect* in the case of
TM teachers who got only the two early Rishikesh mantras
and are still giving them out today, but how many such
teachers are there? IOW, it's a minor inaccuracy.
  
   First of all it may not be 'incorrect', it certainly IS
   incorrect, wrong, false and misleading.
 
  Again your lack of fluency in English is causing problems,
  with regard to the It may be... construction.

 Why again? Stop patronizing me and making unfounded assumptions.

Find an English teacher to explain it to you.

  Let me
  say it slightly differently: Even if I got that one point
  wrong, it was minor, because there aren't many from those
  days still teaching. Both versions of that statement
  acknowledge the inaccuracy. Well, no, it isn't referred
  to your deceptive characterization.
 
   And it is not minor, because you can not
   determine how active early TM teachers still are. This
   is regarding any teacher until 1969. Some of the most
   successful TM teachers were/are from this time. These
   were the mantras - if everything followed the usual
   course - the Beatles got.
 
  How many of them are still teaching? Because Barry's
  question had to do with the present.

 How many are teaching at all? How much is TM still being
 taught?

Oh, I thought you knew. You were making all kinds of
calculations above.

 And then: many of them are teachers of the first hour, they
 are Rajas today.

(By first hour, I assume you mean 1969 and before, right?)

How many of the rajas actually teach?

   Many of these early TM teachers
   initiated many thousands into TM. Many were early scientists
   who made research on TM, I know one of them, who is now an
   independent teacher. Many had charisma later TM teachers who
   were on the mass courses of La Antilla or Mallorca didn't have.
 
  Fine, but irrelevant. Everything you go on to say is also
  irrelevant to the question Barry asked.
 
 Not irrelevant to their influence today.

But we don't know how many of them are actively teaching
for the TMO.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
anartaxius@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
  anartaxius@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
  snip
  Then again, the two TM parrots who have chimed in on
  this (authfriend and sparaig) were never TM teachers.
  They have *no idea* what the process of teaching TM
  really is, only some glorified idea of it they carry
  around in their heads to help them believe that *their*
  instruction was somehow personal and individual.
  
  Sorry, but every time someone quotes this post of Barry's,
  I'm going to point out that what he says above is not only
  not true, he knows it is not true. Lawson and I are very
  well aware of what the process of teaching TM really is.
snip

 Taking Barry to task for shortcomings in logic and history
 is fine, but if you have strong reaction to this probing of
 his, your own shortcomings are taking the bait.

Total bullshit, Xeno. I'm taking Barry to task for lying--
blatantly, knowingly, willfully--about Lawson and me.

 Barry is like a guy who comes into the kitchen at night and
 turns on the lights to see if the roaches are crawling about.
 Barry is a natural part of this world like the trees and
 clouds. The negativity we see in what he does, if this is
 what we see, is our own.

No, sorry, it's all his. And now yours as well for defending
him.

 If what someone says is an affront to us, that affront is
 not in the world, it is our ego, and our shortcoming, and
 in our heads alone.

Nope, that's crap.

 Most of the politicians we admire are just as short of the
 truth as any on this forum, and yet we vote for them,
 whichever side we support.

Speak for yourself.

 If you leave rotten meat in the kitchen, the roaches will
 come to feed.

Nope, bogus analogy. Barry throws out the rotten meat
on FFL and then feeds on it himself. And you've joined
him for the disgusting meal.

Inexcusable.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ 
 wrote:
snip
  If you leave rotten meat in the kitchen, the roaches will 
  come to feed.
 
 Excellent insight. Although I might have given you 
 a little hint as to what I was up to by prefacing
 my post with Following up, just to see what comes 
 out of the woodwork... Voila...Roach Judy appears. :-)

Translation: Roach Barry is going to lie some more,
having found to his delight that Xeno has decided to
become a roach as well and support him in his lies.

 It's sort of a no-brainer that the thing that always
 pushes her buttons the most is reminding people that
 she -- who poses as The Authority around here --

Translation: I catch Barry in his lies and stupid
errors. He doesn't like that.

 is in actuality probably the person on this forum 
 who has had the LEAST experience within the TM move-
 ment she likes to speak for. (Other than, say, 
 Ravi or Emily, who never learned TM at all.)

Possibly true, but irrelevant.

 She never became a TM teacher, never met Maharishi,
 went on (as far as I know) one rounding course,

As Barry knows, I've been on many rounding courses.
Probably about two dozen.

 and as far as I know (although she waves around I
 became a checker like a badge of honor) never 
 actually checked anyone's meditation.

That's a knowing lie. I have never once said I became
a checker. I've said I took checker training, as I
did in this case. I almost always add that I was
never certified. Barry's seen me say this any number
of times, both here (in eight different posts) and on
alt.m.t.

 What she is
 is a representative of the TM version of penis envy,
 initiator envy.

Total bullshit.

 She always resented the fact that she was a second-
 class citizen within the TM movement.

Bullshit. I loathe the movement, always have. That's
why I never became a teacher, as Barry knows.

 Now, on forums
 such as this one, she can parrot everything she's
 picked up from *real* initiators over the years, and
 pretend that she's worthy to be considered as auth-
 oritative as they are.

Bullshit. I've always deferred to initiators.
Except when, like Barry, they lie.

 As if any of *them* deserve
 to be thought of as authorities, either, but at 
 least they paid their dues. Judy never did. She 
 never will. She's just one of those roaches who
 wants to be respected as an authority without
 ever having done anything to deserve that respect.

Bullshit. What I deserve respect for is having
gone to the trouble to inform myself, and to be
as accurate as I can in what I say about the TMO
and anything TM-related.

 This is the part where Judy roars in and tells
 us all how much of a liar I am

There's no question Barry is a liar. I and others
have documented that over and over, on this forum
and others. And I've just done so again.





 and how much she
 really knows about TM and what Maharishi was 
 really thinking when he said such-and-such. 
 Wait for it...  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-05 Thread sparaig

While I too never got certified as a checker, I DID take the notes. I have also 
sat in on about a half-dozen 3 days checking classes with new meditators, so I 
have a pretty good idea what goes on during the 3 days checking. I also took 
the SCI class and I've peeked at some of the teacher training videos that made 
in online at one point or another, concerning things like CC.

I probably have 5-10x as much meditation time practicing TM as Barry, but I 
don't claim that I am competent to be a TM teacher.

I CAN catch blatant BS, however.


L.



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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 snip
   Then again, the two TM parrots who have chimed in on
   this (authfriend and sparaig) were never TM teachers.
   They have *no idea* what the process of teaching TM
   really is, only some glorified idea of it they carry
   around in their heads to help them believe that *their*
   instruction was somehow personal and individual.
 
 Sorry, but every time someone quotes this post of Barry's,
 I'm going to point out that what he says above is not only
 not true, he knows it is not true. Lawson and I are very
 well aware of what the process of teaching TM really is.
 
 Just for one thing, we were both trained as checkers, so
 we know for a fact that checking is done by rote because
 that rote procedure is what we ourselves were taught and
 required to memorize. In my checker training class, it
 was pointed out explicitly that the checking procedure
 was very similar to the formula for personal instruction.
 And it was widely known by that time that mantras were
 chosen by age.
 
 With regard to other aspects of TM instruction, in these
 days of the Internet, all the teaching materials are
 available for examination on various anti-TM Web sites
 (e.g., Minet, Trancenet), including the puja, the formula
 for personal instruction, and the points to be covered in
 the three days of checking. Some of these materials were
 posted to alt.meditation.transcendental while Lawson and
 I were participating there; many posts about the teaching
 procedures were made there by former TM teachers.
 
 Again, Barry knows all this. He knows Lawson and I don't
 believe our instruction was any more personal or
 individual than anyone else's. He knows we haven't
 misrepresented anything.
 
 Barry feels the need to demonize Lawson and me because
 we're articulate, informed, thorough, and honest in
 what we say about TM. For Barry, we're a threat to
 the jaundiced, distorted picture of TM it is his self-
 appointed mission to paint in the minds of as many
 people as possible. That's why he feels he has to lie
 about us.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-05 Thread turquoiseb

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote:

 While I too never got certified as a checker, I DID take 
 the notes. 

Good for you. Then you know that it's your classic,
memorized expert system, designed to provide a 
memorized answer we have already prepared to 
the most common questions. And to (theoretically)
provide the correct start of TM-style meditation.

BTW, did you ever notice the endless loop? (I hear
it has finally been corrected in versions of the
checking process that came after my time, but it
certainly wasn't when I was teaching.) What do you
do if the person you're checking fails to say Yes
to your question, Is was easy?

Say they've got a screaming migraine headache. In
that case, thinking is NOT easy, and will never 
be. In the version of the checking procedure given
out in Fiuggi, there was no out in the procedure
to deal with someone who failed to say Yes in
answer to this question. You just had to launch 
back into what quickly became obvious as an endless
loop, until finally (after several hours, according
to one TM teacher friend of mine this happened to)
the person being checked got tired of it, stood up,
and walked out in exasperation.

 I have also sat in on about a half-dozen 3 days checking 
 classes with new meditators, so I have a pretty good idea 
 what goes on during the 3 days checking. 

Bully for you. I only imagine that you've seen or
been the subject of a few medical physical examin-
ations in your day. Do you have a similar good
idea of what goes on during one? I can hear it
now: You just take the person's pulse and check
their blood pressure and poke this listen-y thing
at their chest and listen. Maybe look in their ears
and eyes and draw some blood. Voila...you're finished. :-)

Please list for us -- as short bullet points, no detail
necessary -- the things that, as a TM teacher, you are
supposed to cover in each of the three nights of check-
ing, in the order they are supposed to be presented. If 
you find yourself a little hazy on this, you can check 
your notes from TM Teacher Training. Oh. Wait. You can't, 
can you? All you have to go on is what you observed, 
third-hand.

 I also took the SCI class and I've peeked at some of 
 the teacher training videos that made in online at one 
 point or another, concerning things like CC.

Again, good for you. I imagine that you're as forgiving
of someone who has only peeked at one article about
Squeak Smalltalk and says something authoritative 
about it you know to be wrong as some of the actual TM 
teachers on this and other forums are of you when you 
speak authoritatively about TM, its philosophy, and 
what its teaching process consists of.

 I probably have 5-10x as much meditation time practicing 
 TM as Barry...

I doubt that's true, given that I spent much of my time
in TM on courses, during which I was meditating six to
ten hours a day. Add three to four months of this per
year to the total, and it probably whacks the shit out
of twenty minutes twice a day. :-) But whatever...

 ...but I don't claim that I am competent to be a TM teacher.

Good. We are finally agreed on something. :-)

 I CAN catch blatant BS, however.

Please point out for us the blatant bullshit you feel
I have posted lately about the TM teaching process. On
the basis of your extensive peeks, that is.  :-)

Lawson, you're protecting your *fantasy* of TM and what
it is and how it's taught, not the reality of it. You
*have no idea* what the reality of that teaching process
is. That is the point I've been trying to make, and which
you just don't get. 

Here, on a.m.t., on Reddit, wherever, you have a history
of wanting to be perceived as somewhat of an expert or
an authority on TM. So does Judy. Neither of you are. 
Neither of you will *ever* be. I'd learn to either live
with that or learn to present your opinions as what they
are -- opinions -- a little more clearly if I were you.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-05 Thread nablusoss1008



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

 This is the part where Judy roars in and tells
 us all how much of a liar I am and how much she
 really knows about TM and what Maharishi was 
 really thinking when he said such-and-such. 
 Wait for it...  :-)


HaHa, you are such an arrogant cocroach Turq ! You critizise Judy for not being 
a TM-teacher, yet you yourself spend most of your time here proclaiming your 
non-existent insight into what Maharishi taught. What a parody !

You are the best example of what Maharishi meant when he said Noone knows who 
is close to me. One time in the 80's he even wanted to sack ALL the National 
Leaders (all the europeans were TM-teachers by the way) saying You are all 
useless, and went on to suggest it would be etter to let the Sidhas take care 
of the Movement.

You a an example that proves having been a teacher means nothing, absolutely 
zero. You are one of those many fools who joined the Movement for all the wrong 
reasons and went along for the ride for a while not really understanding why.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-05 Thread nablusoss1008



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:
 Nope, bogus analogy. Barry throws out the rotten meat
 on FFL and then feeds on it himself. And you've joined
 him for the disgusting meal.
 
 Inexcusable.


I'm not the only one who has noticed that the Turq has become more desperate 
lately. He gives the impression now of drooling in his own waste, a sure sign 
of old age.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-05 Thread Vaj



On Jun 5, 2012, at 3:06 AM, sparaig wrote:

While I too never got certified as a checker, I DID take the notes.  
I have also sat in on about a half-dozen 3 days checking classes  
with new meditators, so I have a pretty good idea what goes on  
during the 3 days checking. I also took the SCI class and I've  
peeked at some of the teacher training videos that made in online  
at one point or another, concerning things like CC.


I probably have 5-10x as much meditation time practicing TM as  
Barry, but I don't claim that I am competent to be a TM teacher.


I CAN catch blatant BS, however.


That's a rather specious claim considering you're the hardest core TM  
TB here. One could easily make the argument you're full of blatant  
TMO BS, and that you seem to share it A LOT. Therefore you missed a  
lot of BS, which you now accept as fact. This is transparent to most  
of your listeners, but for some reason it's not obvious to you.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-05 Thread Vaj



On Jun 5, 2012, at 3:32 AM, turquoiseb wrote:


Here, on a.m.t., on Reddit, wherever, you have a history
of wanting to be perceived as somewhat of an expert or
an authority on TM. So does Judy. Neither of you are.


Bingo. But boy you'd think they were THE experts on the topic.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-05 Thread turquoiseb

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

 On Jun 5, 2012, at 3:06 AM, sparaig wrote:
 
  While I too never got certified as a checker, I DID take the 
  notes.  
  I have also sat in on about a half-dozen 3 days checking classes  
  with new meditators, so I have a pretty good idea what goes on  
  during the 3 days checking. I also took the SCI class and I've  
  peeked at some of the teacher training videos that made in 
  online at one point or another, concerning things like CC.
 
  I probably have 5-10x as much meditation time practicing TM as  
  Barry, but I don't claim that I am competent to be a TM teacher.
 
  I CAN catch blatant BS, however.
 
 That's a rather specious claim considering you're the hardest 
 core TM TB here. 

In Lawson's defense, I must disagree. I would confer
that honor upon JohnR. :-) Nabby doesn't really count
because he's so obviously Off The Program with his
Benjamin Creme/Maitreya/UFO/crop circle stuff, not
to mention his frequent misunderstanding of funda-
mental aspects of the TM philosophy and dogma. (But
not with regard to the ferocity with which he lashes
out at those he paranoid-ly perceives as the enemies
of TM and the TMO.) 

Several other pretty classic TBs content themselves
with posting the occasional piece of TMO propaganda,
so I rarely interface with them and wouldn't consider
them rabid True Believers in the sense that some
others are, the ones who feel compelled to *argue* 
and *sell* their TB beliefs.

 One could easily make the argument you're full of blatant  
 TMO BS, and that you seem to share it A LOT. Therefore you 
 missed a lot of BS, which you now accept as fact. This is 
 transparent to most of your listeners...

Including, obviously, people on other forums who don't
do TM at all, but can recognize memorized dogma when
it's thrown at them. 

 ...but for some reason it's not obvious to you.

I think of it as similar to the For the man whose only
tool is a hammer, everything appears to be a nail adage
that has come up here from time to time. For someone
whose only tool is belief in what he (or she) has been 
told by someone they consider an authority, every
challenge to that perceived authority must be regarded
as a nail, to be pounded into submission by repeating
the things that they were told. 

To Lawson's credit, he is MUCH less OCD behind all this
than he was in the past, and on the whole avoids falling
into the trap of classic cult behavior. That is, he does
not often feel that he has to call those who challenge
what he believes in liars or try to demonize them in
an attempt to subvert their credibility to an imagined
audience. He seems to know when he's being baited, and
had developed the ability to step back and not respond
in ways that would reflect badly on the very thing he
is inspired to protect. 

Judy and Nabby have never learned this. Both claim that
I try to censor them on this forum, and that's as
laughable as Lawson feeling that he has an accurate
BS detector. I've been *very* clear about why I post
the things I do that set them off. I *want* them to
overreact, and act like the cultists they are, and
they rarely fail to disappoint. 

My theory is that every time they get their buttons
pushed and play shoot the messenger, the wiser lurkers
on this forum notice, and rack up one more point on the
side of Am I really sure I ever want to get involved
in this TM stuff if it makes people act and think and
speak like this? They are (again, as I've said many
times) the best possible argument *against* long-term
involvement with the TM movement and its conditioning.
That they've never realized this merely underscores
the insidious effectiveness of the conditioning itself.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-05 Thread Xenophaneros Anartaxius

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote 
[replying to turquoiseb]:
 
 You a[re] an example that proves having been a teacher means nothing, 
 absolutely zero. You are one of those many fools who joined the Movement for 
 all the wrong reasons and went along for the ride for a while not really 
 understanding why.

To know that someone does not understand why implies you know the correct 
understanding. What is the correct understanding why, the right reasons?

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
 
  While I too never got certified as a checker, I DID take 
  the notes. 
 
 Good for you. Then you know that it's your classic,
 memorized expert system, designed to provide a 
 memorized answer we have already prepared to 
 the most common questions. And to (theoretically)
 provide the correct start of TM-style meditation.

Exactly. Just what I told Emily a couple days ago
when she asked what checking was.

 BTW, did you ever notice the endless loop? (I hear
 it has finally been corrected in versions of the
 checking process that came after my time, but it
 certainly wasn't when I was teaching.) What do you
 do if the person you're checking fails to say Yes
 to your question, Is was easy?

There are several endless loops in the notes I
was given (dated June 1974).

snip
  I have also sat in on about a half-dozen 3 days checking 
  classes with new meditators, so I have a pretty good idea 
  what goes on during the 3 days checking. 
 
 Bully for you. I only imagine that you've seen or
 been the subject of a few medical physical examin-
 ations in your day. Do you have a similar good
 idea of what goes on during one? I can hear it
 now: You just take the person's pulse and check
 their blood pressure and poke this listen-y thing
 at their chest and listen. Maybe look in their ears
 and eyes and draw some blood. Voila...you're finished. :-)

See Barry. See Barry trip himself up. See Barry *not
notice* that he's tripped himself up. That's because
he's more interested in demonizing Lawson than in
actually making sense.

Remember his initial claim? I'm really NOT exaggerating
when I suggest that a robot could do it:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/311429

Now all of a sudden teaching TM requires the expertise
of an M.D. Ooopsie!

 Please list for us -- as short bullet points, no detail
 necessary -- the things that, as a TM teacher, you are
 supposed to cover in each of the three nights of check-
 ing, in the order they are supposed to be presented. If 
 you find yourself a little hazy on this, you can check 
 your notes from TM Teacher Training. Oh. Wait. You can't, 
 can you? All you have to go on is what you observed, 
 third-hand.

Straw man. Lawson has never claimed to be qualified
to teach TM--to the contrary, in fact--and reiterates
again below that he isn't. Same with me.

  I also took the SCI class and I've peeked at some of 
  the teacher training videos that made in online at one 
  point or another, concerning things like CC.
 
 Again, good for you. I imagine that you're as forgiving
 of someone who has only peeked at one article about
 Squeak Smalltalk and says something authoritative 
 about it you know to be wrong as some of the actual TM 
 teachers on this and other forums are of you when you 
 speak authoritatively about TM, its philosophy, and 
 what its teaching process consists of.

Please list for us some of these things that Lawson
gets wrong.

snip
  I CAN catch blatant BS, however.
 
 Please point out for us the blatant bullshit you feel
 I have posted lately about the TM teaching process. On
 the basis of your extensive peeks, that is.  :-)

You haven't said anything blatantly inaccurate about
the TM teaching process. For what you've said that is
misleading, and for the blatant bullshit (lies) you've
said about Lawson and me, see my post:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/311439

 Lawson, you're protecting your *fantasy* of TM and what
 it is and how it's taught, not the reality of it. You
 *have no idea* what the reality of that teaching process
 is. That is the point I've been trying to make, and which
 you just don't get.

The point Barry has been trying to make is that the
reality of basic instruction is that it's very largely
by rote. Both Lawson and I are well aware of that,
Barry knows we're well aware of that, but Barry has
lied about it in at least three different posts now,
including this one.

Creating straw men, as Barry has attempted to do in
this post, does not give him a leg to stand on. He
lied quite deliberately and maliciously about what
Lawson and I know about teaching TM. That lie has
been exposed, and Barry has been exposed *once again*
as a willful liar.

 Here, on a.m.t., on Reddit, wherever, you have a history
 of wanting to be perceived as somewhat of an expert or
 an authority on TM. So does Judy. Neither of you are. 
 Neither of you will *ever* be. 

Lawson and I are both authorities on TM in contexts
in which there are no trained (and honest) TM teachers
to explain things. We both *understand* things about
TM that some (former) teachers do not (including Barry).
And Lawson is an authority on research on TM.

 I'd learn to either live
 with that or learn to present your opinions as what they
 are -- opinions -- a little more clearly if I were you.

Both of us make it clear when we're

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 
  On Jun 5, 2012, at 3:06 AM, sparaig wrote:
snip
   I CAN catch blatant BS, however.
  
  That's a rather specious claim considering you're the hardest 
  core TM TB here. 
snip
 To Lawson's credit, he is MUCH less OCD behind all this
 than he was in the past, and on the whole avoids falling
 into the trap of classic cult behavior. That is, he does
 not often feel that he has to call those who challenge
 what he believes in liars or try to demonize them in
 an attempt to subvert their credibility to an imagined
 audience.

People here challenge what we believe in constantly.
When they do so *honestly*, we don't call them liars
or call their credibility in question.

Lawson prefers not to state what he feels is obvious
concerning Barry's and Vaj's lack of credibility. I
choose to do so when I call them on their mistakes
and lies.

 He seems to know when he's being baited, and
 had developed the ability to step back and not respond
 in ways that would reflect badly on the very thing he
 is inspired to protect.
 
 Judy and Nabby have never learned this. Both claim that
 I try to censor them on this forum, and that's as
 laughable as Lawson feeling that he has an accurate
 BS detector.

Says Barry, making yet another attempt to censor us:

 I've been *very* clear about why I post
 the things I do that set them off. I *want* them to
 overreact, and act like the cultists they are, and
 they rarely fail to disappoint.

To Barry, you see, correcting his misstatements or
lies constitutes overreaction.

 My theory is that every time they get their buttons
 pushed and play shoot the messenger, the wiser lurkers
 on this forum notice,

(Another self-contradiction: Above, the lurker audience
is only imagined.)

 and rack up one more point on the
 side of Am I really sure I ever want to get involved
 in this TM stuff if it makes people act and think and
 speak like this? They are (again, as I've said many
 times) the best possible argument *against* long-term
 involvement with the TM movement and its conditioning.
 That they've never realized this merely underscores
 the insidious effectiveness of the conditioning itself.

The unspoken theory behind the above bullshit is that if
Barry can intimidate us into thinking what we say makes
people not want to learn TM, we'll shut up. We'll stop
correcting Barry's and Vaj's misstatements and lies,
and they'll have a clear field to present TM in a way
that will make people not want to learn it.

That isn't his only censorship technique, but it's
the one he uses most often.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-05 Thread Emily Reyn

Barry Barry Barry - you stated your comments and opinions clearly at the front 
end of this conversation re: why meditators are separated, checking and the 
cost of TM.  Judy stated her experience and understanding clearly as well, 
including honest caveats of exactly where her understanding came from (e.g., a 
course she was on and checker *training*).  In no way did she attempt to be the 
authority.  She has, many times indicated her disagreement with the direction 
of the TM org. The statement below is blatant, personal, slanderous BS, at 
least from everything I've read to date from her here.  


She always resented the fact that she was a second-
class citizen within the TM movement. 


Xeno, she has a right to defend herself against blatant character 
assassinations and complete rewrites of what she posted.   Unless one is 
following the thread carefully or if one comes in, in the middle, it is easy to 
misunderstand how the conversation that could have been an objective look at 
pros and cons, for example, morphed into something completely different that 
was quite personal in nature towards two of its practitioners (Lawson and 
Judy).    

Now, I agree that calling out Barry as a liar is bound to generate a reaction 
from him, as I personally believe that he believes strongly that his general 
interpretation is accurate and I don't think he lies to himself when he posts 
slander - he knows he's doing it.  He states continually that he words his 
posts to get a reaction.  He feeds on the reactions, it seems.  Mostly, though, 
the response from Judy called out the inconsistencies or factual errors or what 
were reality rewrites on his part regarding *her* life.  

Yes, I agree that Barry throws out these extreme character assassinations 
(e.g., the term roach) to get a reaction.  The problem is that while he 
thinks the reaction from Judy will substantiate the accusations in the post, 
it really highlights the post that generated the reaction.  My first question 
is always what was the genesis of this reaction?  Judy seldom incites, 
supports her premises, states where and why she has various beliefs, and 
doesn't co-opt other's reality.  This doesn't mean that all who read her posts 
agree with her - that's the joy in engaging in a healthy debate with multiple 
perspectives.  

Yes, Judy could stop reacting, but like us all, when our reality is completely 
co-opted and rewritten to slander our being and posted publicly, most of us 
choose to try and balance the equation and clarify our reality.  She could 
stop, but it's her choice.  Barry could choose to stop as well.  His tactic of 
co-opting and rewriting someone else's reality is supremely disrespectful, at 
the very least.




From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, June 4, 2012 10:45 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R  BLOG/ CLIP ONTM



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
anartaxius@... wrote:

 Taking Barry to task for shortcomings in logic and history 
 is fine, but if you have strong reaction to this probing 
 of his, your own shortcomings are taking the bait. Barry 
 is like a guy who comes into the kitchen at night and turns 
 on the lights to see if the roaches are crawling about. 
 Barry is a natural part of this world like the trees and 
 clouds. The negativity we see in what he does, if this is 
 what we see, is our own. If what someone says is an affront 
 to us, that affront is not in the world, it is our ego, and 
 our shortcoming, and in our heads alone. ...
 
 If you leave rotten meat in the kitchen, the roaches will 
 come to feed.

Excellent insight. Although I might have given you 
a little hint as to what I was up to by prefacing
my post with Following up, just to see what comes 
out of the woodwork... Voila...Roach Judy appears. :-)

It's sort of a no-brainer that the thing that always
pushes her buttons the most is reminding people that
she -- who poses as The Authority around here --
is in actuality probably the person on this forum 
who has had the LEAST experience within the TM move-
ment she likes to speak for. (Other than, say, 
Ravi or Emily, who never learned TM at all.)

She never became a TM teacher, never met Maharishi,
went on (as far as I know) one rounding course,
and as far as I know (although she waves around I
became a checker like a badge of honor) never 
actually checked anyone's meditation. What she is
is a representative of the TM version of penis envy,
initiator envy. 

She always resented the fact that she was a second-
class citizen within the TM movement. Now, on forums
such as this one, she can parrot everything she's
picked up from *real* initiators over the years, and
pretend that she's worthy to be considered as auth-
oritative as they are. As if any of *them* deserve
to be thought of as authorities, either, but at 
least they paid their dues. Judy never did. She 
never

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-05 Thread Emily Reyn

P.S.  Roaches are extremely adaptive, have been here long before us, and will 
be here long after us.  Tee Hee.

 From: Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R  BLOG/ CLIP ONTM

Barry Barry Barry - you stated your comments and opinions clearly at the front 
end of this conversation re: why meditators are separated, checking and the 
cost of TM.  Judy stated her experience and understanding clearly as well, 
including honest caveats of exactly where her understanding came from (e.g., a 
course she was on and checker *training*).  In no way did she attempt to be the 
authority.  She has, many times indicated her disagreement with the direction 
of the TM org. The statement below is blatant, personal, slanderous BS, at 
least from everything I've read to date from her here.  

She always resented the fact that she was a second-
class citizen within the TM movement. 

Xeno, she has a right to defend herself against blatant character 
assassinations and complete
 rewrites of what she posted.   Unless one is following the thread carefully or 
if one comes in, in the middle, it is easy to misunderstand how the 
conversation that could have been an objective look at pros and cons, for 
example, morphed into something completely different that was quite personal in 
nature towards two of its practitioners (Lawson and Judy).    

Now, I agree that calling out Barry as a liar is bound to generate a reaction 
from him, as I personally believe that he believes strongly that his general 
interpretation is accurate and I don't think he lies to himself when he posts 
slander - he knows he's doing it.  He states continually that he words his 
posts to get a reaction.  He feeds on the reactions, it seems.  Mostly, though, 
the response from Judy called out the inconsistencies or factual errors or what 
were reality rewrites on his part regarding *her* life.  

Yes, I agree that Barry throws out these extreme character assassinations 
(e.g., the term roach) to get a reaction.  The problem is that while he 
thinks the reaction from Judy will substantiate the accusations in the post, 
it really highlights the post that generated the reaction.  My first question 
is always what was the genesis of this reaction?  Judy seldom incites, 
supports her premises, states where and why she has various beliefs, and 
doesn't co-opt other's reality.  This doesn't mean that all who read her posts 
agree with her - that's the joy in engaging in a healthy debate with multiple 
perspectives.  

Yes, Judy could stop reacting, but like us all, when our reality is completely 
co-opted and rewritten to slander our being and posted publicly, most of us 
choose to try and balance the equation and clarify our reality.  She could 
stop, but it's her choice.  Barry could choose to stop as well.  His
 tactic of co-opting and rewriting someone else's reality is supremely 
disrespectful, at the very least.

From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, June 4, 2012 10:45 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R  BLOG/ CLIP ONTM

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
anartaxius@... wrote:

 Taking Barry to task for shortcomings in logic and history 
 is fine, but if you have strong reaction to this probing 
 of his, your own shortcomings are taking the bait. Barry 
 is like a guy who comes into the kitchen at night and turns 
 on the lights to see if the roaches are crawling about. 
 Barry is a natural part of this world like the trees and 
 clouds. The negativity we see in what he does, if this is 

 what we see, is our own. If what someone says is an affront 
 to us, that affront is not in the world, it is our ego, and 
 our shortcoming, and in our heads alone. ...

 If you leave rotten meat in the kitchen, the roaches will 
 come to feed.

Excellent insight. Although I might have given you 
a little hint as to what I was up to by prefacing
my post with Following up, just to see what comes 
out of the woodwork... Voila...Roach Judy appears. :-)

It's sort of a no-brainer that the thing that always
pushes her buttons the most is reminding people that
she -- who poses as The Authority around here --
is in actuality probably the person on this forum 
who has had the LEAST experience within the TM move-
ment she likes to speak for. (Other than, say, 
Ravi or Emily, who never learned TM at all.)

She never became a TM teacher, never met Maharishi,
went on (as far
 as I know) one rounding course,
and as far as I know (although she waves around I
became a checker like a badge of honor) never 
actually checked anyone's meditation. What she is
is a representative of the TM version of penis envy,
initiator envy. 

She always resented the fact that she was a second-
class

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-05 Thread Xenophaneros Anartaxius



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:

 P.S.   Roaches are extremely adaptive, have been here long before us, and 
 will be here long after us.   Tee Hee.
 
 
 
  From: Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 10:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R  BLOG/ CLIP ONTM
  
 
    
 Barry Barry Barry - you stated your comments and opinions clearly at the 
 front end of this conversation re: why meditators are separated, checking 
 and the cost of TM.   Judy stated her experience and understanding clearly 
 as well, including honest caveats of exactly where her understanding came 
 from (e.g., a course she was on and checker *training*).   In no way did she 
 attempt to be the authority.   She has, many times indicated her 
 disagreement with the direction of the TM org. The statement below is 
 blatant, personal, slanderous BS, at least from everything I've read to date 
 from her here.   
 
 
 She always resented the fact that she was a second-
 class citizen within the TM movement.  
 
 
 Xeno, she has a right to defend herself against blatant character 
 assassinations and complete
  rewrites of what she posted.    Unless one is following the thread carefully 
 or if one comes in, in the middle, it is easy to misunderstand how the 
 conversation that could have been an objective look at pros and cons, for 
 example, morphed into something completely different that was quite personal 
 in nature towards two of its practitioners (Lawson and Judy). 

Emily,

Judy generally defends herself well. Barry attacks, Judy counter attacks. Barry 
seems to have more of a sense of humour than Judy. I actually don't follow 
these things with a great attention to detail, and Judy calls me out on that 
from time to time, but it is too enervating for me to dig in like she does. 
Because Barry is kind of tongue-in-cheek through all this, I find it very 
entertaining. He used to attack me, and perhaps in the future, maybe he will 
again. It is up to him. I can be as stupid as anyone. Ad hominem attacks are 
the standard on FFL, and they are the lowest form of argument. Judy's seeming 
seriousness though, keeps it all going. 

 Now, I agree that calling out Barry as a liar is bound to generate a 
 reaction from him, as I personally believe that he believes strongly that his 
 general interpretation is accurate and I don't think he lies to himself 
 when he posts slander - he knows he's doing it.   He states continually that 
 he words his posts to get a reaction.   He feeds on the reactions, it seems.  
  Mostly, though, the response from Judy called out the inconsistencies or 
 factual errors or what were reality rewrites on his part regarding *her* life.

I would agree Barry is inconsistent. But he is not in it for the logical kill. 
Judy is especially good at what she does, but she is responding to a target 
that doesn't give a damn about consistency or conceptual truth. 
 
 Yes, I agree that Barry throws out these extreme character assassinations 
 (e.g., the term roach) to get a reaction.   The problem is that while he 
 thinks the reaction from Judy will substantiate the accusations in the 
 post, it really highlights the post that generated the reaction.   My first 
 question is always what was the genesis of this reaction?   Judy seldom 
 incites, supports her premises, states where and why she has various beliefs, 
 and doesn't co-opt other's reality.   This doesn't mean that all who read her 
 posts agree with her - that's the joy in engaging in a healthy debate with 
 multiple perspectives.

I would agree with this. 
 
 Yes, Judy could stop reacting, but like us all, when our reality is 
 completely co-opted and rewritten to slander our being and posted publicly, 
 most of us choose to try and balance the equation and clarify our reality.  
  She could stop, but it's her choice.   Barry could choose to stop as well.   
 His
  tactic of co-opting and rewriting someone else's reality is supremely 
 disrespectful, at the very least. 

Barry can't rewrite anyone's reality, only someone's description of reality, he 
can make up stories. I make up stories. Respect and disrepect is negotiating 
between egos, it has nothing to do with reality, a lot to do with 
mis-perception of reality. He has at times said some very unkind things about 
Judy. But in some sense she seems to bring this on by her attitude. Like the 
Hatfields and the McCoys, an endless battle. They should be in politics.

For a while it seemed FFL was quieting down and getting boring. Bring it on. 
For myself, I really do not like to argue at all. 
 
 
 
 
 From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, June 4, 2012 10:45 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R    BLOG/ CLIP ON        TM

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-05 Thread Vaj


On Jun 5, 2012, at 7:58 AM, turquoiseb wrote:

  That's a rather specious claim considering you're the hardest 
  core TM TB here. 
 
 In Lawson's defense, I must disagree. I would confer
 that honor upon JohnR. 


I always got the feeling that John was part tongue in cheek - no one could be 
that uncritical of a thinker - so you’re probably right! :-)))

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
anartaxius@... wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
 
  P.S.   Roaches are extremely adaptive, have been here long before us, and 
  will be here long after us.   Tee Hee.
  
  
   From: Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@
  To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 10:52 AM
  Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R  BLOG/ CLIP ONTM
     
  Barry Barry Barry - you stated your comments and opinions clearly at the 
  front end of this conversation re: why meditators are separated, checking 
  and the cost of TM.   Judy stated her experience and understanding 
  clearly as well, including honest caveats of exactly where her 
  understanding came from (e.g., a course she was on and checker *training*). 
    In no way did she attempt to be the authority.   She has, many times 
  indicated her disagreement with the direction of the TM org. The statement 
  below is blatant, personal, slanderous BS, at least from everything I've 
  read to date from her here.   
  
  She always resented the fact that she was a second-
  class citizen within the TM movement.  
  
  Xeno, she has a right to defend herself against blatant character 
  assassinations and complete
   rewrites of what she posted.    Unless one is following the thread 
  carefully or if one comes in, in the middle, it is easy to misunderstand 
  how the conversation that could have been an objective look at pros and 
  cons, for example, morphed into something completely different that was 
  quite personal in nature towards two of its practitioners (Lawson and 
  Judy). 
 
 Emily,
 
 Judy generally defends herself well. Barry attacks, Judy
 counter attacks.

False equivalence. Barry *lies* when he attacks. Judy
defends herself by pointing out that he's lying. And
if he isn't outright lying, he's doing his best to
mislead.

 Barry seems to have more of a sense of humour than Judy.

Judy has at least as much of a sense of humor as Barry,
but that's a different issue.

 I actually don't follow these things with a great attention
 to detail, and Judy calls me out on that from time to time,
 but it is too enervating for me to dig in like she does.

Then perhaps you shouldn't comment at all.

 Because Barry is kind of tongue-in-cheek through all this, I
 find it very entertaining. He used to attack me, and perhaps
 in the future, maybe he will again. It is up to him. I can be
 as stupid as anyone. Ad hominem attacks are the standard on
 FFL, and they are the lowest form of argument. Judy's seeming 
 seriousness though, keeps it all going.

No, that isn't what keeps it all going. Barry's attacks on
people he doesn't like is what keeps it all going. And unlike
Barry, I don't use ad hominem attacks as a substitute for
rational argument.

snip
 I would agree Barry is inconsistent.

He's not just inconsistent, he's a liar.

 But he is not in it for the logical kill. Judy is especially
 good at what she does, but she is responding to a target that
 doesn't give a damn about consistency or conceptual truth.

Or *any* kind of truth. Judy is well aware of this. She
thinks other people ought to be aware of it too. She isn't
responding to Barry, she's pointing out that he is not to
be trusted. Most of the participants here have no way of
knowing when he's being dishonest about other participants.

snip
  His  tactic of co-opting and rewriting someone else's reality
  is supremely disrespectful, at the very least. 
 
 Barry can't rewrite anyone's reality, only someone's
 description of reality

Disingenuous semantic quibble.

 he can make up stories. I make up stories. Respect and
 disrepect is negotiating between egos, it has nothing to do
 with reality, a lot to do with mis-perception of reality.

Pompous pseudo-enlightened crap, IMHO.

 He has at times said some very unkind things about Judy.
 But in some sense she seems to bring this on by her attitude.

In what sense, please? What attitude do you have in mind?

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-04 Thread turquoiseb

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:

 p.s. don't give me the people value what they pay for 
 platitude. That's complete superficial BS in my book. 

It's not even *their* platitude. They're just 
parroting Maharishi's exact words, as usual.

 People value their health, their relationships, nature, 
 etc. when it get down to the bottom line in life - those 
 things you can't put a price on. 

Like the question all of the TM supporters are
avoiding like the plague -- WHY would an org
that claims it has the solution to all the prob-
lems of life want to charge so much for it that
very few will ever start?

The answer IMO is that they don't really want 
what they say they want. They want first MONEY,
and second, they want the CREDIT for having 
saved the world, even though they did diddley-
squat to achieve it. They want to be special.

Just to follow up on some of the things that the
TM supporters are avoiding here, Emily, first and
foremost is the supposed difference between the
technique sold for $47 by this group and the one
invented by Herbert Benson way back when and the
TM technique invented and sold by Maharishi. The
thing *I'd* ask of anyone who claims that there
is a difference is, When and where did you 
actually *learn* these other techniques that you
claim are 'different' than TM? The answer will
be, Never. Nowhere. Again, they're just parrot-
ing what Maharishi said, without ever having 
learned the techniques themselves. In other words,
they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Here's a question for you -- if I (trained as a 
TM teacher by Maharishi) were to teach someone
to meditate and teach them according to the exact
instructions he told me to impart to students, 
but changed only one thing -- the mantra -- would
it be the same technique, or a different one? What
if I taught them to use the mantra Ram (the one
Maharishi *started* teaching TM with, for everyone)
instead of one from the latest official list?
Would it be different than TM, or the same? What
if I made up a different word and suggested that
they use it as a mantra? Would it be the same as
TM, or different?

My contention, based on what I have read about Benson's
technique and these other guys' technique, is that
this is what they did. And it's *remarkably* easy to
do. Just parrot the same effortlessness instructions,
but using a different buzzword. 

Some would claim that this makes the other techniques
different. I suggest that the only reasons they're
saying this are 1) they're desperately trying to perpet-
uate the myth of TM's uniqueness, 2) they're trying 
to demonize what they perceive as the competition,
*without ever even trying it*, and 3) again, they're
just parroting Maharishi.

Contrary to what Lawson believes, there is NO indi-
vidual instruction in TM. I was a TM teacher; he was
not. He's trying to glorify something not terribly
glorious. A ROBOT could teach TM. It's that mechanical,
and that variation-less. You fill out a form, the TM
teacher notes your age and chooses the corresponding
mantra from a memorized list of them, and then gives
it to you. ALL instructions you receive, both during
the teaching process itself and in the days following
have been equally memorized, and do not vary in the
least depending on your questions or experiences. If
you report experience A, the teacher switches to the
prepared spiel for experience A. If you report exper-
ience B, the teacher switches to the prepared spiel
for experience B. I'm really NOT exaggerating when I
suggest that a robot could do it. 

So what's the difference between that technique and
one that preserves the same effortlessness instruc-
tions, but uses a mantra from another list?

The TM parrots here would have you believe that the
difference is worth paying the additional $1453 for.
Then again, the two TM parrots who have chimed in on
this (authfriend and sparaig) were never TM teachers.
They have *no idea* what the process of teaching TM
really is, only some glorified idea of it they carry
around in their heads to help them believe that *their*
instruction was somehow personal and individual.
It wasn't. They learned it from the same robots as 
anyone else. 

Those of us who have learned other forms of meditation
(which they have not) or have actually learned to teach
other forms of meditation know that there IS such a 
thing as individual instruction, and that there are
techniques for determining the best form of meditation
for an individual. TM is not one of these. It's a 
*manufactured* technique, stamped out on an assembly
line and sold as custom to people who want to believe
that they paid the big bucks for something custom. 



 - Original Message -
 From: Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Cc: 
 Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 11:38 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R  BLOG/ CLIP ONTM
 
 I don't actually think that mid

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-04 Thread cardemaister



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:

 p.s. Â don't give me the people value what they pay for platitude. Â That's 
 complete superficial BS in my book. Â People value their health, their 
 relationships, nature, etc. when it get down to the bottom line in life - 
 those things you can't put a price on. Â 
 

Easy come, easy go! (Hereabouts we like to say: What comes [to
you, when you are merely] singing, goes away [and you 
just keep ] whistling!*)

* Mikä (what) laulaen (singing) tulee (comes), se (it)
viheltäen (whistling) menee (goes).

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-04 Thread Bhairitu

I use Thunderbird for email on FFL.  I've rarely used the web interface.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/

Regarding TM, I've taught TM and a more traditional method of 
meditation.   Regarding the puja, it is only there because it would have 
been difficult to train A LOT of teachers with enough shakti to enliven 
a mantra without it.  True some folks could have just been given the 
instructions for teaching, skip the puja and still enliven a mantra.  
That's because of where they are in their spiritual evolution.

Most traditions teach meditation by giving the student shaktipat before 
giving the mantra.  That jump starts the student.  Shaktipat is not that 
difficult to learn and I know others here in the past have mentioned 
learning it too.  But gurus usually will NOT allow you to teach 
meditation until they feel you are ready and at that may limit the 
number you can teach per day.   And even using a puja, I helped some TM 
teachers teach around 20 people in one day and at the end they were 
plenty blotto. :-D

According to people who learned in the early days with Maharishi when he 
was using more traditional methods he too used shaktipat and there was 
no puja.  So NO it is not essential to learning meditation unless for 
assembly line production.

In order to have a good understanding of these different schools one 
needs to visit them and learn what they have to offer.  The TMO didn't 
want that because you might find the grass greener elsewhere or as in my 
case that TM was just a dead end and there was so much more to learn.

On 06/04/2012 10:29 AM, Emily Reyn wrote:
 I tried again to include my comment in the conversation below.  I added a 
 greater than sign to separate.  In responding from my yahoo email, if I 
 just hit enter, it doesn't translate to a space so crowds the words above.  
 Assuming I know nothing, which I do in this regard, what are the actual steps 
 to allow me to comment within the discussion?  Richard has mentioned a word 
 editor process in the past.  Huh?  I want to be able to respond from my 
 email.


 
   From: authfriendjst...@panix.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Monday, June 4, 2012 9:26 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R  BLOG/ CLIP ONTM


   
 Emily, you simply cannot trust anything Barry says
 about TM. He has no compunctions whatsoever about
 taking advantage of your relative ignorance of TM
 to lie to you and do his level best to mislead you.
 Plus which, *he hasn't even read the posts in the
 thread*. He feels free to make stuff up and put it
 in the mouths of the people he doesn't agree with
 so he can then proceed to demonize them. Nor does
 he have any trouble lying about what they know.

 See below for specifics.

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb
 no_reply@...  wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn
 emilymae.reyn@  wrote:
 p.s. don't give me the people value what they pay for
 platitude. That's complete superficial BS in my book.
 It's not even *their* platitude. They're just
 parroting Maharishi's exact words, as usual.
 Nobody said that to Emily. Perfect example of what
 I wrote at the top.

 And of course, as Barry well knows, it's hardly an
 idea peculiar to Maharishi.

 People value their health, their relationships, nature,
 etc. when it get down to the bottom line in life - those
 things you can't put a price on.
 It should be pointed out, however, that in many cases
 the benefits of TM to health, relationships, etc., are
 not immediately evident but only become so over some
 time of regular practice. It's perfectly reasonable to
 suggest that a person who paid little or nothing to
 learn TM is more likely to give it up after a couple
 of weeks if significant benefits aren't apparent by
 then than someone who made a real financial investment.
 So it isn't as if there's no truth to the platitude.
 I agree here actually with this - greater investment usually creates greater 
 incentive; what I said also doesn't make sense in that given that people do 
 value their health, relationships, etc. and meditation, or TM meditation is 
 viewed as positively affecting these core values, than of course the 
 expenditure could be worth it.  After all, I've spent several thousand 
 dollars on cranial sacral therapy, which I value.  I was waiting for someone 
 to call me on that ridiculous statement I made.  OTOH, if I can get the same 
 thing for less money, I'd value the deal I got.  Thanks :)

 Like the question all of the TM supporters are
 avoiding like the plague -- WHY would an org
 that claims it has the solution to all the prob-
 lems of life want to charge so much for it that
 very few will ever start?
 Barry's lying. I responded to that question. The
 response included pointing out that the question
 itself was designed to mislead. The TMO charges
 high fees in wealthy countries and low or no fees
 in poor ones. Also, $1,500 is well within

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-04 Thread Susan

 
 animals for the most part, while our ego at the same time declares how unique 
 we are. We are unique, but not in the way we ordinarily imagine.
 
 As for people valuing expensive things they have paid for, the latter part of 
 this video on bottled water shows how deceptive that is psychologically in 
 determining actual value.
 
 http://youtu.be/XfPAjUvvnIc
 
 -
  
  - Original Message -
  From: Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@
  To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
  Cc: 
  Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 11:38 AM
  Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM
  
  I don't actually think that mid to low-income families benefit more from 
  TM than the above average-income families or the rich ? Â  I do think 
  that those that struggle with the impacts of being low-income (I included 
  the term mid because so many of us are now finding ourselves tending 
  towards the lower end of that range in my subjective analysis in terms of 
  the bubble we used to live in disappearing), have increased stress and 
  anxiety in their lives around earning a living wage, maintaining housing, 
  paying necessary bills, affording or having health care and dental care, 
  eating decent food, sending their kids to college, etc., etc., etc. Â When 
  one is concerned about one's day to day survival and raising kids, one 
  doesn't splurge on meditation instruction priced in the thousands - 
  regardless of the benefits that may be accrued. Â 
  
  I'm not weighing in on the merits of that decision, I'm just saying that 
  is the reality. Â And, there are millions of people out of work now who, 
  why they might benefit enormously from such a practice, and might 
  contribute mightily to global peace, it isn't going to happen if priced 
  out of the ball park. Â Why can't the practice be taught for a nominal 
  fee, is what I want to know. Â For the good of humanity, for the good of 
  the planet, to reduce crime and pain and suffering, to move our species to 
  a better spiritual place? Â 
  
  
  From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
  To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 11:23 AM
  Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E RÂ Â BLOG/ CLIP ONÂ Â Â Â TM
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
 
  You must *not* read all my posts as I mentioned early on that I felt the 
  cost was not in line with the philosophy - i.e. if this is a technique 
  being promoted to solve the world's ills and help mankind, than it 
  should be priced to allow those who could most benefit (e.g. mid to 
  low-income families) take advantage.
  
  Why is that ?
 
  To clarify my question a bit; why do you think that mid to low-income 
  families benefit more from TM than the above average-income families or 
  the rich ?

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-04 Thread authfriend

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
snip
   Then again, the two TM parrots who have chimed in on
   this (authfriend and sparaig) were never TM teachers.
   They have *no idea* what the process of teaching TM
   really is, only some glorified idea of it they carry
   around in their heads to help them believe that *their*
   instruction was somehow personal and individual.

Sorry, but every time someone quotes this post of Barry's,
I'm going to point out that what he says above is not only
not true, he knows it is not true. Lawson and I are very
well aware of what the process of teaching TM really is.

Just for one thing, we were both trained as checkers, so
we know for a fact that checking is done by rote because
that rote procedure is what we ourselves were taught and
required to memorize. In my checker training class, it
was pointed out explicitly that the checking procedure
was very similar to the formula for personal instruction.
And it was widely known by that time that mantras were
chosen by age.

With regard to other aspects of TM instruction, in these
days of the Internet, all the teaching materials are
available for examination on various anti-TM Web sites
(e.g., Minet, Trancenet), including the puja, the formula
for personal instruction, and the points to be covered in
the three days of checking. Some of these materials were
posted to alt.meditation.transcendental while Lawson and
I were participating there; many posts about the teaching
procedures were made there by former TM teachers.

Again, Barry knows all this. He knows Lawson and I don't
believe our instruction was any more personal or 
individual than anyone else's. He knows we haven't
misrepresented anything.

Barry feels the need to demonize Lawson and me because
we're articulate, informed, thorough, and honest in
what we say about TM. For Barry, we're a threat to
the jaundiced, distorted picture of TM it is his self-
appointed mission to paint in the minds of as many
people as possible. That's why he feels he has to lie
about us.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-04 Thread authfriend

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
anartaxius@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
snip
  Then again, the two TM parrots who have chimed in on
  this (authfriend and sparaig) were never TM teachers.
  They have *no idea* what the process of teaching TM
  really is, only some glorified idea of it they carry
  around in their heads to help them believe that *their*
  instruction was somehow personal and individual.

Sorry, but every time someone quotes this post of Barry's,
I'm going to point out that what he says above is not only
not true, he knows it is not true. Lawson and I are very
well aware of what the process of teaching TM really is.

Just for one thing, we were both trained as checkers, so
we know for a fact that checking is done by rote because
that rote procedure is what we ourselves were taught and
required to memorize. In my checker training class, it
was pointed out explicitly that the checking procedure
was very similar to the formula for personal instruction.
And it was widely known by that time that mantras were
chosen by age.

With regard to other aspects of TM instruction, in these
days of the Internet, all the teaching materials are
available for examination on various anti-TM Web sites
(e.g., Minet, Trancenet), including the puja, the formula
for personal instruction, and the points to be covered in
the three days of checking. Some of these materials were
posted to alt.meditation.transcendental while Lawson and
I were participating there; many posts about the teaching
procedures were made there by former TM teachers.

Again, Barry knows all this. He knows Lawson and I don't
believe our instruction was any more personal or
individual than anyone else's. He knows we haven't
misrepresented anything.

Barry feels the need to demonize Lawson and me because
we're articulate, informed, thorough, and honest in
what we say about TM. For Barry, we're a threat to
the jaundiced, distorted picture of TM it is his self-
appointed mission to paint in the minds of as many
people as possible. That's why he feels he has to lie
about us.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-04 Thread Xenophaneros Anartaxius

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@ wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
 anartaxius@ wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 snip
 Then again, the two TM parrots who have chimed in on
 this (authfriend and sparaig) were never TM teachers.
 They have *no idea* what the process of teaching TM
 really is, only some glorified idea of it they carry
 around in their heads to help them believe that *their*
 instruction was somehow personal and individual.
 
 Sorry, but every time someone quotes this post of Barry's,
 I'm going to point out that what he says above is not only
 not true, he knows it is not true. Lawson and I are very
 well aware of what the process of teaching TM really is.
 
 Just for one thing, we were both trained as checkers, so
 we know for a fact that checking is done by rote because
 that rote procedure is what we ourselves were taught and
 required to memorize. In my checker training class, it
 was pointed out explicitly that the checking procedure
 was very similar to the formula for personal instruction.
 And it was widely known by that time that mantras were
 chosen by age.
 
 With regard to other aspects of TM instruction, in these
 days of the Internet, all the teaching materials are
 available for examination on various anti-TM Web sites
 (e.g., Minet, Trancenet), including the puja, the formula
 for personal instruction, and the points to be covered in
 the three days of checking. Some of these materials were
 posted to alt.meditation.transcendental while Lawson and
 I were participating there; many posts about the teaching
 procedures were made there by former TM teachers.
 
 Again, Barry knows all this. He knows Lawson and I don't
 believe our instruction was any more personal or 
 individual than anyone else's. He knows we haven't
 misrepresented anything.
 
 Barry feels the need to demonize Lawson and me because
 we're articulate, informed, thorough, and honest in
 what we say about TM. For Barry, we're a threat to
 the jaundiced, distorted picture of TM it is his self-
 appointed mission to paint in the minds of as many
 people as possible. That's why he feels he has to lie
 about us.
 
Sorting history out of writings associated with any spiritual movement is a 
difficult task. Not having been there, we do not know just how MMY came up with 
TM. I have heard: 1. He got it from Guru Dev. 2. Guru Dev asked him to find a 
way to get people to meditate. 3. He just made it up. 4. He adopted or adapted 
a meditation some other guru was teaching at the time and location where he 
spent his two years after the death of Guru Dev. It is rather similar to what 
other gurus do, but he made it more systematic so a computer could almost do it.

He obviously made many adjustments to the process over time. Adopting the puja 
and creating the aura of a tradition, and the glories of a divine teacher kept 
a majority of the teachers in line as feeling one is part of a community is 
very useful with us human beings, and most people, like it or not, are 
pre-programmed with religious impulses. Some other gurus seem to be copying his 
modus operandi. 

The downside is a few to a moderate number of people fall through the cracks 
with difficulties, or do not get enough personalised attention at the start, 
but a lot more people learned than would have otherwise. Because TM has been 
billed as not religious, in spite of the obvious trappings of religion, 
dontational support is not built into the system as well as with, say, a church 
or synagogue. So the cost is a reflection of delivery costs. The era of young 
devotees working their brains out to teach is past, so parental support for 
these is mostly gone, and they have grown up and have to live in society as 
regular people, so the hidden costs have become visible.

I do not know the cost of TM in 1960 but if it was, say, $25 the inflation 
adjusted price today would be $196. A friend of mine learned recently for about 
$750 and there seems to be some kind of time payment plan.

As the movement matured, it did seem to become more financially corrupt, with 
many funds siphoned off to India, etc. Spiritual movements become just as 
corrupt at governments with time, and some are that way in their inception, 
though TM did not seem to be this way in the beginning. When alive MMY seemed 
to run the show, so it cannot be said he did not know what was happening, but 
those surrounding him share in the blame too. Still there are many in the 
movement that have their hearts in teaching because this is what they love to 
do, what they want to do, so I cannot condemn them for this, since many appear 
to benefit.

Taking Barry to task for shortcomings in logic and history is fine, but if you 
have strong reaction to this probing of his, your own shortcomings are taking 
the bait. Barry is like a guy who

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-04 Thread turquoiseb

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
anartaxius@... wrote:

 Taking Barry to task for shortcomings in logic and history 
 is fine, but if you have strong reaction to this probing 
 of his, your own shortcomings are taking the bait. Barry 
 is like a guy who comes into the kitchen at night and turns 
 on the lights to see if the roaches are crawling about. 
 Barry is a natural part of this world like the trees and 
 clouds. The negativity we see in what he does, if this is 
 what we see, is our own. If what someone says is an affront 
 to us, that affront is not in the world, it is our ego, and 
 our shortcoming, and in our heads alone. ...
 
 If you leave rotten meat in the kitchen, the roaches will 
 come to feed.

Excellent insight. Although I might have given you 
a little hint as to what I was up to by prefacing
my post with Following up, just to see what comes 
out of the woodwork... Voila...Roach Judy appears. :-)

It's sort of a no-brainer that the thing that always
pushes her buttons the most is reminding people that
she -- who poses as The Authority around here --
is in actuality probably the person on this forum 
who has had the LEAST experience within the TM move-
ment she likes to speak for. (Other than, say, 
Ravi or Emily, who never learned TM at all.)

She never became a TM teacher, never met Maharishi,
went on (as far as I know) one rounding course,
and as far as I know (although she waves around I
became a checker like a badge of honor) never 
actually checked anyone's meditation. What she is
is a representative of the TM version of penis envy,
initiator envy.  

She always resented the fact that she was a second-
class citizen within the TM movement. Now, on forums
such as this one, she can parrot everything she's
picked up from *real* initiators over the years, and
pretend that she's worthy to be considered as auth-
oritative as they are. As if any of *them* deserve
to be thought of as authorities, either, but at 
least they paid their dues. Judy never did. She 
never will. She's just one of those roaches who
wants to be respected as an authority without
ever having done anything to deserve that respect.

This is the part where Judy roars in and tells
us all how much of a liar I am and how much she
really knows about TM and what Maharishi was 
really thinking when he said such-and-such. 
Wait for it...  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-03 Thread cardemaister



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

 ON THIS BLOG,
 THERE IS A REALLY  USEFULL GREAT CLIP 
 
 JUST FROM A MEDITATOR ON TRANSCENDENTAL 
 
 MEDITATION   ( TM )
 
 ENJOY
 
 
 
 http://blog.practicebuildingcenter.com/best-secret-weapon-for-chiropractors-not-what-you-think/


David Spector June 1, 2012 at 7:04 am # 
I'm a meditation teacher and have practiced Transcendental Meditation for 41 
years. This is the BEST introductory talk on TM I have ever heard by a 
non-TM-teacher. Congratulations on the talk, and congratulations for being 
perceptive enough to learn and practice TM.

I love the refreshment and mental energy I get from my own practice.

One correction: TM is not quite that expensive. Currently, the most expensive 
country is the USA, where it costs $1500 for adults, less for children and 
other categories.

For people who like learning on their own, we distribute a transcending course 
by mail for 4% of that price (we are also a 501(c)(3) nonprofit). It's called 
Natural Stress Relief (NSR). We've become TM's primary competition. We 
researched the effects of NSR and find that it reduces anxiety as much as TM 
(it's the same mental technique, just taught differently). Our research is 
published in peer-reviewed psychology journals.

Thanks again for recommending transcending to chiropractors. It will make all 
the difference in their lives. You are a great humanitarian.

David Spector
President,
Natural Stress Relief/USA

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

H.  $1500 offends my sensibilities and my budget.  OTOH, I just looked up 
NSR and read the info on the website.  Started by a TM meditator.  Intriguing 
really and $47.  Testimonials re: the benefits (although I think testimonials 
are suspect, as negative ones would never be published) are exactly what I am 
looking for.  Mentions checking.  What is checking, exactly?  

 From: cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 5:08 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R  BLOG/ CLIP ONTM

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

 ON THIS BLOG,
 THERE IS A REALLY  USEFULL GREAT CLIP 

 JUST FROM A MEDITATOR ON TRANSCENDENTAL 

 MEDITATION   ( TM )

 ENJOY

 http://blog.practicebuildingcenter.com/best-secret-weapon-for-chiropractors-not-what-you-think/

David Spector June 1, 2012 at 7:04 am # 
I'm a meditation teacher and have practiced Transcendental Meditation for 41 
years. This is the BEST introductory talk on TM I have ever heard by a 
non-TM-teacher. Congratulations on the talk, and congratulations for being 
perceptive enough to learn and practice TM.

I love the refreshment and mental energy I get from my own practice.

One correction: TM is not quite that expensive. Currently, the most expensive 
country is the USA, where it costs $1500 for adults, less for children and 
other categories.

For people who like learning on their own, we distribute a transcending course 
by mail for 4% of that price (we are also a 501(c)(3) nonprofit). It's called 
Natural Stress Relief (NSR). We've become TM's primary competition. We 
researched the effects of NSR and find that it reduces anxiety as much as TM 
(it's the same mental technique, just taught differently). Our research is 
published in peer-reviewed psychology journals.

Thanks again for recommending transcending to chiropractors. It will make all 
the difference in their lives. You are a great humanitarian.

David Spector
President,
Natural Stress Relief/USA

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:

 H. Â $1500 offends my sensibilities 


Get a checking !


and my budget. Â OTOH, I just looked up NSR and read the info on the website. 
Â Started by a TM meditator. Â Intriguing really and $47. Â Testimonials re: 
the benefits (although I think testimonials are suspect, as negative ones would 
never be published) are exactly what I am looking for. Â Mentions checking. 
Â What is checking, exactly? Â 
 
 
 
  From: cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 5:08 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R  BLOG/ CLIP ONTM
  
 
 Â  
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merlin vedamerlin@ wrote:
 
  ON THIS BLOG,
  THERE IS A REALLYÂ  USEFULL GREAT CLIP 
  
  JUST FROM A MEDITATOR ON TRANSCENDENTAL 
  
  MEDITATIONÂ Â  ( TM )
  
  ENJOY
  
  
  
  http://blog.practicebuildingcenter.com/best-secret-weapon-for-chiropractors-not-what-you-think/
 
 
 David Spector June 1, 2012 at 7:04 am # 
 I'm a meditation teacher and have practiced Transcendental Meditation for 41 
 years. This is the BEST introductory talk on TM I have ever heard by a 
 non-TM-teacher. Congratulations on the talk, and congratulations for being 
 perceptive enough to learn and practice TM.
 
 I love the refreshment and mental energy I get from my own practice.
 
 One correction: TM is not quite that expensive. Currently, the most expensive 
 country is the USA, where it costs $1500 for adults, less for children and 
 other categories.
 
 For people who like learning on their own, we distribute a transcending 
 course by mail for 4% of that price (we are also a 501(c)(3) nonprofit). It's 
 called Natural Stress Relief (NSR). We've become TM's primary competition. We 
 researched the effects of NSR and find that it reduces anxiety as much as TM 
 (it's the same mental technique, just taught differently). Our research is 
 published in peer-reviewed psychology journals.
 
 Thanks again for recommending transcending to chiropractors. It will make all 
 the difference in their lives. You are a great humanitarian.
 
 David Spector
 President,
 Natural Stress Relief/USA

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-03 Thread turquoiseb

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:

 H. $1500 offends my sensibilities and my budget. 

Until recently, it was $2500. What amazes me more is
that you've been here all these months and only now
figured out what the technique that the TMers on this 
forum talk about as if it were the panacea for the
world's ills and are pushing so heavily actually 
COSTS.

 OTOH, I just looked up NSR and read the info on the 
 website. Started by a TM meditator. Intriguing really 
 and $47. Testimonials re: the benefits (although I 
 think testimonials are suspect, as negative ones would 
 never be published) are exactly what I am looking for. 

I shall now sit back and watch the fireworks. :-) That 
is, you might just be in for a bit of a concerted sales
pitch from those who still push out the idea that TM
is unique and that because it comes from a very, very
important long-established Vedic tradition it's worth 
every penny. I merely point out in advance that very few 
of the people saying this would be able to *afford* TM at
$1500 a pop these days, much less $2500, but they're more
than willing to pimp for the organization that feels it 
should or must cost that much. 

As for unique, I repost what I said the first time 
this particular technique came up. No one from the TM
is the bestest...so there crowd answered it then, and
none of them will be able to answer it now.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/126340

I'll even paste in below my comments from this post, so 
that if anyone dares to address them now, lurkers will 
know what they're talking about:

 Just as a topic for conversation, how is what these
 guys (both Benson and the Natural Stress Relief guys)
 did different from what Maharishi did?
 
 It has been pretty well established here that Guru Dev 
 never taught the TM technique, and that it was created 
 by Maharishi. Even the strongest TBs on this forum
 agree with this, although some claim he cognized it.
 
 It's also not a claim that Maharishi began his teach-
 ing career using only one mantra (one that no longer 
 appears in the official list). That's an established
 fact; I know people who learned TM back in the early
 days using this mantra, and as I remember there are 
 other people who have posted here have who also have
 friends who learned the single-mantra experimental
 technique during those early days. 
 
 It's also true that the official list of TM mantras
 has changed considerably over the years, and thus was
 clearly part of an *experiment* to find the one mantra 
 or a set of mantras that best produced the effect that 
 the experimenter (Maharishi) desired.
 
 It seems to me, therefore, that the only real difference
 between what these guys made up and what Maharishi made
 up is the trappings that accompanied what they made up.
 Maharishi chose to surround the technique that he made
 up (and tested on human subjects without knowing what the
 real results would be) with Hindu ceremonies (the puja) 
 and the insinuation that it was a traditional technique 
 that had been given to him by his teacher. 
 
 The other guys chose trappings that were more consistent 
 with having made something up (and tested it on human 
 subjects without knowing what the real results would be).

For the record, I know nothing about this technique or
the people teaching it. The fact that they claim peer-
reviewed studies but don't cite them is suspicious. But
in theory, speaking as a TM teacher trained by Maharishi
who instructed several thousand people myself, I see no
reason why their technique shouldn't work, with *at
least* the same efficacy as TM. 

Those who feel otherwise should probably address the con-
cerns I raise above in their replies. Doncha think?

 
  From: cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 5:08 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R  BLOG/ CLIP ONTM
  
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merlin vedamerlin@ wrote:
 
  ON THIS BLOG,
  THERE IS A REALLYÂ  USEFULL GREAT CLIP 
  
  JUST FROM A MEDITATOR ON TRANSCENDENTAL 
  
  MEDITATIONÂ Â  ( TM )
  
  ENJOY
  
  
  
  http://blog.practicebuildingcenter.com/best-secret-weapon-for-chiropractors-not-what-you-think/
 
 
 David Spector June 1, 2012 at 7:04 am # 
 I'm a meditation teacher and have practiced Transcendental Meditation for 41 
 years. This is the BEST introductory talk on TM I have ever heard by a 
 non-TM-teacher. Congratulations on the talk, and congratulations for being 
 perceptive enough to learn and practice TM.
 
 I love the refreshment and mental energy I get from my own practice.
 
 One correction: TM is not quite that expensive. Currently, the most expensive 
 country is the USA, where it costs $1500 for adults, less for children and 
 other categories.
 
 For people who like learning on their own, we distribute a transcending 
 course by mail for 4% of that price

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

You must *not* read all my posts as I mentioned early on that I felt the cost 
was not in line with the philosophy - i.e. if this is a technique being 
promoted to solve the world's ills and help mankind, than it should be priced 
to allow those who could most benefit (e.g. mid to low-income families) take 
advantage.  I have also noted numerous times the posts that state when I 
learned it, it was $30, back in the early days, etc. (I may have that figure 
wrong, but you get the drift).  I understand that there are scholarships, but I 
wouldn't qualify, as I am not poor enough yet, and would never subject my 
financial decisions to scrutiny of any kind.  Nor would I be able to jump on 
the guru bandwagon, persay, and I am not now, nor will I ever be, Hindu.  I 
don't dispute, however, the possible gains to one's life through 
understanding/availing oneself of the knowledge from Vedic tradition or any 
other long-standing tradition (e.g. acupuncture).  

Thanks for posting your comments.  I am interested in the technique in that one 
thing (and there are more) I respect is the mental clarity that many on this 
forum exhibit.  And, almost without exception, no one here has stated 
unequivocally (current or past members of the TMO) that TM does not/or did not 
benefit them and/ or created harm to the quality of their lives.  

I am looking for the practical benefits, really, and for $47, it seems like a 
viable option.  There are other viable options that resonate with me, such as 
mindfulness meditation.    



 From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 9:36 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R  BLOG/ CLIP ONTM
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:

 H. $1500 offends my sensibilities and my budget. 

Until recently, it was $2500. What amazes me more is
that you've been here all these months and only now
figured out what the technique that the TMers on this 
forum talk about as if it were the panacea for the
world's ills and are pushing so heavily actually 
COSTS.

 OTOH, I just looked up NSR and read the info on the 
 website. Started by a TM meditator. Intriguing really 
 and $47. Testimonials re: the benefits (although I 
 think testimonials are suspect, as negative ones would 
 never be published) are exactly what I am looking for. 

I shall now sit back and watch the fireworks. :-) That 
is, you might just be in for a bit of a concerted sales
pitch from those who still push out the idea that TM
is unique and that because it comes from a very, very
important long-established Vedic tradition it's worth 
every penny. I merely point out in advance that very few 
of the people saying this would be able to *afford* TM at
$1500 a pop these days, much less $2500, but they're more
than willing to pimp for the organization that feels it 
should or must cost that much. 

As for unique, I repost what I said the first time 
this particular technique came up. No one from the TM
is the bestest...so there crowd answered it then, and
none of them will be able to answer it now.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/126340

I'll even paste in below my comments from this post, so 
that if anyone dares to address them now, lurkers will 
know what they're talking about:

 Just as a topic for conversation, how is what these
 guys (both Benson and the Natural Stress Relief guys)
 did different from what Maharishi did?
 
 It has been pretty well established here that Guru Dev 
 never taught the TM technique, and that it was created 
 by Maharishi. Even the strongest TBs on this forum
 agree with this, although some claim he cognized it.
 
 It's also not a claim that Maharishi began his teach-
 ing career using only one mantra (one that no longer 
 appears in the official list). That's an established
 fact; I know people who learned TM back in the early
 days using this mantra, and as I remember there are 
 other people who have posted here have who also have
 friends who learned the single-mantra experimental
 technique during those early days. 
 
 It's also true that the official list of TM mantras
 has changed considerably over the years, and thus was
 clearly part of an *experiment* to find the one mantra 
 or a set of mantras that best produced the effect that 
 the experimenter (Maharishi) desired.
 
 It seems to me, therefore, that the only real difference
 between what these guys made up and what Maharishi made
 up is the trappings that accompanied what they made up.
 Maharishi chose to surround the technique that he made
 up (and tested on human subjects without knowing what the
 real results would be) with Hindu ceremonies (the puja) 
 and the insinuation that it was a traditional technique 
 that had been given to him by his teacher. 
 
 The other guys chose trappings that were more consistent 
 with having made something up (and tested it on human

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

Back to my questionwhat is checking?

 From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 8:59 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R  BLOG/ CLIP ONTM

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:

 H. Â $1500 offends my sensibilities 

Get a checking !

and my budget. Â OTOH, I just looked up NSR and read the info on the website. 
Â Started by a TM meditator. Â Intriguing really and $47. Â Testimonials re: 
the benefits (although I think testimonials are suspect, as negative ones would 
never be published) are exactly what I am looking for. Â Mentions checking. 
Â What is checking, exactly? Â 

  From: cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 5:08 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R  BLOG/ CLIP ONTM

 Â  

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

  ON THIS BLOG,
  THERE IS A REALLYÂ  USEFULL GREAT CLIP 

  JUST FROM A MEDITATOR ON TRANSCENDENTAL 

  MEDITATIONÂ Â  ( TM )

  ENJOY

  http://blog.practicebuildingcenter.com/best-secret-weapon-for-chiropractors-not-what-you-think/

 David Spector June 1, 2012 at 7:04 am # 
 I'm a meditation teacher and have practiced Transcendental Meditation for 41 
 years. This is the BEST introductory talk on TM I have ever heard by a 
 non-TM-teacher. Congratulations on the talk, and congratulations for being 
 perceptive enough to learn and practice TM.

 I love the refreshment and mental energy I get from my own practice.

 One correction: TM is not quite that expensive. Currently, the most expensive 
 country is the USA, where it costs $1500 for adults, less for children and 
 other categories.

 For people who like learning on their own, we distribute a transcending 
 course by mail for 4% of that price (we are also a 501(c)(3) nonprofit). It's 
 called Natural Stress Relief (NSR). We've become TM's primary competition. We 
 researched the effects of NSR and find that it reduces anxiety as much as TM 
 (it's the same mental technique, just taught differently). Our research is 
 published in peer-reviewed psychology journals.

 Thanks again for recommending transcending to chiropractors. It will make all 
 the difference in their lives. You are a great humanitarian.

 David Spector
 President,
 Natural Stress Relief/USA

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-03 Thread raunchydog

http://archive.tm.org/enjoy/lifetime.html

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:

 Back to my questionwhat is checking?

  From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 8:59 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R  BLOG/ CLIP ONTM

 Â  

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:

  H. ÃÂ $1500 offends my sensibilities 

 Get a checking !

 and my budget. ÃÂ OTOH, I just looked up NSR and read the info on the 
 website. ÃÂ Started by a TM meditator. ÃÂ Intriguing really and $47. 
 ÃÂ Testimonials re: the benefits (although I think testimonials are suspect, 
 as negative ones would never be published) are exactly what I am looking for. 
 ÃÂ Mentions checking. ÃÂ What is checking, exactly? ÃÂ 

   From: cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com
  To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 5:08 AM
  Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R  BLOG/ CLIP ONTM

  ÃÂ  

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

   ON THIS BLOG,
   THERE IS A REALLYÃÂ  USEFULL GREAT CLIP 

   JUST FROM A MEDITATOR ON TRANSCENDENTAL 

   MEDITATIONÃÂ ÃÂ  ( TM )

   ENJOY

   http://blog.practicebuildingcenter.com/best-secret-weapon-for-chiropractors-not-what-you-think/

  David Spector June 1, 2012 at 7:04 am # 
  I'm a meditation teacher and have practiced Transcendental Meditation for 
  41 years. This is the BEST introductory talk on TM I have ever heard by a 
  non-TM-teacher. Congratulations on the talk, and congratulations for being 
  perceptive enough to learn and practice TM.

  I love the refreshment and mental energy I get from my own practice.

  One correction: TM is not quite that expensive. Currently, the most 
  expensive country is the USA, where it costs $1500 for adults, less for 
  children and other categories.

  For people who like learning on their own, we distribute a transcending 
  course by mail for 4% of that price (we are also a 501(c)(3) nonprofit). 
  It's called Natural Stress Relief (NSR). We've become TM's primary 
  competition. We researched the effects of NSR and find that it reduces 
  anxiety as much as TM (it's the same mental technique, just taught 
  differently). Our research is published in peer-reviewed psychology 
  journals.

  Thanks again for recommending transcending to chiropractors. It will make 
  all the difference in their lives. You are a great humanitarian.

  David Spector
  President,
  Natural Stress Relief/USA

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
 
  H. Â $1500 offends my sensibilities 
 
 Get a checking !

Not helpful, Nabby.
 
 and my budget. OTOH, I just looked up NSR and read the info
 on the website. Started by a TM meditator. Intriguing really
 and $47. Testimonials re: the benefits (although I think 
 testimonials are suspect, as negative ones would never be 
 published) are exactly what I am looking for. Mentions
 checking. What is checking, exactly?

In TM, it's a standard procedure in which a TM teacher (or
certified checker) guides the meditator through a brief TM
session (somewhat similar to the procedure by which TM was
learned initially) and asks a short series of questions 
about the meditator's experience of the session to ensure
s/he is practicing correctly. The teacher uses a memorized
algorithm that includes many branches from the main route
designed to remedy specific problems that may be revealed
by the meditator's answers to the teacher's questions.

In essence, checking is a very abbreviated course in TM.
It takes about 30 minutes unless it reveals problems, in
which case it can take quite a bit longer. It's free in
the U.S. and available for the lifetime of the
meditator, as often as desired.

Checking is not designed to answer more than the most
rudimentary questions a meditator may have. It's
expected that the correct experience of TM provided
by the procedure will itself answer most questions.
Questions requiring more elaborate responses may be
asked at advanced lectures (free at the TM Center,
usually given weekly), which start with a group
meditation followed by a QA session before the
actual lecture.

It's recommended that even long-time, experienced
meditators who are not having any problems with their
meditation get checked occasionally (once a year or so).
For new meditators, it's recommended once a month for
the first year, I believe.



   From: cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com
  To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 5:08 AM
  Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R  BLOG/ CLIP ONTM
   
  
  Â  
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merlin vedamerlin@ wrote:
  
   ON THIS BLOG,
   THERE IS A REALLYÂ  USEFULL GREAT CLIP 
   
   JUST FROM A MEDITATOR ON TRANSCENDENTAL 
   
   MEDITATIONÂ Â  ( TM )
   
   ENJOY
   
   
   
   http://blog.practicebuildingcenter.com/best-secret-weapon-for-chiropractors-not-what-you-think/
  
  
  David Spector June 1, 2012 at 7:04 am # 
  I'm a meditation teacher and have practiced Transcendental Meditation for 
  41 years. This is the BEST introductory talk on TM I have ever heard by a 
  non-TM-teacher. Congratulations on the talk, and congratulations for being 
  perceptive enough to learn and practice TM.
  
  I love the refreshment and mental energy I get from my own practice.
  
  One correction: TM is not quite that expensive. Currently, the most 
  expensive country is the USA, where it costs $1500 for adults, less for 
  children and other categories.
  
  For people who like learning on their own, we distribute a transcending 
  course by mail for 4% of that price (we are also a 501(c)(3) nonprofit). 
  It's called Natural Stress Relief (NSR). We've become TM's primary 
  competition. We researched the effects of NSR and find that it reduces 
  anxiety as much as TM (it's the same mental technique, just taught 
  differently). Our research is published in peer-reviewed psychology 
  journals.
  
  Thanks again for recommending transcending to chiropractors. It will make 
  all the difference in their lives. You are a great humanitarian.
  
  David Spector
  President,
  Natural Stress Relief/USA

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
 
  H. $1500 offends my sensibilities and my budget. 
 
 Until recently, it was $2500. What amazes me more is
 that you've been here all these months and only now
 figured out what the technique that the TMers on this 
 forum talk about as if it were the panacea for the
 world's ills and are pushing so heavily actually 
 COSTS.

Right, it's astonishing just how stupid Emily is, isn't
it, Barry? That is, if you don't bother to read her
posts.

snip
  Just as a topic for conversation, how is what these
  guys (both Benson and the Natural Stress Relief guys)
  did different from what Maharishi did?

All three taught different techniques.

Next question?

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:

 You must *not* read all my posts as I mentioned early on that I felt the cost 
 was not in line with the philosophy - i.e. if this is a technique being 
 promoted to solve the world's ills and help mankind, than it should be priced 
 to allow those who could most benefit (e.g. mid to low-income families) take 
 advantage.

Why is that ?

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM



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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote:
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
  
   H. Â $1500 offends my sensibilities 
  
  Get a checking !
 
 Not helpful, Nabby.


Yes it is. If Emily had a checking and experieced TM in it's purity, she would 
come to the conclusion that 1500 for this technique is nothing, almost for 
free, IMO.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM



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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
 
  H. $1500 offends my sensibilities and my budget. 
 
 Until recently, it was $2500. What amazes me more is
 that you've been here all these months and only now
 figured out what the technique that the TMers on this 
 forum talk about as if it were the panacea for the
 world's ills and are pushing so heavily actually 
 COSTS.
 
  OTOH, I just looked up NSR and read the info on the 
  website. Started by a TM meditator. Intriguing really 
  and $47. Testimonials re: the benefits (although I 
  think testimonials are suspect, as negative ones would 
  never be published) are exactly what I am looking for. 
 
 I shall now sit back and watch the fireworks. :-) That 
 is, you might just be in for a bit of a concerted sales
 pitch from those who still push out the idea that TM
 is unique and that because it comes from a very, very
 important long-established Vedic tradition it's worth 
 every penny. I merely point out in advance that very few 
 of the people saying this would be able to *afford* TM at
 $1500 a pop these days, much less $2500, but they're more
 than willing to pimp for the organization that feels it 
 should or must cost that much. 


The Turq dropped out of TM more than 40 years ago. Had it not been for this 
fact he MIGHT have developed the Sidhi of seeing the financial status of the 
posters here. 
But he did drop out and he has no Sidhis. Yet he makes proclamations like the 
above, and many others drawn out of wishful thinking and thin air.

I guess getting old is a challenging sport for this particular character :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM



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

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
 
  You must *not* read all my posts as I mentioned early on that I felt the 
  cost was not in line with the philosophy - i.e. if this is a technique 
  being promoted to solve the world's ills and help mankind, than it should 
  be priced to allow those who could most benefit (e.g. mid to low-income 
  families) take advantage.
 
 Why is that ?


To clarify my question a bit; why do you think that mid to low-income families 
benefit more from TM than the above average-income families or the rich ?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

I don't actually think that mid to low-income families benefit more from TM 
than the above average-income families or the rich ?   I do think that those 
that struggle with the impacts of being low-income (I included the term mid 
because so many of us are now finding ourselves tending towards the lower end 
of that range in my subjective analysis in terms of the bubble we used to live 
in disappearing), have increased stress and anxiety in their lives around 
earning a living wage, maintaining housing, paying necessary bills, affording 
or having health care and dental care, eating decent food, sending their kids 
to college, etc., etc., etc.  When one is concerned about one's day to day 
survival and raising kids, one doesn't splurge on meditation instruction priced 
in the thousands - regardless of the benefits that may be accrued.  

I'm not weighing in on the merits of that decision, I'm just saying that is the 
reality.  And, there are millions of people out of work now who, why they might 
benefit enormously from such a practice, and might contribute mightily to 
global peace, it isn't going to happen if priced out of the ball park.  Why 
can't the practice be taught for a nominal fee, is what I want to know.  For 
the good of humanity, for the good of the planet, to reduce crime and pain and 
suffering, to move our species to a better spiritual place?  





From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 11:23 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R  BLOG/ CLIP ONTM





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

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
 
  You must *not* read all my posts as I mentioned early on that I felt the 
  cost was not in line with the philosophy - i.e. if this is a technique 
  being promoted to solve the world's ills and help mankind, than it should 
  be priced to allow those who could most benefit (e.g. mid to low-income 
  families) take advantage.
 
 Why is that ?


To clarify my question a bit; why do you think that mid to low-income families 
benefit more from TM than the above average-income families or the rich ?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

p.s.  don't give me the people value what they pay for platitude.  That's 
complete superficial BS in my book.  People value their health, their 
relationships, nature, etc. when it get down to the bottom line in life - those 
things you can't put a price on.  

- Original Message -
From: Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Cc: 
Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R  BLOG/ CLIP ONTM

I don't actually think that mid to low-income families benefit more from TM 
than the above average-income families or the rich ?   I do think that those 
that struggle with the impacts of being low-income (I included the term mid 
because so many of us are now finding ourselves tending towards the lower end 
of that range in my subjective analysis in terms of the bubble we used to live 
in disappearing), have increased stress and anxiety in their lives around 
earning a living wage, maintaining housing, paying necessary bills, affording 
or having health care and dental care, eating decent food, sending their kids 
to college, etc., etc., etc.  When one is concerned about one's day to day 
survival and raising kids, one doesn't splurge on meditation instruction priced 
in the thousands - regardless of the benefits that may be accrued.  

I'm not weighing in on the merits of that decision, I'm just saying that is the 
reality.  And, there are millions of people out of work now who, why they might 
benefit enormously from such a practice, and might contribute mightily to 
global peace, it isn't going to happen if priced out of the ball park.  Why 
can't the practice be taught for a nominal fee, is what I want to know.  For 
the good of humanity, for the good of the planet, to reduce crime and pain and 
suffering, to move our species to a better spiritual place?  

From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 11:23 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R  BLOG/ CLIP ONTM

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:

  You must *not* read all my posts as I mentioned early on that I felt the 
  cost was not in line with the philosophy - i.e. if this is a technique 
  being promoted to solve the world's ills and help mankind, than it should 
  be priced to allow those who could most benefit (e.g. mid to low-income 
  families) take advantage.

 Why is that ?

To clarify my question a bit; why do you think that mid to low-income families 
benefit more from TM than the above average-income families or the rich ?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-03 Thread Bhairitu

The BMs (Bliss Monkeys) will surely pile on and I see they already
have. Most of them have not tried anything else and only know TM.
That's kinda like sayin' the US is the greatest country on earth without
traveling anywhere. :-D

I have friends that after doing TM and even had an advanced technique
got instructed in Muktananda's basic meditation and said it was like a
super advanced technique. Meditation can be taught in a few short
sessions and one can charge for their time if they want. Basically a
skilled teacher can provide any follow up though it usually is not very
necessary. The 7 Steps are there for indoctrination more than
anything else.

On 06/03/2012 09:36 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reynemilymae.reyn@... wrote:
H. $1500 offends my sensibilities and my budget.
Until recently, it was $2500. What amazes me more is
that you've been here all these months and only now
figured out what the technique that the TMers on this
forum talk about as if it were the panacea for the
world's ills and are pushing so heavily actually
COSTS.

OTOH, I just looked up NSR and read the info on the
website. Started by a TM meditator. Intriguing really
and $47. Testimonials re: the benefits (although I
think testimonials are suspect, as negative ones would
never be published) are exactly what I am looking for.
I shall now sit back and watch the fireworks. :-) That
is, you might just be in for a bit of a concerted sales
pitch from those who still push out the idea that TM
is unique and that because it comes from a very, very
important long-established Vedic tradition it's worth
every penny. I merely point out in advance that very few
of the people saying this would be able to *afford* TM at
$1500 a pop these days, much less $2500, but they're more
than willing to pimp for the organization that feels it
should or must cost that much.

As for unique, I repost what I said the first time
this particular technique came up. No one from the TM
is the bestest...so there crowd answered it then, and
none of them will be able to answer it now.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/126340

I'll even paste in below my comments from this post, so
that if anyone dares to address them now, lurkers will
know what they're talking about:

Just as a topic for conversation, how is what these
guys (both Benson and the Natural Stress Relief guys)
did different from what Maharishi did?

It has been pretty well established here that Guru Dev
never taught the TM technique, and that it was created
by Maharishi. Even the strongest TBs on this forum
agree with this, although some claim he cognized it.

It's also not a claim that Maharishi began his teach-
ing career using only one mantra (one that no longer
appears in the official list). That's an established
fact; I know people who learned TM back in the early
days using this mantra, and as I remember there are
other people who have posted here have who also have
friends who learned the single-mantra experimental
technique during those early days.

It's also true that the official list of TM mantras
has changed considerably over the years, and thus was
clearly part of an *experiment* to find the one mantra
or a set of mantras that best produced the effect that
the experimenter (Maharishi) desired.

It seems to me, therefore, that the only real difference
between what these guys made up and what Maharishi made
up is the trappings that accompanied what they made up.
Maharishi chose to surround the technique that he made
up (and tested on human subjects without knowing what the
real results would be) with Hindu ceremonies (the puja)
and the insinuation that it was a traditional technique
that had been given to him by his teacher.

The other guys chose trappings that were more consistent
with having made something up (and tested it on human
subjects without knowing what the real results would be).
For the record, I know nothing about this technique or
the people teaching it. The fact that they claim peer-
reviewed studies but don't cite them is suspicious. But
in theory, speaking as a TM teacher trained by Maharishi
who instructed several thousand people myself, I see no
reason why their technique shouldn't work, with *at
least* the same efficacy as TM.

Those who feel otherwise should probably address the con-
cerns I raise above in their replies. Doncha think?

From: cardemaisterno_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 5:08 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ONTM

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merlinvedamerlin@ wrote:
ON THIS BLOG,
THERE IS A REALLYÂ USEFULL GREAT CLIP

JUST FROM A MEDITATOR ON TRANSCENDENTAL

MEDITATIONÂ Â ( TM )

ENJOY

http://blog.practicebuildingcenter.com/best-secret-weapon-for-chiropractors-not-what-you-think

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-03 Thread turquoiseb

, therefore, that the only real difference
  between what these guys made up and what Maharishi made
  up is the trappings that accompanied what they made up.
  Maharishi chose to surround the technique that he made
  up (and tested on human subjects without knowing what the
  real results would be) with Hindu ceremonies (the puja)
  and the insinuation that it was a traditional technique
  that had been given to him by his teacher.
 
  The other guys chose trappings that were more consistent
  with having made something up (and tested it on human
  subjects without knowing what the real results would be).
  For the record, I know nothing about this technique or
  the people teaching it. The fact that they claim peer-
  reviewed studies but don't cite them is suspicious. But
  in theory, speaking as a TM teacher trained by Maharishi
  who instructed several thousand people myself, I see no
  reason why their technique shouldn't work, with *at
  least* the same efficacy as TM.
 
  Those who feel otherwise should probably address the con-
  cerns I raise above in their replies. Doncha think?
 
  
From: cardemaisterno_re...@yahoogroups.com
  To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 5:08 AM
  Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R  BLOG/ CLIP ONTM
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merlinvedamerlin@  wrote:
  ON THIS BLOG,
  THERE IS A REALLYÂ  USEFULL GREAT CLIP
 
  JUST FROM A MEDITATOR ON TRANSCENDENTAL
 
  MEDITATIONÂ Â  ( TM )
 
  ENJOY
 
  http://blog.practicebuildingcenter.com/best-secret-weapon-for-chiropractors-not-what-you-think/
 
  David Spector June 1, 2012 at 7:04 am #
  I'm a meditation teacher and have practiced Transcendental Meditation for 
  41 years. This is the BEST introductory talk on TM I have ever heard by a 
  non-TM-teacher. Congratulations on the talk, and congratulations for being 
  perceptive enough to learn and practice TM.
 
  I love the refreshment and mental energy I get from my own practice.
 
  One correction: TM is not quite that expensive. Currently, the most 
  expensive country is the USA, where it costs $1500 for adults, less for 
  children and other categories.
 
  For people who like learning on their own, we distribute a transcending 
  course by mail for 4% of that price (we are also a 501(c)(3) nonprofit). 
  It's called Natural Stress Relief (NSR). We've become TM's primary 
  competition. We researched the effects of NSR and find that it reduces 
  anxiety as much as TM (it's the same mental technique, just taught 
  differently). Our research is published in peer-reviewed psychology 
  journals.
 
  Thanks again for recommending transcending to chiropractors. It will make 
  all the difference in their lives. You are a great humanitarian.
 
  David Spector
  President,
  Natural Stress Relief/USA

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-03 Thread Vaj


On Jun 3, 2012, at 11:45 AM, Emily Reyn wrote:

 H.  $1500 offends my sensibilities and my budget.  OTOH, I just looked up 
 NSR and read the info on the website.  Started by a TM meditator.  Intriguing 
 really and $47. 


And it used to be free on the various torrent sites.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-03 Thread sparaig

Shrug. If you believe that you can learn meditation over the internet, you can 
do what you want. 

My own intuition is that learning TM requires someone who has been trained to 
teach TM by presenting things in the proper order in the proper context. 
Someone who was trained to teach meditation in person, isn't qualified to 
develop their own brand x method of teaching just because they learned how to 
teach meditation in person.


But you already knew I was going to say this.

BTW, as far as I know, there are two published studies on that technique , one 
of which appears in pubmed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Natural%20Stress%20Relief%22%20meditation


L.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:

 H. Â $1500 offends my sensibilities and my budget. Â OTOH, I just looked 
 up NSR and read the info on the website. Â Started by a TM meditator. 
 Â Intriguing really and $47. Â Testimonials re: the benefits (although I 
 think testimonials are suspect, as negative ones would never be published) 
 are exactly what I am looking for. Â Mentions checking. Â What is checking, 
 exactly? Â 
 
 
 
  From: cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 5:08 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R  BLOG/ CLIP ONTM
  
 
 Â  
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merlin vedamerlin@ wrote:
 
  ON THIS BLOG,
  THERE IS A REALLYÂ  USEFULL GREAT CLIP 
  
  JUST FROM A MEDITATOR ON TRANSCENDENTAL 
  
  MEDITATIONÂ Â  ( TM )
  
  ENJOY
  
  
  
  http://blog.practicebuildingcenter.com/best-secret-weapon-for-chiropractors-not-what-you-think/
 
 
 David Spector June 1, 2012 at 7:04 am # 
 I'm a meditation teacher and have practiced Transcendental Meditation for 41 
 years. This is the BEST introductory talk on TM I have ever heard by a 
 non-TM-teacher. Congratulations on the talk, and congratulations for being 
 perceptive enough to learn and practice TM.
 
 I love the refreshment and mental energy I get from my own practice.
 
 One correction: TM is not quite that expensive. Currently, the most expensive 
 country is the USA, where it costs $1500 for adults, less for children and 
 other categories.
 
 For people who like learning on their own, we distribute a transcending 
 course by mail for 4% of that price (we are also a 501(c)(3) nonprofit). It's 
 called Natural Stress Relief (NSR). We've become TM's primary competition. We 
 researched the effects of NSR and find that it reduces anxiety as much as TM 
 (it's the same mental technique, just taught differently). Our research is 
 published in peer-reviewed psychology journals.
 
 Thanks again for recommending transcending to chiropractors. It will make all 
 the difference in their lives. You are a great humanitarian.
 
 David Spector
 President,
 Natural Stress Relief/USA

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-03 Thread sparaig

Eh, they tried the nominal fee thing, and few people continued for 40 years.

THey now teach TM for free in schools and prisons and halfway houses but the 
setting is such that they are encouraged to be regular.

We'll see if the people who learned for free in a school setting continue to be 
regularl any more than the people who paid $35 or $150 or $1500. Got 40 years 
til the results are in?


L.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:

 I don't actually think that mid to low-income families benefit more from TM 
 than the above average-income families or the rich ? Â  I do think that 
 those that struggle with the impacts of being low-income (I included the term 
 mid because so many of us are now finding ourselves tending towards the 
 lower end of that range in my subjective analysis in terms of the bubble we 
 used to live in disappearing), have increased stress and anxiety in their 
 lives around earning a living wage, maintaining housing, paying necessary 
 bills, affording or having health care and dental care, eating decent food, 
 sending their kids to college, etc., etc., etc. Â When one is concerned about 
 one's day to day survival and raising kids, one doesn't splurge on meditation 
 instruction priced in the thousands - regardless of the benefits that may be 
 accrued. Â 
 
 I'm not weighing in on the merits of that decision, I'm just saying that is 
 the reality. Â And, there are millions of people out of work now who, why 
 they might benefit enormously from such a practice, and might contribute 
 mightily to global peace, it isn't going to happen if priced out of the ball 
 park. Â Why can't the practice be taught for a nominal fee, is what I want to 
 know. Â For the good of humanity, for the good of the planet, to reduce crime 
 and pain and suffering, to move our species to a better spiritual place? Â 
 
 
 
 
 
 From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 11:23 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E RÂ Â BLOG/ CLIP ONÂ Â Â Â TM
 
 
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote:
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
  
   You must *not* read all my posts as I mentioned early on that I felt the 
   cost was not in line with the philosophy - i.e. if this is a technique 
   being promoted to solve the world's ills and help mankind, than it should 
   be priced to allow those who could most benefit (e.g. mid to low-income 
   families) take advantage.
  
  Why is that ?
 
 
 To clarify my question a bit; why do you think that mid to low-income 
 families benefit more from TM than the above average-income families or the 
 rich ?
 
 
  Â

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-03 Thread Vaj


On Jun 3, 2012, at 3:07 PM, Bhairitu wrote:

 The 7 Steps are there for indoctrination more than 
 anything else.


One thing found early on in independent TM research is that the mantra isn’t 
providing the signature relaxation response seen in TM - it’s the 
indoctrination and the expectation effects from that indoctrination. IOW, it’s 
a mood-making technique disguised as a bhāvatīta one. ;-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

2012-06-03 Thread sparaig



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

 
 On Jun 3, 2012, at 3:07 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
 
  The 7 Steps are there for indoctrination more than 
  anything else.
 
 
 One thing found early on in independent TM research is that the mantra 
 isnât providing the signature relaxation response seen in TM - itâs the 
 indoctrination and the expectation effects from that indoctrination. IOW, 
 itâs a mood-making technique disguised as a bhÄvatÄ«ta one. ;-)


In fact, the TM mantra was never claimed to provide the restful effect of TM, 
quite the opposite.

Om as a mantra, from a TM perspective, might be said to be *too* effective. 
Using the TM mantra is supposed to support the lifestyle of a householder that 
is, someone who isn't withdrawn from a normal life like a recluse is. Too much 
transcending too fast, is supposed to be counter-householder.

Note that there is no direct research on the effect of specific mantras during 
TM, but Patricia Carrington said that she found specific effects from specific 
mantras when testing her Clinically Simulated Meditation that was 
deliberately modeled on TM.  I have never found any published research on this 
when I did a pubmed search on her name, however.

L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

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

 The BMs (Bliss Monkeys) will surely pile on and I see they
 already have.

Well, no, you haven't seen that, Bhairitu. Nor has
Barry, poor old sod, been able to sit back and watch
the fireworks he so smugly predicted. You and he
both have this very weird delusion that your
predicting that something will happen is equivalent
to its actually happening.

I'll bet if you were asked a month from now what the
reaction was here to the Natural Stress Relief thing,
you'd both swear up and down that the TMers made a
huge fuss about it, because what you'll remember is
your predictions, not what really took place.


snip
 On 06/03/2012 09:36 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
snip
  I shall now sit back and watch the fireworks. :-)
snip

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:
snip
 And most here paid $35 to $75 to learn TM, but now
 have no problem justifying $2500, as long as it's
 other people who have to pay it.

When's the last time you saw a TMer here justifying
$2,500 to learn TM, Barry?

snip
 As for the cost of learning to meditate, I would 
 suggest that most who cleave to the TM Party Line
 have never bothered to check what it actually COSTS
 out there in the meditation marketplace. $75 is 
 actually *high* by most standards. 

And if we had checked, what difference do you imagine
it would have made?

snip
 The bottom line is simple and irrefutable. Any org
 that claims it has a form of meditation that could
 strongly benefit the world (much less save it, as
 TM claims) and that intentionally prices it such that
 only a few privileged people can afford it is LYING
 about its true intentions. That org is in it for 
 the money.

Unless, of course, they charge a high fee in countries
where folks can afford it and use the funds to
subsidize teaching in poorer countries. So not quite
as simple and irrefutable as you claim.

snip
   I shall now sit back and watch the fireworks. :-)

Sorry, they never happened.

   That
   is, you might just be in for a bit of a concerted sales
   pitch from those who still push out the idea that TM
   is unique and that because it comes from a very, very
   important long-established Vedic tradition it's worth
   every penny. I merely point out in advance that very few
   of the people saying this would be able to *afford* TM at
   $1500 a pop these days, much less $2500, but they're more
   than willing to pimp for the organization that feels it
   should or must cost that much.

Do readers here really get how much of what Barry merely
points out is made up out of whole cloth? He hasn't a
clue whether there are *any* here who couldn't afford to
pay $1,500 to learn TM these days. I certainly could. (On
the other hand, I'm not pimping for the TMO either; I don't
think it should cost that much even though I'd have no
trouble paying it.)

snip
   As for unique, I repost what I said the first time
   this particular technique came up. No one from the TM
   is the bestest...so there crowd answered it then, and
   none of them will be able to answer it now.

Note that I answered it, so Barry is talking through
his nether regions *again*. And he will never, of
course, acknowledge that he was wrong.

BTW, lurkers might want to note that no TMer says TM
is the bestest. Barry always needs to, shall we say,
embroider his characterizations of people he doesn't
agree with to make them look as dumb as he wishes
they were.

[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM