Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya

[Michael Jackson]

Do you happen to remember the name of the head of TM Europe person who told you 
all to hide from the eclipse rakshasas?





 From: salyavin808 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 3:30 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Now please tell us what was the deal on that? Why would they be afraid of an 
> eclipse and how did TM or its hidden and denied Hindu roots have a hand in 
> that?

Jyotish. It's a weird iron age belief that the movement of planets
against a random backdrop of stars has some sort of effect on our
lives. I know, crazy huh?

One of the things that was noticed is that sometimes the natural
order is upset, a comet appears during a war and forever on they
are seen as harbingers of doom when really they are just dirty
snowballs left over from the formation of the solar system. In
fact, there wouldn't be any water on Earth if it wasn't for comets.
This is why I prefer the new knowledge to the old. And was why I
didn't heed the TMOs advice and looked directly at comet Hale Bopp
when I was on a course in '97. One of the most beautiful things
I ever saw.

But anyway, jyotishees warn us that solar eclipses are "bad" times
and to witness one is to open your life to all sorts of bad karma
and demons that inhabit the world during times of temporary darkness.
I was working at UK HQ when the last full solar eclipse hit England.
I was highly excited at the chance to see one of natures miracles and
probably the ultimate free light show.

The head of TM europe (and a physics professor) warned us to stay
inside lest we reap the awful karmic dues you get from erm, standing
in a shadow (!) I was happy to point out the absurdity of being
scared, pointed out that the moon wasn't eating the sun and that even
if their was an astrological effect from witnessing an eclipse it
would be the same whether you were inside or out when it happened.

But these people aren't interested in logic or reason no matter how
much they go on about science. So, come the day I was the *only one*
on the roof of our rather stately home. Everyone else was cowering
in their offices. It was pathetic, my rapidly dwindling respect for
the intellectual underpinning of TM took a major hit that day.

And then I nearly blinded myself trying to take a photo of it
through a telephoto lens. Lucky there was no permanent damage, that would have 
been IT. Wouldn't have lived that one down

> 
>  From: salyavin808 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 1:09 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > I enjoy your sense of humor, puns and all, even if we're on different sides 
> > of the fence about TM, TMO, etc.  But I admit it is a stretch to picture 
> > you as a tough administrator, sending a screamer home (-:
> 
> Ooh yes Share, beware getting on the wrong side of me ;-)
> 
> > I started TM in March 1975 and came to MIU 6 months later.  I was 
> > totally clueless!  Now I've been around for over 35 years and lived in 
> > FF for the last 8 years, before that was on campus for 14 years either on 
> > staff or as a graduate student.  My point is that I'm not a newbie to 
> > all this.  And as I've gotten older I think I've become more accepting, 
> > more realistic.  And I know something about organizations and life on 
> > this planet.  So I have ceased to look for perfection or a lack of flaws 
> > in anyone or any group.  Heck I think such would be pretty boring 
> > anyway.  Maybe one way to say it is that my boundaries are simply 
> > different than those of some others here on FFL.  That also enhances 
> > life's richness (-:    
> 
> Accepting and realistic? You mean you put up with more crap?
> 
> I held the TMO to the standards they claimed for themselves and
> as such our working relationship didn't last very long! It's all
> very well claiming to be a perfect society but you've got to
> deliver the goods sooner or later. Perhaps I'm too demanding?
> 
> Anyway, it's the failure of the belief system to offer anything
> realistic that settled it for me. For instance, I couldn't stay with an 
> organisation that claimed to be science-based but where everyone hid in their 
> offices during an eclipse. Physics PHD's scared of shadows!
> 
> 
> >  From: salyavin808 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Friday, March 

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> It was always garbage like this that I hated even in the days I was a TM 
> junkie. When I started TM, I thought it was supposed to make one stronger, 
> happier, emotionally more stable, more fulfilled, more able to be in the 
> world. 
> 
> But with the kind of crap the TMO has always promoted and condoned like this 
> eclipse stuff, moving a whole village cuz the hill is too high, can't be in a 
> house with a south facing entrance, can't meditate with an animal in the 
> room, people get to the point where they just want to meditate all the time 
> and far from TM being preparation for activity, activity becomes the scary 
> lull between meditations. As Edg would say "Bah!"

Most people who practice TM, Michael, are not "TM junkies"
and don't pay any attention to the TMO's garbage.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya

[Michael Jackson]

It was always garbage like this that I hated even in the days I was a TM 
junkie. When I started TM, I thought it was supposed to make one stronger, 
happier, emotionally more stable, more fulfilled, more able to be in the world. 

But with the kind of crap the TMO has always promoted and condoned like this 
eclipse stuff, moving a whole village cuz the hill is too high, can't be in a 
house with a south facing entrance, can't meditate with an animal in the room, 
people get to the point where they just want to meditate all the time and far 
from TM being preparation for activity, activity becomes the scary lull between 
meditations. As Edg would say "Bah!"





 From: salyavin808 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 3:30 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Now please tell us what was the deal on that? Why would they be afraid of an 
> eclipse and how did TM or its hidden and denied Hindu roots have a hand in 
> that?

Jyotish. It's a weird iron age belief that the movement of planets
against a random backdrop of stars has some sort of effect on our
lives. I know, crazy huh?

One of the things that was noticed is that sometimes the natural
order is upset, a comet appears during a war and forever on they
are seen as harbingers of doom when really they are just dirty
snowballs left over from the formation of the solar system. In
fact, there wouldn't be any water on Earth if it wasn't for comets.
This is why I prefer the new knowledge to the old. And was why I
didn't heed the TMOs advice and looked directly at comet Hale Bopp
when I was on a course in '97. One of the most beautiful things
I ever saw.

But anyway, jyotishees warn us that solar eclipses are "bad" times
and to witness one is to open your life to all sorts of bad karma
and demons that inhabit the world during times of temporary darkness.
I was working at UK HQ when the last full solar eclipse hit England.
I was highly excited at the chance to see one of natures miracles and
probably the ultimate free light show.

The head of TM europe (and a physics professor) warned us to stay
inside lest we reap the awful karmic dues you get from erm, standing
in a shadow (!) I was happy to point out the absurdity of being
scared, pointed out that the moon wasn't eating the sun and that even
if their was an astrological effect from witnessing an eclipse it
would be the same whether you were inside or out when it happened.

But these people aren't interested in logic or reason no matter how
much they go on about science. So, come the day I was the *only one*
on the roof of our rather stately home. Everyone else was cowering
in their offices. It was pathetic, my rapidly dwindling respect for
the intellectual underpinning of TM took a major hit that day.

And then I nearly blinded myself trying to take a photo of it
through a telephoto lens. Lucky there was no permanent damage, that would have 
been IT. Wouldn't have lived that one down

> 
>  From: salyavin808 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 1:09 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > I enjoy your sense of humor, puns and all, even if we're on different sides 
> > of the fence about TM, TMO, etc.  But I admit it is a stretch to picture 
> > you as a tough administrator, sending a screamer home (-:
> 
> Ooh yes Share, beware getting on the wrong side of me ;-)
> 
> > I started TM in March 1975 and came to MIU 6 months later.  I was 
> > totally clueless!  Now I've been around for over 35 years and lived in 
> > FF for the last 8 years, before that was on campus for 14 years either on 
> > staff or as a graduate student.  My point is that I'm not a newbie to 
> > all this.  And as I've gotten older I think I've become more accepting, 
> > more realistic.  And I know something about organizations and life on 
> > this planet.  So I have ceased to look for perfection or a lack of flaws 
> > in anyone or any group.  Heck I think such would be pretty boring 
> > anyway.  Maybe one way to say it is that my boundaries are simply 
> > different than those of some others here on FFL.  That also enhances 
> > life's richness (-:    
> 
> Accepting and realistic? You mean you put up with more crap?
> 
> I held the TMO to the standards they claimed for themselves and
> as such our working relationship didn't last very long! It's all
> very well claiming to be a perfect soc

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Now please tell us what was the deal on that? Why would they be afraid 
> > > > of an eclipse and how did TM or its hidden and denied Hindu roots have 
> > > > a hand in that?
> > > 
> > > Jyotish. It's a weird iron age belief that the movement of planets
> > > against a random backdrop of stars has some sort of effect on our
> > > lives. I know, crazy huh?
> > > 
> > > One of the things that was noticed is that sometimes the natural
> > > order is upset, a comet appears during a war and forever on they
> > > are seen as harbingers of doom when really they are just dirty
> > > snowballs left over from the formation of the solar system. In
> > > fact, there wouldn't be any water on Earth if it wasn't for comets.
> > > This is why I prefer the new knowledge to the old. And was why I
> > > didn't heed the TMOs advice and looked directly at comet Hale Bopp
> > > when I was on a course in '97. One of the most beautiful things
> > > I ever saw.
> > > 
> > > But anyway, jyotishees warn us that solar eclipses are "bad" times
> > > and to witness one is to open your life to all sorts of bad karma
> > > and demons that inhabit the world during times of temporary darkness.
> > > I was working at UK HQ when the last full solar eclipse hit England.
> > > I was highly excited at the chance to see one of natures miracles and
> > > probably the ultimate free light show.
> > > 
> > > The head of TM europe (and a physics professor) warned us to stay
> > > inside lest we reap the awful karmic dues you get from erm, standing
> > > in a shadow (!) I was happy to point out the absurdity of being
> > > scared, pointed out that the moon wasn't eating the sun and that even
> > > if their was an astrological effect from witnessing an eclipse it
> > > would be the same whether you were inside or out when it happened.
> > > 
> > > But these people aren't interested in logic or reason no matter how
> > > much they go on about science. So, come the day I was the *only one*
> > > on the roof of our rather stately home. Everyone else was cowering
> > > in their offices. It was pathetic, my rapidly dwindling respect for
> > > the intellectual underpinning of TM took a major hit that day.
> > > 
> > > And then I nearly blinded myself trying to take a photo of it
> > > through a telephoto lens. Lucky there was no permanent damage, that would 
> > > have been IT. Wouldn't have lived that one down
> > 
> > Ha,ha, great story, loved every word of it! You remind me of me sometimes. 
> > I remember during my art major at MIU we always had to stop working in the 
> > middle of the morning and sit and meditate for 10 minutes. I hated that. I 
> > was right in the middle of come creative process and Michael Caine would 
> > say, "Okay class, 10 minute meditation break." I remember standing there 
> > flatly refusing to sit down, having a small hissy fit and Michael, being 
> > the cool and very nice man he was, let me keep working while the rest of 
> > the class sat and closed their eyes. Sometimes, this kind of thing just 
> > drove me CRAZY. I mean, how many times do you have to sit and do nothing 
> > during the day? Anyway, my point of this silly story is that I would have 
> > been right up on the roof with you, enjoying that eclipse and probably 
> > would have come down and pretended to be smitten with some sort of crazy or 
> > moon madness just to jerk their chains.
> 
> Damn, I didn't think of that. I was probably too busy trying not to
> spill hot water on myself or crash the car for a few days just in
> case I got a "told you so"
> 
> PS, No one objected to you working when they were meditating? 
> I probably would have done, I was fussy like that!

I stayed in another room trying to be quiet; luckily I wasn't sculpting any 
marble with a chisel or anything like that, everyone else was having their 10 
minutes of eyes closed. Luckily the people in the art major were the most 
individualistic students on campus (Curtis might disagree), the most liberal. 
So, they were fine with it.
> 
> PPS, We had the real Michael Caine filming a movie at that very
> academy. The movie was called "Quills" and also starred Kate 
> Winslet, I got my best T-shirt on the day she was there I can tell
> you. But she somehow failed to notice me.

Aw, poor you, but good try.
> 
> Found a clip of the old place:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrFu4owaED4

Gorgeous. Thanks for that.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > >
> > > Now please tell us what was the deal on that? Why would they be afraid of 
> > > an eclipse and how did TM or its hidden and denied Hindu roots have a 
> > > hand in that?
> > 
> > Jyotish. It's a weird iron age belief that the movement of planets
> > against a random backdrop of stars has some sort of effect on our
> > lives. I know, crazy huh?
> > 
> > One of the things that was noticed is that sometimes the natural
> > order is upset, a comet appears during a war and forever on they
> > are seen as harbingers of doom when really they are just dirty
> > snowballs left over from the formation of the solar system. In
> > fact, there wouldn't be any water on Earth if it wasn't for comets.
> > This is why I prefer the new knowledge to the old. And was why I
> > didn't heed the TMOs advice and looked directly at comet Hale Bopp
> > when I was on a course in '97. One of the most beautiful things
> > I ever saw.
> > 
> > But anyway, jyotishees warn us that solar eclipses are "bad" times
> > and to witness one is to open your life to all sorts of bad karma
> > and demons that inhabit the world during times of temporary darkness.
> > I was working at UK HQ when the last full solar eclipse hit England.
> > I was highly excited at the chance to see one of natures miracles and
> > probably the ultimate free light show.
> > 
> > The head of TM europe (and a physics professor) warned us to stay
> > inside lest we reap the awful karmic dues you get from erm, standing
> > in a shadow (!) I was happy to point out the absurdity of being
> > scared, pointed out that the moon wasn't eating the sun and that even
> > if their was an astrological effect from witnessing an eclipse it
> > would be the same whether you were inside or out when it happened.
> > 
> > But these people aren't interested in logic or reason no matter how
> > much they go on about science. So, come the day I was the *only one*
> > on the roof of our rather stately home. Everyone else was cowering
> > in their offices. It was pathetic, my rapidly dwindling respect for
> > the intellectual underpinning of TM took a major hit that day.
> > 
> > And then I nearly blinded myself trying to take a photo of it
> > through a telephoto lens. Lucky there was no permanent damage, that would 
> > have been IT. Wouldn't have lived that one down
> 
> Ha,ha, great story, loved every word of it! You remind me of me sometimes. I 
> remember during my art major at MIU we always had to stop working in the 
> middle of the morning and sit and meditate for 10 minutes. I hated that. I 
> was right in the middle of come creative process and Michael Caine would say, 
> "Okay class, 10 minute meditation break." I remember standing there flatly 
> refusing to sit down, having a small hissy fit and Michael, being the cool 
> and very nice man he was, let me keep working while the rest of the class sat 
> and closed their eyes. Sometimes, this kind of thing just drove me CRAZY. I 
> mean, how many times do you have to sit and do nothing during the day? 
> Anyway, my point of this silly story is that I would have been right up on 
> the roof with you, enjoying that eclipse and probably would have come down 
> and pretended to be smitten with some sort of crazy or moon madness just to 
> jerk their chains.

Damn, I didn't think of that. I was probably too busy trying not to
spill hot water on myself or crash the car for a few days just in
case I got a "told you so"

PS, No one objected to you working when they were meditating? 
I probably would have done, I was fussy like that!

PPS, We had the real Michael Caine filming a movie at that very
academy. The movie was called "Quills" and also starred Kate 
Winslet, I got my best T-shirt on the day she was there I can tell
you. But she somehow failed to notice me.

Found a clip of the old place:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrFu4owaED4

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > Now please tell us what was the deal on that? Why would they be afraid of 
> > an eclipse and how did TM or its hidden and denied Hindu roots have a hand 
> > in that?
> 
> Jyotish. It's a weird iron age belief that the movement of planets
> against a random backdrop of stars has some sort of effect on our
> lives. I know, crazy huh?
> 
> One of the things that was noticed is that sometimes the natural
> order is upset, a comet appears during a war and forever on they
> are seen as harbingers of doom when really they are just dirty
> snowballs left over from the formation of the solar system. In
> fact, there wouldn't be any water on Earth if it wasn't for comets.
> This is why I prefer the new knowledge to the old. And was why I
> didn't heed the TMOs advice and looked directly at comet Hale Bopp
> when I was on a course in '97. One of the most beautiful things
> I ever saw.
> 
> But anyway, jyotishees warn us that solar eclipses are "bad" times
> and to witness one is to open your life to all sorts of bad karma
> and demons that inhabit the world during times of temporary darkness.
> I was working at UK HQ when the last full solar eclipse hit England.
> I was highly excited at the chance to see one of natures miracles and
> probably the ultimate free light show.
> 
> The head of TM europe (and a physics professor) warned us to stay
> inside lest we reap the awful karmic dues you get from erm, standing
> in a shadow (!) I was happy to point out the absurdity of being
> scared, pointed out that the moon wasn't eating the sun and that even
> if their was an astrological effect from witnessing an eclipse it
> would be the same whether you were inside or out when it happened.
> 
> But these people aren't interested in logic or reason no matter how
> much they go on about science. So, come the day I was the *only one*
> on the roof of our rather stately home. Everyone else was cowering
> in their offices. It was pathetic, my rapidly dwindling respect for
> the intellectual underpinning of TM took a major hit that day.
> 
> And then I nearly blinded myself trying to take a photo of it
> through a telephoto lens. Lucky there was no permanent damage, that would 
> have been IT. Wouldn't have lived that one down

Ha,ha, great story, loved every word of it! You remind me of me sometimes. I 
remember during my art major at MIU we always had to stop working in the middle 
of the morning and sit and meditate for 10 minutes. I hated that. I was right 
in the middle of come creative process and Michael Caine would say, "Okay 
class, 10 minute meditation break." I remember standing there flatly refusing 
to sit down, having a small hissy fit and Michael, being the cool and very nice 
man he was, let me keep working while the rest of the class sat and closed 
their eyes. Sometimes, this kind of thing just drove me CRAZY. I mean, how many 
times do you have to sit and do nothing during the day? Anyway, my point of 
this silly story is that I would have been right up on the roof with you, 
enjoying that eclipse and probably would have come down and pretended to be 
smitten with some sort of crazy or moon madness just to jerk their chains.
> 
> 
> > 
> >  From: salyavin808 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 1:09 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya
> >  
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > I enjoy your sense of humor, puns and all, even if we're on different 
> > > sides of the fence about TM, TMO, etc.  But I admit it is a stretch to 
> > > picture you as a tough administrator, sending a screamer home (-:
> > 
> > Ooh yes Share, beware getting on the wrong side of me ;-)
> > 
> > > I started TM in March 1975 and came to MIU 6 months later.  I was 
> > > totally clueless!  Now I've been around for over 35 years and lived in 
> > > FF for the last 8 years, before that was on campus for 14 years either on 
> > > staff or as a graduate student.  My point is that I'm not a newbie to 
> > > all this.  And as I've gotten older I think I've become more 
> > > accepting, more realistic.  And I know something about organizations 
> > > and life on this planet.  So I have ceased to look for perfection or a 
> > > lack of flaws in anyone or any group.  Heck I think su

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
>
> Well, there IS a practical reason to avoid being outside during full 
> eclipses. Just about all of us would casually glance at that odd sight 
> without protection despite the warnings, and back in the stone age, doing so 
> might lead to total blindness because you wouldn't look away until the 
> phenomenon was over, by which time the UV would have burned out your retina.

Natural selection of beliefs. I like your thinking, it is a highly
odd thing to happen. Don't know if you ever had the pleasure but 
it's a really weird experience. The light disappears but not how 
it does at sunset, it doesn't go redder but it seems to drain the colour and 
contrast out of the day like a fading photograph. And 
then the birds stop singing and it gets cold and it feels like doomsday. Then 
you see the shadow of the moon racing across the 
land until it's over you and everything goes dark for a few minutes and the sun 
looks *amazing* and must have caused serious 
consternation for everyone in those days, you wouldn't know what 
was going on.

But for sun worshippers it must have been doubly terrifying and 
then they worked out it could be predicted! It must have seemed a  fearsome day 
if you were connected to day and night and the heavens like they were. The sun 
and moon are astrologically the most 
important parts of the sky and for them to meet.  

No excuses these days though, especially for physicists. I loved
seeing it because it reminded me of where I am, cosmically speaking,
it rams home the fact that we are on a large ball in space and that
there are other large balls just flying around in utterly predictable circles. 
Sure, we know it intellectually but to have it actually demonstrated by nature 
brings it home. Seeing the shadow of the moon is freaky, gives one a sense of 
the scale that the drama of the solar system is played out on. Did it for me 
anyway, most profound.



> L
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > >
> > > Now please tell us what was the deal on that? Why would they be afraid of 
> > > an eclipse and how did TM or its hidden and denied Hindu roots have a 
> > > hand in that?
> > 
> > Jyotish. It's a weird iron age belief that the movement of planets
> > against a random backdrop of stars has some sort of effect on our
> > lives. I know, crazy huh?
> > 
> > One of the things that was noticed is that sometimes the natural
> > order is upset, a comet appears during a war and forever on they
> > are seen as harbingers of doom when really they are just dirty
> > snowballs left over from the formation of the solar system. In
> > fact, there wouldn't be any water on Earth if it wasn't for comets.
> > This is why I prefer the new knowledge to the old. And was why I
> > didn't heed the TMOs advice and looked directly at comet Hale Bopp
> > when I was on a course in '97. One of the most beautiful things
> > I ever saw.
> > 
> > But anyway, jyotishees warn us that solar eclipses are "bad" times
> > and to witness one is to open your life to all sorts of bad karma
> > and demons that inhabit the world during times of temporary darkness.
> > I was working at UK HQ when the last full solar eclipse hit England.
> > I was highly excited at the chance to see one of natures miracles and
> > probably the ultimate free light show.
> > 
> > The head of TM europe (and a physics professor) warned us to stay
> > inside lest we reap the awful karmic dues you get from erm, standing
> > in a shadow (!) I was happy to point out the absurdity of being
> > scared, pointed out that the moon wasn't eating the sun and that even
> > if their was an astrological effect from witnessing an eclipse it
> > would be the same whether you were inside or out when it happened.
> > 
> > But these people aren't interested in logic or reason no matter how
> > much they go on about science. So, come the day I was the *only one*
> > on the roof of our rather stately home. Everyone else was cowering
> > in their offices. It was pathetic, my rapidly dwindling respect for
> > the intellectual underpinning of TM took a major hit that day.
> > 
> > And then I nearly blinded myself trying to take a photo of it
> > through a telephoto lens. Lucky there was no permanent damage, that would 
> > have been IT. Wouldn't have lived that one down
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > >  From: salyavin808 
> > 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Michael Jackson]

the flaw in your thinking is that the TMO is a "force of nature"! It is an 
organization that was intended to fill the coffers of Marshy's family and 
himself.

As to the idea that if we are having "good experiences" its ok what the 
teachers do - if you feel that way, there
 is no hope of you seeing differently

Let me illustrate - when my mother's second husband was a new Methodist 
minister, he was assigned to a small church here in SC. It was a nice place 
with nice people, but there was one male adult who was involved in the youth 
ministry that my step-father thought was a
 little TOO involved. He did lots of stuff with the young teen boys of the 
church. After watching this guy's behavior for a few weeks, he came to the 
conclusion that the guy was having inappropriate doings with these young boys. 

He talked
 to the boys and heard stories - then he went to the sheriffs office and found 
that in other places in the county the parents of several young boys had sworn 
out complaints against the man. But had later dropped the charges. 

This was in the late '60's when the idea of men with teenage boys just didn't 
have the recognition it has today. My step-father called his DS - that's 
District Superintendent in the Methodist church, and talked it over with him. 
As a new pastor he didn't want to do anything wrong, but he wanted to protect 
the youth of his church. So Floyd and his DS confronted the man who initially 
denied the allegations, but upon the DS and my step father producing the 
sheriff's report the man caved and admitted he had a problem and had paid off 
the parents of the other kids.

He begged them to not tell - said he would go to another church and asked them 
to transfer his membership to another Methodist church - which would have been 
my
 step-father's responsibility. My step-dad refused and told the man that he 
would alert any church the man became a member of that he had some unsavory 
proclivities. The guy was steamed and told them to leave. 

The next thing on Floyd's list was telling the board members of the church (the 
Deacons and Presbyters) why this man would no longer be a member of the 
congregation. Much to his surprise, some of them raised hell with him for 
turning this man out. They extolled the virtues of the work he had done at the 
church and one even said that the man "Put 25 dollars in the collection plate 
each and every week."

The TMO apologists are like the deacons wanting to keep the man in their church 
to continue his "valuable work" and so the church would receive his 25 dollars 
a week and just ignore his child molestation.





 From: Sharalyn 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 12:32 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
 

  
Why shoot the messenger? The TMO is not responsible for my personal experiences 
of significant benefits gained from the practice of TM. If my own direct 
experience has been positive, why should I judge the results I've had any 
differently just because a small select group behaves in ways I don't like? 

The TMO has one major responsibility: to protect the purity of the teachings. 
If they seem fundamentalistic or underdeveloped, it is none of our business 
because the TMO is a force of  nature set into motion by Maharishi, intended 
for this purpose, and that purpose is greater than any of us can fully 
appreciate. But just like us as individuals, the individuals in it are 
imperfect; they and the organization must evolve just as we do. 

> "how anyone can continue to praise TM while seeing and experiencing the 
> behavior of the TMO people is beyond me".
> 
> 


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya

[sparaig]

Well, there IS a practical reason to avoid being outside during full eclipses. 
Just about all of us would casually glance at that odd sight without protection 
despite the warnings, and back in the stone age, doing so might lead to total 
blindness because you wouldn't look away until the phenomenon was over, by 
which time the UV would have burned out your retina.



L

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > Now please tell us what was the deal on that? Why would they be afraid of 
> > an eclipse and how did TM or its hidden and denied Hindu roots have a hand 
> > in that?
> 
> Jyotish. It's a weird iron age belief that the movement of planets
> against a random backdrop of stars has some sort of effect on our
> lives. I know, crazy huh?
> 
> One of the things that was noticed is that sometimes the natural
> order is upset, a comet appears during a war and forever on they
> are seen as harbingers of doom when really they are just dirty
> snowballs left over from the formation of the solar system. In
> fact, there wouldn't be any water on Earth if it wasn't for comets.
> This is why I prefer the new knowledge to the old. And was why I
> didn't heed the TMOs advice and looked directly at comet Hale Bopp
> when I was on a course in '97. One of the most beautiful things
> I ever saw.
> 
> But anyway, jyotishees warn us that solar eclipses are "bad" times
> and to witness one is to open your life to all sorts of bad karma
> and demons that inhabit the world during times of temporary darkness.
> I was working at UK HQ when the last full solar eclipse hit England.
> I was highly excited at the chance to see one of natures miracles and
> probably the ultimate free light show.
> 
> The head of TM europe (and a physics professor) warned us to stay
> inside lest we reap the awful karmic dues you get from erm, standing
> in a shadow (!) I was happy to point out the absurdity of being
> scared, pointed out that the moon wasn't eating the sun and that even
> if their was an astrological effect from witnessing an eclipse it
> would be the same whether you were inside or out when it happened.
> 
> But these people aren't interested in logic or reason no matter how
> much they go on about science. So, come the day I was the *only one*
> on the roof of our rather stately home. Everyone else was cowering
> in their offices. It was pathetic, my rapidly dwindling respect for
> the intellectual underpinning of TM took a major hit that day.
> 
> And then I nearly blinded myself trying to take a photo of it
> through a telephoto lens. Lucky there was no permanent damage, that would 
> have been IT. Wouldn't have lived that one down
> 
> 
> > 
> >  From: salyavin808 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 1:09 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya
> >  
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > I enjoy your sense of humor, puns and all, even if we're on different 
> > > sides of the fence about TM, TMO, etc.  But I admit it is a stretch to 
> > > picture you as a tough administrator, sending a screamer home (-:
> > 
> > Ooh yes Share, beware getting on the wrong side of me ;-)
> > 
> > > I started TM in March 1975 and came to MIU 6 months later.  I was 
> > > totally clueless!  Now I've been around for over 35 years and lived in 
> > > FF for the last 8 years, before that was on campus for 14 years either on 
> > > staff or as a graduate student.  My point is that I'm not a newbie to 
> > > all this.  And as I've gotten older I think I've become more 
> > > accepting, more realistic.  And I know something about organizations 
> > > and life on this planet.  So I have ceased to look for perfection or a 
> > > lack of flaws in anyone or any group.  Heck I think such would be 
> > > pretty boring anyway.  Maybe one way to say it is that my boundaries 
> > > are simply different than those of some others here on FFL.  That also 
> > > enhances life's richness (-:    
> > 
> > Accepting and realistic? You mean you put up with more crap?
> > 
> > I held the TMO to the standards they claimed for themselves and
> > as such our working relationship didn't last very long! It's all
> > very well claiming to be a perfect society but you've 

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Now please tell us what was the deal on that? Why would they be afraid of an 
> eclipse and how did TM or its hidden and denied Hindu roots have a hand in 
> that?

Jyotish. It's a weird iron age belief that the movement of planets
against a random backdrop of stars has some sort of effect on our
lives. I know, crazy huh?

One of the things that was noticed is that sometimes the natural
order is upset, a comet appears during a war and forever on they
are seen as harbingers of doom when really they are just dirty
snowballs left over from the formation of the solar system. In
fact, there wouldn't be any water on Earth if it wasn't for comets.
This is why I prefer the new knowledge to the old. And was why I
didn't heed the TMOs advice and looked directly at comet Hale Bopp
when I was on a course in '97. One of the most beautiful things
I ever saw.

But anyway, jyotishees warn us that solar eclipses are "bad" times
and to witness one is to open your life to all sorts of bad karma
and demons that inhabit the world during times of temporary darkness.
I was working at UK HQ when the last full solar eclipse hit England.
I was highly excited at the chance to see one of natures miracles and
probably the ultimate free light show.

The head of TM europe (and a physics professor) warned us to stay
inside lest we reap the awful karmic dues you get from erm, standing
in a shadow (!) I was happy to point out the absurdity of being
scared, pointed out that the moon wasn't eating the sun and that even
if their was an astrological effect from witnessing an eclipse it
would be the same whether you were inside or out when it happened.

But these people aren't interested in logic or reason no matter how
much they go on about science. So, come the day I was the *only one*
on the roof of our rather stately home. Everyone else was cowering
in their offices. It was pathetic, my rapidly dwindling respect for
the intellectual underpinning of TM took a major hit that day.

And then I nearly blinded myself trying to take a photo of it
through a telephoto lens. Lucky there was no permanent damage, that would have 
been IT. Wouldn't have lived that one down


> 
>  From: salyavin808 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 1:09 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > I enjoy your sense of humor, puns and all, even if we're on different sides 
> > of the fence about TM, TMO, etc.  But I admit it is a stretch to picture 
> > you as a tough administrator, sending a screamer home (-:
> 
> Ooh yes Share, beware getting on the wrong side of me ;-)
> 
> > I started TM in March 1975 and came to MIU 6 months later.  I was 
> > totally clueless!  Now I've been around for over 35 years and lived in 
> > FF for the last 8 years, before that was on campus for 14 years either on 
> > staff or as a graduate student.  My point is that I'm not a newbie to 
> > all this.  And as I've gotten older I think I've become more accepting, 
> > more realistic.  And I know something about organizations and life on 
> > this planet.  So I have ceased to look for perfection or a lack of flaws 
> > in anyone or any group.  Heck I think such would be pretty boring 
> > anyway.  Maybe one way to say it is that my boundaries are simply 
> > different than those of some others here on FFL.  That also enhances 
> > life's richness (-:    
> 
> Accepting and realistic? You mean you put up with more crap?
> 
> I held the TMO to the standards they claimed for themselves and
> as such our working relationship didn't last very long! It's all
> very well claiming to be a perfect society but you've got to
> deliver the goods sooner or later. Perhaps I'm too demanding?
> 
> Anyway, it's the failure of the belief system to offer anything
> realistic that settled it for me. For instance, I couldn't stay with an 
> organisation that claimed to be science-based but where everyone hid in their 
> offices during an eclipse. Physics PHD's scared of shadows!
> 
> 
> >  From: salyavin808 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 11:06 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > What I meant is that for me it doesn't matter if they are enligh

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya

[Michael Jackson]

Now please tell us what was the deal on that? Why would they be afraid of an 
eclipse and how did TM or its hidden and denied Hindu roots have a hand in that?





 From: salyavin808 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 1:09 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> I enjoy your sense of humor, puns and all, even if we're on different sides 
> of the fence about TM, TMO, etc.  But I admit it is a stretch to picture you 
> as a tough administrator, sending a screamer home (-:

Ooh yes Share, beware getting on the wrong side of me ;-)

> I started TM in March 1975 and came to MIU 6 months later.  I was totally 
> clueless!  Now I've been around for over 35 years and lived in FF for the 
> last 8 years, before that was on campus for 14 years either on staff or as a 
> graduate student.  My point is that I'm not a newbie to all this.  And as 
> I've gotten older I think I've become more accepting, more realistic.  And I 
> know something about organizations and life on this planet.  So I have 
> ceased to look for perfection or a lack of flaws in anyone or any group.  
> Heck I think such would be pretty boring anyway.  Maybe one way to say it is 
> that my boundaries are simply different than those of some others here on 
> FFL.  That also enhances life's richness (-:    

Accepting and realistic? You mean you put up with more crap?

I held the TMO to the standards they claimed for themselves and
as such our working relationship didn't last very long! It's all
very well claiming to be a perfect society but you've got to
deliver the goods sooner or later. Perhaps I'm too demanding?

Anyway, it's the failure of the belief system to offer anything
realistic that settled it for me. For instance, I couldn't stay with an 
organisation that claimed to be science-based but where everyone hid in their 
offices during an eclipse. Physics PHD's scared of shadows!


>  From: salyavin808 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 11:06 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > What I meant is that for me it doesn't matter if they are enlightened or 
> > not.  What matters is how they treat me.  If I don't like how they 
> > treat me, then I don't engage.  If their treatment of another is wrong, 
> > then I do my best to stop it.  
> > I've never heard Hagelin laugh at Einstein or Newton.  But I haven't 
> > attended ALL his lectures either.
> 
> It was more a smug, superior sneer from Hagelin and a laugh from
> the crowd. They don't know better but he does.
> 
> > BTW, people haven't made noises, barnyard or otherwise, for a long time in 
> > the women's Dome.  I'll let Buck speak for the men (-:
> 
> I used to be in charge of the men's dome on courses. I never
> tolerated any stupid noises either, but there was a woman (who shall remain 
> nameless) who used to scream her head off and claimed that sidhi teachers had 
> told her it was OK for her as she was close to floating! 
> 
> She never did levitate of course, but what a disruptive influence on the 
> peace and quiet of the dome. And as a typically self-righteous governor and 
> she couldn't *possibly* be doing anything wrong. I got her banned, then sent 
> home. I was a tough administrator that's for
> sure!
> 
> > 
> > Doing my program is part of my life and enriches the rest of my life.  I 
> > have also not done program so I'm speaking from experience, not from theory.
> 
> I guess most who do it like it more than I did or they wouldn't
> persist with it! I hope that's the case, I felt much better after
> stopping YFing, the ups and downs* weren't worth it for what I'd 
> gained.
> 
> * I typed that without realising the pun :D
> 
> > 
> >  From: salyavin808 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 8:54 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > Evolution should be visible.  Is that true?  Can you 
> > > absolutely know that's true?
> > 
> > I think so.
> > 
> > How do we know someone (or anything) has evolved in any way unless
&

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> What I meant is that for me it doesn't matter if they are enlightened or 
> not.  What matters is how they treat me.  If I don't like how they treat 
> me, then I don't engage.  If their treatment of another is wrong, then I do 
> my best to stop it.  
> I've never heard Hagelin laugh at Einstein or Newton.  But I haven't 
> attended ALL his lectures either.
> 
> BTW, people haven't made noises, barnyard or otherwise, for a long time in 
> the women's Dome.  I'll let Buck speak for the men (-:
> 
> Doing my program is part of my life and enriches the rest of my life.  I 
> have also not done program so I'm speaking from experience, not from theory.

Kind of a funny insight I had reading your post just now. The word 'program'. 
As in programmable, to be programmed. I never saw it like that before.
> 
> 
> 
>  From: salyavin808 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 8:54 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Evolution should be visible.  Is that true?  Can you absolutely know 
> > that's true?
> 
> I think so.
> 
> How do we know someone (or anything) has evolved in any way unless
> it shows. In this instance, if someone is an aggressive or neurotic asshole 
> after many years of TM it's safe to conclude that it hasn't
> worked. I know a lot of people like this, they'll tell you it's the
> best thing ever though.
> 
>   Questions from Byron Katie's The Work.
> > And about YF:  I don't think it involves breaking the law of gravity. 
> >  I think it involves accessing a deeper law of laws that are yet to be 
> > discovered and or articulated.  This is my best guess.
> 
> That the law of gravity isn't being broken is a given. I had the
> deep, deep misfortune of seeing John Hagelin's lecture of the
> physics of yogic "flying". His basic contention is that we can
> think from the level of the Planck scale and influence the
> probability of quantum events into whatever desire we choose. 
> Thus gaining complete mastery over the laws of nature.
> 
> Apart from the rather obvious fact that no one has ever demonstrated
> mastery of anything other than jumping in a predictably parabolic
> fashion the idea doesn't stand up to the merest scrutiny. We can
> measure individual thoughts at the level they occur in the brain,
> they don't disappear beyond the quantum level just because you are
> meditating. They wouldn't exist there in the same way that nothing individual 
> exists at that level because everything at the quantum
> scale is indistinguishable. Not that you could detach thoughts from where 
> they are and shrink them billions of times or send them to "deeper" levels 
> anyway.
> 
> None of it makes a fart of sense in any way that I can see. It's so illogical 
> and preposterous it just makes me want to scream and pull what's left of my 
> hair out. But what gets me about it is the way Hagelin laughs at Einstein and 
> Newton, and the audience laughs along "They were so misguided. We know the 
> truth, we have mastery over nature" Bonkers cult weirdness, I would love to 
> lend it to some physicists I know but I'd hate them to die laughing.
> 
> My best guess after doing it religiously for ten years is that YF
> is a bunch of deludedly hopeful people jumping about making farmyard
> noises. And not a lot else. And I used to do demo's for the NLP!
> 
> Remove the beliefs and teaching about what is happening and you'll
> stop doing it by the end of the week. Guaranteed. And suddenly a whole new 
> wonderful vista opens up, it's called having time to do stuff other than sit 
> in the dome! I loved it when I quit the "sidhis" it 
> was like being born again, I can't explain why it took ten years but there 
> you go
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya

[Share Long]

Ok, you made me laugh again.  So to thank you for that and for the sake of 
discussion, let's say I put up with the crap!  But I've noticed that there's 
crap everywhere on this planet (-:
Good to learn how to deal with it as best as one can.  And ironically, I think 
TM helps me with that.  Yes, the Universe has a wonderful sense of humor.  And 
like I said, maybe one way to look at it is that my boundaries viz a viz crap 
are simply different than yours.  


PS  I don't think EVERYONE hid in their offices during eclipses!  Did they?!



 From: salyavin808 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 12:09 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> I enjoy your sense of humor, puns and all, even if we're on different sides 
> of the fence about TM, TMO, etc.  But I admit it is a stretch to picture you 
> as a tough administrator, sending a screamer home (-:

Ooh yes Share, beware getting on the wrong side of me ;-)

> I started TM in March 1975 and came to MIU 6 months later.  I was totally 
> clueless!  Now I've been around for over 35 years and lived in FF for the 
> last 8 years, before that was on campus for 14 years either on staff or as a 
> graduate student.  My point is that I'm not a newbie to all this.  And as 
> I've gotten older I think I've become more accepting, more realistic.  And I 
> know something about organizations and life on this planet.  So I have 
> ceased to look for perfection or a lack of flaws in anyone or any group.  
> Heck I think such would be pretty boring anyway.  Maybe one way to say it is 
> that my boundaries are simply different than those of some others here on 
> FFL.  That also enhances life's richness (-:    

Accepting and realistic? You mean you put up with more crap?

I held the TMO to the standards they claimed for themselves and
as such our working relationship didn't last very long! It's all
very well claiming to be a perfect society but you've got to
deliver the goods sooner or later. Perhaps I'm too demanding?

Anyway, it's the failure of the belief system to offer anything
realistic that settled it for me. For instance, I couldn't stay with an 
organisation that claimed to be science-based but where everyone hid in their 
offices during an eclipse. Physics PHD's scared of shadows!

____
>  From: salyavin808 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 11:06 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > What I meant is that for me it doesn't matter if they are enlightened or 
> > not.  What matters is how they treat me.  If I don't like how they 
> > treat me, then I don't engage.  If their treatment of another is wrong, 
> > then I do my best to stop it.  
> > I've never heard Hagelin laugh at Einstein or Newton.  But I haven't 
> > attended ALL his lectures either.
> 
> It was more a smug, superior sneer from Hagelin and a laugh from
> the crowd. They don't know better but he does.
> 
> > BTW, people haven't made noises, barnyard or otherwise, for a long time in 
> > the women's Dome.  I'll let Buck speak for the men (-:
> 
> I used to be in charge of the men's dome on courses. I never
> tolerated any stupid noises either, but there was a woman (who shall remain 
> nameless) who used to scream her head off and claimed that sidhi teachers had 
> told her it was OK for her as she was close to floating! 
> 
> She never did levitate of course, but what a disruptive influence on the 
> peace and quiet of the dome. And as a typically self-righteous governor and 
> she couldn't *possibly* be doing anything wrong. I got her banned, then sent 
> home. I was a tough administrator that's for
> sure!
> 
> > 
> > Doing my program is part of my life and enriches the rest of my life.  I 
> > have also not done program so I'm speaking from experience, not from theory.
> 
> I guess most who do it like it more than I did or they wouldn't
> persist with it! I hope that's the case, I felt much better after
> stopping YFing, the ups and downs* weren't worth it for what I'd 
> gained.
> 
> * I typed that without realising the pun :D
> 
> > 
> >  From: salyavin808 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 8:54 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Sa

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> I enjoy your sense of humor, puns and all, even if we're on different sides 
> of the fence about TM, TMO, etc.  But I admit it is a stretch to picture you 
> as a tough administrator, sending a screamer home (-:

Ooh yes Share, beware getting on the wrong side of me ;-)


> I started TM in March 1975 and came to MIU 6 months later.  I was totally 
> clueless!  Now I've been around for over 35 years and lived in FF for the 
> last 8 years, before that was on campus for 14 years either on staff or as a 
> graduate student.  My point is that I'm not a newbie to all this.  And as 
> I've gotten older I think I've become more accepting, more realistic.  And I 
> know something about organizations and life on this planet.  So I have 
> ceased to look for perfection or a lack of flaws in anyone or any group.  
> Heck I think such would be pretty boring anyway.  Maybe one way to say it is 
> that my boundaries are simply different than those of some others here on 
> FFL.  That also enhances life's richness (-:    

Accepting and realistic? You mean you put up with more crap?

I held the TMO to the standards they claimed for themselves and
as such our working relationship didn't last very long! It's all
very well claiming to be a perfect society but you've got to
deliver the goods sooner or later. Perhaps I'm too demanding?

Anyway, it's the failure of the belief system to offer anything
realistic that settled it for me. For instance, I couldn't stay with an 
organisation that claimed to be science-based but where everyone hid in their 
offices during an eclipse. Physics PHD's scared of shadows!


>  From: salyavin808 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 11:06 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > What I meant is that for me it doesn't matter if they are enlightened or 
> > not.  What matters is how they treat me.  If I don't like how they 
> > treat me, then I don't engage.  If their treatment of another is wrong, 
> > then I do my best to stop it.  
> > I've never heard Hagelin laugh at Einstein or Newton.  But I haven't 
> > attended ALL his lectures either.
> 
> It was more a smug, superior sneer from Hagelin and a laugh from
> the crowd. They don't know better but he does.
> 
> > BTW, people haven't made noises, barnyard or otherwise, for a long time in 
> > the women's Dome.  I'll let Buck speak for the men (-:
> 
> I used to be in charge of the men's dome on courses. I never
> tolerated any stupid noises either, but there was a woman (who shall remain 
> nameless) who used to scream her head off and claimed that sidhi teachers had 
> told her it was OK for her as she was close to floating! 
> 
> She never did levitate of course, but what a disruptive influence on the 
> peace and quiet of the dome. And as a typically self-righteous governor and 
> she couldn't *possibly* be doing anything wrong. I got her banned, then sent 
> home. I was a tough administrator that's for
> sure!
> 
> > 
> > Doing my program is part of my life and enriches the rest of my life.  I 
> > have also not done program so I'm speaking from experience, not from theory.
> 
> I guess most who do it like it more than I did or they wouldn't
> persist with it! I hope that's the case, I felt much better after
> stopping YFing, the ups and downs* weren't worth it for what I'd 
> gained.
> 
> * I typed that without realising the pun :D
> 
> > 
> >  From: salyavin808 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 8:54 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > Evolution should be visible.  Is that true?  Can you 
> > > absolutely know that's true?
> > 
> > I think so.
> > 
> > How do we know someone (or anything) has evolved in any way unless
> > it shows. In this instance, if someone is an aggressive or neurotic asshole 
> > after many years of TM it's safe to conclude that it hasn't
> > worked. I know a lot of people like this, they'll tell you it's the
> > best thing ever though.
> > 
> >   Questions from Byron Katie's The 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya

[Share Long]

I enjoy your sense of humor, puns and all, even if we're on different sides of 
the fence about TM, TMO, etc.  But I admit it is a stretch to picture you as a 
tough administrator, sending a screamer home (-:


I started TM in March 1975 and came to MIU 6 months later.  I was totally 
clueless!  Now I've been around for over 35 years and lived in FF for the last 
8 years, before that was on campus for 14 years either on staff or as a 
graduate student.  My point is that I'm not a newbie to all this.  And as I've 
gotten older I think I've become more accepting, more realistic.  And I know 
something about organizations and life on this planet.  So I have ceased to 
look for perfection or a lack of flaws in anyone or any group.  Heck I think 
such would be pretty boring anyway.  Maybe one way to say it is that my 
boundaries are simply different than those of some others here on FFL.  That 
also enhances life's richness (-:    



 From: salyavin808 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 11:06 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> What I meant is that for me it doesn't matter if they are enlightened or 
> not.  What matters is how they treat me.  If I don't like how they treat 
> me, then I don't engage.  If their treatment of another is wrong, then I do 
> my best to stop it.  
> I've never heard Hagelin laugh at Einstein or Newton.  But I haven't 
> attended ALL his lectures either.

It was more a smug, superior sneer from Hagelin and a laugh from
the crowd. They don't know better but he does.

> BTW, people haven't made noises, barnyard or otherwise, for a long time in 
> the women's Dome.  I'll let Buck speak for the men (-:

I used to be in charge of the men's dome on courses. I never
tolerated any stupid noises either, but there was a woman (who shall remain 
nameless) who used to scream her head off and claimed that sidhi teachers had 
told her it was OK for her as she was close to floating! 

She never did levitate of course, but what a disruptive influence on the peace 
and quiet of the dome. And as a typically self-righteous governor and she 
couldn't *possibly* be doing anything wrong. I got her banned, then sent home. 
I was a tough administrator that's for
sure!

> 
> Doing my program is part of my life and enriches the rest of my life.  I 
> have also not done program so I'm speaking from experience, not from theory.

I guess most who do it like it more than I did or they wouldn't
persist with it! I hope that's the case, I felt much better after
stopping YFing, the ups and downs* weren't worth it for what I'd 
gained.

* I typed that without realising the pun :D

> ________________
>  From: salyavin808 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 8:54 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Evolution should be visible.  Is that true?  Can you absolutely know 
> > that's true?
> 
> I think so.
> 
> How do we know someone (or anything) has evolved in any way unless
> it shows. In this instance, if someone is an aggressive or neurotic asshole 
> after many years of TM it's safe to conclude that it hasn't
> worked. I know a lot of people like this, they'll tell you it's the
> best thing ever though.
> 
>   Questions from Byron Katie's The Work.
> > And about YF:  I don't think it involves breaking the law of gravity. 
> >  I think it involves accessing a deeper law of laws that are yet to be 
> > discovered and or articulated.  This is my best guess.
> 
> That the law of gravity isn't being broken is a given. I had the
> deep, deep misfortune of seeing John Hagelin's lecture of the
> physics of yogic "flying". His basic contention is that we can
> think from the level of the Planck scale and influence the
> probability of quantum events into whatever desire we choose. 
> Thus gaining complete mastery over the laws of nature.
> 
> Apart from the rather obvious fact that no one has ever demonstrated
> mastery of anything other than jumping in a predictably parabolic
> fashion the idea doesn't stand up to the merest scrutiny. We can
> measure individual thoughts at the level they occur in the brain,
> they don't disappear beyond the quantum level just because you are
> meditating. They wouldn't exist there in the same way that nothing individual 
> exists at that level because everything at the quantum
> scale 

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> What I meant is that for me it doesn't matter if they are enlightened or 
> not.  What matters is how they treat me.  If I don't like how they treat 
> me, then I don't engage.  If their treatment of another is wrong, then I do 
> my best to stop it.  
> I've never heard Hagelin laugh at Einstein or Newton.  But I haven't 
> attended ALL his lectures either.

It was more a smug, superior sneer from Hagelin and a laugh from
the crowd. They don't know better but he does.
 
> BTW, people haven't made noises, barnyard or otherwise, for a long time in 
> the women's Dome.  I'll let Buck speak for the men (-:

I used to be in charge of the men's dome on courses. I never
tolerated any stupid noises either, but there was a woman (who shall remain 
nameless) who used to scream her head off and claimed that sidhi teachers had 
told her it was OK for her as she was close to floating! 

She never did levitate of course, but what a disruptive influence on the peace 
and quiet of the dome. And as a typically self-righteous governor and she 
couldn't *possibly* be doing anything wrong. I got her banned, then sent home. 
I was a tough administrator that's for
sure!


> 
> Doing my program is part of my life and enriches the rest of my life.  I 
> have also not done program so I'm speaking from experience, not from theory.

I guess most who do it like it more than I did or they wouldn't
persist with it! I hope that's the case, I felt much better after
stopping YFing, the ups and downs* weren't worth it for what I'd 
gained.

* I typed that without realising the pun :D


> ____
>  From: salyavin808 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 8:54 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Evolution should be visible.  Is that true?  Can you absolutely know 
> > that's true?
> 
> I think so.
> 
> How do we know someone (or anything) has evolved in any way unless
> it shows. In this instance, if someone is an aggressive or neurotic asshole 
> after many years of TM it's safe to conclude that it hasn't
> worked. I know a lot of people like this, they'll tell you it's the
> best thing ever though.
> 
>   Questions from Byron Katie's The Work.
> > And about YF:  I don't think it involves breaking the law of gravity. 
> >  I think it involves accessing a deeper law of laws that are yet to be 
> > discovered and or articulated.  This is my best guess.
> 
> That the law of gravity isn't being broken is a given. I had the
> deep, deep misfortune of seeing John Hagelin's lecture of the
> physics of yogic "flying". His basic contention is that we can
> think from the level of the Planck scale and influence the
> probability of quantum events into whatever desire we choose. 
> Thus gaining complete mastery over the laws of nature.
> 
> Apart from the rather obvious fact that no one has ever demonstrated
> mastery of anything other than jumping in a predictably parabolic
> fashion the idea doesn't stand up to the merest scrutiny. We can
> measure individual thoughts at the level they occur in the brain,
> they don't disappear beyond the quantum level just because you are
> meditating. They wouldn't exist there in the same way that nothing individual 
> exists at that level because everything at the quantum
> scale is indistinguishable. Not that you could detach thoughts from where 
> they are and shrink them billions of times or send them to "deeper" levels 
> anyway.
> 
> None of it makes a fart of sense in any way that I can see. It's so illogical 
> and preposterous it just makes me want to scream and pull what's left of my 
> hair out. But what gets me about it is the way Hagelin laughs at Einstein and 
> Newton, and the audience laughs along "They were so misguided. We know the 
> truth, we have mastery over nature" Bonkers cult weirdness, I would love to 
> lend it to some physicists I know but I'd hate them to die laughing.
> 
> My best guess after doing it religiously for ten years is that YF
> is a bunch of deludedly hopeful people jumping about making farmyard
> noises. And not a lot else. And I used to do demo's for the NLP!
> 
> Remove the beliefs and teaching about what is happening and you'll
> stop doing it by the end of the week. Guaranteed. And suddenly a whole new 
> wonderful vista opens up, it's called having time to do stuff other than sit 
> in the dome! I loved it when I quit the "sidhis" it 
> was like being born again, I can't explain why it took ten years but there 
> you go
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya

[Share Long]

What I meant is that for me it doesn't matter if they are enlightened or not.  
What matters is how they treat me.  If I don't like how they treat me, then I 
don't engage.  If their treatment of another is wrong, then I do my best to 
stop it.  
I've never heard Hagelin laugh at Einstein or Newton.  But I haven't attended 
ALL his lectures either.

BTW, people haven't made noises, barnyard or otherwise, for a long time in the 
women's Dome.  I'll let Buck speak for the men (-:

Doing my program is part of my life and enriches the rest of my life.  I have 
also not done program so I'm speaking from experience, not from theory.



 From: salyavin808 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 8:54 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Evolution should be visible.  Is that true?  Can you absolutely know that's 
> true?

I think so.

How do we know someone (or anything) has evolved in any way unless
it shows. In this instance, if someone is an aggressive or neurotic asshole 
after many years of TM it's safe to conclude that it hasn't
worked. I know a lot of people like this, they'll tell you it's the
best thing ever though.

  Questions from Byron Katie's The Work.
> And about YF:  I don't think it involves breaking the law of gravity.  I 
> think it involves accessing a deeper law of laws that are yet to be 
> discovered and or articulated.  This is my best guess.

That the law of gravity isn't being broken is a given. I had the
deep, deep misfortune of seeing John Hagelin's lecture of the
physics of yogic "flying". His basic contention is that we can
think from the level of the Planck scale and influence the
probability of quantum events into whatever desire we choose. 
Thus gaining complete mastery over the laws of nature.

Apart from the rather obvious fact that no one has ever demonstrated
mastery of anything other than jumping in a predictably parabolic
fashion the idea doesn't stand up to the merest scrutiny. We can
measure individual thoughts at the level they occur in the brain,
they don't disappear beyond the quantum level just because you are
meditating. They wouldn't exist there in the same way that nothing individual 
exists at that level because everything at the quantum
scale is indistinguishable. Not that you could detach thoughts from where they 
are and shrink them billions of times or send them to "deeper" levels anyway.

None of it makes a fart of sense in any way that I can see. It's so illogical 
and preposterous it just makes me want to scream and pull what's left of my 
hair out. But what gets me about it is the way Hagelin laughs at Einstein and 
Newton, and the audience laughs along "They were so misguided. We know the 
truth, we have mastery over nature" Bonkers cult weirdness, I would love to 
lend it to some physicists I know but I'd hate them to die laughing.

My best guess after doing it religiously for ten years is that YF
is a bunch of deludedly hopeful people jumping about making farmyard
noises. And not a lot else. And I used to do demo's for the NLP!

Remove the beliefs and teaching about what is happening and you'll
stop doing it by the end of the week. Guaranteed. And suddenly a whole new 
wonderful vista opens up, it's called having time to do stuff other than sit in 
the dome! I loved it when I quit the "sidhis" it 
was like being born again, I can't explain why it took ten years but there you 
go


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Evolution should be visible.  Is that true?  Can you absolutely know that's 
> true?

I think so.

How do we know someone (or anything) has evolved in any way unless
it shows. In this instance, if someone is an aggressive or neurotic asshole 
after many years of TM it's safe to conclude that it hasn't
worked. I know a lot of people like this, they'll tell you it's the
best thing ever though.

  Questions from Byron Katie's The Work.
> And about YF:  I don't think it involves breaking the law of gravity.  I 
> think it involves accessing a deeper law of laws that are yet to be 
> discovered and or articulated.  This is my best guess.


That the law of gravity isn't being broken is a given. I had the
deep, deep misfortune of seeing John Hagelin's lecture of the
physics of yogic "flying". His basic contention is that we can
think from the level of the Planck scale and influence the
probability of quantum events into whatever desire we choose. 
Thus gaining complete mastery over the laws of nature.

Apart from the rather obvious fact that no one has ever demonstrated
mastery of anything other than jumping in a predictably parabolic
fashion the idea doesn't stand up to the merest scrutiny. We can
measure individual thoughts at the level they occur in the brain,
they don't disappear beyond the quantum level just because you are
meditating. They wouldn't exist there in the same way that nothing individual 
exists at that level because everything at the quantum
scale is indistinguishable. Not that you could detach thoughts from where they 
are and shrink them billions of times or send them to "deeper" levels anyway.

None of it makes a fart of sense in any way that I can see. It's so illogical 
and preposterous it just makes me want to scream and pull what's left of my 
hair out. But what gets me about it is the way Hagelin laughs at Einstein and 
Newton, and the audience laughs along "They were so misguided. We know the 
truth, we have mastery over nature" Bonkers cult weirdness, I would love to 
lend it to some physicists I know but I'd hate them to die laughing.

My best guess after doing it religiously for ten years is that YF
is a bunch of deludedly hopeful people jumping about making farmyard
noises. And not a lot else. And I used to do demo's for the NLP!

Remove the beliefs and teaching about what is happening and you'll
stop doing it by the end of the week. Guaranteed. And suddenly a whole new 
wonderful vista opens up, it's called having time to do stuff other than sit in 
the dome! I loved it when I quit the "sidhis" it 
was like being born again, I can't explain why it took ten years but there you 
go

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to Salya

[Share Long]

Evolution should be visible.  Is that true?  Can you absolutely know that's 
true?  Questions from Byron Katie's The Work.
And about YF:  I don't think it involves breaking the law of gravity.  I think 
it involves accessing a deeper law of laws that are yet to be discovered and or 
articulated.  This is my best guess.


Back to the evolution question:  IMO it doesn't matter if they're evolved or 
not.  If I don't like how they're treating me, I will go elsewhere.



 From: salyavin808 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 2:37 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Sharalyn"  wrote:
>
> Why shoot the messenger? The TMO is not responsible for my personal 
> experiences of significant benefits gained from the practice of TM. If my own 
> direct experience has been positive, why should I judge the results I've had 
> any differently just because a small select group behaves in ways I don't 
> like? 
> 
> The TMO has one major responsibility: to protect the purity of the teachings. 
> If they seem fundamentalistic or underdeveloped, it is none of our business 
> because the TMO is a force of  nature set into motion by Maharishi, intended 
> for this purpose, and that purpose is greater than any of us can fully 
> appreciate. But just like us as individuals, the individuals in it are 
> imperfect; they and the organization must evolve just as we do. 

Shouldn't evolution be visible?

> > "how anyone can continue to praise TM while seeing and experiencing the 
> > behavior of the TMO people is beyond me".
> > 
> >
>


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[sparaig]

A few observations here:

1) people assume that one can judge TM by the behavior of TM teachers and 
Movement leaders, and while this is certainly an understandable position, it 
isn't necessarily safe to do so since one's own expectations about what is 
right and proper may not be the same as those involved at that level: 

MMY's criteria for someone becoming a leader of the TM organization appeared to 
be far more about toeing the party line and doing what you were told, then 
about creativity and intellectual/emotional maturity. In fact, one could make a 
case that a person  with high intellect who always worked things out logically, 
simply could NOT be an upstanding member of the upper echelons of the TM 
organization because much of MMY's behavior appeared to have been based on his 
own intuition, which, as demonstrated by his particular style of meditation, 
ran counter to almost everyone else's in the world.

In order to be willing to work with an individual like MMY, you needed to "have 
faith" in his long-term intuition. The attitude required for an intelligent 
person to work for MMY was summed up nicely by R. Keith Wallace just after the 
first World Yogic Flying Competition: 

"I always try to go along with what Maharishi says, with innocence and no 
expectations, and this was no exception. I thought to myself, 'sure, why not? 
It will be fun...'  But who would have thought that by doing the silliest, 
stupidest, most outrageous thing imaginable, that we would have generated the 
greatest wave of positive publicity in our Movement's history?"

People who got heavily involved with TM to the point that they wanted to work 
for the organization full-time, had to adopt that kind of attitude or they 
simply couldn't have survived the craziness of MMY's vision. As long as MMY's 
intuition was yielding positive results it was easy to "keep the faith." 
However, MMY's own intuition, by the nature of intuition, may not have made any 
sense to HIM, either, and his explanations for why he was doing things may have 
been as much about his own need for self-rationalizing his own behavior, as 
they were about actually explaining the purpose of a given action or plan. MMY 
likely didn't know why he was doing what he was doing either, so expecting him 
to have a really rational explanation for his actions was asking a bit much. 

CC is like that, or so I gather.

2) MMY's definition of enlightenment was very compressed and, as he always 
emphasized, needed to be evaluated from the perspective of different states of 
consciousness. The definition of CC that MMY gave encapsulated myriad nuances 
that people might not want to consider and again, MMY himself may not have 
caught them all, any more than a poet catches all the possible ways that his 
poem might be interpreted.

Consider the concept of stress, pure consciousness, and the process of growth 
towards CC, for example. MMY defined CC as "merely normal," where the stress 
levels of a person were sufficiently low that they never lost pure 
consciousness during any kind of activity, even during waking, dreaming or 
sleeping. But MMY also hinted that one could start to have CC-ish experiences 
even if one had never had a clear episode of pure consciousness during TM.

MMY also defined CC as a state where one always intuitively did the right 
thing, one never made mistakes, etc...

Combine those two definition, and one realizes that one  might be in some 
intermediate stage of CC where one's actions are always intuitively correct on 
some level, and yet still make lots of stupid mistakes, just like everyone 
else. At this level, the only mistake that you can be guaranteed not to make is 
the one that is sufficiently stressful that it takes you out of CC...  There's 
a lot of room there for making mistakes that don't increase your stress-levels 
to the point that you lose CC...

...and of course, the beginning stages of CC might not be permanent, even under 
normal stress levels of living, anyway.


3) a mission to "save the world" doesn't necessarily attract the most stable 
and successful/competent people in the first place, so expecting the TM 
organization to be run as well as the average business is a bit of a stretch. 

The internal workings of the TM organization can be seen as a combination of 
the incompetencies of everyone involved, from MMY  on down, as modified by 
rather rapid growing pains on the part of everyone involved, from MMY on down.

4) Finally, "success"  for the TM organization, might be defined differently in 
different stages of its existence. 

The final activities of MMY may not have made sense to anyone simply because he 
was suffering from dementia towards the end, OR they might have made perfect 
sense from the perspective of ensuring that the organization would survive past 
his death. I can easily see how both explanations might hold at the same time. 
He was doing his best, given the tools (including his own declining mental a

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > Its kind of paradoxical, and fucked up and sad too, that Buddha was such a 
> > great figure - Even looking at his form, enlivens our dignity and inner 
> > peace - yet, somehow his truth has become lost, other than that simple 
> > representation of Self, in his form. 
> >
> 
> Yeah, Interesting how things goe round and round.  Christians (Trappists) 
> look to the East for method to obtain spiritual experience they read about,  
> Buddhists look to David Lynch Foundation for method stripped down of 
> religion.  Old TM'ers look to other teachings for more method to supplement 
> where they are at with transcending.  They all support each other and 
> evidently are not in their experience exclusive. -Buck
>

"In the outer world of good and evil, when not a thought arises in the mind, 
that is called za [sitting].  Inwardly, to see one's own nature and not be 
moved, that is called Zen [meditation]."  -The Sixth Patriarch  
  
> > I have four Buddhas in my home. The largest is in the garden, ceramic with 
> > a stucco covering, lotus position, on a three-sided granite pedestal, a 
> > Japanese style bird bath at his feet. Then two in my studio/workshop, one 
> > palm sized ivory and the other larger, carved from wood. The fourth one is 
> > in the living room. I visited the magnificent Buddhist Temple, Borobudur, 
> > as a young child, and have never forgotten its immensity and magic (Yes, I 
> > did touch the heel of a Buddha there).
> > 
> > I also went to the temple of ten thousand Buddhas, in the New Territories 
> > of Hong Kong, or as we used to say, "Kowloon side". It is an amazing place. 
> > A huge, ornate golden statue of the Buddha, flanked by two more, and on 
> > shelves encircling all of this, is the balance of the ten thousand Buddhas, 
> > each about 16 inches high, perfectly finished, in either brass or gold 
> > plate, a brilliant gold color, and each one, holding a different position.
> > 
> > The last time I encountered an image of the Buddha was at San Francisco's 
> > Asian Art Museum, where I witnessed Buddhist monks and nuns creating an 
> > ethereal, beautiful portrait of a celestial figure, from colored sand.
> > 
> > The art inspired by Buddha is truly nourishing and unbelievably beautiful. 
> > It is a shame that there is no accessible technique within the Buddhist 
> > tradition, to accompany it.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > " Jimbo will keep claiming he's in CC"
> > > > 
> > > > I missed this misinformation earlier. I used to claim to be in CC, 
> > > > which I was. Man, was that painful! Just as it grew from TC, CC also 
> > > > supports higher states of consciousness. It must, just like a dirt pile 
> > > > supports a mountain. 
> > > > 
> > > > Wake up, and catch up, please. I have been climbing for awhile, now, 
> > > > since my proclamation of CC. It is no fun trying to run in place with 
> > > > you. 
> > > > 
> > > > Recognize that static awareness is not in the interest of someone 
> > > > making progress spiritually. There is nothing to defend in looking 
> > > > backwards, or remaining steadfastly in place.
> > > > 
> > > > You however, with your denial of your subjective reality, your own 
> > > > emotional awareness, what is sometimes called the shadow, or the 
> > > > subconscious, continue to be stuck.
> > > > 
> > > > The bad stuff, and the good stuff, sadly, for you, is always outside of 
> > > > you. You hide from your subjective reality, as many seekers do, 
> > > > believing that if the world would simply change to their liking, they 
> > > > would be happy.
> > > > 
> > > > You cherry pick the highlights of your outside life, while continuing 
> > > > to not recognize that these are not highlights. These are expressions 
> > > > of this creation, available 24/7.
> > > > 
> > > > *Unless you think you know better*. In that case, the creation 
> > > > graciously allows your denial of the gifts that could be yours, and 
> > > > allows you the continued existence of a childish life.
> > > > 
> > > > A childish life is hallmarked by the refusal to face one's shadow, 
> > > > living superstitiously as you do, with your senseless beliefs. I call 
> > > > them senseless, because they are not direct, they are not innocent. 
> > > > They are merely in place to hold YOU in place, to hold you down. 
> > > > 
> > > > A person living a childish life pays a great price for their web of 
> > > > beliefs in themselves. It is a self centered existence, which it has to 
> > > > be, having fear at its core. The lack of ability to see one's 
> > > > subjective self, one's emotions as they paint one's thoughts, the 
> > > > shadow, the subconscious, causes such a warping of life, that one lives 
> > > >

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[seventhray27]

Zendra Ashkenazi was her name.  I haven't seen her name in the
obituaries, which I check every day. (to see it any of my parent's
friends have passed away)  She was, as they say, "sharp as a tack", and
very funny.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
wrote:
> >
> >
> > My dad had a spell in the nursing home before he died. Of course I
was
> > glad that he was able to go home after a few months. But I would go
to
> > join him and his table for dinner, or a visit most every night. He
> > would say I didn't need to come, but what he didn't realize was that
I
> > really loved being there, at least at his table. It was he, two
other
> > guys and a very remarkable lady. I would alway gently try to coax
some
> > stories out of them, especially her. Good times for me.
>
> You are good man Steve. You can come and visit me in the nursing home
any day.
>
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Barry's just doing his old transference number. He is plainly
afraid
> > of his behavior in his last days. I have met many, many old people,
as I
> > both worked in a nursing home, and visited frequently when my dad
was
> > dying. The ones afraid of death will often latch onto a target in
their
> > last days and harp on it, unceasingly, no matter what it is.
Eventually,
> > the ability to distinguish between what is real, and what is twisted
by
> > their hidden fears, becomes lost.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
>
> 
> My dad had a spell in the nursing home before he died.  Of course I was
> glad that he was able to go home after a few months.  But I would go to
> join him and his table for dinner, or a visit most every night.  He
> would say I didn't need to come, but  what he didn't realize was that I
> really loved being there, at least at his table.  It was he,  two other
> guys and a very remarkable lady.  I would alway gently try to coax some
> stories out of them, especially her.  Good times for me.

You are good man Steve. You can come and visit me in the nursing home any day.

> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ 
> wrote:
> 
> > Barry's just doing his old transference number. He is plainly afraid
> of his behavior in his last days. I have met many, many old people, as I
> both worked in a nursing home, and visited frequently when my dad was
> dying. The ones afraid of death will often latch onto a target in their
> last days and harp on it, unceasingly, no matter what it is. Eventually,
> the ability to distinguish between what is real, and what is twisted by
> their hidden fears, becomes lost.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[seventhray27]

My dad had a spell in the nursing home before he died.  Of course I was
glad that he was able to go home after a few months.  But I would go to
join him and his table for dinner, or a visit most every night.  He
would say I didn't need to come, but  what he didn't realize was that I
really loved being there, at least at his table.  It was he,  two other
guys and a very remarkable lady.  I would alway gently try to coax some
stories out of them, especially her.  Good times for me.


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

> Barry's just doing his old transference number. He is plainly afraid
of his behavior in his last days. I have met many, many old people, as I
both worked in a nursing home, and visited frequently when my dad was
dying. The ones afraid of death will often latch onto a target in their
last days and harp on it, unceasingly, no matter what it is. Eventually,
the ability to distinguish between what is real, and what is twisted by
their hidden fears, becomes lost.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Sharalyn"  wrote:
>
> Why shoot the messenger? The TMO is not responsible for my personal 
> experiences of significant benefits gained from the practice of TM. If my own 
> direct experience has been positive, why should I judge the results I've had 
> any differently just because a small select group behaves in ways I don't 
> like? 
> 
> The TMO has one major responsibility: to protect the purity of the teachings. 
> If they seem fundamentalistic or underdeveloped, it is none of our business 
> because the TMO is a force of  nature set into motion by Maharishi, intended 
> for this purpose, and that purpose is greater than any of us can fully 
> appreciate. But just like us as individuals, the individuals in it are 
> imperfect; they and the organization must evolve just as we do. 

Shouldn't evolution be visible?
 
> > "how anyone can continue to praise TM while seeing and experiencing the 
> > behavior of the TMO people is beyond me".
> > 
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Sharalyn"  wrote:
>
> Why shoot the messenger? The TMO is not responsible for my personal 
> experiences of significant benefits gained from the practice of TM. If my own 
> direct experience has been positive, why should I judge the results I've had 
> any differently just because a small select group behaves in ways I don't 
> like? 
> 
> The TMO has one major responsibility: to protect the purity of the teachings. 
> If they seem fundamentalistic or underdeveloped, it is none of our business 
> because the TMO is a force of  nature set into motion by Maharishi, intended 
> for this purpose, and that purpose is greater than any of us can fully 
> appreciate. But just like us as individuals, the individuals in it are 
> imperfect; they and the organization must evolve just as we do. 


Well put Sharalyn !

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Yes, I see how you and others can see that I am saying and it may not seem 
> logical, but that is not exactly what I am saying. 



Topics to be added to the FFL list of what people on this list are concerned 
about: Early Senility Amongst Non-TM'ers !

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Sharalyn]

Why shoot the messenger? The TMO is not responsible for my personal experiences 
of significant benefits gained from the practice of TM. If my own direct 
experience has been positive, why should I judge the results I've had any 
differently just because a small select group behaves in ways I don't like? 

The TMO has one major responsibility: to protect the purity of the teachings. 
If they seem fundamentalistic or underdeveloped, it is none of our business 
because the TMO is a force of  nature set into motion by Maharishi, intended 
for this purpose, and that purpose is greater than any of us can fully 
appreciate. But just like us as individuals, the individuals in it are 
imperfect; they and the organization must evolve just as we do. 

> "how anyone can continue to praise TM while seeing and experiencing the 
> behavior of the TMO people is beyond me".
> 
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> Dear Micheal, 

snip..

You seem quite reasonable in your way.  


There hasn't been a less reasonable and more bitter soul here since Vaj graced 
us with his presence. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[seventhray27]

I guess it escapes your notice that you assert your POV as the only
*valid* POV, seemingly ignoring that others may have had different
experiences and come to different conclusions.
I mean your fist sentence makes sense. - that is,  *your* personal
experience.  But then you proceed to, what has become, your usual habit,
otodegrade any other possibilities, and for good measure, assuming that
others with a different experience are basically, just morons.
Which is fine, except, that you more or less any credibility in your
argument.  On the other hand, that is what you believe, so no need to
debate it.
And also, paragraph two continues with the same dismissive tone, which
asserts things which are contrary, at least to my experience, namely
having an experience of the "white pearl" * while in deep meditation. 
Methinks, that experience would not have come about without the benefit
of practicing Maharishi's technique, which I was doing at the time.
* I recall the the typical experience is that of a "blue pearl", but in
my experience,the pearl was white. (-:
Anyway, just some midday thoughts while at work.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson 
wrote:
>
> I base my statements not only on my personal experiences but on the
collective experiences of many many TM meditators who have had similar
experiences with long term TM'ers who work for the Movement - how anyone
can continue to praise TM while seeing and experiencing the behavior of
the TMO people is beyond me, except that they, as others have stated
here, just decide that what they were told by Marshy was true and the
fact that they felt rested after doing TM.
>
> And by the way, all the OTHER stuff that people experience like seeing
angels, and expanded awareness stuff like cosmic experiences in my mind
have nothing to do with TM or any meditation. If our awareness is really
a manifestation of Unbounded Awareness the experiences that people
credit to their particular technique/guru is within us waiting to be
experienced when we take our awareness within, regardless of the
technique or teacher, but in classic human fashion, we get attached to
the thing on the outside that we believe gave us the natural experience
inside.
>
>
>
>
> 
>  From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@...
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 8:28 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
>
>
> Â
> I think one flaw in your argument, Michael, is that you are
choosing to seperate out a group of individual with whom you have
had negative experiences, or negative perceptions and basing your
conclusions based on that group.
> I know many long term practicioners who display a completely different
set of behaviors, and who were having experiences, which we think of, as
enlightned, as long as 40 years ago.
> So, I come to different conclusions.Â
> You try to give the appearance of being logical, clear, and objective,
but in reality, I think you are falling short in all those areas. 
Although you are generally polite, and I think you do bring up good
points.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@
wrote:
> >
> > Spelling corrected, plus a little bit more:
> >
> > the hell they aren't - the energy with which Marshy created the
Movement has
> > ALWAYS shown itself in the behavior its leaders have exhibited - no
free
> > passes on the basis of "Oh, the technique is gd! but the people
who
> > have been practicing the longest just HAPPEN to be asses."
> >
> > If TM was all
> > these folks are claiming, it would not be possible for the numbers
of
> > TMO leaders to behave as they do - can't you see the correlation?
You
> > really think its an accident?
> >
> > Immersing your individual awareness into
> > Pure Awareness is supposed to clear, cleanse and make all aspects of
the
> > individual one with all the Laws of Nature - if 40 years or more of
> > practice consistently churns out people with the behavior of the TMO
> > leaders, then either there is something wrong with the technique or
with
> > the underlying premises on which the technique is based (like
whether
> > enlightenment itself can be experienced thru TM practice)
> >
> >
> > It is not an accident that the TMO leaders and managers in virtually
every TM facility that has ever existed have consistently shown
unpleasant and nasty behavior. It may have more to do with them
following the unpleasant and nasty behavior of Marshy, but those years
of TM should have done something to mitigate the jackass energy and
behavior - you can't speak in such supreme superlative terms about TM
and then claim "Oh, it only makes you better in terms of your thinking,
feeling an

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Michael Jackson]

yeah, because I had allergies - real class act, that!





 From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 11:26 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
 

  


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

But you gotta wonder why the behavior of arrogance, elitism, entitlement, 
mis-use of others, incompetence and more is so prevalent among long time TM 
leaders and managers.

Well they sacked you didn't they. That shows competence, IMO :-)


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Buck]

Dear Micheal, it could be a lot helpful to a lot of people and even the world 
if you should bring this up within dialogue with bevan and the president's 
office directly.  In the Dome recently there was a poster communicating that 
Bevan should like to hear from our people and gave his e-mail address as, 
presid...@mum.edu
  Given your experience your writing voice might well change if you try viewing 
the leadership as a direct reading audience as opposed to only alarming and 
warding off some public.  What would you say and how would you say it?  You 
seem quite reasonable in your way.  Explore a voice of writing these guys in 
dialogue directly.  The word seems to be out generally in all the media of the 
internet on TM and Maharishi.  You could help these guys deal with it.  As you 
might send something to them would you CC' it to FFL too?  Of service, it 
should be quite a beautiful thing to help them out that way.  Hope for the 
best. 
Jai Guru Dev,
-Buck 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Yes, I see how you and others can see that I am saying and it may not seem 
> logical, but that is not exactly what I am saying. What I am saying is that 
> IF TM is as superlative as it is advertised to be, that IF it repeatedly 
> clears the nervous system, mind and emotions of stress, and infuses the Light 
> of Pure Awareness into every fiber of a person's being and leads to the state 
> of "enlightenment" then it should be impossible for people who practice 
> everyday to have or develop the kinds of personality traits (or disorders) 
> that the TMO leaders and managers routinely exhibit.
> 
> If they were asses to begin with, that should change through the regular 
> practice of TM. If they were not that way to begin with, then they should not 
> begin to exhibit such behavior at all. 
> 
> To say that TM is the very bestest meditation on the planet as many here do 
> say, and say it has nothing to do with TM when people behave like the TMO 
> managers and leaders do is not credible. It means to me that TM, while it may 
> lead to feeling personally refreshed after TM, and maybe to inner exploration 
> doesn't do the bang up job claimed for it. TM is not responsible for the 
> unpleasant behavior of the TMO leaders, is it? But you gotta wonder why the 
> behavior of arrogance, elitism, entitlement, mis-use of others, incompetence 
> and more is so prevalent among long time TM leaders and managers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____
>  From: Ann 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 9:37 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > the hell they aren't - the energy that Marshy created the Movement has 
> > ALWAYS shown itself in the behavior it leaders have exhibited - no free 
> > passes on the basis of "Oh, the technique is gd! but the people who 
> > have been practicing the longest just HAPPEN to be asses. If TM was all 
> > these folks are claiming, it would not be possible for the numbers of TMO 
> > leaders to behave as they do - can't you see the correlation? You really 
> > think its an accident? Immersing your individual awareness into Pure 
> > Awareness is supposed to clear, cleanse and make all aspects of the 
> > individual one with all the Laws of Nature - if 40 years or more of 
> > practice consistently churn out people with the behavior of the TMO 
> > leaders, then either there is something wrong with the technique or with 
> > the underlying premises on which the technique is based (like whether 
> > enlightenment itself can be experienced thru TM practice) 
> 
> Well, I personally believe there is something terribly flawed about humanity 
> in general MJ. You could give someone heaven on earth and they'd still 
> somehow find a way to shit on it and still complain that life isn't fair. Or 
> become rampaging tyrants and slaughter thousands of people just because they 
> could. Now the question of whether MMY condoned and supported and encouraged 
> whatever behaviour that Bevan and all those other MEN you spoke about, that 
> is another matter and still doesn't really speak to the efficiency or potent 
> positive nature of TM that potentially resides within the technique.
> 
> So, what I am saying is give a man a bottle of booze to drink and some will 
> sing and laugh, others will beat their spouse and still others will sit and 
> cry. The end result of any substance ingested, book read or meditation 
> technique practiced still depends on the individual doing those things. I 
> mean, in once se

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[nablusoss1008]

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

But you gotta wonder why the behavior of arrogance, elitism, entitlement, 
mis-use of others, incompetence and more is so prevalent among long time TM 
leaders and managers.

Well they sacked you didn't they. That shows competence, IMO :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> >  Most of us are well aware that Maharishi in his
> > later days didn't live up to what he was like in the
> > "glory days of the TMO."
> 
> Now, now, wait Judy, what happened? That's a new tone from you.

No, it isn't, liar.




 Could you elaborate? You are not referring to Judith's book here, as what she 
described was way before. What do you mean specifically? The Rajas? (The Raja 
courses), 'damn democracy' and 'scorpio nation', the marketing of flying, 
changing the world by removing south entrances, or was it the Robin incident? 
Where do you start?
> 
> Btw. I agree that there is lots of good with Maharishi, and that the bad 
> doesn't cancel out the good. I don't quite see Maharishis impact like a TMTB, 
> but I see it still dominantly on the good side. But I guess, I have no 
> problem if somebody doesn't quite see it like that and provides a 'reality 
> check', which seems to be necessary at least to some here. Regard these 
> reality checks like a TM checking, they should be regular and don't harm.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Michael Jackson]

Yes, I see how you and others can see that I am saying and it may not seem 
logical, but that is not exactly what I am saying. What I am saying is that IF 
TM is as superlative as it is advertised to be, that IF it repeatedly clears 
the nervous system, mind and emotions of stress, and infuses the Light of Pure 
Awareness into every fiber of a person's being and leads to the state of 
"enlightenment" then it should be impossible for people who practice everyday 
to have or develop the kinds of personality traits (or disorders) that the TMO 
leaders and managers routinely exhibit.

If they were asses to begin with, that should change through the regular 
practice of TM. If they were not that way to begin with, then they should not 
begin to exhibit such behavior at all. 

To say that TM is the very bestest meditation on the planet as many here do 
say, and say it has nothing to do with TM when people behave like the TMO 
managers and leaders do is not credible. It means to me that TM, while it may 
lead to feeling personally refreshed after TM, and maybe to inner exploration 
doesn't do the bang up job claimed for it. TM is not responsible for the 
unpleasant behavior of the TMO leaders, is it? But you gotta wonder why the 
behavior of arrogance, elitism, entitlement, mis-use of others, incompetence 
and more is so prevalent among long time TM leaders and managers.






 From: Ann 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 9:37 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> the hell they aren't - the energy that Marshy created the Movement has ALWAYS 
> shown itself in the behavior it leaders have exhibited - no free passes on 
> the basis of "Oh, the technique is gd! but the people who have been 
> practicing the longest just HAPPEN to be asses. If TM was all these folks are 
> claiming, it would not be possible for the numbers of TMO leaders to behave 
> as they do - can't you see the correlation? You really think its an accident? 
> Immersing your individual awareness into Pure Awareness is supposed to clear, 
> cleanse and make all aspects of the individual one with all the Laws of 
> Nature - if 40 years or more of practice consistently churn out people with 
> the behavior of the TMO leaders, then either there is something wrong with 
> the technique or with the underlying premises on which the technique is based 
> (like whether enlightenment itself can be experienced thru TM practice) 

Well, I personally believe there is something terribly flawed about humanity in 
general MJ. You could give someone heaven on earth and they'd still somehow 
find a way to shit on it and still complain that life isn't fair. Or become 
rampaging tyrants and slaughter thousands of people just because they could. 
Now the question of whether MMY condoned and supported and encouraged whatever 
behaviour that Bevan and all those other MEN you spoke about, that is another 
matter and still doesn't really speak to the efficiency or potent positive 
nature of TM that potentially resides within the technique.

So, what I am saying is give a man a bottle of booze to drink and some will 
sing and laugh, others will beat their spouse and still others will sit and 
cry. The end result of any substance ingested, book read or meditation 
technique practiced still depends on the individual doing those things. I mean, 
in once sense you are proclaiming that practicing TM MAKES people assholes. 
That is as inaccurate as saying another person can make you happy or unhappy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Ann 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 11:48 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > It was rhetorical, actually - the man was many things, but enlightened or 
> > saint were not among those things. Enlightened men or women and saints do 
> > not leave behind the flotsam of destruction that Marshy left behind. People 
> > practicing the meditation of a saint do not turn out like Bevan, Neil, 
> > Tony, and many rajas, either. 
> 
> Oh ho, not so fast. What people do with the knowledge (or a practice) might 
> have nothing to do with the source. Human Beings are notorious for putting 
> their own spin on a thing. You can not hold responsible some book or some 
> teacher for what others do with the content. Bevan et al are not necessarily 
> the reflections of MMY or what he had to say just like children often turn 
> out very different from their parents. Great parents can still have rotten 
> children and horrible parents can e

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It was rhetorical, actually - the man was many things, but
> > > > enlightened or saint were not among those things. Enlightened
> > > > men or women and saints do not leave behind the flotsam of
> > > > destruction that Marshy left behind.
> > >
> > > For that matter, enlightened men probably do not spend
> > > their last days re-enacting King Lear and trying to get
> > > the people around him (who have already paid a million
> > > bucks each to wear crowns and robes and call themselves
> > > Rajas) to outbid one another to see who who can...uh...
> > > erect the most phallic monuments to his memory, in the
> > > form of the meaningless "Maharishi Towers Of Invincibility."
> > >
> > > It's really hard to get past the last act of *that* play,
> > > unless one is seriously, deeply, hopelessly in denial...
> >
> > Can you give us any insight into what he is doing now.  
> > I think you've covered most everything up to this point.
> 
> Steve, with all the "TM cheerleading" going down,

How many cheerleaders do you count and who are they? Not me and not anybody 
else here who is merely having a discussion and in the process are defining 
matters. Presenting alternate possibilities and discussing things is not, as 
you assert, "cheerleading". You just like to incite dissension and you insist 
on returning to the room where people are gathered to fart every once in a 
while. Anybody got any Glade?

> I just thought it would be useful for someone to
> interject a little reality 

Old news. Boring.

about the person so many

How many, who?

> are trying to portray as so saintly and enlightened.
> People KNOW how he spent his last days

Because you were there. Old men do fail Barry, even purportedly enlightened 
ones. Was he also slaughtering babies and stomping on puppies?

 (as I describe
> above), but they tend to put it out of signt and out
> of mind so that they can pedestalize Maharishi with
> an unrealistically positive set of memories about him.
> 
> I'm just trying to remind people 

Well, don't. We get it.

>that for every blissy,
> positive recollection they may have about MMY or the
> glory days of the TMO, there are other recollections
> that present different sides of the equation. I think
> that all sides should be considered and borne in mind,
> not just the ones the TBs *want* to remember.

Yes, Mr Rational and Balanced and Fair Minded.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> the hell they aren't - the energy that Marshy created the Movement has ALWAYS 
> shown itself in the behavior it leaders have exhibited - no free passes on 
> the basis of "Oh, the technique is gd! but the people who have been 
> practicing the longest just HAPPEN to be asses. If TM was all these folks are 
> claiming, it would not be possible for the numbers of TMO leaders to behave 
> as they do - can't you see the correlation? You really think its an accident? 
> Immersing your individual awareness into Pure Awareness is supposed to clear, 
> cleanse and make all aspects of the individual one with all the Laws of 
> Nature - if 40 years or more of practice consistently churn out people with 
> the behavior of the TMO leaders, then either there is something wrong with 
> the technique or with the underlying premises on which the technique is based 
> (like whether enlightenment itself can be experienced thru TM practice) 

Well, I personally believe there is something terribly flawed about humanity in 
general MJ. You could give someone heaven on earth and they'd still somehow 
find a way to shit on it and still complain that life isn't fair. Or become 
rampaging tyrants and slaughter thousands of people just because they could. 
Now the question of whether MMY condoned and supported and encouraged whatever 
behaviour that Bevan and all those other MEN you spoke about, that is another 
matter and still doesn't really speak to the efficiency or potent positive 
nature of TM that potentially resides within the technique.

So, what I am saying is give a man a bottle of booze to drink and some will 
sing and laugh, others will beat their spouse and still others will sit and 
cry. The end result of any substance ingested, book read or meditation 
technique practiced still depends on the individual doing those things. I mean, 
in once sense you are proclaiming that practicing TM MAKES people assholes. 
That is as inaccurate as saying another person can make you happy or unhappy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Ann 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 11:48 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > It was rhetorical, actually - the man was many things, but enlightened or 
> > saint were not among those things. Enlightened men or women and saints do 
> > not leave behind the flotsam of destruction that Marshy left behind. People 
> > practicing the meditation of a saint do not turn out like Bevan, Neil, 
> > Tony, and many rajas, either. 
> 
> Oh ho, not so fast. What people do with the knowledge (or a practice) might 
> have nothing to do with the source. Human Beings are notorious for putting 
> their own spin on a thing. You can not hold responsible some book or some 
> teacher for what others do with the content. Bevan et al are not necessarily 
> the reflections of MMY or what he had to say just like children often turn 
> out very different from their parents. Great parents can still have rotten 
> children and horrible parents can end up with great offspring. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: John 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:10 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > >
> > > How bout neither?
> > 
> > MJ,
> > 
> > Please, see my response to Judy on her reply to this question.  Then, you 
> > can find out about my position on this matter.
> > 
> > JR
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  From: John 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 11:22 AM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Outsi

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[doctordumbass]

"how anyone can continue to praise TM while seeing and experiencing the 
behavior of the TMO people is beyond me".

That is like saying, after visiting the Ford Motor Company and talking to that 
jerky CEO, I don't see how anyone can like their cars. I think what you meant 
to say was that you didn't see how anyone could work for the TMO, right? 
Otherwise, you sound like a bigot.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> I base my statements not only on my personal experiences but on the 
> collective experiences of many many TM meditators who have had similar 
> experiences with long term TM'ers who work for the Movement - how anyone can 
> continue to praise TM while seeing and experiencing the behavior of the TMO 
> people is beyond me, except that they, as others have stated here, just 
> decide that what they were told by Marshy was true and the fact that they 
> felt rested after doing TM.
> 
> And by the way, all the OTHER stuff that people experience like seeing 
> angels, and expanded awareness stuff like cosmic experiences in my mind have 
> nothing to do with TM or any meditation. If our awareness is really a 
> manifestation of Unbounded Awareness the experiences that people credit to 
> their particular technique/guru is within us waiting to be experienced when 
> we take our awareness within, regardless of the technique or teacher, but in 
> classic human fashion, we get attached to the thing on the outside that we 
> believe gave us the natural experience inside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: seventhray27 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 8:28 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
>  
> 
>   
> I think one flaw in your argument, Michael, is that you are choosing to 
> seperate out a group of individual with whom you have had negative 
> experiences, or negative perceptions and basing your conclusions based on 
> that group.
> I know many long term practicioners who display a completely different set of 
> behaviors, and who were having experiences, which we think of, as enlightned, 
> as long as 40 years ago.
> So, I come to different conclusions.  
> You try to give the appearance of being logical, clear, and objective, but in 
> reality, I think you are falling short in all those areas.  Although you are 
> generally polite, and I think you do bring up good points.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > Spelling corrected, plus a little bit more:
> > 
> > the hell they aren't - the energy with which Marshy created the Movement 
> > has 
> > ALWAYS shown itself in the behavior its leaders have exhibited - no free 
> > passes on the basis of "Oh, the technique is gd! but the people who 
> > have been practicing the longest just HAPPEN to be asses." 
> > 
> > If TM was all 
> > these folks are claiming, it would not be possible for the numbers of 
> > TMO leaders to behave as they do - can't you see the correlation? You 
> > really think its an accident? 
> > 
> > Immersing your individual awareness into 
> > Pure Awareness is supposed to clear, cleanse and make all aspects of the
> > individual one with all the Laws of Nature - if 40 years or more of 
> > practice consistently churns out people with the behavior of the TMO 
> > leaders, then either there is something wrong with the technique or with
> > the underlying premises on which the technique is based (like whether
> > enlightenment itself can be experienced thru TM practice) 
> > 
> > 
> > It is not an accident that the TMO leaders and managers in virtually every 
> > TM facility that has ever existed have consistently shown unpleasant and 
> > nasty behavior. It may have more to do with them following the unpleasant 
> > and nasty behavior of Marshy, but those years of TM should have done 
> > something to mitigate the jackass energy and behavior - you can't speak in 
> > such supreme superlative terms about TM and then claim "Oh, it only makes 
> > you better in terms of your thinking, feeling and behavior IF you let it."
> > 
> > If TM is so much better as some are claiming on the basis of its 
> > effortlessness, then if follows that the mighty benefits that are supposed 
> > to be accruing are also coming on an effortless basis. 
> > 
> > 
> > If you think logically you can't have it both ways. TM is effortless and 
> > has untold effects on the basis of the simple, natural, brilliant 
> > instructions Marshy gave with the mantras, yet it doesn't have 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Michael Jackson]

I base my statements not only on my personal experiences but on the collective 
experiences of many many TM meditators who have had similar experiences with 
long term TM'ers who work for the Movement - how anyone can continue to praise 
TM while seeing and experiencing the behavior of the TMO people is beyond me, 
except that they, as others have stated here, just decide that what they were 
told by Marshy was true and the fact that they felt rested after doing TM.

And by the way, all the OTHER stuff that people experience like seeing angels, 
and expanded awareness stuff like cosmic experiences in my mind have nothing to 
do with TM or any meditation. If our awareness is really a manifestation of 
Unbounded Awareness the experiences that people credit to their particular 
technique/guru is within us waiting to be experienced when we take our 
awareness within, regardless of the technique or teacher, but in classic human 
fashion, we get attached to the thing on the outside that we believe gave us 
the natural experience inside.





 From: seventhray27 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 8:28 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
 

  
I think one flaw in your argument, Michael, is that you are choosing to 
seperate out a group of individual with whom you have had negative experiences, 
or negative perceptions and basing your conclusions based on that group.
I know many long term practicioners who display a completely different set of 
behaviors, and who were having experiences, which we think of, as enlightned, 
as long as 40 years ago.
So, I come to different conclusions.  
You try to give the appearance of being logical, clear, and objective, but in 
reality, I think you are falling short in all those areas.  Although you are 
generally polite, and I think you do bring up good points.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Spelling corrected, plus a little bit more:
> 
> the hell they aren't - the energy with which Marshy created the Movement has 
> ALWAYS shown itself in the behavior its leaders have exhibited - no free 
> passes on the basis of "Oh, the technique is gd! but the people who 
> have been practicing the longest just HAPPEN to be asses." 
> 
> If TM was all 
> these folks are claiming, it would not be possible for the numbers of 
> TMO leaders to behave as they do - can't you see the correlation? You 
> really think its an accident? 
> 
> Immersing your individual awareness into 
> Pure Awareness is supposed to clear, cleanse and make all aspects of the
> individual one with all the Laws of Nature - if 40 years or more of 
> practice consistently churns out people with the behavior of the TMO 
> leaders, then either there is something wrong with the technique or with
> the underlying premises on which the technique is based (like whether
> enlightenment itself can be experienced thru TM practice) 
> 
> 
> It is not an accident that the TMO leaders and managers in virtually every TM 
> facility that has ever existed have consistently shown unpleasant and nasty 
> behavior. It may have more to do with them following the unpleasant and nasty 
> behavior of Marshy, but those years of TM should have done something to 
> mitigate the jackass energy and behavior - you can't speak in such supreme 
> superlative terms about TM and then claim "Oh, it only makes you better in 
> terms of your thinking, feeling and behavior IF you let it."
> 
> If TM is so much better as some are claiming on the basis of its 
> effortlessness, then if follows that the mighty benefits that are supposed to 
> be accruing are also coming on an effortless basis. 
> 
> 
> If you think logically you can't have it both ways. TM is effortless and has 
> untold effects on the basis of the simple, natural, brilliant instructions 
> Marshy gave with the mantras, yet it doesn't have any appreciable effect on 
> those who run the Movement. Not unless you want to take the Hagelin logic 
> path when he has been challenged on the supposed effects of group program 
> when he says just think how much worse it would have been if the yogic flying 
> groups hadn't been doing program!
> 
> By that thinking you could claim the TMO leaders and managers would have been 
> serial killers and insane people if they had not done TM. 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Ann awoelflebater@...
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 11:48 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote:
> >
> > It was rhetorical, actually - the man was many things, but enlighte

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[doctordumbass]

Speaking of nursing homes, the thing most counter-intuitive about my 
experience, was that it was the younger ones who were senile. Those who had 
lived their lives in denial of whatever, until Grace gives them what they have 
wished for, a loss of time, space, and memory of this world. Mental 
dissolution, followed by physical dissolution.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > (snip)
> > > Steve, with all the "TM cheerleading" going down,
> > > I just thought it would be useful for someone to
> > > interject a little reality about the person so many
> > > are trying to portray as so saintly and enlightened.
> > 
> > As long as we're injecting a little reality here, I
> > don't believe there's been much if any attempt in
> > recent days to portray Maharishi as saintly and
> > enlightened. Just about all the commentary on his
> > state of consciousness and the quality of his behavior
> > has come from the TM critics, and of course it's been
> > negative, not positive.
> > 
> > > People KNOW how he spent his last days (as I describe
> > > above), but they tend to put it out of signt and out
> > > of mind so that they can pedestalize Maharishi with
> > > an unrealistically positive set of memories about him.
> > 
> > Nobody's been doing that either. All but a couple of
> > the TM supporters here, as it happens, are pretty
> > objective about Maharishi.
> > 
> > IOW, Barry has been hallucinating again. That's what
> > he does when he has nothing substantive to contribute
> > to the discussion.
> > 
> > > I'm just trying to remind people that for every blissy,
> > > positive recollection they may have about MMY or the
> > > glory days of the TMO, there are other recollections
> > > that present different sides of the equation. I think
> > > that all sides should be considered and borne in mind,
> > > not just the ones the TBs *want* to remember.
> > 
> > Tell ya what, Barry, the next time someone comes up
> > with some blissy, positive recollection about Maharishi
> > or the glory days of the TMO, that would be the time to
> > issue your reminders. Nobody really needs to be reminded,
> > as it happens, but if it makes you feel better, by all
> > means indulge. You should realize, however, that these
> > "other recollections" don't somehow cancel out the good
> > ones. Most of us are well aware that Maharishi in his
> > later days didn't live up to what he was like in the
> > "glory days of the TMO."
> >
> Barry's just doing his old transference number. He is plainly afraid of his 
> behavior in his last days. I have met many, many old people, as I both worked 
> in a nursing home, and visited frequently when my dad was dying. The ones 
> afraid of death will often latch onto a target in their last days and harp on 
> it, unceasingly, no matter what it is. Eventually, the ability to distinguish 
> between what is real, and what is twisted by their hidden fears, becomes lost.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[doctordumbass]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> (snip)
> > Steve, with all the "TM cheerleading" going down,
> > I just thought it would be useful for someone to
> > interject a little reality about the person so many
> > are trying to portray as so saintly and enlightened.
> 
> As long as we're injecting a little reality here, I
> don't believe there's been much if any attempt in
> recent days to portray Maharishi as saintly and
> enlightened. Just about all the commentary on his
> state of consciousness and the quality of his behavior
> has come from the TM critics, and of course it's been
> negative, not positive.
> 
> > People KNOW how he spent his last days (as I describe
> > above), but they tend to put it out of signt and out
> > of mind so that they can pedestalize Maharishi with
> > an unrealistically positive set of memories about him.
> 
> Nobody's been doing that either. All but a couple of
> the TM supporters here, as it happens, are pretty
> objective about Maharishi.
> 
> IOW, Barry has been hallucinating again. That's what
> he does when he has nothing substantive to contribute
> to the discussion.
> 
> > I'm just trying to remind people that for every blissy,
> > positive recollection they may have about MMY or the
> > glory days of the TMO, there are other recollections
> > that present different sides of the equation. I think
> > that all sides should be considered and borne in mind,
> > not just the ones the TBs *want* to remember.
> 
> Tell ya what, Barry, the next time someone comes up
> with some blissy, positive recollection about Maharishi
> or the glory days of the TMO, that would be the time to
> issue your reminders. Nobody really needs to be reminded,
> as it happens, but if it makes you feel better, by all
> means indulge. You should realize, however, that these
> "other recollections" don't somehow cancel out the good
> ones. Most of us are well aware that Maharishi in his
> later days didn't live up to what he was like in the
> "glory days of the TMO."
>
Barry's just doing his old transference number. He is plainly afraid of his 
behavior in his last days. I have met many, many old people, as I both worked 
in a nursing home, and visited frequently when my dad was dying. The ones 
afraid of death will often latch onto a target in their last days and harp on 
it, unceasingly, no matter what it is. Eventually, the ability to distinguish 
between what is real, and what is twisted by their hidden fears, becomes lost.

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[doctordumbass]

LOL Yeah I don't recall ever seeing the questionnaire, either. Funny how 
atheists always let you know that they are, too, as if rank ignorance is now a 
badge of pride. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Doc, 
> > > > What a nice [first person] account.  It's quite charitable 
> > > > and also reads like an invitation. Thanks Doc, this should 
> > > > be dragged over to the current parallel FFL atheist thread 
> > > > too where the atheistic sophists are splitting epistemological 
> > > > hairs again. Last weekend I was over in Chicago and got a 
> > > > tour of the FermiLab where incredibly high-minded research 
> > > > continues to split particles down and down. A kind of a very 
> > > > Large game in materialism. It is an amazing place and a temple 
> > > > in its own atheistic right but for an evident general lack of 
> > > > experience in what they are after.   
> > > > 
> > > > A brochure handed out at FermiLab has an explanation where the 
> > > > first director of Fermi Lab was asked how the laboratory would 
> > > > help defend the United States?  Ans: "It has nothing to do 
> > > > directly with defending our country except to make it worth 
> > > > defending."
> > > > http://www.fnal.gov/
> > > > 
> > > > Thoreau, 'A life worth living'. 'Fairfield', is like the 
> > > > ongoing basic research in spiritual practice even for the 
> > > > enlightened in life.  
> > > 
> > > You may know that Enrico Fermi was an atheist, but did 
> > > you know that Henry David Thoreau was, too? Here are a 
> > > few more atheists you may have heard of:
> > > 
> > > Douglas Adams, Woody Allen, Isaac Asimov, Dave Barry, 
> > > Ingmar Bergman, Niels Bohr, Richard Branson, James 
> > > Cameron, George Carlin, John Carpenter, Asia Carrera, 
> > > Noam Chomsky, Jeremy Clarkson, Billy Connolly, Francis 
> > > Crick, David Cronenberg, David Cross, Alan Cumming, 
> > > Rodney Dangerfield, Richard Dawkins, Ani DiFranco, 
> > > Albert Einstein, Harlan Ellison, Richard Feynman, 
> > > Harvey Fierstein, Jodie Foster, Janeane Garofalo, Bill 
> > > Gates, Bob Geldof, Ricky Gervais, Ira Glass, Robert 
> > > Heinlein, Ernest Hemingway, Katharine Hepburn, 
> > > Christopher Hitchens, Eddie Izzard, Penn Jillette, 
> > > Billy Joel, Diane Keaton, Keira Knightley, John Landis, 
> > > Hugh Laurie, Richard Leakey, Bruce Lee, Tom Lehrer, 
> > > John Lennon, James Lipton, H.P. Lovecraft, Ernst Mach, 
> > > Seth MacFarlane, Bill Maher, John Malkovich, Barry 
> > > Manilow, Todd McFarlane, Sir Ian McKellen, Arthur 
> > > Miller, Claude Monet, Julianne Moore, Rafael Nadal, 
> > > Randy Newman, Mike Nichols, Jack Nicholson, Gary Numan, 
> > > Bob Odenkirk, Patton Oswalt, Camille Paglia, Trey Parker, 
> > > Paula Poundstone, Terry Pratchett, Robin Quivers, James 
> > > Randi, Ron Reagan Jr., Rob Reiner, Keanu Reeves, Gene 
> > > Roddenberry, Henry Rollins, Andy Rooney, Salman Rushdie, 
> > > Adam Savage, Brian Sapient, Erwin Schrödinger, Bob Simon, 
> > > Steven Soderbergh, Annika Sorenstam, George Soros, 
> > > Howard Stern, Matt Stone, Julia Sweeney, Studs Terkel, 
> > > Pat Tillman, Alan Turing, Eddie Vedder, Gore Vidal, 
> > > Vincent van Gogh, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Steven Weinberg, 
> > > Joss Whedon, Ted Williams, and Steve Wozniak.
> > > 
> > > Maybe their names are recognizable because they actually
> > > DID things rather than sitting around believing in or 
> > > praying to guys who don't exist. :-)
> > >
> > A list can always be made, of those with some oddity to them. It is like 
> > making a list of all past members of Congress with wooden legs. Big deal.
> > 
> > These names appear significant on this list, because there are so *few* of 
> > them. You are dealing with a severe minority here. I am not sure how 
> > pointing that out helps your case. 
> > 
> > PS My guess is that you suck at chess, too.
> 
> I wonder when they handed out the questionnaire asking the world if they were 
> atheists or not and then who bothered to publish this list and then who cared 
> enough to read it. 
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[seventhray27]

I think one flaw in your argument, Michael, is that you are choosing to
seperate out a group of individual with whom you have had negative
experiences, or negative perceptions and basing your conclusions based
on that group.

I know many long term practicioners who display a completely different
set of behaviors, and who were having experiences, which we think of, as
enlightned, as long as 40 years ago.

So, I come to different conclusions.

You try to give the appearance of being logical, clear, and objective,
but in reality, I think you are falling short in all those areas. 
Although you are generally polite, and I think you do bring up good
points.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson 
wrote:
>
> Spelling corrected, plus a little bit more:
>
> the hell they aren't - the energy with which Marshy created the
Movement has
> ALWAYS shown itself in the behavior its leaders have exhibited - no
free
> passes on the basis of "Oh, the technique is gd! but the people
who
> have been practicing the longest just HAPPEN to be asses."
>
> If TM was all
> these folks are claiming, it would not be possible for the numbers of
> TMO leaders to behave as they do - can't you see the correlation? You
> really think its an accident?
>
> Immersing your individual awareness into
> Pure Awareness is supposed to clear, cleanse and make all aspects of
the
> individual one with all the Laws of Nature - if 40 years or more of
> practice consistently churns out people with the behavior of the TMO
> leaders, then either there is something wrong with the technique or
with
> the underlying premises on which the technique is based (like whether
> enlightenment itself can be experienced thru TM practice)
>
>
> It is not an accident that the TMO leaders and managers in virtually
every TM facility that has ever existed have consistently shown
unpleasant and nasty behavior. It may have more to do with them
following the unpleasant and nasty behavior of Marshy, but those years
of TM should have done something to mitigate the jackass energy and
behavior - you can't speak in such supreme superlative terms about TM
and then claim "Oh, it only makes you better in terms of your thinking,
feeling and behavior IF you let it."
>
> If TM is so much better as some are claiming on the basis of its
effortlessness, then if follows that the mighty benefits that are
supposed to be accruing are also coming on an effortless basis.
>
>
> If you think logically you can't have it both ways. TM is effortless
and has untold effects on the basis of the simple, natural, brilliant
instructions Marshy gave with the mantras, yet it doesn't have any
appreciable effect on those who run the Movement. Not unless you want to
take the Hagelin logic path when he has been challenged on the supposed
effects of group program when he says just think how much worse it would
have been if the yogic flying groups hadn't been doing program!
>
> By that thinking you could claim the TMO leaders and managers would
have been serial killers and insane people if they had not done TM.
>
>
> ________________
> From: Ann awoelflebater@...
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 11:48 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
>
>
> Â
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote:
> >
> > It was rhetorical, actually - the man was many things, but
enlightened or saint were not among those things. Enlightened men or
women and saints do not leave behind the flotsam of destruction that
Marshy left behind. People practicing the meditation of a saint do not
turn out like Bevan, Neil, Tony, and many rajas, either.
>
> Oh ho, not so fast. What people do with the knowledge (or a practice)
might have nothing to do with the source. Human Beings are notorious for
putting their own spin on a thing. You can not hold responsible some
book or some teacher for what others do with the content. Bevan et al
are not necessarily the reflections of MMY or what he had to say just
like children often turn out very different from their parents. Great
parents can still have rotten children and horrible parents can end up
with great offspring.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> > From: John
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:10 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote:
> > >
> > > How bout neither?
> >
> > MJ,
> >
> > Please, see my response to Judy on her reply to this question. Then,
you can find out about my position on this 

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[seventhray27]

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

> Steve, with all the "TM cheerleading" going down,
> I just thought it would be useful for someone to
> interject a little reality about the person so many
> are trying to portray as so saintly and enlightened.
> People KNOW how he spent his last days (as I describe
> above), but they tend to put it out of signt and out
> of mind so that they can pedestalize Maharishi with
> an unrealistically positive set of memories about him.
>
> I'm just trying to remind people that for every blissy,
> positive recollection they may have about MMY or the
> glory days of the TMO, there are other recollections
> that present different sides of the equation. I think
> that all sides should be considered and borne in mind,
> not just the ones the TBs *want* to remember.
>
Sure, I understand that, and I think it is fair, naturally.  Just as I
think it is fair to bring up the apparent disconnect of long time
medititors, even leaders of the movement and their sometimes odd
behavior.  Watching John Hagelin, with his affected manner of speaking,
always leaves me scratching my head.

But perhaps like you often do, I am not really focussing on that, but
rather Mike's insistence that his POV is the correct one.  I think he
raises good points, but I think, also, that some pretty big holes have
been punched in his arguments.  It's how he reacts to that, that is of
interest to me, and where I choose to interact with him.

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
 wrote:
>
> You have been hitting some of these atheist posts out of the park man.

Still the best comments on the believer/atheist thang:

  [http://cdn-www.i-am-bored.com/media/92350_whatgodlookslikeboth.jpg]

   
[http://img5.visualizeus.com/thumbs/3d/54/atheism,funny,jesus,poster,rel\
igion,stupid-3d5472d1118af053d3ca5b4f08464d1c_h.jpg]

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[navashok]

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

>  Most of us are well aware that Maharishi in his
> later days didn't live up to what he was like in the
> "glory days of the TMO."

Now, now, wait Judy, what happened? That's a new tone from you. Could you 
elaborate? You are not referring to Judith's book here, as what she described 
was way before. What do you mean specifically? The Rajas? (The Raja courses), 
'damn democracy' and 'scorpio nation', the marketing of flying, changing the 
world by removing south entrances, or was it the Robin incident? Where do you 
start?

Btw. I agree that there is lots of good with Maharishi, and that the bad 
doesn't cancel out the good. I don't quite see Maharishis impact like a TMTB, 
but I see it still dominantly on the good side. But I guess, I have no problem 
if somebody doesn't quite see it like that and provides a 'reality check', 
which seems to be necessary at least to some here. Regard these reality checks 
like a TM checking, they should be regular and don't harm.

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> Its kind of paradoxical, and fucked up and sad too, that Buddha was such a 
> great figure - Even looking at his form, enlivens our dignity and inner peace 
> - yet, somehow his truth has become lost, other than that simple 
> representation of Self, in his form. 
>

Yeah, Interesting how things goe round and round.  Christians (Trappists) look 
to the East for method to obtain spiritual experience they read about,  
Buddhists look to David Lynch Foundation for method stripped down of religion.  
Old TM'ers look to other teachings for more method to supplement where they are 
at with transcending.  They all support each other and evidently are not in 
their experience exclusive. -Buck
 
> I have four Buddhas in my home. The largest is in the garden, ceramic with a 
> stucco covering, lotus position, on a three-sided granite pedestal, a 
> Japanese style bird bath at his feet. Then two in my studio/workshop, one 
> palm sized ivory and the other larger, carved from wood. The fourth one is in 
> the living room. I visited the magnificent Buddhist Temple, Borobudur, as a 
> young child, and have never forgotten its immensity and magic (Yes, I did 
> touch the heel of a Buddha there).
> 
> I also went to the temple of ten thousand Buddhas, in the New Territories of 
> Hong Kong, or as we used to say, "Kowloon side". It is an amazing place. A 
> huge, ornate golden statue of the Buddha, flanked by two more, and on shelves 
> encircling all of this, is the balance of the ten thousand Buddhas, each 
> about 16 inches high, perfectly finished, in either brass or gold plate, a 
> brilliant gold color, and each one, holding a different position.
> 
> The last time I encountered an image of the Buddha was at San Francisco's 
> Asian Art Museum, where I witnessed Buddhist monks and nuns creating an 
> ethereal, beautiful portrait of a celestial figure, from colored sand.
> 
> The art inspired by Buddha is truly nourishing and unbelievably beautiful. It 
> is a shame that there is no accessible technique within the Buddhist 
> tradition, to accompany it.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > >
> > > " Jimbo will keep claiming he's in CC"
> > > 
> > > I missed this misinformation earlier. I used to claim to be in CC, which 
> > > I was. Man, was that painful! Just as it grew from TC, CC also supports 
> > > higher states of consciousness. It must, just like a dirt pile supports a 
> > > mountain. 
> > > 
> > > Wake up, and catch up, please. I have been climbing for awhile, now, 
> > > since my proclamation of CC. It is no fun trying to run in place with 
> > > you. 
> > > 
> > > Recognize that static awareness is not in the interest of someone making 
> > > progress spiritually. There is nothing to defend in looking backwards, or 
> > > remaining steadfastly in place.
> > > 
> > > You however, with your denial of your subjective reality, your own 
> > > emotional awareness, what is sometimes called the shadow, or the 
> > > subconscious, continue to be stuck.
> > > 
> > > The bad stuff, and the good stuff, sadly, for you, is always outside of 
> > > you. You hide from your subjective reality, as many seekers do, believing 
> > > that if the world would simply change to their liking, they would be 
> > > happy.
> > > 
> > > You cherry pick the highlights of your outside life, while continuing to 
> > > not recognize that these are not highlights. These are expressions of 
> > > this creation, available 24/7.
> > > 
> > > *Unless you think you know better*. In that case, the creation graciously 
> > > allows your denial of the gifts that could be yours, and allows you the 
> > > continued existence of a childish life.
> > > 
> > > A childish life is hallmarked by the refusal to face one's shadow, living 
> > > superstitiously as you do, with your senseless beliefs. I call them 
> > > senseless, because they are not direct, they are not innocent. They are 
> > > merely in place to hold YOU in place, to hold you down. 
> > > 
> > > A person living a childish life pays a great price for their web of 
> > > beliefs in themselves. It is a self centered existence, which it has to 
> > > be, having fear at its core. The lack of ability to see one's subjective 
> > > self, one's emotions as they paint one's thoughts, the shadow, the 
> > > subconscious, causes such a warping of life, that one lives crippled by 
> > > that which they refuse to see within themselves.
> > > 
> > > So you can say anything you like about me, though I really, really 
> > > appreciate those who operate in the NOW, the present. Chasing down and 
> > > dealing with your particularly moldly ideas is a drag. Thanks.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The Turq is becoming stranger and stranger by the day. Take the rant he 
> > posted a few days ago when he went on and on about how OLD and irre

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
(snip)
> Steve, with all the "TM cheerleading" going down,
> I just thought it would be useful for someone to
> interject a little reality about the person so many
> are trying to portray as so saintly and enlightened.

As long as we're injecting a little reality here, I
don't believe there's been much if any attempt in
recent days to portray Maharishi as saintly and
enlightened. Just about all the commentary on his
state of consciousness and the quality of his behavior
has come from the TM critics, and of course it's been
negative, not positive.

> People KNOW how he spent his last days (as I describe
> above), but they tend to put it out of signt and out
> of mind so that they can pedestalize Maharishi with
> an unrealistically positive set of memories about him.

Nobody's been doing that either. All but a couple of
the TM supporters here, as it happens, are pretty
objective about Maharishi.

IOW, Barry has been hallucinating again. That's what
he does when he has nothing substantive to contribute
to the discussion.

> I'm just trying to remind people that for every blissy,
> positive recollection they may have about MMY or the
> glory days of the TMO, there are other recollections
> that present different sides of the equation. I think
> that all sides should be considered and borne in mind,
> not just the ones the TBs *want* to remember.

Tell ya what, Barry, the next time someone comes up
with some blissy, positive recollection about Maharishi
or the glory days of the TMO, that would be the time to
issue your reminders. Nobody really needs to be reminded,
as it happens, but if it makes you feel better, by all
means indulge. You should realize, however, that these
"other recollections" don't somehow cancel out the good
ones. Most of us are well aware that Maharishi in his
later days didn't live up to what he was like in the
"glory days of the TMO."

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Michael Jackson]

Spelling corrected, plus a little bit more:

the hell they aren't - the energy with which Marshy created the Movement has 
ALWAYS shown itself in the behavior its leaders have exhibited - no free 
passes on the basis of "Oh, the technique is gd! but the people who 
have been practicing the longest just HAPPEN to be asses." 

If TM was all 
these folks are claiming, it would not be possible for the numbers of 
TMO leaders to behave as they do - can't you see the correlation? You 
really think its an accident? 

Immersing your individual awareness into 
Pure Awareness is supposed to clear, cleanse and make all aspects of the
 individual one with all the Laws of Nature - if 40 years or more of 
practice consistently churns out people with the behavior of the TMO 
leaders, then either there is something wrong with the technique or with
 the underlying premises on which the technique is based (like whether
 enlightenment itself can be experienced thru TM practice) 


It is not an accident that the TMO leaders and managers in virtually every TM 
facility that has ever existed have consistently shown unpleasant and nasty 
behavior. It may have more to do with them following the unpleasant and nasty 
behavior of Marshy, but those years of TM should have done something to 
mitigate the jackass energy and behavior - you can't speak in such supreme 
superlative terms about TM and then claim "Oh, it only makes you better in 
terms of your thinking, feeling and behavior IF you let it."

If TM is so much better as some are claiming on the basis of its 
effortlessness, then if follows that the mighty benefits that are supposed to 
be accruing are also coming on an effortless basis. 


If you think logically you can't have it both ways. TM is effortless and has 
untold effects on the basis of the simple, natural, brilliant instructions 
Marshy gave with the mantras, yet it doesn't have any appreciable effect on 
those who run the Movement. Not unless you want to take the Hagelin logic path 
when he has been challenged on the supposed effects of group program when he 
says just think how much worse it would have been if the yogic flying groups 
hadn't been doing program!

By that thinking you could claim the TMO leaders and managers would have been 
serial killers and insane people if they had not done TM. 



 From: Ann 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 11:48 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> It was rhetorical, actually - the man was many things, but enlightened or 
> saint were not among those things. Enlightened men or women and saints do not 
> leave behind the flotsam of destruction that Marshy left behind. People 
> practicing the meditation of a saint do not turn out like Bevan, Neil, Tony, 
> and many rajas, either. 

Oh ho, not so fast. What people do with the knowledge (or a practice) might 
have nothing to do with the source. Human Beings are notorious for putting 
their own spin on a thing. You can not hold responsible some book or some 
teacher for what others do with the content. Bevan et al are not necessarily 
the reflections of MMY or what he had to say just like children often turn out 
very different from their parents. Great parents can still have rotten children 
and horrible parents can end up with great offspring. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: John 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:10 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > How bout neither?
> 
> MJ,
> 
> Please, see my response to Judy on her reply to this question.  Then, you can 
> find out about my position on this matter.
> 
> JR
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ____
> >  From: John 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 11:22 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Outside of the TMO, many saints in the Catholic Curch were
> > > > > > known to have levitated, including St. Teresa of Avila.  So,

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > It was rhetorical, actually - the man was many things, but
> > > enlightened or saint were not among those things. Enlightened
> > > men or women and saints do not leave behind the flotsam of
> > > destruction that Marshy left behind.
> >
> > For that matter, enlightened men probably do not spend
> > their last days re-enacting King Lear and trying to get
> > the people around him (who have already paid a million
> > bucks each to wear crowns and robes and call themselves
> > Rajas) to outbid one another to see who who can...uh...
> > erect the most phallic monuments to his memory, in the
> > form of the meaningless "Maharishi Towers Of Invincibility."
> >
> > It's really hard to get past the last act of *that* play,
> > unless one is seriously, deeply, hopelessly in denial...
>
> Can you give us any insight into what he is doing now.  
> I think you've covered most everything up to this point.

Steve, with all the "TM cheerleading" going down,
I just thought it would be useful for someone to
interject a little reality about the person so many
are trying to portray as so saintly and enlightened.
People KNOW how he spent his last days (as I describe
above), but they tend to put it out of signt and out
of mind so that they can pedestalize Maharishi with
an unrealistically positive set of memories about him.

I'm just trying to remind people that for every blissy,
positive recollection they may have about MMY or the
glory days of the TMO, there are other recollections
that present different sides of the equation. I think
that all sides should be considered and borne in mind,
not just the ones the TBs *want* to remember. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Michael Jackson]

the hell they aren't - the energy that Marshy created the Movement has ALWAYS 
shown itself in the behavior it leaders have exhibited - no free passes on the 
basis of "Oh, the technique is gd! but the people who have been practicing 
the longest just HAPPEN to be asses. If TM was all these folks are claiming, it 
would not be possible for the numbers of TMO leaders to behave as they do - 
can't you see the correlation? You really think its an accident? Immersing your 
individual awareness into Pure Awareness is supposed to clear, cleanse and make 
all aspects of the individual one with all the Laws of Nature - if 40 years or 
more of practice consistently churn out people with the behavior of the TMO 
leaders, then either there is something wrong with the technique or with the 
underlying premises on which the technique is based (like whether enlightenment 
itself can be experienced thru TM practice) 





 From: Ann 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 11:48 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> It was rhetorical, actually - the man was many things, but enlightened or 
> saint were not among those things. Enlightened men or women and saints do not 
> leave behind the flotsam of destruction that Marshy left behind. People 
> practicing the meditation of a saint do not turn out like Bevan, Neil, Tony, 
> and many rajas, either. 

Oh ho, not so fast. What people do with the knowledge (or a practice) might 
have nothing to do with the source. Human Beings are notorious for putting 
their own spin on a thing. You can not hold responsible some book or some 
teacher for what others do with the content. Bevan et al are not necessarily 
the reflections of MMY or what he had to say just like children often turn out 
very different from their parents. Great parents can still have rotten children 
and horrible parents can end up with great offspring. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: John 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:10 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > How bout neither?
> 
> MJ,
> 
> Please, see my response to Judy on her reply to this question.  Then, you can 
> find out about my position on this matter.
> 
> JR
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ________________
> >  From: John 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 11:22 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Outside of the TMO, many saints in the Catholic Curch were
> > > > > > known to have levitated, including St. Teresa of Avila.  So,
> > > > > > levitation or flying can be used as a criteria to determine
> > > > > > one's state of consciousness, specifically that of
> > > > > > enlightenment.
> > > > > 
> > > > > John, this is way too simplistic and creates significant
> > > > > confusion.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The saints had no *intention* of levitating; it was
> > > > > involuntary, and in many cases unwelcome--frightening and 
> > > > > overwhelming. Teresa actually prayed that it wouldn't
> > > > > happen.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Any devout Catholic, moreover, would be appalled at the
> > > > > idea of such performances being used as a criterion of
> > > > > spiritual development; that would be strictly against
> > > > > Church doctrine. And the saints would never want to
> > > > > attract attention to themselves in that way.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Aside from the issue of whether levitation is possible,
> > > > > there really isn't any commonality between the
> > > > > significance of levitation in the Western (Catholic)
> > > > > tradition and its significance in the Eastern tradition.
> > > > > You can't use o

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> It was rhetorical, actually - the man was many things, but enlightened or 
> saint were not among those things. Enlightened men or women and saints do not 
> leave behind the flotsam of destruction that Marshy left behind. People 
> practicing the meditation of a saint do not turn out like Bevan, Neil, Tony, 
> and many rajas, either. 

Oh ho, not so fast. What people do with the knowledge (or a practice) might 
have nothing to do with the source. Human Beings are notorious for putting 
their own spin on a thing. You can not hold responsible some book or some 
teacher for what others do with the content. Bevan et al are not necessarily 
the reflections of MMY or what he had to say just like children often turn out 
very different from their parents. Great parents can still have rotten children 
and horrible parents can end up with great offspring. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: John 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:10 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > How bout neither?
> 
> MJ,
> 
> Please, see my response to Judy on her reply to this question.  Then, you can 
> find out about my position on this matter.
> 
> JR
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ____
> >  From: John 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 11:22 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Outside of the TMO, many saints in the Catholic Curch were
> > > > > > known to have levitated, including St. Teresa of Avila.  So,
> > > > > > levitation or flying can be used as a criteria to determine
> > > > > > one's state of consciousness, specifically that of
> > > > > > enlightenment.
> > > > > 
> > > > > John, this is way too simplistic and creates significant
> > > > > confusion.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The saints had no *intention* of levitating; it was
> > > > > involuntary, and in many cases unwelcome--frightening and 
> > > > > overwhelming. Teresa actually prayed that it wouldn't
> > > > > happen.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Any devout Catholic, moreover, would be appalled at the
> > > > > idea of such performances being used as a criterion of
> > > > > spiritual development; that would be strictly against
> > > > > Church doctrine. And the saints would never want to
> > > > > attract attention to themselves in that way.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Aside from the issue of whether levitation is possible,
> > > > > there really isn't any commonality between the
> > > > > significance of levitation in the Western (Catholic)
> > > > > tradition and its significance in the Eastern tradition.
> > > > > You can't use one to justify the other.
> > > > >
> > > > Judy,
> > > > 
> > > > Levitation is the quick test for those who claim to be
> > > > enlightened, in particular, those who follow Osho's
> > > > techniques and philosophy.  Otherwise, it may take a
> > > > very long time to prove conclusively that a person is
> > > > enlightened.  Specifically, the Vatican has a very
> > > > exhaustive method for canonizing a saint.
> > > 
> > > John, I have no idea what any of this has to do with what
> > > I said. I don't think you read what I wrote.
> > > 
> > > The saints who levitated did not claim to be "enlightened,"
> > > nor could they have passed that test.
> > > 
> > > Canonization by the Vatican has nothing to do with the
> > > Eastern concept of enlightenment. This is all apples and
> > > kiwi fruit. Church sainthood and enlightenment are not
> > > at all the same thing.
> > >
> > Hey Judy,
> > 
> > Please, tell us what is the difference between an enlightened person and a 
> > saint?  Do you think MMY was enlightened or a saint?
> > 
> > JR
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Michael Jackson]

As usual you are wrong - I never said "enlightenment" made someone an asshole - 
besides it is pretty clear that TM doesn't lead to enlightenment anyway.





 From: "doctordumb...@rocketmail.com" 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 9:47 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
 

  
I see. So, Tweedle Dee (MJ) and Tweedle Dum's (TB) egos assert that 
enlightenment, as a result of TM, causes people to be assholes, so neither 
Tweedle will do TM. 

I visited various tribes as a child with my dad in remote regions of the world. 
Some were suspicious of being photographed, because they believed that their 
souls were literally captured on film. No kidding.

So the error of primitive thinking, like the tribes, who at least had the 
excuse of isolation, and what you two display, is that you are driven by 
superstitious beliefs, based on no direct evidence*.

*One data point of possible contradiction: Barry IS an asshole, and WAS a TM 
teacher about a million years ago. Although in his case, I think we'll go with 
correlation NOT being the same as causation. As many have pointed out, the 
issues he continues to face were formed way before his TM experience began. 

Btw, the tribes got over it. Will you two? My money is on 'nope'.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > It was rhetorical, actually - the man was many things, but 
> > enlightened or saint were not among those things. Enlightened 
> > men or women and saints do not leave behind the flotsam of 
> > destruction that Marshy left behind. 
> 
> For that matter, enlightened men probably do not spend
> their last days re-enacting King Lear and trying to get
> the people around him (who have already paid a million
> bucks each to wear crowns and robes and call themselves
> Rajas) to outbid one another to see who who can...uh...
> erect the most phallic monuments to his memory, in the
> form of the meaningless "Maharishi Towers Of Invincibility."
> 
> It's really hard to get past the last act of *that* play, 
> unless one is seriously, deeply, hopelessly in denial...
>


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@
wrote:
> >
> > It was rhetorical, actually - the man was many things, but
> > enlightened or saint were not among those things. Enlightened
> > men or women and saints do not leave behind the flotsam of
> > destruction that Marshy left behind.
>
> For that matter, enlightened men probably do not spend
> their last days re-enacting King Lear and trying to get
> the people around him (who have already paid a million
> bucks each to wear crowns and robes and call themselves
> Rajas) to outbid one another to see who who can...uh...
> erect the most phallic monuments to his memory, in the
> form of the meaningless "Maharishi Towers Of Invincibility."
>
> It's really hard to get past the last act of *that* play,
> unless one is seriously, deeply, hopelessly in denial...
>
Can you give us any insight into what he is doing now.  I think you've
covered most everything up to this point.

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[doctordumbass]

I see. So, Tweedle Dee (MJ) and Tweedle Dum's (TB) egos assert that 
enlightenment, as a result of TM, causes people to be assholes, so neither 
Tweedle will do TM. 

I visited various tribes as a child with my dad in remote regions of the world. 
Some were suspicious of being photographed, because they believed that their 
souls were literally captured on film. No kidding.

So the error of primitive thinking, like the tribes, who at least had the 
excuse of isolation, and what you two display, is that you are driven by 
superstitious beliefs, based on no direct evidence*.

*One data point of possible contradiction: Barry IS an asshole, and WAS a TM 
teacher about a million years ago. Although in his case, I think we'll go with 
correlation NOT being the same as causation. As many have pointed out, the 
issues he continues to face were formed way before his TM experience began.  

Btw, the tribes got over it. Will you two? My money is on 'nope'.
 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > It was rhetorical, actually - the man was many things, but 
> > enlightened or saint were not among those things. Enlightened 
> > men or women and saints do not leave behind the flotsam of 
> > destruction that Marshy left behind. 
> 
> For that matter, enlightened men probably do not spend
> their last days re-enacting King Lear and trying to get
> the people around him (who have already paid a million
> bucks each to wear crowns and robes and call themselves
> Rajas) to outbid one another to see who who can...uh...
> erect the most phallic monuments to his memory, in the
> form of the meaningless "Maharishi Towers Of Invincibility."
> 
> It's really hard to get past the last act of *that* play, 
> unless one is seriously, deeply, hopelessly in denial...
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> It was rhetorical, actually - the man was many things, but 
> enlightened or saint were not among those things. Enlightened 
> men or women and saints do not leave behind the flotsam of 
> destruction that Marshy left behind. 

For that matter, enlightened men probably do not spend
their last days re-enacting King Lear and trying to get
the people around him (who have already paid a million
bucks each to wear crowns and robes and call themselves
Rajas) to outbid one another to see who who can...uh...
erect the most phallic monuments to his memory, in the
form of the meaningless "Maharishi Towers Of Invincibility."

It's really hard to get past the last act of *that* play, 
unless one is seriously, deeply, hopelessly in denial...

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Michael Jackson]

It was rhetorical, actually - the man was many things, but enlightened or saint 
were not among those things. Enlightened men or women and saints do not leave 
behind the flotsam of destruction that Marshy left behind. People practicing 
the meditation of a saint do not turn out like Bevan, Neil, Tony, and many 
rajas, either. 





 From: John 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:10 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> How bout neither?

MJ,

Please, see my response to Judy on her reply to this question.  Then, you can 
find out about my position on this matter.

JR

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: John 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 11:22 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Outside of the TMO, many saints in the Catholic Curch were
> > > > > known to have levitated, including St. Teresa of Avila.  So,
> > > > > levitation or flying can be used as a criteria to determine
> > > > > one's state of consciousness, specifically that of
> > > > > enlightenment.
> > > > 
> > > > John, this is way too simplistic and creates significant
> > > > confusion.
> > > > 
> > > > The saints had no *intention* of levitating; it was
> > > > involuntary, and in many cases unwelcome--frightening and 
> > > > overwhelming. Teresa actually prayed that it wouldn't
> > > > happen.
> > > > 
> > > > Any devout Catholic, moreover, would be appalled at the
> > > > idea of such performances being used as a criterion of
> > > > spiritual development; that would be strictly against
> > > > Church doctrine. And the saints would never want to
> > > > attract attention to themselves in that way.
> > > > 
> > > > Aside from the issue of whether levitation is possible,
> > > > there really isn't any commonality between the
> > > > significance of levitation in the Western (Catholic)
> > > > tradition and its significance in the Eastern tradition.
> > > > You can't use one to justify the other.
> > > >
> > > Judy,
> > > 
> > > Levitation is the quick test for those who claim to be
> > > enlightened, in particular, those who follow Osho's
> > > techniques and philosophy.  Otherwise, it may take a
> > > very long time to prove conclusively that a person is
> > > enlightened.  Specifically, the Vatican has a very
> > > exhaustive method for canonizing a saint.
> > 
> > John, I have no idea what any of this has to do with what
> > I said. I don't think you read what I wrote.
> > 
> > The saints who levitated did not claim to be "enlightened,"
> > nor could they have passed that test.
> > 
> > Canonization by the Vatican has nothing to do with the
> > Eastern concept of enlightenment. This is all apples and
> > kiwi fruit. Church sainthood and enlightenment are not
> > at all the same thing.
> >
> Hey Judy,
> 
> Please, tell us what is the difference between an enlightened person and a 
> saint?  Do you think MMY was enlightened or a saint?
> 
> JR
>


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> How bout neither?


MJ,

Please, see my response to Judy on her reply to this question.  Then, you can 
find out about my position on this matter.

JR


> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: John 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 11:22 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Outside of the TMO, many saints in the Catholic Curch were
> > > > > known to have levitated, including St. Teresa of Avila.  So,
> > > > > levitation or flying can be used as a criteria to determine
> > > > > one's state of consciousness, specifically that of
> > > > > enlightenment.
> > > > 
> > > > John, this is way too simplistic and creates significant
> > > > confusion.
> > > > 
> > > > The saints had no *intention* of levitating; it was
> > > > involuntary, and in many cases unwelcome--frightening and 
> > > > overwhelming. Teresa actually prayed that it wouldn't
> > > > happen.
> > > > 
> > > > Any devout Catholic, moreover, would be appalled at the
> > > > idea of such performances being used as a criterion of
> > > > spiritual development; that would be strictly against
> > > > Church doctrine. And the saints would never want to
> > > > attract attention to themselves in that way.
> > > > 
> > > > Aside from the issue of whether levitation is possible,
> > > > there really isn't any commonality between the
> > > > significance of levitation in the Western (Catholic)
> > > > tradition and its significance in the Eastern tradition.
> > > > You can't use one to justify the other.
> > > >
> > > Judy,
> > > 
> > > Levitation is the quick test for those who claim to be
> > > enlightened, in particular, those who follow Osho's
> > > techniques and philosophy.  Otherwise, it may take a
> > > very long time to prove conclusively that a person is
> > > enlightened.  Specifically, the Vatican has a very
> > > exhaustive method for canonizing a saint.
> > 
> > John, I have no idea what any of this has to do with what
> > I said. I don't think you read what I wrote.
> > 
> > The saints who levitated did not claim to be "enlightened,"
> > nor could they have passed that test.
> > 
> > Canonization by the Vatican has nothing to do with the
> > Eastern concept of enlightenment. This is all apples and
> > kiwi fruit. Church sainthood and enlightenment are not
> > at all the same thing.
> >
> Hey Judy,
> 
> Please, tell us what is the difference between an enlightened person and a 
> saint?  Do you think MMY was enlightened or a saint?
> 
> JR
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > 
> > > > The saints who levitated did not claim to be "enlightened,"
> > > > nor could they have passed that test.
> > > > 
> > > > Canonization by the Vatican has nothing to do with the
> > > > Eastern concept of enlightenment. This is all apples and
> > > > kiwi fruit. Church sainthood and enlightenment are not
> > > > at all the same thing.
> > > >
> > > Hey Judy,
> > > 
> > > Please, tell us what is the difference between an
> > > enlightened person and a saint?
> > 
> > Just to be clear, the distinction I'm making is between
> > Eastern-style enlightenment and Western-style (i.e.,
> > Roman Catholic) sainthood. In the Eastern (non-Christian)
> > traditions, "enlightened" and "saint" are pretty much
> > synonymous.
> 
> Judy,
> 
> Alleluia!  We agree on this definition. 
> 
> > 
> > In Roman Catholic doctrine, the idea that a person
> > could become one with God is heretical in the extreme.
> 
> This is where we differ.  The Church teaches that Jesus is
> both God and man which has been prophesied in the Old
> Testament and by Isaiah in particular.  As such, being one
> with God is not heretical, nor is it extreme.  Amen?

*Jesus* being one with God is not heretical. I had
been about to add a parenthetical to what I wrote
above ("except Jesus, of course") but figured it was
so obvious I didn't need to.

The extreme heresy would be for any other person to
claim oneness with God.

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > > The saints who levitated did not claim to be "enlightened,"
> > > nor could they have passed that test.
> > > 
> > > Canonization by the Vatican has nothing to do with the
> > > Eastern concept of enlightenment. This is all apples and
> > > kiwi fruit. Church sainthood and enlightenment are not
> > > at all the same thing.
> > >
> > Hey Judy,
> > 
> > Please, tell us what is the difference between an
> > enlightened person and a saint?
> 
> Just to be clear, the distinction I'm making is between
> Eastern-style enlightenment and Western-style (i.e.,
> Roman Catholic) sainthood. In the Eastern (non-Christian)
> traditions, "enlightened" and "saint" are pretty much
> synonymous.

Judy,

Alleluia!  We agree on this definition. 

> 
> In Roman Catholic doctrine, the idea that a person
> could become one with God is heretical in the extreme.

This is where we differ.  The Church teaches that Jesus is both God and man 
which has been prophesied in the Old Testament and by Isaiah in particular.  As 
such, being one with God is not heretical, nor is it extreme.  Amen?




> 
> > Do you think MMY was enlightened or a saint?
> 
> Well, obviously he wasn't a saint in the Roman Catholic
> sense. I do think he was most likely enlightened.
> 
> (There's also the colloquial sense of "saint," meaning
> simply a good person, religious or otherwise.)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

> > The saints who levitated did not claim to be "enlightened,"
> > nor could they have passed that test.
> > 
> > Canonization by the Vatican has nothing to do with the
> > Eastern concept of enlightenment. This is all apples and
> > kiwi fruit. Church sainthood and enlightenment are not
> > at all the same thing.
> >
> Hey Judy,
> 
> Please, tell us what is the difference between an
> enlightened person and a saint?

Just to be clear, the distinction I'm making is between
Eastern-style enlightenment and Western-style (i.e.,
Roman Catholic) sainthood. In the Eastern (non-Christian)
traditions, "enlightened" and "saint" are pretty much
synonymous.

In Roman Catholic doctrine, the idea that a person
could become one with God is heretical in the extreme.

> Do you think MMY was enlightened or a saint?

Well, obviously he wasn't a saint in the Roman Catholic
sense. I do think he was most likely enlightened.

(There's also the colloquial sense of "saint," meaning
simply a good person, religious or otherwise.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[authfriend]

Yes, Barry, you are so convinced of your own delusions
that when people point out how deluded you are, it seems
to you that *they're* batshit crazy. Everyone here, I
think, is used to that by now; it's why we make fun of
you all the time.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Heh. I figured all I had to do was to point out how 
> slavishly she's adopted Robin as her cult leader and
> she'd go batshit crazy. Good to see that the wind-up
> toy is still functioning. :-)
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > Can you just imagine how horrified Barry's bosses on
> > this new job in Paris are going to be when they
> > realize how his mind has deteriorated?
> > 
> > I mean, he's always suffered from the delusion of
> > thinking he can understand something someone has
> > written without actually reading it; and he's always
> > had the problem of not being able to tell the
> > difference between a discussion about (a) *what*
> > someone said and (b) a discussion about whether what
> > someone said is *true*. Pretty elementary, but he
> > just doesn't get it.
> > 
> > Now, however, he's into inventing biographical
> > details that are hilariously factually inaccurate,
> > mocking what he's invented thinking it's real, and
> > convincing himself he's really devastated his 
> > target. (All this while the actual details are right
> > there in the person's posts for everybody to read.)
> > 
> > As Sal Sunshine would say, it would be sad if it
> > weren't so funny.
> > 
> > Navashok, be prepared, Barry's going to need some
> > of your expert fluffing toot sweet. And it looks
> > like you'll have to accompany him to Paris, so get
> > your bags packed.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > Internet argument poker: "I'll see your supposed expert
> > > (Maharishi) and raise you two Robin posts. Now go do your
> > > remedial reading of the Robinsez Sutras so that you're 
> > > worthy of arguing with me about a subject that neither
> > > of us has any personal experience with or knowledge of."  :-)
> > > 
> > > I don't know about anyone else, but the very concept of
> > > someone quoting Robin Carlsen as a credible source about
> > > ANYTHING just made my morning, and started it off with a
> > > hearty laugh. Invoking "Robinsez" is even more hilarious
> > > than invoking "Maharishisez."
> > > 
> > > Here's my whole take on the Robin Thang. He had some minor
> > > experience on a course that, given the size of his ego and
> > > the demands of his NPD, he felt compelled to turn into a 
> > > MAJOR experience. He had no earthly idea what the experiences
> > > he was having *were*, but knew that 1) he had to interpret
> > > them as the topmost, #1, Highest Possible Experience in the
> > > TM world, and 2) it had to be higher than the experiences
> > > claimed by his wife at the time (mere CC), so he settled on 
> > > Unity. If Maharishi had been talking about Brahman Conscious-
> > > ness then, he would have called what he was experiencing BC. 
> > > 
> > > End of story. The fact that anyone actually *believes* any 
> > > of his posturing about what he experienced blows my mind and
> > > makes me roll my eyes, probably the same reaction Maharishi
> > > had when Robin tried to run the same number on him. He 
> > > probably told Robin, "Something good is happening," and Robin
> > > then went forth throughout the land proclaiming, "Maharishi
> > > confirmed I'm in Unity." And the saddest part? People in and
> > > around the TM movement actually believed it, and some believe
> > > it even now. [insert eyeroll here]
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Lawson, before we continue, please reread Robin's posts
> > > > to you (both on this page):
> > > > 
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/312523
> > > > 
> > > > We're talking at cross-purposes because you didn't read
> > > > or don't remember what he wrote.
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I neve said anything at all EVER about performing siddhis in 
> > > > > > > response to a skeptical demand (unless you mean one's own
> > > > > > > internal skepticism).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Either would be problematic according to Robin's experience
> > > > > > and understanding.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > What I said was:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and
> > > > > > > the TM-Sidhis program regularly every day and start to believe
> > > > > > > that you are in Unity, you can consult your own personal
> > > > > > > history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your own beliefs: if
> > > > > > > you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Fly

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
>
> I reread those posts (again) Judy.
> 
> They don't, in any way, change what I assert.
> 
> Robin's ability or inability to float or whatever is
> marker for what he says it is: his own Unity (can't
> speak for anyone else's here), by the test that MMY
> gave subsequently, was not complete and Robin has
> always had the ability to avail himself of the test.

As you know Robin doesn't agree that this is a valid
test (and also that there was never and is not now any
question in his mind that he was in Unity exactly as
Unity is described by Maharishi). It seems irrelevant
to me to complain that he didn't do a test he thinks
would have been invalid when he had no doubts about
his state anyway.

> Further, MMY may have failed his own test when he tried
> it. I am quite willing to agree that by MMY's test,
> which isn't THAT unusual according to mystical tradition,
> may have screened out every person who ever lived, or who
> ever lived, including MMY, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati,
> Shankara, Buddha, Jesus etc.

Lawson, the thing is that Maharishi's purported test is
not consistent with his own description of Unity.

> Even so, it is  test that he could have used, but didn't.
> Further, MY understanding is such that if Robin were
> fully in Unity, he would need no formal technique at all.
> His decision to float would have been sufficient. No
> sutra required.

If you read Robin's post, you know why he would say
the phrase "decision to float" makes no sense in light
of the nature of Unity. If you're going to claim he
wasn't in Unity, you need to deal with his explanation
on this point.

> This last my be Robin's own reason for deciding that
> Unity, as a whole, isn't really real: the mountain
> never came to him regardless of his own intent.

No, that has nothing at all to do with his reasons.
He's explained what his reasons were, over and over.

As far as Robin was (and still is) concerned, he had
*become* the mountain.

(The difference between the way you've used the
"mountain" metaphor and the way I just used it is, I
suspect, indicative of something you're missing about
the nature of Unity consciousness as Maharishi defines
it, which is also the source of the problem with the
ability to levitate as a "test" of Unity.)

> But this would only prove MY point: Robin's Unity was
> never perfect (something which MMY never asserted
> anyway, as far as I can tell: valid experiences of
> Unity are not the same as being 100% in Unity, any
> more than witnessing 24/7 for years at a time are the
> same as being 100% in CC).

Problem is, if years (in Robin's case 10 years) of
the stable experience of a state of consciousness is not
the same as being 100 percent in that state of
consciousness, nobody can ever be said to be 100 percent
in a higher state no matter how long they've been in it,
because they might come out of it tomorrow.

It's arguable whether Maharishi ever explicitly confirmed
Robin's Unity, but for seven years he never expressed any
doubts about it--and he followed Robin's doings very
closely, including sending aides to observe Robin in
action where he was teaching.

He also, according to Peter Sutphen, told Bevan Morris
to leave Robin alone while he and his followers were
pulling their stunts at MIU. Bevan ignored that
instruction and took Robin to court to make him get
out of Dodge.

It wasn't until Robin had his lawyers demand that
Maharishi confirm Robin's enlightenment, and his right
to teach his own version of the TM-Sidhis, in an
affidavit to be read in court, that Maharishi denied
Robin's enlightenment.

What Robin was asking at that point was effectively to
become co-leader of the TMO with Maharishi and to be
free to teach according to his own lights. There was
*no doubt in Robin's mind* when he asked for the
confirmation that Maharishi would provide it.

It seems obvious in retrospect that Maharishi would
*not* have provided it even if he had been sure Robin
was in Unity.

But that's another whole kettle of fish.

> Finally, as I have pointed out, Robin's ability to decide
> to become de-enlightened either means that the Universe
> wanted him to become de-enlightend or that he never really
> was in Unity in the first place, assuming that Robin's
> assertion about free will and Unity is valid (many other 
> possibilities exist as well, of course, but we're talking
> in terms of black and white logic, both on my part,
> concerning MMY's test, and on Robin's part concerning the
> nature of Unity, and your part, etc).

Robin has said he got help with the de-enlightenment process.
He hasn't been explicit about where it came from, but if you
read between the lines, it was--he believes--from sources
that were more powerful than the forces that brought about
his Unity in the first place. Remember that as far as he's 
concerned, "the Universe" as it appears to the person in
Unity is not the real thing but a deception perpetrated by
the Vedic gods.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Michael Jackson]

How bout neither?





 From: John 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 11:22 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Outside of the TMO, many saints in the Catholic Curch were
> > > > known to have levitated, including St. Teresa of Avila.  So,
> > > > levitation or flying can be used as a criteria to determine
> > > > one's state of consciousness, specifically that of
> > > > enlightenment.
> > > 
> > > John, this is way too simplistic and creates significant
> > > confusion.
> > > 
> > > The saints had no *intention* of levitating; it was
> > > involuntary, and in many cases unwelcome--frightening and 
> > > overwhelming. Teresa actually prayed that it wouldn't
> > > happen.
> > > 
> > > Any devout Catholic, moreover, would be appalled at the
> > > idea of such performances being used as a criterion of
> > > spiritual development; that would be strictly against
> > > Church doctrine. And the saints would never want to
> > > attract attention to themselves in that way.
> > > 
> > > Aside from the issue of whether levitation is possible,
> > > there really isn't any commonality between the
> > > significance of levitation in the Western (Catholic)
> > > tradition and its significance in the Eastern tradition.
> > > You can't use one to justify the other.
> > >
> > Judy,
> > 
> > Levitation is the quick test for those who claim to be
> > enlightened, in particular, those who follow Osho's
> > techniques and philosophy.  Otherwise, it may take a
> > very long time to prove conclusively that a person is
> > enlightened.  Specifically, the Vatican has a very
> > exhaustive method for canonizing a saint.
> 
> John, I have no idea what any of this has to do with what
> I said. I don't think you read what I wrote.
> 
> The saints who levitated did not claim to be "enlightened,"
> nor could they have passed that test.
> 
> Canonization by the Vatican has nothing to do with the
> Eastern concept of enlightenment. This is all apples and
> kiwi fruit. Church sainthood and enlightenment are not
> at all the same thing.
>
Hey Judy,

Please, tell us what is the difference between an enlightened person and a 
saint?  Do you think MMY was enlightened or a saint?

JR


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> That graphic and the copy below was AMAZING! This is one 
> of my favorite pet peeves, tax exemptions for religions 
> but to see it spelled out this way really drives it home. 

Especially in a country founded on the principle of
separation of church and state, but which provides
a free ride to any church. 

The graphic is from the Facebook page of a group called
the Progressive Secular Humanist Examiner. 

> Not to mention how their beliefs enjoy a protected status 
> in society where pointing out the absurdity of religious 
> beliefs is framed as bigotry and infringing on civil rights.  
> Funny how we don't extend this protection to Holocaust 
> denier's wacky beliefs. 

Speaking of the Holocaust, have you been following 
the latest revelations, which ups the body count to
closer to 20 million? 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/sunday-review/the-holocaust-just-got-more-shocking.html

> You have been hitting some of these atheist posts out of 
> the park man.  

I'm staying out of any of the nitty-gritty discussions,
which at this point in my life are pure Department of 
Redundancy Dept. stuff. :-) I honestly don't see how
anyone still holds to a belief in God enough to argue
about it, and tend to consider getting into it with 
anyone who does a waste of time. 

The most I'll say is that deists are missing out on a 
lot by having to justify the concept of God With A Plan. 
If there is a God that can be considered in any way 
sentient, and if He/She/It really *does* have a Plan
for all of this, you're talking about a Majorly Sick
Fuck. What *else* could you consider the being that 
came up with diseases, floods, earthquakes, holocausts,
and all of the other devices He/She/It uses to kill,
maim, and torture people? 

Dump the God concept, and this stuff Just Happens. There
is no need to jump through hoops trying to rationalize
it or explain it away. Believe in a God, much less a 
Just God, and you've got to jump through those hoops. 
Waste of fuckin' time, from my point of view, but if 
that's how people choose to amuse themselves, so be it. 


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Would it not be possible to rescind tax exemptions for churches and
> > > then do both?  Use the monies for the projects you mention.  AND
> > > those who want to, continue to go to church and pray for the success
> > > of those projects?
> > 
> > No problemo. Those who wish to continue believing in fairy tales can
> > and should be allowed to do so. What has to end is the rest of us paying
> > (in the form of lost tax revenues) for them to do so.
> > 
> > If people want to pray to beings that don't exist, that's their
> > business.
> > But if they want the United States to *pay* for it the way it's
> > currently
> > doing, that's another thing entirely.
> > 
> > End ALL tax exemptions for ALL religious organizations. See how they
> > do on their own, placed on an equal footing with other organizations.
> > Surely if they have "God on their side," they should be able to pull
> > that
> > off, right?
> > 
> > >  From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Another thought about what people could do with resources wasted on
> > religion:
> > >
> > [https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/537611_513103665\
> > 397539_1418491743_n.jpg]
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Share Long]

Well I think that's what Ben Franklin and his buddies believed:  that 
prosperity was a sign of God's favor.  And didn't he end up on the hundred 
dollar bill?  Ben that is, not God (-:





 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 11:00 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Would it not be possible to rescind tax exemptions for churches and 
> then do both?  Use the monies for the projects you mention.  AND 
> those who want to, continue to go to church and pray for the success 
> of those projects?

No problemo. Those who wish to continue believing in fairy tales can
and should be allowed to do so. What has to end is the rest of us paying
(in the form of lost tax revenues) for them to do so. 

If people want to pray to beings that don't exist, that's their business. 
But if they want the United States to *pay* for it the way it's currently
doing, that's another thing entirely. 

End ALL tax exemptions for ALL religious organizations. See how they
do on their own, placed on an equal footing with other organizations.
Surely if they have "God on their side," they should be able to pull that
off, right?  

>  From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Another thought about what people could do with resources wasted on religion:
> 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[curtisdeltablues]

That graphic and the copy below was AMAZING!  This is one of my favorite pet 
peeves, tax exemptions for religions but to see it spelled out this way really 
drives it home.  Not to mention how their beliefs enjoy a protected status in 
society where pointing out the absurdity of religious beliefs is framed as 
bigotry and infringing on civil rights.  Funny how we don't extend this 
protection to Holocaust denier's wacky beliefs. 

You have been hitting some of these atheist posts out of the park man.  



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 
> wrote:
> >
> > Would it not be possible to rescind tax exemptions for churches and
> > then do both?  Use the monies for the projects you mention.  AND
> > those who want to, continue to go to church and pray for the success
> > of those projects?
> 
> No problemo. Those who wish to continue believing in fairy tales can
> and should be allowed to do so. What has to end is the rest of us paying
> (in the form of lost tax revenues) for them to do so.
> 
> If people want to pray to beings that don't exist, that's their
> business.
> But if they want the United States to *pay* for it the way it's
> currently
> doing, that's another thing entirely.
> 
> End ALL tax exemptions for ALL religious organizations. See how they
> do on their own, placed on an equal footing with other organizations.
> Surely if they have "God on their side," they should be able to pull
> that
> off, right?
> 
> >  From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Another thought about what people could do with resources wasted on
> religion:
> >
> [https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/537611_513103665\
> 397539_1418491743_n.jpg]
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to John

[Share Long]

Wow, John I LOVE all these ideas:  that our universe might just be on the other 
side of a black hole in another universe; that there might be a duplicate earth 
with a duplicate me (3 planets in Gemini help me like that idea); that matter 
might eventually turn into light.  Thanks for sharing and I would enjoy hearing 
what you have to say about other dimensions.  I don't experience those still 
fun to imagine.





 From: John 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 6:27 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to John
 

  
Share,

1.> Yes, the process of canonization is exhaustive.  And years later they 
might decide you weren't a saint after all!  Didn't that happen to St. 
Christopher?  And fortunately levitation is NOT a requirement for sainthood 
according to the Church.  Otherwise we'd all have to be named after St. Joseph 
Cupertino (-:

There were many saints who were known to have levitated, such as Aquinas, St. 
John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Martin de Porres, St. Ignatius of 
Loyola, among others.

> 
> Replying to another post:  Just going by logic, I'd say that there is not 
> another planet EXACTLY like earth in this universe.  But other universes?  
>  Other dimensions?  That's another ball of stardust!

There's a documentary on YouTube which proposes that if the universe is 
infinite, then we would be able to see duplicate earths.  As matter of fact, 
you would also be able to find duplicates of yourself.

However, some physicists believe that the universe is finite.  Since they've 
found out the properties of the Higgs Boson, it is possible that matter in the 
universe will eventually turn into light. 

Within our galaxy, I believe that we'd be able to find planets that are similar 
to Earth and can spawn life similar to what we have here.  IMO, life is fairly 
common and that it is the natural evolution of matter throughout the universe.
> 
Concerning other universes, Michio Kaku, a physics professor at CUNY, believes 
that there could be an infinite number of them which cannot be proved by 
current scientific technology.  IMO, the black holes in each galaxy of the 
universe are potential portals to another universe. 

On the other hand, our universe is really an example of a white hole in which 
matter exploded from nothingness, or possibly from a black hole from another 
universe.

Dimensions?  I have an opinion about that which can discussed another day.

JR
> 
> 
>  From: John 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 1:37 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > 
> > > Outside of the TMO, many saints in the Catholic Curch were
> > > known to have levitated, including St. Teresa of Avila.  So,
> > > levitation or flying can be used as a criteria to determine
> > > one's state of consciousness, specifically that of
> > > enlightenment.
> > 
> > John, this is way too simplistic and creates significant
> > confusion.
> > 
> > The saints had no *intention* of levitating; it was
> > involuntary, and in many cases unwelcome--frightening and 
> > overwhelming. Teresa actually prayed that it wouldn't
> > happen.
> > 
> > Any devout Catholic, moreover, would be appalled at the
> > idea of such performances being used as a criterion of
> > spiritual development; that would be strictly against
> > Church doctrine. And the saints would never want to
> > attract attention to themselves in that way.
> > 
> > Aside from the issue of whether levitation is possible,
> > there really isn't any commonality between the
> > significance of levitation in the Western (Catholic)
> > tradition and its significance in the Eastern tradition.
> > You can't use one to justify the other.
> >
> Judy,
> 
> Levitation is the quick test for those who claim to be enlightened, in 
> particular, those who follow Osho's techniques and philosophy.  Otherwise, it 
> may take a very long time to prove conclusively that a person is enlightened. 
>  Specifically, the Vatican has a very exhaustive method for canonizing a 
> saint.
>


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 
wrote:
>
> Would it not be possible to rescind tax exemptions for churches and
> then do both?  Use the monies for the projects you mention.  AND
> those who want to, continue to go to church and pray for the success
> of those projects?

No problemo. Those who wish to continue believing in fairy tales can
and should be allowed to do so. What has to end is the rest of us paying
(in the form of lost tax revenues) for them to do so.

If people want to pray to beings that don't exist, that's their
business.
But if they want the United States to *pay* for it the way it's
currently
doing, that's another thing entirely.

End ALL tax exemptions for ALL religious organizations. See how they
do on their own, placed on an equal footing with other organizations.
Surely if they have "God on their side," they should be able to pull
that
off, right?

>  From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
>
> Another thought about what people could do with resources wasted on
religion:
>
[https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/537611_513103665\
397539_1418491743_n.jpg] 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Share Long]

Would it not be possible to rescind tax exemptions for churches and then do 
both?  Use the monies for the projects you mention.  AND those who want to, 
continue to go to church and pray for the success of those projects?





 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 7:34 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
> >
> > Doc, 
> > What a nice [first person] account.  It's quite charitable 
> > and also reads like an invitation. Thanks Doc, this should 
> > be dragged over to the current parallel FFL atheist thread 
> > too where the atheistic sophists are splitting epistemological 
> > hairs again. Last weekend I was over in Chicago and got a 
> > tour of the FermiLab where incredibly high-minded research 
> > continues to split particles down and down. A kind of a very 
> > Large game in materialism. It is an amazing place and a temple 
> > in its own atheistic right but for an evident general lack of 
> > experience in what they are after. 
> > 
> > A brochure handed out at FermiLab has an explanation where the 
> > first director of Fermi Lab was asked how the laboratory would 
> > help defend the United States?  Ans: "It has nothing to do 
> > directly with defending our country except to make it worth 
> > defending."
> > http://www.fnal.gov/
> > 
> > Thoreau, 'A life worth living'. 'Fairfield', is like the 
> > ongoing basic research in spiritual practice even for the 
> > enlightened in life. 
> 
> You may know that Enrico Fermi was an atheist, but did 
> you know that Henry David Thoreau was, too? Here are a 
> few more atheists you may have heard of:
> 
> Douglas Adams, Woody Allen, Isaac Asimov, Dave Barry, 
> Ingmar Bergman, Niels Bohr, Richard Branson, James 
> Cameron, George Carlin, John Carpenter, Asia Carrera, 
> Noam Chomsky, Jeremy Clarkson, Billy Connolly, Francis 
> Crick, David Cronenberg, David Cross, Alan Cumming, 
> Rodney Dangerfield, Richard Dawkins, Ani DiFranco, 
> Albert Einstein, Harlan Ellison, Richard Feynman, 
> Harvey Fierstein, Jodie Foster, Janeane Garofalo, Bill 
> Gates, Bob Geldof, Ricky Gervais, Ira Glass, Robert 
> Heinlein, Ernest Hemingway, Katharine Hepburn, 
> Christopher Hitchens, Eddie Izzard, Penn Jillette, 
> Billy Joel, Diane Keaton, Keira Knightley, John Landis, 
> Hugh Laurie, Richard Leakey, Bruce Lee, Tom Lehrer, 
> John Lennon, James Lipton, H.P. Lovecraft, Ernst Mach, 
> Seth MacFarlane, Bill Maher, John Malkovich, Barry 
> Manilow, Todd McFarlane, Sir Ian McKellen, Arthur 
> Miller, Claude Monet, Julianne Moore, Rafael Nadal, 
> Randy Newman, Mike Nichols, Jack Nicholson, Gary Numan, 
> Bob Odenkirk, Patton Oswalt, Camille Paglia, Trey Parker, 
> Paula Poundstone, Terry Pratchett, Robin Quivers, James 
> Randi, Ron Reagan Jr., Rob Reiner, Keanu Reeves, Gene 
> Roddenberry, Henry Rollins, Andy Rooney, Salman Rushdie, 
> Adam Savage, Brian Sapient, Erwin Schrödinger, Bob Simon, 
> Steven Soderbergh, Annika Sorenstam, George Soros, 
> Howard Stern, Matt Stone, Julia Sweeney, Studs Terkel, 
> Pat Tillman, Alan Turing, Eddie Vedder, Gore Vidal, 
> Vincent van Gogh, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Steven Weinberg, 
> Joss Whedon, Ted Williams, and Steve Wozniak.
> 
> Maybe their names are recognizable because they actually
> DID things rather than sitting around believing in or 
> praying to guys who don't exist. :-)

Another thought about what people could do with resources wasted on religion:




 

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[turquoiseb]

Heh. I figured all I had to do was to point out how 
slavishly she's adopted Robin as her cult leader and
she'd go batshit crazy. Good to see that the wind-up
toy is still functioning. :-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> Can you just imagine how horrified Barry's bosses on
> this new job in Paris are going to be when they
> realize how his mind has deteriorated?
> 
> I mean, he's always suffered from the delusion of
> thinking he can understand something someone has
> written without actually reading it; and he's always
> had the problem of not being able to tell the
> difference between a discussion about (a) *what*
> someone said and (b) a discussion about whether what
> someone said is *true*. Pretty elementary, but he
> just doesn't get it.
> 
> Now, however, he's into inventing biographical
> details that are hilariously factually inaccurate,
> mocking what he's invented thinking it's real, and
> convincing himself he's really devastated his 
> target. (All this while the actual details are right
> there in the person's posts for everybody to read.)
> 
> As Sal Sunshine would say, it would be sad if it
> weren't so funny.
> 
> Navashok, be prepared, Barry's going to need some
> of your expert fluffing toot sweet. And it looks
> like you'll have to accompany him to Paris, so get
> your bags packed.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > Internet argument poker: "I'll see your supposed expert
> > (Maharishi) and raise you two Robin posts. Now go do your
> > remedial reading of the Robinsez Sutras so that you're 
> > worthy of arguing with me about a subject that neither
> > of us has any personal experience with or knowledge of."  :-)
> > 
> > I don't know about anyone else, but the very concept of
> > someone quoting Robin Carlsen as a credible source about
> > ANYTHING just made my morning, and started it off with a
> > hearty laugh. Invoking "Robinsez" is even more hilarious
> > than invoking "Maharishisez."
> > 
> > Here's my whole take on the Robin Thang. He had some minor
> > experience on a course that, given the size of his ego and
> > the demands of his NPD, he felt compelled to turn into a 
> > MAJOR experience. He had no earthly idea what the experiences
> > he was having *were*, but knew that 1) he had to interpret
> > them as the topmost, #1, Highest Possible Experience in the
> > TM world, and 2) it had to be higher than the experiences
> > claimed by his wife at the time (mere CC), so he settled on 
> > Unity. If Maharishi had been talking about Brahman Conscious-
> > ness then, he would have called what he was experiencing BC. 
> > 
> > End of story. The fact that anyone actually *believes* any 
> > of his posturing about what he experienced blows my mind and
> > makes me roll my eyes, probably the same reaction Maharishi
> > had when Robin tried to run the same number on him. He 
> > probably told Robin, "Something good is happening," and Robin
> > then went forth throughout the land proclaiming, "Maharishi
> > confirmed I'm in Unity." And the saddest part? People in and
> > around the TM movement actually believed it, and some believe
> > it even now. [insert eyeroll here]
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Lawson, before we continue, please reread Robin's posts
> > > to you (both on this page):
> > > 
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/312523
> > > 
> > > We're talking at cross-purposes because you didn't read
> > > or don't remember what he wrote.
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I neve said anything at all EVER about performing siddhis in 
> > > > > > response to a skeptical demand (unless you mean one's own
> > > > > > internal skepticism).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Either would be problematic according to Robin's experience
> > > > > and understanding.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > What I said was:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and
> > > > > > the TM-Sidhis program regularly every day and start to believe
> > > > > > that you are in Unity, you can consult your own personal
> > > > > > history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your own beliefs: if
> > > > > > you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, you 
> > > > > > certainly haven't suddenly attained "full enlightenment."
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The fact that you keep missing this is very interesting.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I haven't missed it, Lawson. You haven't understood what
> > > > > Robin wrote about it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Robin never learned the TM-Sidhis, and therefore presumably
> > > > > > never practiced them, so it doesn't apply to him, unless he
> > > > > > had some concern that perhaps his experience of Unity was 
> > > > > > i

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[authfriend]

Can you just imagine how horrified Barry's bosses on
this new job in Paris are going to be when they
realize how his mind has deteriorated?

I mean, he's always suffered from the delusion of
thinking he can understand something someone has
written without actually reading it; and he's always
had the problem of not being able to tell the
difference between a discussion about (a) *what*
someone said and (b) a discussion about whether what
someone said is *true*. Pretty elementary, but he
just doesn't get it.

Now, however, he's into inventing biographical
details that are hilariously factually inaccurate,
mocking what he's invented thinking it's real, and
convincing himself he's really devastated his 
target. (All this while the actual details are right
there in the person's posts for everybody to read.)

As Sal Sunshine would say, it would be sad if it
weren't so funny.

Navashok, be prepared, Barry's going to need some
of your expert fluffing toot sweet. And it looks
like you'll have to accompany him to Paris, so get
your bags packed.





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Internet argument poker: "I'll see your supposed expert
> (Maharishi) and raise you two Robin posts. Now go do your
> remedial reading of the Robinsez Sutras so that you're 
> worthy of arguing with me about a subject that neither
> of us has any personal experience with or knowledge of."  :-)
> 
> I don't know about anyone else, but the very concept of
> someone quoting Robin Carlsen as a credible source about
> ANYTHING just made my morning, and started it off with a
> hearty laugh. Invoking "Robinsez" is even more hilarious
> than invoking "Maharishisez."
> 
> Here's my whole take on the Robin Thang. He had some minor
> experience on a course that, given the size of his ego and
> the demands of his NPD, he felt compelled to turn into a 
> MAJOR experience. He had no earthly idea what the experiences
> he was having *were*, but knew that 1) he had to interpret
> them as the topmost, #1, Highest Possible Experience in the
> TM world, and 2) it had to be higher than the experiences
> claimed by his wife at the time (mere CC), so he settled on 
> Unity. If Maharishi had been talking about Brahman Conscious-
> ness then, he would have called what he was experiencing BC. 
> 
> End of story. The fact that anyone actually *believes* any 
> of his posturing about what he experienced blows my mind and
> makes me roll my eyes, probably the same reaction Maharishi
> had when Robin tried to run the same number on him. He 
> probably told Robin, "Something good is happening," and Robin
> then went forth throughout the land proclaiming, "Maharishi
> confirmed I'm in Unity." And the saddest part? People in and
> around the TM movement actually believed it, and some believe
> it even now. [insert eyeroll here]
>  
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > Lawson, before we continue, please reread Robin's posts
> > to you (both on this page):
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/312523
> > 
> > We're talking at cross-purposes because you didn't read
> > or don't remember what he wrote.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I neve said anything at all EVER about performing siddhis in 
> > > > > response to a skeptical demand (unless you mean one's own
> > > > > internal skepticism).
> > > > 
> > > > Either would be problematic according to Robin's experience
> > > > and understanding.
> > > > 
> > > > > What I said was:
> > > > > 
> > > > > My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and
> > > > > the TM-Sidhis program regularly every day and start to believe
> > > > > that you are in Unity, you can consult your own personal
> > > > > history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your own beliefs: if
> > > > > you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, you 
> > > > > certainly haven't suddenly attained "full enlightenment."
> > > > > 
> > > > > The fact that you keep missing this is very interesting.
> > > > 
> > > > I haven't missed it, Lawson. You haven't understood what
> > > > Robin wrote about it.
> > > > 
> > > > > Robin never learned the TM-Sidhis, and therefore presumably
> > > > > never practiced them, so it doesn't apply to him, unless he
> > > > > had some concern that perhaps his experience of Unity was 
> > > > > incomplete and wanted to test it by learning them for that
> > > > > purpose.
> > > > 
> > > > He didn't have any such concern.
> > > > 
> > > > > Ironically, Robin has indicated that he has had EXTREME
> > > > > skepticism concerning Unity his own, or anyone else's, and
> > > > > that skepticism appears to center around Unity being a real 
> > > > > perception, rather than merely some kind of hallucination.
> > > > 
> > > > Lawson, he's very clear

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > >  
> > > > Outside of the TMO, many saints in the Catholic Curch were
> > > > known to have levitated, including St. Teresa of Avila.  So,
> > > > levitation or flying can be used as a criteria to determine
> > > > one's state of consciousness, specifically that of
> > > > enlightenment.
> > > 
> > > John, this is way too simplistic and creates significant
> > > confusion.
> > > 
> > > The saints had no *intention* of levitating; it was
> > > involuntary, and in many cases unwelcome--frightening and 
> > > overwhelming. Teresa actually prayed that it wouldn't
> > > happen.
> > > 
> > > Any devout Catholic, moreover, would be appalled at the
> > > idea of such performances being used as a criterion of
> > > spiritual development; that would be strictly against
> > > Church doctrine. And the saints would never want to
> > > attract attention to themselves in that way.
> > > 
> > > Aside from the issue of whether levitation is possible,
> > > there really isn't any commonality between the
> > > significance of levitation in the Western (Catholic)
> > > tradition and its significance in the Eastern tradition.
> > > You can't use one to justify the other.
> > >
> > Judy,
> > 
> > Levitation is the quick test for those who claim to be
> > enlightened, in particular, those who follow Osho's
> > techniques and philosophy.  Otherwise, it may take a
> > very long time to prove conclusively that a person is
> > enlightened.  Specifically, the Vatican has a very
> > exhaustive method for canonizing a saint.
> 
> John, I have no idea what any of this has to do with what
> I said. I don't think you read what I wrote.
> 
> The saints who levitated did not claim to be "enlightened,"
> nor could they have passed that test.
> 
> Canonization by the Vatican has nothing to do with the
> Eastern concept of enlightenment. This is all apples and
> kiwi fruit. Church sainthood and enlightenment are not
> at all the same thing.
>
Hey Judy,

Please, tell us what is the difference between an enlightened person and a 
saint?  Do you think MMY was enlightened or a saint?

JR

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[navashok]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> >
> > > Here's my whole take on the Robin Thang. He had some minor
> > > experience on a course that, given the size of his ego and
> > > the demands of his NPD, he felt compelled to turn into a 
> > > MAJOR experience. 
> > 
> > See at least 45 posts on just his theory of Barry's. 
> 
> In Germany, they also gave some thought to the subject, namely to help people 
> suffering from NPD, and since historically speaking they have some experience 
> with it, they finally came up with this solution (not the Endloesung, as you 
> might think): Have a party for it, it's called NPD party, exclusively 
> composed of people suffering from 
> NPD.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_of_Germany
> 
> It was relatively easy to collect the people, by giving them a common goal of 
> world dominion, as this has been proven to attract people with NPD. Calling 
> the party NPD also will subliminally attract likeminded people. The idea is, 
> that now the Verfassungsschutz, the german secret service, can have a close 
> eye on everybody in the party, and well, almost everyone in the party is an 
> agent as well, so it serves a double purpose.
>
The link again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_of_Germany

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[navashok]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>
> > Here's my whole take on the Robin Thang. He had some minor
> > experience on a course that, given the size of his ego and
> > the demands of his NPD, he felt compelled to turn into a 
> > MAJOR experience. 
> 
> See at least 45 posts on just his theory of Barry's. 

In Germany, they also gave some thought to the subject, namely to help people 
suffering from NPD, and since historically speaking they have some experience 
with it, they finally came up with this solution (not the Endloesung, as you 
might think): Have a party for it, it's called NPD party, exclusively composed 
of people suffering from 
NPD.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_of_Germany

It was relatively easy to collect the people, by giving them a common goal of 
world dominion, as this has been proven to attract people with NPD. Calling the 
party NPD also will subliminally attract likeminded people. The idea is, that 
now the Verfassungsschutz, the german secret service, can have a close eye on 
everybody in the party, and well, almost everyone in the party is an agent as 
well, so it serves a double purpose.

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Internet argument poker: "I'll see your supposed expert
> (Maharishi) and raise you two Robin posts. Now go do your
> remedial reading of the Robinsez Sutras so that you're 
> worthy of arguing with me about a subject that neither
> of us has any personal experience with or knowledge of."  :-)

Does that include you you too, dear Barry? Or does ignorance only apply to 
other people?
> 
> I don't know about anyone else, but the very concept of
> someone quoting Robin Carlsen as a credible source about
> ANYTHING just made my morning, and started it off with a
> hearty laugh. Invoking "Robinsez" is even more hilarious
> than invoking "Maharishisez." 

Aw, c'mon Barry we gave you your moment in the limelight yesterday when you 
were crowing about your new, very important job (and congrats again) not let 
poor Robin have his 'credible' moment in the spotlight is just plain mean 
spirited. Move over for a minute, get back stage and be gracious about it.
> 
> Here's my whole take on the Robin Thang. He had some minor
> experience on a course that, given the size of his ego and
> the demands of his NPD, he felt compelled to turn into a 
> MAJOR experience. 

See at least 45 posts on just his theory of Barry's. Barry, we don't all have 
dementia here; we do realize what your theory is on this subject. It is heart 
warming to see that you have given it some thought, some analysis and taken the 
time to write it down 45 times. And it is also comforting to know that we can 
come to you with any questions or concerns about someone's purported state of 
mind, state of psychology and probably the colour of the underwear if it came 
right down to it. You are the MAN!

>He had no earthly idea what the experiences
> he was having *were*, but knew that 1) he had to interpret
> them as the topmost, #1, Highest Possible Experience in the
> TM world, and 2) it had to be higher than the experiences
> claimed by his wife at the time (mere CC), so he settled on 
> Unity. If Maharishi had been talking about Brahman Conscious-
> ness then, he would have called what he was experiencing BC. 

I know, don't you just hate those kind of people? When you are having a 
perfectly civil conversation they're always one-upping you. When you say you 
drive a Volvo they drive a Mercedes. When you relate about your trip to Mexico 
they say they went to Fiji. If you own a condo they own a mansion. Robin would 
undoubtedly also claim he has solid gold fillings, bathes in goat's milk 
imported from the Himalayas and lights his incense with $100 bills - what a 
dick.
> 
> End of story. The fact that anyone actually *believes* any 
> of his posturing about what he experienced blows my mind and
> makes me roll my eyes, probably the same reaction Maharishi
> had when Robin tried to run the same number on him.

Undoubtedly. I mean you were perhaps 1500 miles away at the time, didn't know 
Robin and your expertise extends to figuring out the truth 35 years later in a 
location you were never at about someone else's inner experience. Your theory 
sounds perfectly well-founded to me.
 >He 
> probably told Robin, "Something good is happening," and Robin
> then went forth throughout the land proclaiming, "Maharishi
> confirmed I'm in Unity." And the saddest part? People in and
> around the TM movement actually believed it, and some believe
> it even now. [insert eyeroll here]

Yes, so sad. May I take a moment for silence and a slow tear to roll down my 
cheek? It is one of those tragedies of this life that we sometimes have to 
endure the obviously ludicrous beliefs of others. God, how can people be so 
STUPID? How could they believe something 35 years ago and still believe it now? 
Shocking. I will roll my eyes and hope we are somehow synchronistically 
engaging in this act of togetherness (eye rolling) even as I pen this last, 
poignant sentence. Your insights never fail to have this effect on me.
>  
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > Lawson, before we continue, please reread Robin's posts
> > to you (both on this page):
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/312523
> > 
> > We're talking at cross-purposes because you didn't read
> > or don't remember what he wrote.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I neve said anything at all EVER about performing siddhis in 
> > > > > response to a skeptical demand (unless you mean one's own
> > > > > internal skepticism).
> > > > 
> > > > Either would be problematic according to Robin's experience
> > > > and understanding.
> > > > 
> > > > > What I said was:
> > > > > 
> > > > > My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and
> > > > > the TM-Sidhis program regularly every day and start to believ

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Doc, 
> > > What a nice [first person] account.  It's quite charitable 
> > > and also reads like an invitation. Thanks Doc, this should 
> > > be dragged over to the current parallel FFL atheist thread 
> > > too where the atheistic sophists are splitting epistemological 
> > > hairs again. Last weekend I was over in Chicago and got a 
> > > tour of the FermiLab where incredibly high-minded research 
> > > continues to split particles down and down. A kind of a very 
> > > Large game in materialism. It is an amazing place and a temple 
> > > in its own atheistic right but for an evident general lack of 
> > > experience in what they are after.   
> > > 
> > > A brochure handed out at FermiLab has an explanation where the 
> > > first director of Fermi Lab was asked how the laboratory would 
> > > help defend the United States?  Ans: "It has nothing to do 
> > > directly with defending our country except to make it worth 
> > > defending."
> > > http://www.fnal.gov/
> > > 
> > > Thoreau, 'A life worth living'. 'Fairfield', is like the 
> > > ongoing basic research in spiritual practice even for the 
> > > enlightened in life.  
> > 
> > You may know that Enrico Fermi was an atheist, but did 
> > you know that Henry David Thoreau was, too? Here are a 
> > few more atheists you may have heard of:
> > 
> > Douglas Adams, Woody Allen, Isaac Asimov, Dave Barry, 
> > Ingmar Bergman, Niels Bohr, Richard Branson, James 
> > Cameron, George Carlin, John Carpenter, Asia Carrera, 
> > Noam Chomsky, Jeremy Clarkson, Billy Connolly, Francis 
> > Crick, David Cronenberg, David Cross, Alan Cumming, 
> > Rodney Dangerfield, Richard Dawkins, Ani DiFranco, 
> > Albert Einstein, Harlan Ellison, Richard Feynman, 
> > Harvey Fierstein, Jodie Foster, Janeane Garofalo, Bill 
> > Gates, Bob Geldof, Ricky Gervais, Ira Glass, Robert 
> > Heinlein, Ernest Hemingway, Katharine Hepburn, 
> > Christopher Hitchens, Eddie Izzard, Penn Jillette, 
> > Billy Joel, Diane Keaton, Keira Knightley, John Landis, 
> > Hugh Laurie, Richard Leakey, Bruce Lee, Tom Lehrer, 
> > John Lennon, James Lipton, H.P. Lovecraft, Ernst Mach, 
> > Seth MacFarlane, Bill Maher, John Malkovich, Barry 
> > Manilow, Todd McFarlane, Sir Ian McKellen, Arthur 
> > Miller, Claude Monet, Julianne Moore, Rafael Nadal, 
> > Randy Newman, Mike Nichols, Jack Nicholson, Gary Numan, 
> > Bob Odenkirk, Patton Oswalt, Camille Paglia, Trey Parker, 
> > Paula Poundstone, Terry Pratchett, Robin Quivers, James 
> > Randi, Ron Reagan Jr., Rob Reiner, Keanu Reeves, Gene 
> > Roddenberry, Henry Rollins, Andy Rooney, Salman Rushdie, 
> > Adam Savage, Brian Sapient, Erwin Schrödinger, Bob Simon, 
> > Steven Soderbergh, Annika Sorenstam, George Soros, 
> > Howard Stern, Matt Stone, Julia Sweeney, Studs Terkel, 
> > Pat Tillman, Alan Turing, Eddie Vedder, Gore Vidal, 
> > Vincent van Gogh, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Steven Weinberg, 
> > Joss Whedon, Ted Williams, and Steve Wozniak.
> > 
> > Maybe their names are recognizable because they actually
> > DID things rather than sitting around believing in or 
> > praying to guys who don't exist. :-)
> >
> A list can always be made, of those with some oddity to them. It is like 
> making a list of all past members of Congress with wooden legs. Big deal.
> 
> These names appear significant on this list, because there are so *few* of 
> them. You are dealing with a severe minority here. I am not sure how pointing 
> that out helps your case. 
> 
> PS My guess is that you suck at chess, too.

I wonder when they handed out the questionnaire asking the world if they were 
atheists or not and then who bothered to publish this list and then who cared 
enough to read it. 
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[doctordumbass]

"But is it really real, or is it merely a mere change of perception? Unity is 
said to be such that, unlike other states of consciousness, one CAN affect 
external reality because external and internal really ARE the same."

It is quite a spectrum of experience to close the gap between external and 
internal reality. The first experience we have meditating is to get at 
ourselves, beginning to see some expansion and light, in there. The identity 
begins to adjust to this. Then with more TM, the process continues externally.

Maharishi was on the right track setting such a high bar of integration, 
between internal and external reality, that the common laws of nature could be 
visibly reversed.

Using that same principle of visible integration, between internal and external 
reality, the clues to our success are right in front of us. How difficult or 
easy is it to satisfy our internal desires, externally? Are our thoughts 
powerful, or are we stuck in a cycle of hoping and wishing? What else has 
become visible? All of these recognitions can be used as markers along the way 
to full Unity. 

As full Unity approaches, Brahman, the markers begin to blend together some, 
into, yes, a more unified life, and at the same time, as creative as ever.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > >
> > > I neve said anything at all EVER about performing siddhis in 
> > > response to a skeptical demand (unless you mean one's own
> > > internal skepticism).
> > 
> > Either would be problematic according to Robin's experience
> > and understanding.
> > 
> > > What I said was:
> > > 
> > > My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and
> > > the TM-Sidhis program regularly every day and start to believe
> > > that you are in Unity, you can consult your own personal
> > > history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your own beliefs: if
> > > you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, you 
> > > certainly haven't suddenly attained "full enlightenment."
> > > 
> > > The fact that you keep missing this is very interesting.
> > 
> > I haven't missed it, Lawson. You haven't understood what
> > Robin wrote about it.
> > 
> > > Robin never learned the TM-Sidhis, and therefore presumably
> > > never practiced them, so it doesn't apply to him, unless he
> > > had some concern that perhaps his experience of Unity was 
> > > incomplete and wanted to test it by learning them for that
> > > purpose.
> > 
> > He didn't have any such concern.
> > 
> > > Ironically, Robin has indicated that he has had EXTREME
> > > skepticism concerning Unity his own, or anyone else's, and
> > > that skepticism appears to center around Unity being a real 
> > > perception, rather than merely some kind of hallucination.
> > 
> > Lawson, he's very clear about what he thinks is the nature
> > of Unity consciousness ("skepticism" isn't the right term;
> > he's quite convinced). I don't know what you have in mind
> > by "centers around." He believes Unity is a *real state*
> > but that it does not reflect Ultimate Reality; the conviction
> > one has in Unity that the state *does* reflect Ultimate
> > Reality is the "hallucination," according to Robin, a cosmic
> > delusion, a deception. The state itself is real, the loss of 
> > individual will is real, etc., etc.
> 
> But is it really real, or is it merely a mere change of perception? Unity is 
> said to be such that, unlike other states of consciousness, one CAN affect 
> external reality because external and internal really ARE the same.
> 
> 
> > 
> > > By most people's definition of real vs hallucination, testing
> > > his own ability to perform the siddhis would have laid that 
> > > skepticism to rest -if the universe does what he wants, one
> > > might have some inkling that the universe and he really ARE
> > > one at some level, but he was never inclined to do this
> > 
> > You have not understood what he told you, Lawson. First of
> > all, again, he was never and is not now skeptical that he
> > was in Unity.
> 
> He was and IS skeptical about the nature of Unity. MMY was pointing out that 
> one has a way of testing whether or not what one is "in" is "really" the 
> "real" Unity. His skepticism concerns whether or not Unity is real, period. 
> MMY's test was to show whether or not the Unity is really real thing. Robin 
> has never conducted that test. The fact that he never believed there was a 
> need is immaterial to my point: Robin has had a way to prove or disprove 
> whether or not his Unity is the real deal and he hasn't availed himself. 
> 
> > 
> > Second, if one is in Unity, one does what the universe
> > wants, not the reverse. That's why it made no sense,
> > according to Robin, for Maharishi to suggest that the
> > ability to levitate is a "test" of whether one is in
> > Unity.
> 
> I side-stepped Robin's objection quit

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[doctordumbass]

Thanks. The quote by the first director is a hoot!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> Doc, 
> What a nice [first person] account.  It's quite charitable and also reads 
> like an invitation.  Thanks Doc, this should be dragged over to the current 
> parallel FFL atheist thread too where the atheistic sophists are splitting 
> epistemological hairs again.  Last weekend I was over in Chicago and got a 
> tour of the FermiLab where incredibly high-minded research continues to split 
> particles down and down.  A kind of a very Large game in materialism. It is 
> an amazing place and a temple in its own atheistic right but for an evident 
> general lack of experience in what they are after.   
> 
> A brochure handed out at FermiLab has an explanation where the first director 
> of Fermi Lab was asked how the laboratory would help defend the United 
> States?  Ans: "It has nothing to do directly with defending our country 
> except to make it worth defending."
> http://www.fnal.gov/
> 
> Thoreau, 'A life worth living'.  'Fairfield', is like the ongoing basic 
> research in spiritual practice even for the enlightened in life.  And, though 
> some people just aren't smart enough to work at Fermi Lab either but 
> evidently everyone can study physics practically in public schools and derive 
> benefits.  It's all very encouraging and inspiring for a better life, like 
> your posts.  
> 
> Thanks for sharing your spiritual experience with us here,
> -Buck
>  
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > " Jimbo will keep claiming he's in CC"
> > 
> > I missed this misinformation earlier. I used to claim to be in CC, which I 
> > was. Man, was that painful! Just as it grew from TC, CC also supports 
> > higher states of consciousness. It must, just like a dirt pile supports a 
> > mountain. 
> > 
> > Wake up, and catch up, please. I have been climbing for awhile, now, since 
> > my proclamation of CC. It is no fun trying to run in place with you. 
> > 
> > Recognize that static awareness is not in the interest of someone making 
> > progress spiritually. There is nothing to defend in looking backwards, or 
> > remaining steadfastly in place.
> > 
> > You however, with your denial of your subjective reality, your own 
> > emotional awareness, what is sometimes called the shadow, or the 
> > subconscious, continue to be stuck.
> > 
> > The bad stuff, and the good stuff, sadly, for you, is always outside of 
> > you. You hide from your subjective reality, as many seekers do, believing 
> > that if the world would simply change to their liking, they would be happy.
> > 
> > You cherry pick the highlights of your outside life, while continuing to 
> > not recognize that these are not highlights. These are expressions of this 
> > creation, available 24/7.
> > 
> > *Unless you think you know better*. In that case, the creation graciously 
> > allows your denial of the gifts that could be yours, and allows you the 
> > continued existence of a childish life.
> > 
> > A childish life is hallmarked by the refusal to face one's shadow, living 
> > superstitiously as you do, with your senseless beliefs. I call them 
> > senseless, because they are not direct, they are not innocent. They are 
> > merely in place to hold YOU in place, to hold you down. 
> > 
> > A person living a childish life pays a great price for their web of beliefs 
> > in themselves. It is a self centered existence, which it has to be, having 
> > fear at its core. The lack of ability to see one's subjective self, one's 
> > emotions as they paint one's thoughts, the shadow, the subconscious, causes 
> > such a warping of life, that one lives crippled by that which they refuse 
> > to see within themselves.
> > 
> > So you can say anything you like about me, though I really, really 
> > appreciate those who operate in the NOW, the present. Chasing down and 
> > dealing with your particularly moldly ideas is a drag. Thanks.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyone can claim he or she is enlightened.  But can he or she fly?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Nobody in the TM movement can fly. Is that really a criteria related 
> > > > > to enlightenment? Is that anything a normal, healthy human being 
> > > > > should be able to do? Does it have relevance to anything worthwhile 
> > > > > or useful? Are humans who could fly smarter, more compassionate, more 
> > > > > beautiful to look at?
> > > > 
> > > > Basically, MMY said that anyone claiming to be in fully mature Unity 
> > > > Consciousness who was unable to perform any and all of the siddhis at 
> > > > will, was fooling themselves.
> > > > 
> > > > My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
> >
> > Doc,
> > What a nice [first person] account.  It's quite charitable
> > and also reads like an invitation. Thanks Doc, this should
> > be dragged over to the current parallel FFL atheist thread
> > too where the atheistic sophists are splitting epistemological
> > hairs again. Last weekend I was over in Chicago and got a
> > tour of the FermiLab where incredibly high-minded research
> > continues to split particles down and down. A kind of a very
> > Large game in materialism. It is an amazing place and a temple
> > in its own atheistic right but for an evident general lack of
> > experience in what they are after.
> >
> > A brochure handed out at FermiLab has an explanation where the
> > first director of Fermi Lab was asked how the laboratory would
> > help defend the United States?  Ans: "It has nothing to do
> > directly with defending our country except to make it worth
> > defending."
> > http://www.fnal.gov/
> >
> > Thoreau, 'A life worth living'. 'Fairfield', is like the
> > ongoing basic research in spiritual practice even for the
> > enlightened in life.
>
> You may know that Enrico Fermi was an atheist, but did
> you know that Henry David Thoreau was, too? Here are a
> few more atheists you may have heard of:
>
> Douglas Adams, Woody Allen, Isaac Asimov, Dave Barry,
> Ingmar Bergman, Niels Bohr, Richard Branson, James
> Cameron, George Carlin, John Carpenter, Asia Carrera,
> Noam Chomsky, Jeremy Clarkson, Billy Connolly, Francis
> Crick, David Cronenberg, David Cross, Alan Cumming,
> Rodney Dangerfield, Richard Dawkins, Ani DiFranco,
> Albert Einstein, Harlan Ellison, Richard Feynman,
> Harvey Fierstein, Jodie Foster, Janeane Garofalo, Bill
> Gates, Bob Geldof, Ricky Gervais, Ira Glass, Robert
> Heinlein, Ernest Hemingway, Katharine Hepburn,
> Christopher Hitchens, Eddie Izzard, Penn Jillette,
> Billy Joel, Diane Keaton, Keira Knightley, John Landis,
> Hugh Laurie, Richard Leakey, Bruce Lee, Tom Lehrer,
> John Lennon, James Lipton, H.P. Lovecraft, Ernst Mach,
> Seth MacFarlane, Bill Maher, John Malkovich, Barry
> Manilow, Todd McFarlane, Sir Ian McKellen, Arthur
> Miller, Claude Monet, Julianne Moore, Rafael Nadal,
> Randy Newman, Mike Nichols, Jack Nicholson, Gary Numan,
> Bob Odenkirk, Patton Oswalt, Camille Paglia, Trey Parker,
> Paula Poundstone, Terry Pratchett, Robin Quivers, James
> Randi, Ron Reagan Jr., Rob Reiner, Keanu Reeves, Gene
> Roddenberry, Henry Rollins, Andy Rooney, Salman Rushdie,
> Adam Savage, Brian Sapient, Erwin Schrödinger, Bob Simon,
> Steven Soderbergh, Annika Sorenstam, George Soros,
> Howard Stern, Matt Stone, Julia Sweeney, Studs Terkel,
> Pat Tillman, Alan Turing, Eddie Vedder, Gore Vidal,
> Vincent van Gogh, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Steven Weinberg,
> Joss Whedon, Ted Williams, and Steve Wozniak.
>
> Maybe their names are recognizable because they actually
> DID things rather than sitting around believing in or
> praying to guys who don't exist. :-)

Another thought about what people could do with resources wasted on
religion:

 
[https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/537611_513103665\
397539_1418491743_n.jpg]

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[doctordumbass]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > Doc, 
> > What a nice [first person] account.  It's quite charitable 
> > and also reads like an invitation. Thanks Doc, this should 
> > be dragged over to the current parallel FFL atheist thread 
> > too where the atheistic sophists are splitting epistemological 
> > hairs again. Last weekend I was over in Chicago and got a 
> > tour of the FermiLab where incredibly high-minded research 
> > continues to split particles down and down. A kind of a very 
> > Large game in materialism. It is an amazing place and a temple 
> > in its own atheistic right but for an evident general lack of 
> > experience in what they are after.   
> > 
> > A brochure handed out at FermiLab has an explanation where the 
> > first director of Fermi Lab was asked how the laboratory would 
> > help defend the United States?  Ans: "It has nothing to do 
> > directly with defending our country except to make it worth 
> > defending."
> > http://www.fnal.gov/
> > 
> > Thoreau, 'A life worth living'. 'Fairfield', is like the 
> > ongoing basic research in spiritual practice even for the 
> > enlightened in life.  
> 
> You may know that Enrico Fermi was an atheist, but did 
> you know that Henry David Thoreau was, too? Here are a 
> few more atheists you may have heard of:
> 
> Douglas Adams, Woody Allen, Isaac Asimov, Dave Barry, 
> Ingmar Bergman, Niels Bohr, Richard Branson, James 
> Cameron, George Carlin, John Carpenter, Asia Carrera, 
> Noam Chomsky, Jeremy Clarkson, Billy Connolly, Francis 
> Crick, David Cronenberg, David Cross, Alan Cumming, 
> Rodney Dangerfield, Richard Dawkins, Ani DiFranco, 
> Albert Einstein, Harlan Ellison, Richard Feynman, 
> Harvey Fierstein, Jodie Foster, Janeane Garofalo, Bill 
> Gates, Bob Geldof, Ricky Gervais, Ira Glass, Robert 
> Heinlein, Ernest Hemingway, Katharine Hepburn, 
> Christopher Hitchens, Eddie Izzard, Penn Jillette, 
> Billy Joel, Diane Keaton, Keira Knightley, John Landis, 
> Hugh Laurie, Richard Leakey, Bruce Lee, Tom Lehrer, 
> John Lennon, James Lipton, H.P. Lovecraft, Ernst Mach, 
> Seth MacFarlane, Bill Maher, John Malkovich, Barry 
> Manilow, Todd McFarlane, Sir Ian McKellen, Arthur 
> Miller, Claude Monet, Julianne Moore, Rafael Nadal, 
> Randy Newman, Mike Nichols, Jack Nicholson, Gary Numan, 
> Bob Odenkirk, Patton Oswalt, Camille Paglia, Trey Parker, 
> Paula Poundstone, Terry Pratchett, Robin Quivers, James 
> Randi, Ron Reagan Jr., Rob Reiner, Keanu Reeves, Gene 
> Roddenberry, Henry Rollins, Andy Rooney, Salman Rushdie, 
> Adam Savage, Brian Sapient, Erwin Schrödinger, Bob Simon, 
> Steven Soderbergh, Annika Sorenstam, George Soros, 
> Howard Stern, Matt Stone, Julia Sweeney, Studs Terkel, 
> Pat Tillman, Alan Turing, Eddie Vedder, Gore Vidal, 
> Vincent van Gogh, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Steven Weinberg, 
> Joss Whedon, Ted Williams, and Steve Wozniak.
> 
> Maybe their names are recognizable because they actually
> DID things rather than sitting around believing in or 
> praying to guys who don't exist. :-)
>
A list can always be made, of those with some oddity to them. It is like making 
a list of all past members of Congress with wooden legs. Big deal.

These names appear significant on this list, because there are so *few* of 
them. You are dealing with a severe minority here. I am not sure how pointing 
that out helps your case. 

PS My guess is that you suck at chess, too.

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> Doc, 
> What a nice [first person] account.  It's quite charitable 
> and also reads like an invitation. Thanks Doc, this should 
> be dragged over to the current parallel FFL atheist thread 
> too where the atheistic sophists are splitting epistemological 
> hairs again. Last weekend I was over in Chicago and got a 
> tour of the FermiLab where incredibly high-minded research 
> continues to split particles down and down. A kind of a very 
> Large game in materialism. It is an amazing place and a temple 
> in its own atheistic right but for an evident general lack of 
> experience in what they are after.   
> 
> A brochure handed out at FermiLab has an explanation where the 
> first director of Fermi Lab was asked how the laboratory would 
> help defend the United States?  Ans: "It has nothing to do 
> directly with defending our country except to make it worth 
> defending."
> http://www.fnal.gov/
> 
> Thoreau, 'A life worth living'. 'Fairfield', is like the 
> ongoing basic research in spiritual practice even for the 
> enlightened in life.  

You may know that Enrico Fermi was an atheist, but did 
you know that Henry David Thoreau was, too? Here are a 
few more atheists you may have heard of:

Douglas Adams, Woody Allen, Isaac Asimov, Dave Barry, 
Ingmar Bergman, Niels Bohr, Richard Branson, James 
Cameron, George Carlin, John Carpenter, Asia Carrera, 
Noam Chomsky, Jeremy Clarkson, Billy Connolly, Francis 
Crick, David Cronenberg, David Cross, Alan Cumming, 
Rodney Dangerfield, Richard Dawkins, Ani DiFranco, 
Albert Einstein, Harlan Ellison, Richard Feynman, 
Harvey Fierstein, Jodie Foster, Janeane Garofalo, Bill 
Gates, Bob Geldof, Ricky Gervais, Ira Glass, Robert 
Heinlein, Ernest Hemingway, Katharine Hepburn, 
Christopher Hitchens, Eddie Izzard, Penn Jillette, 
Billy Joel, Diane Keaton, Keira Knightley, John Landis, 
Hugh Laurie, Richard Leakey, Bruce Lee, Tom Lehrer, 
John Lennon, James Lipton, H.P. Lovecraft, Ernst Mach, 
Seth MacFarlane, Bill Maher, John Malkovich, Barry 
Manilow, Todd McFarlane, Sir Ian McKellen, Arthur 
Miller, Claude Monet, Julianne Moore, Rafael Nadal, 
Randy Newman, Mike Nichols, Jack Nicholson, Gary Numan, 
Bob Odenkirk, Patton Oswalt, Camille Paglia, Trey Parker, 
Paula Poundstone, Terry Pratchett, Robin Quivers, James 
Randi, Ron Reagan Jr., Rob Reiner, Keanu Reeves, Gene 
Roddenberry, Henry Rollins, Andy Rooney, Salman Rushdie, 
Adam Savage, Brian Sapient, Erwin Schrödinger, Bob Simon, 
Steven Soderbergh, Annika Sorenstam, George Soros, 
Howard Stern, Matt Stone, Julia Sweeney, Studs Terkel, 
Pat Tillman, Alan Turing, Eddie Vedder, Gore Vidal, 
Vincent van Gogh, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Steven Weinberg, 
Joss Whedon, Ted Williams, and Steve Wozniak.

Maybe their names are recognizable because they actually
DID things rather than sitting around believing in or 
praying to guys who don't exist. :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Buck]

Doc, 
What a nice [first person] account.  It's quite charitable and also reads like 
an invitation.  Thanks Doc, this should be dragged over to the current parallel 
FFL atheist thread too where the atheistic sophists are splitting 
epistemological hairs again.  Last weekend I was over in Chicago and got a tour 
of the FermiLab where incredibly high-minded research continues to split 
particles down and down.  A kind of a very Large game in materialism. It is an 
amazing place and a temple in its own atheistic right but for an evident 
general lack of experience in what they are after.   

A brochure handed out at FermiLab has an explanation where the first director 
of Fermi Lab was asked how the laboratory would help defend the United States?  
Ans: "It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make 
it worth defending."
http://www.fnal.gov/

Thoreau, 'A life worth living'.  'Fairfield', is like the ongoing basic 
research in spiritual practice even for the enlightened in life.  And, though 
some people just aren't smart enough to work at Fermi Lab either but evidently 
everyone can study physics practically in public schools and derive benefits.  
It's all very encouraging and inspiring for a better life, like your posts.  

Thanks for sharing your spiritual experience with us here,
-Buck
 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> " Jimbo will keep claiming he's in CC"
> 
> I missed this misinformation earlier. I used to claim to be in CC, which I 
> was. Man, was that painful! Just as it grew from TC, CC also supports higher 
> states of consciousness. It must, just like a dirt pile supports a mountain. 
> 
> Wake up, and catch up, please. I have been climbing for awhile, now, since my 
> proclamation of CC. It is no fun trying to run in place with you. 
> 
> Recognize that static awareness is not in the interest of someone making 
> progress spiritually. There is nothing to defend in looking backwards, or 
> remaining steadfastly in place.
> 
> You however, with your denial of your subjective reality, your own emotional 
> awareness, what is sometimes called the shadow, or the subconscious, continue 
> to be stuck.
> 
> The bad stuff, and the good stuff, sadly, for you, is always outside of you. 
> You hide from your subjective reality, as many seekers do, believing that if 
> the world would simply change to their liking, they would be happy.
> 
> You cherry pick the highlights of your outside life, while continuing to not 
> recognize that these are not highlights. These are expressions of this 
> creation, available 24/7.
> 
> *Unless you think you know better*. In that case, the creation graciously 
> allows your denial of the gifts that could be yours, and allows you the 
> continued existence of a childish life.
> 
> A childish life is hallmarked by the refusal to face one's shadow, living 
> superstitiously as you do, with your senseless beliefs. I call them 
> senseless, because they are not direct, they are not innocent. They are 
> merely in place to hold YOU in place, to hold you down. 
> 
> A person living a childish life pays a great price for their web of beliefs 
> in themselves. It is a self centered existence, which it has to be, having 
> fear at its core. The lack of ability to see one's subjective self, one's 
> emotions as they paint one's thoughts, the shadow, the subconscious, causes 
> such a warping of life, that one lives crippled by that which they refuse to 
> see within themselves.
> 
> So you can say anything you like about me, though I really, really appreciate 
> those who operate in the NOW, the present. Chasing down and dealing with your 
> particularly moldly ideas is a drag. Thanks.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyone can claim he or she is enlightened.  But can he or she fly?
> > > > 
> > > > Nobody in the TM movement can fly. Is that really a criteria related to 
> > > > enlightenment? Is that anything a normal, healthy human being should be 
> > > > able to do? Does it have relevance to anything worthwhile or useful? 
> > > > Are humans who could fly smarter, more compassionate, more beautiful to 
> > > > look at?
> > > 
> > > Basically, MMY said that anyone claiming to be in fully mature Unity 
> > > Consciousness who was unable to perform any and all of the siddhis at 
> > > will, was fooling themselves.
> > > 
> > > My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and the TM-Sidhis 
> > > program regularly every day and start to believe that you are in Unity, 
> > > you can consult your own personal history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify 
> > > your own beliefs: if you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic 
> > > Flying, you certainly haven't suddenly 

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
>may have screened out every person who ever lived, or who ever lived, 
>including MMY, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, Shankara, Buddha, Jesus etc.


That should read: who ever lived or who ever will have lived...


L

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[sparaig]

I reread those posts (again) Judy.

They don't, in any way, change what I assert.

Robin's ability or inability to float or whatever is  marker for what he says 
it is: his own Unity (can't speak for anyone else's here), by the test that MMY 
gave subsequently, was not complete and Robin has always had the ability to 
avail himself of the test. 

Further, MMY may have failed his own test when he tried it. I am quite willing 
to agree that by MMY's test, which isn't THAT unusual according to mystical 
tradition, may have screened out every person who ever lived, or who ever 
lived, including MMY, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, Shankara, Buddha, Jesus etc.

Even so, it is  test that he could have used, but didn't. Further, MY 
understanding is such that if Robin were fully in Unity, he would need no 
formal technique at all. His decision to float would have been sufficient. No 
sutra required. This last my be Robin's own reason for deciding that Unity, as 
a whole, isn't really real: the mountain never came to him regardless of his 
own intent. But this would only prove MY point: Robin's Unity was never perfect 
(something which MMY never asserted anyway, as far as I can tell: valid 
experiences of Unity are not the same as being 100% in Unity, any more than 
witnessing 24/7 for years at a time are the same as being 100% in CC).

Finally, as I have pointed out, Robin's ability to decide to become 
de-enlightened either means that the Universe wanted him to become 
de-enlightend or that he never really was in Unity in the first place, assuming 
that Robin's assertion about free will and Unity is valid (many other 
possibilities exist as well, of course, but we're talking in terms of black and 
white logic, both on my part, concerning MMY's test, and on Robin's part 
concerning the nature of Unity, and your part, etc).

L

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> Lawson, before we continue, please reread Robin's posts
> to you (both on this page):
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/312523
> 
> We're talking at cross-purposes because you didn't read
> or don't remember what he wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I neve said anything at all EVER about performing siddhis in 
> > > > response to a skeptical demand (unless you mean one's own
> > > > internal skepticism).
> > > 
> > > Either would be problematic according to Robin's experience
> > > and understanding.
> > > 
> > > > What I said was:
> > > > 
> > > > My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and
> > > > the TM-Sidhis program regularly every day and start to believe
> > > > that you are in Unity, you can consult your own personal
> > > > history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your own beliefs: if
> > > > you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, you 
> > > > certainly haven't suddenly attained "full enlightenment."
> > > > 
> > > > The fact that you keep missing this is very interesting.
> > > 
> > > I haven't missed it, Lawson. You haven't understood what
> > > Robin wrote about it.
> > > 
> > > > Robin never learned the TM-Sidhis, and therefore presumably
> > > > never practiced them, so it doesn't apply to him, unless he
> > > > had some concern that perhaps his experience of Unity was 
> > > > incomplete and wanted to test it by learning them for that
> > > > purpose.
> > > 
> > > He didn't have any such concern.
> > > 
> > > > Ironically, Robin has indicated that he has had EXTREME
> > > > skepticism concerning Unity his own, or anyone else's, and
> > > > that skepticism appears to center around Unity being a real 
> > > > perception, rather than merely some kind of hallucination.
> > > 
> > > Lawson, he's very clear about what he thinks is the nature
> > > of Unity consciousness ("skepticism" isn't the right term;
> > > he's quite convinced). I don't know what you have in mind
> > > by "centers around." He believes Unity is a *real state*
> > > but that it does not reflect Ultimate Reality; the conviction
> > > one has in Unity that the state *does* reflect Ultimate
> > > Reality is the "hallucination," according to Robin, a cosmic
> > > delusion, a deception. The state itself is real, the loss of 
> > > individual will is real, etc., etc.
> > 
> > But is it really real, or is it merely a mere change of perception? Unity 
> > is said to be such that, unlike other states of consciousness, one CAN 
> > affect external reality because external and internal really ARE the same.
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > By most people's definition of real vs hallucination, testing
> > > > his own ability to perform the siddhis would have laid that 
> > > > skepticism to rest -if the universe does what he wants, one
> > > > might have some inkling that the universe and he really ARE
> > > > one at some l

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[turquoiseb]

Internet argument poker: "I'll see your supposed expert
(Maharishi) and raise you two Robin posts. Now go do your
remedial reading of the Robinsez Sutras so that you're 
worthy of arguing with me about a subject that neither
of us has any personal experience with or knowledge of."  :-)

I don't know about anyone else, but the very concept of
someone quoting Robin Carlsen as a credible source about
ANYTHING just made my morning, and started it off with a
hearty laugh. Invoking "Robinsez" is even more hilarious
than invoking "Maharishisez." 

Here's my whole take on the Robin Thang. He had some minor
experience on a course that, given the size of his ego and
the demands of his NPD, he felt compelled to turn into a 
MAJOR experience. He had no earthly idea what the experiences
he was having *were*, but knew that 1) he had to interpret
them as the topmost, #1, Highest Possible Experience in the
TM world, and 2) it had to be higher than the experiences
claimed by his wife at the time (mere CC), so he settled on 
Unity. If Maharishi had been talking about Brahman Conscious-
ness then, he would have called what he was experiencing BC. 

End of story. The fact that anyone actually *believes* any 
of his posturing about what he experienced blows my mind and
makes me roll my eyes, probably the same reaction Maharishi
had when Robin tried to run the same number on him. He 
probably told Robin, "Something good is happening," and Robin
then went forth throughout the land proclaiming, "Maharishi
confirmed I'm in Unity." And the saddest part? People in and
around the TM movement actually believed it, and some believe
it even now. [insert eyeroll here]
 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> Lawson, before we continue, please reread Robin's posts
> to you (both on this page):
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/312523
> 
> We're talking at cross-purposes because you didn't read
> or don't remember what he wrote.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I neve said anything at all EVER about performing siddhis in 
> > > > response to a skeptical demand (unless you mean one's own
> > > > internal skepticism).
> > > 
> > > Either would be problematic according to Robin's experience
> > > and understanding.
> > > 
> > > > What I said was:
> > > > 
> > > > My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and
> > > > the TM-Sidhis program regularly every day and start to believe
> > > > that you are in Unity, you can consult your own personal
> > > > history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your own beliefs: if
> > > > you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, you 
> > > > certainly haven't suddenly attained "full enlightenment."
> > > > 
> > > > The fact that you keep missing this is very interesting.
> > > 
> > > I haven't missed it, Lawson. You haven't understood what
> > > Robin wrote about it.
> > > 
> > > > Robin never learned the TM-Sidhis, and therefore presumably
> > > > never practiced them, so it doesn't apply to him, unless he
> > > > had some concern that perhaps his experience of Unity was 
> > > > incomplete and wanted to test it by learning them for that
> > > > purpose.
> > > 
> > > He didn't have any such concern.
> > > 
> > > > Ironically, Robin has indicated that he has had EXTREME
> > > > skepticism concerning Unity his own, or anyone else's, and
> > > > that skepticism appears to center around Unity being a real 
> > > > perception, rather than merely some kind of hallucination.
> > > 
> > > Lawson, he's very clear about what he thinks is the nature
> > > of Unity consciousness ("skepticism" isn't the right term;
> > > he's quite convinced). I don't know what you have in mind
> > > by "centers around." He believes Unity is a *real state*
> > > but that it does not reflect Ultimate Reality; the conviction
> > > one has in Unity that the state *does* reflect Ultimate
> > > Reality is the "hallucination," according to Robin, a cosmic
> > > delusion, a deception. The state itself is real, the loss of 
> > > individual will is real, etc., etc.
> > 
> > But is it really real, or is it merely a mere change of perception? Unity 
> > is said to be such that, unlike other states of consciousness, one CAN 
> > affect external reality because external and internal really ARE the same.
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > By most people's definition of real vs hallucination, testing
> > > > his own ability to perform the siddhis would have laid that 
> > > > skepticism to rest -if the universe does what he wants, one
> > > > might have some inkling that the universe and he really ARE
> > > > one at some level, but he was never inclined to do this
> > > 
> > > You have not understood what he told you, Lawson. First of
> > > all, again, he was never and is not now skeptical that he
> > > was in Unity

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[authfriend]

Lawson, before we continue, please reread Robin's posts
to you (both on this page):

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/312523

We're talking at cross-purposes because you didn't read
or don't remember what he wrote.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > >
> > > I neve said anything at all EVER about performing siddhis in 
> > > response to a skeptical demand (unless you mean one's own
> > > internal skepticism).
> > 
> > Either would be problematic according to Robin's experience
> > and understanding.
> > 
> > > What I said was:
> > > 
> > > My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and
> > > the TM-Sidhis program regularly every day and start to believe
> > > that you are in Unity, you can consult your own personal
> > > history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your own beliefs: if
> > > you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, you 
> > > certainly haven't suddenly attained "full enlightenment."
> > > 
> > > The fact that you keep missing this is very interesting.
> > 
> > I haven't missed it, Lawson. You haven't understood what
> > Robin wrote about it.
> > 
> > > Robin never learned the TM-Sidhis, and therefore presumably
> > > never practiced them, so it doesn't apply to him, unless he
> > > had some concern that perhaps his experience of Unity was 
> > > incomplete and wanted to test it by learning them for that
> > > purpose.
> > 
> > He didn't have any such concern.
> > 
> > > Ironically, Robin has indicated that he has had EXTREME
> > > skepticism concerning Unity his own, or anyone else's, and
> > > that skepticism appears to center around Unity being a real 
> > > perception, rather than merely some kind of hallucination.
> > 
> > Lawson, he's very clear about what he thinks is the nature
> > of Unity consciousness ("skepticism" isn't the right term;
> > he's quite convinced). I don't know what you have in mind
> > by "centers around." He believes Unity is a *real state*
> > but that it does not reflect Ultimate Reality; the conviction
> > one has in Unity that the state *does* reflect Ultimate
> > Reality is the "hallucination," according to Robin, a cosmic
> > delusion, a deception. The state itself is real, the loss of 
> > individual will is real, etc., etc.
> 
> But is it really real, or is it merely a mere change of perception? Unity is 
> said to be such that, unlike other states of consciousness, one CAN affect 
> external reality because external and internal really ARE the same.
> 
> 
> > 
> > > By most people's definition of real vs hallucination, testing
> > > his own ability to perform the siddhis would have laid that 
> > > skepticism to rest -if the universe does what he wants, one
> > > might have some inkling that the universe and he really ARE
> > > one at some level, but he was never inclined to do this
> > 
> > You have not understood what he told you, Lawson. First of
> > all, again, he was never and is not now skeptical that he
> > was in Unity.
> 
> He was and IS skeptical about the nature of Unity. MMY was pointing out that 
> one has a way of testing whether or not what one is "in" is "really" the 
> "real" Unity. His skepticism concerns whether or not Unity is real, period. 
> MMY's test was to show whether or not the Unity is really real thing. Robin 
> has never conducted that test. The fact that he never believed there was a 
> need is immaterial to my point: Robin has had a way to prove or disprove 
> whether or not his Unity is the real deal and he hasn't availed himself. 
> 
> > 
> > Second, if one is in Unity, one does what the universe
> > wants, not the reverse. That's why it made no sense,
> > according to Robin, for Maharishi to suggest that the
> > ability to levitate is a "test" of whether one is in
> > Unity.
> 
> I side-stepped Robin's objection quite nicely by pointing out that one could 
> trace their own historical growth towards really real Unity by whether or not 
> they had floated at some point during their practice of the TM-Sidhis. This 
> last test doesn't apply specifically to Robin because he never learned the 
> TM-Sidhis, or if he did, even second-hand, he won't report whether or not he 
> ever floated.
> 
> 
> > 
> > > despite MMY's own statements concerning this topic that
> > > appear to have been directed directly at Robin.
> > 
> > I have no idea why you imagine they were directed at Robin.
> 
> What I heard was that MMY said "this will test certain people's assumptions 
> about whether or not they are enlightened." Sounds like a reference to Robin, 
> to me.
> 
> > 
> > > Robin's own explanation that Unity means that he only does
> > > what the universe wants him to is somewhat tautological: if
> > > he is skeptical that the state really IS real, he has had,
> > > according to MMY, the means to validate/invalidate his
> > > skepticism b

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > I neve said anything at all EVER about performing siddhis in 
> > response to a skeptical demand (unless you mean one's own
> > internal skepticism).
> 
> Either would be problematic according to Robin's experience
> and understanding.
> 
> > What I said was:
> > 
> > My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and
> > the TM-Sidhis program regularly every day and start to believe
> > that you are in Unity, you can consult your own personal
> > history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your own beliefs: if
> > you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, you 
> > certainly haven't suddenly attained "full enlightenment."
> > 
> > The fact that you keep missing this is very interesting.
> 
> I haven't missed it, Lawson. You haven't understood what
> Robin wrote about it.
> 
> > Robin never learned the TM-Sidhis, and therefore presumably
> > never practiced them, so it doesn't apply to him, unless he
> > had some concern that perhaps his experience of Unity was 
> > incomplete and wanted to test it by learning them for that
> > purpose.
> 
> He didn't have any such concern.
> 
> > Ironically, Robin has indicated that he has had EXTREME
> > skepticism concerning Unity his own, or anyone else's, and
> > that skepticism appears to center around Unity being a real 
> > perception, rather than merely some kind of hallucination.
> 
> Lawson, he's very clear about what he thinks is the nature
> of Unity consciousness ("skepticism" isn't the right term;
> he's quite convinced). I don't know what you have in mind
> by "centers around." He believes Unity is a *real state*
> but that it does not reflect Ultimate Reality; the conviction
> one has in Unity that the state *does* reflect Ultimate
> Reality is the "hallucination," according to Robin, a cosmic
> delusion, a deception. The state itself is real, the loss of 
> individual will is real, etc., etc.

But is it really real, or is it merely a mere change of perception? Unity is 
said to be such that, unlike other states of consciousness, one CAN affect 
external reality because external and internal really ARE the same.


> 
> > By most people's definition of real vs hallucination, testing
> > his own ability to perform the siddhis would have laid that 
> > skepticism to rest -if the universe does what he wants, one
> > might have some inkling that the universe and he really ARE
> > one at some level, but he was never inclined to do this
> 
> You have not understood what he told you, Lawson. First of
> all, again, he was never and is not now skeptical that he
> was in Unity.

He was and IS skeptical about the nature of Unity. MMY was pointing out that 
one has a way of testing whether or not what one is "in" is "really" the "real" 
Unity. His skepticism concerns whether or not Unity is real, period. MMY's test 
was to show whether or not the Unity is really real thing. Robin has never 
conducted that test. The fact that he never believed there was a need is 
immaterial to my point: Robin has had a way to prove or disprove whether or not 
his Unity is the real deal and he hasn't availed himself. 

> 
> Second, if one is in Unity, one does what the universe
> wants, not the reverse. That's why it made no sense,
> according to Robin, for Maharishi to suggest that the
> ability to levitate is a "test" of whether one is in
> Unity.

I side-stepped Robin's objection quite nicely by pointing out that one could 
trace their own historical growth towards really real Unity by whether or not 
they had floated at some point during their practice of the TM-Sidhis. This 
last test doesn't apply specifically to Robin because he never learned the 
TM-Sidhis, or if he did, even second-hand, he won't report whether or not he 
ever floated.


> 
> > despite MMY's own statements concerning this topic that
> > appear to have been directed directly at Robin.
> 
> I have no idea why you imagine they were directed at Robin.

What I heard was that MMY said "this will test certain people's assumptions 
about whether or not they are enlightened." Sounds like a reference to Robin, 
to me.

> 
> > Robin's own explanation that Unity means that he only does
> > what the universe wants him to is somewhat tautological: if
> > he is skeptical that the state really IS real, he has had,
> > according to MMY, the means to validate/invalidate his
> > skepticism but from what he says, the universe apparently
> > didn't want him to make up his mind and instead obsess over
> > it for the past quarter century.
> 
> This is so tangled in confusion I don't know where to start.
> 
> Robin was never and is not now skeptical that he was in
> Unity consciousness. There was and is no doubt in his mind.
> What he "obsessed about" for a time was whether (as noted)
> Unity was a state that represented "a perfect correspondence
> with reality," as he put it in that and oth

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[doctordumbass]

Its kind of paradoxical, and fucked up and sad too, that Buddha was such a 
great figure - Even looking at his form, enlivens our dignity and inner peace - 
yet, somehow his truth has become lost, other than that simple representation 
of Self, in his form. 

I have four Buddhas in my home. The largest is in the garden, ceramic with a 
stucco covering, lotus position, on a three-sided granite pedestal, a Japanese 
style bird bath at his feet. Then two in my studio/workshop, one palm sized 
ivory and the other larger, carved from wood. The fourth one is in the living 
room. I visited the magnificent Buddhist Temple, Borobudur, as a young child, 
and have never forgotten its immensity and magic (Yes, I did touch the heel of 
a Buddha there).

I also went to the temple of ten thousand Buddhas, in the New Territories of 
Hong Kong, or as we used to say, "Kowloon side". It is an amazing place. A 
huge, ornate golden statue of the Buddha, flanked by two more, and on shelves 
encircling all of this, is the balance of the ten thousand Buddhas, each about 
16 inches high, perfectly finished, in either brass or gold plate, a brilliant 
gold color, and each one, holding a different position.

The last time I encountered an image of the Buddha was at San Francisco's Asian 
Art Museum, where I witnessed Buddhist monks and nuns creating an ethereal, 
beautiful portrait of a celestial figure, from colored sand.

The art inspired by Buddha is truly nourishing and unbelievably beautiful. It 
is a shame that there is no accessible technique within the Buddhist tradition, 
to accompany it.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > " Jimbo will keep claiming he's in CC"
> > 
> > I missed this misinformation earlier. I used to claim to be in CC, which I 
> > was. Man, was that painful! Just as it grew from TC, CC also supports 
> > higher states of consciousness. It must, just like a dirt pile supports a 
> > mountain. 
> > 
> > Wake up, and catch up, please. I have been climbing for awhile, now, since 
> > my proclamation of CC. It is no fun trying to run in place with you. 
> > 
> > Recognize that static awareness is not in the interest of someone making 
> > progress spiritually. There is nothing to defend in looking backwards, or 
> > remaining steadfastly in place.
> > 
> > You however, with your denial of your subjective reality, your own 
> > emotional awareness, what is sometimes called the shadow, or the 
> > subconscious, continue to be stuck.
> > 
> > The bad stuff, and the good stuff, sadly, for you, is always outside of 
> > you. You hide from your subjective reality, as many seekers do, believing 
> > that if the world would simply change to their liking, they would be happy.
> > 
> > You cherry pick the highlights of your outside life, while continuing to 
> > not recognize that these are not highlights. These are expressions of this 
> > creation, available 24/7.
> > 
> > *Unless you think you know better*. In that case, the creation graciously 
> > allows your denial of the gifts that could be yours, and allows you the 
> > continued existence of a childish life.
> > 
> > A childish life is hallmarked by the refusal to face one's shadow, living 
> > superstitiously as you do, with your senseless beliefs. I call them 
> > senseless, because they are not direct, they are not innocent. They are 
> > merely in place to hold YOU in place, to hold you down. 
> > 
> > A person living a childish life pays a great price for their web of beliefs 
> > in themselves. It is a self centered existence, which it has to be, having 
> > fear at its core. The lack of ability to see one's subjective self, one's 
> > emotions as they paint one's thoughts, the shadow, the subconscious, causes 
> > such a warping of life, that one lives crippled by that which they refuse 
> > to see within themselves.
> > 
> > So you can say anything you like about me, though I really, really 
> > appreciate those who operate in the NOW, the present. Chasing down and 
> > dealing with your particularly moldly ideas is a drag. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> The Turq is becoming stranger and stranger by the day. Take the rant he 
> posted a few days ago when he went on and on about how OLD and irrelevant the 
> TM'ers have become, written by someone who is OLD :-)
> 
> I suspect the recent success of the TMO in Central- and South-America where 
> thousands of YOUNG people are learning the Sidhis upsets him. Not to mention 
> all those Buddhist monks in South-East-Asia who are learning TM in their 
> monestaries because their own meditation doesn't seem to work very well.
> 
> Everyone sees the direction where this is going, and it's not good news for 
> his OLD, stale religion.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Michael Jackson]

And yet with the mind of a jackass, I see reality much more clearly than those 
like yourself who apparently believe the old fraud was legit.





 From: feste37 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 8:01 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
 

  
You are a jackass. You do not have the first idea of what you are talking 
about. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Why would Marshy be affected by the truthful things people said about him? He 
> was king of his own kingdom, got laid all the time, lived literally like a 
> prince (meaning the money was all his) and had scads of people adulating him. 
> Only if people's criticisms of him had shut off his supply of sex, money and 
> power would he have squalled. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 4:20 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > Yep, I agree Nabby!
> > 
> > Grand news of the burgeoning rise of the Age of Enlightenment due to Yogic 
> > Flying in Latin America!
> > All Glory to Marshy's Knowledge that we all know has been scientifically 
> > proven and validated! 
> 
> I remember one fellow who became really negative towards Maharishi and the 
> Movement. Privately Maharishi commented: "What is (name) doing to himself ?" 
> He wasn't bothered about what the fellow said, but what he was doing to 
> himself.
> 
> Just because they kicked you out of MUM doesn't mean it's healthy to be eaten 
> up by negativity.
>


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[feste37]

You are a jackass. You do not have the first idea of what you are talking 
about. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Why would Marshy be affected by the truthful things people said about him? He 
> was king of his own kingdom, got laid all the time, lived literally like a 
> prince (meaning the money was all his) and had scads of people adulating him. 
> Only if people's criticisms of him had shut off his supply of sex, money and 
> power would he have squalled. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: nablusoss1008 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 4:20 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > Yep, I agree Nabby!
> > 
> > Grand news of the burgeoning rise of the Age of Enlightenment due to Yogic 
> > Flying in Latin America!
> > All Glory to Marshy's Knowledge that we all know has been scientifically 
> > proven and validated! 
> 
> I remember one fellow who became really negative towards Maharishi and the 
> Movement. Privately Maharishi commented: "What is (name) doing to himself ?" 
> He wasn't bothered about what the fellow said, but what he was doing to 
> himself.
> 
> Just because they kicked you out of MUM doesn't mean it's healthy to be eaten 
> up by negativity.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to John

[John]

Share,

1.> Yes, the process of canonization is exhaustive.  And years later they 
might decide you weren't a saint after all!  Didn't that happen to St. 
Christopher?  And fortunately levitation is NOT a requirement for sainthood 
according to the Church.  Otherwise we'd all have to be named after St. Joseph 
Cupertino (-:

There were many saints who were known to have levitated, such as Aquinas, St. 
John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Martin de Porres, St. Ignatius of 
Loyola, among others.

> 
> Replying to another post:  Just going by logic, I'd say that there is not 
> another planet EXACTLY like earth in this universe.  But other universes?  
>  Other dimensions?  That's another ball of stardust!

There's a documentary on YouTube which proposes that if the universe is 
infinite, then we would be able to see duplicate earths.  As matter of fact, 
you would also be able to find duplicates of yourself.

However, some physicists believe that the universe is finite.  Since they've 
found out the properties of the Higgs Boson, it is possible that matter in the 
universe will eventually turn into light.  

Within our galaxy, I believe that we'd be able to find planets that are similar 
to Earth and can spawn life similar to what we have here.  IMO, life is fairly 
common and that it is the natural evolution of matter throughout the universe.
> 
Concerning other universes, Michio Kaku, a physics professor at CUNY, believes 
that there could be an infinite number of them which cannot be proved by 
current scientific technology.  IMO, the black holes in each galaxy of the 
universe are potential portals to another universe.  

On the other hand, our universe is really an example of a white hole in which 
matter exploded from nothingness, or possibly from a black hole from another 
universe.

Dimensions?  I have an opinion about that which can discussed another day.

JR
> 
> 
>  From: John 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 1:37 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > 
> > > Outside of the TMO, many saints in the Catholic Curch were
> > > known to have levitated, including St. Teresa of Avila.  So,
> > > levitation or flying can be used as a criteria to determine
> > > one's state of consciousness, specifically that of
> > > enlightenment.
> > 
> > John, this is way too simplistic and creates significant
> > confusion.
> > 
> > The saints had no *intention* of levitating; it was
> > involuntary, and in many cases unwelcome--frightening and 
> > overwhelming. Teresa actually prayed that it wouldn't
> > happen.
> > 
> > Any devout Catholic, moreover, would be appalled at the
> > idea of such performances being used as a criterion of
> > spiritual development; that would be strictly against
> > Church doctrine. And the saints would never want to
> > attract attention to themselves in that way.
> > 
> > Aside from the issue of whether levitation is possible,
> > there really isn't any commonality between the
> > significance of levitation in the Western (Catholic)
> > tradition and its significance in the Eastern tradition.
> > You can't use one to justify the other.
> >
> Judy,
> 
> Levitation is the quick test for those who claim to be enlightened, in 
> particular, those who follow Osho's techniques and philosophy.  Otherwise, it 
> may take a very long time to prove conclusively that a person is enlightened. 
>  Specifically, the Vatican has a very exhaustive method for canonizing a 
> saint.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Michael Jackson]

Why would Marshy be affected by the truthful things people said about him? He 
was king of his own kingdom, got laid all the time, lived literally like a 
prince (meaning the money was all his) and had scads of people adulating him. 
Only if people's criticisms of him had shut off his supply of sex, money and 
power would he have squalled. 





 From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 4:20 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Yep, I agree Nabby!
> 
> Grand news of the burgeoning rise of the Age of Enlightenment due to Yogic 
> Flying in Latin America!
> All Glory to Marshy's Knowledge that we all know has been scientifically 
> proven and validated! 

I remember one fellow who became really negative towards Maharishi and the 
Movement. Privately Maharishi commented: "What is (name) doing to himself ?" He 
wasn't bothered about what the fellow said, but what he was doing to himself.

Just because they kicked you out of MUM doesn't mean it's healthy to be eaten 
up by negativity.


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
>
> I neve said anything at all EVER about performing siddhis in 
> response to a skeptical demand (unless you mean one's own
> internal skepticism).

Either would be problematic according to Robin's experience
and understanding.

> What I said was:
> 
> My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and
> the TM-Sidhis program regularly every day and start to believe
> that you are in Unity, you can consult your own personal
> history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your own beliefs: if
> you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, you 
> certainly haven't suddenly attained "full enlightenment."
> 
> The fact that you keep missing this is very interesting.

I haven't missed it, Lawson. You haven't understood what
Robin wrote about it.

> Robin never learned the TM-Sidhis, and therefore presumably
> never practiced them, so it doesn't apply to him, unless he
> had some concern that perhaps his experience of Unity was 
> incomplete and wanted to test it by learning them for that
> purpose.

He didn't have any such concern.

> Ironically, Robin has indicated that he has had EXTREME
> skepticism concerning Unity his own, or anyone else's, and
> that skepticism appears to center around Unity being a real 
> perception, rather than merely some kind of hallucination.

Lawson, he's very clear about what he thinks is the nature
of Unity consciousness ("skepticism" isn't the right term;
he's quite convinced). I don't know what you have in mind
by "centers around." He believes Unity is a *real state*
but that it does not reflect Ultimate Reality; the conviction
one has in Unity that the state *does* reflect Ultimate
Reality is the "hallucination," according to Robin, a cosmic
delusion, a deception. The state itself is real, the loss of 
individual will is real, etc., etc.

> By most people's definition of real vs hallucination, testing
> his own ability to perform the siddhis would have laid that 
> skepticism to rest -if the universe does what he wants, one
> might have some inkling that the universe and he really ARE
> one at some level, but he was never inclined to do this

You have not understood what he told you, Lawson. First of
all, again, he was never and is not now skeptical that he
was in Unity.

Second, if one is in Unity, one does what the universe
wants, not the reverse. That's why it made no sense,
according to Robin, for Maharishi to suggest that the
ability to levitate is a "test" of whether one is in
Unity.

> despite MMY's own statements concerning this topic that
> appear to have been directed directly at Robin.

I have no idea why you imagine they were directed at Robin.

> Robin's own explanation that Unity means that he only does
> what the universe wants him to is somewhat tautological: if
> he is skeptical that the state really IS real, he has had,
> according to MMY, the means to validate/invalidate his
> skepticism but from what he says, the universe apparently
> didn't want him to make up his mind and instead obsess over
> it for the past quarter century.

This is so tangled in confusion I don't know where to start.

Robin was never and is not now skeptical that he was in
Unity consciousness. There was and is no doubt in his mind.
What he "obsessed about" for a time was whether (as noted)
Unity was a state that represented "a perfect correspondence
with reality," as he put it in that and other posts.

Once he had decided that it did not, he began the process
of "de-enlightening" himself. That's what took a quarter
of a century.

Obviously I can't vouch for any of this. (And we don't
even know exactly what Maharishi said; it might make a
significant difference if we did.) But I would suggest
you go back and read Robin's post (two of them, actually,
on this page) and see if you can straighten out your
confusion about what he's said:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/312523




> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > Gee, Lawson, Robin went over this with you in some
> > depth back in June of last year:
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/312523
> > 
> > You don't seem to have incorporated any of what he
> > told you into your own thinking--but you never refuted
> > any of it either.
> > 
> > Basically, the issue is that the notion of performing
> > siddhis "at will" in response to a skeptical demand is
> > inconsistent with how Maharishi defined Unity
> > Consciousness (which is how Robin experienced it).
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyone can claim he or she is enlightened.  But can he or she fly?
> > > > 
> > > > Nobody in the TM movement can fly. Is that really a criteria related to 
> > > > enlightenment? Is that anything a normal, healthy human

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Michael Jackson]

Nor is it healthy to see some article about rebels going to MAYBE negotiate or 
turn loose some hostages and praising the TMO to high heaven saying its a sign 
of Raja Luis's work in creating yogic flying groups AND that the yogic flying 
groups actually work when there are numerous news items that prove there is no 
Marshy Effect. 

Actually I correct myself. There is a Marshy Effect. The Marshy Effect is to 
numb people's brains so they suspend critical thinking and believe in things 
that don't exist and the True Believer's money flows from their pockets to the 
coffers of the TMO - that is the Marshy Effect.





 From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 4:20 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Yep, I agree Nabby!
> 
> Grand news of the burgeoning rise of the Age of Enlightenment due to Yogic 
> Flying in Latin America!
> All Glory to Marshy's Knowledge that we all know has been scientifically 
> proven and validated! 

I remember one fellow who became really negative towards Maharishi and the 
Movement. Privately Maharishi commented: "What is (name) doing to himself ?" He 
wasn't bothered about what the fellow said, but what he was doing to himself.

Just because they kicked you out of MUM doesn't mean it's healthy to be eaten 
up by negativity.


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[sparaig]

I neve said anything at all EVER about performing siddhis in response to a 
skeptical demand (unless you mean one's own internal skepticism).

What I said was:

My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and the TM-Sidhis 
program regularly every day and start to believe that you are in Unity, you can 
consult your own personal history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your own 
beliefs: if you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, you 
certainly haven't suddenly attained "full enlightenment."


The fact that you keep missing this is very interesting. Robin never learned 
the TM-Sidhis, and therefore presumably never practiced them, so it doesn't 
apply to him, unless he had some concern that perhaps his experience of Unity 
was incomplete and wanted to test it by learning them for that purpose.

Ironically, Robin has indicated that he has had EXTREME skepticism concerning 
Unity his own, or anyone else's, and that skepticism appears to center around 
Unity being a real perception, rather than merely some kind of hallucination. 
By most people's definition of real vs hallucination, testing his own ability 
to perform the siddhis would have laid that skepticism to rest -if the universe 
does what he wants, one might have some inkling that the universe and he really 
ARE one at some level, but he was never inclined to do this, despite MMY's own 
statements concerning this topic that appear to have been directed directly at 
Robin.

Robin's own explanation that Unity means that he only does what the universe 
wants him to is somewhat tautological: if he is skeptical that the state really 
IS real, he has had, according to MMY, the means to validate/invalidate his 
skepticism but from what he says, the universe apparently didn't want him to 
make up his mind and instead obsess over it for the past quarter century.


L



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> Gee, Lawson, Robin went over this with you in some
> depth back in June of last year:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/312523
> 
> You don't seem to have incorporated any of what he
> told you into your own thinking--but you never refuted
> any of it either.
> 
> Basically, the issue is that the notion of performing
> siddhis "at will" in response to a skeptical demand is
> inconsistent with how Maharishi defined Unity
> Consciousness (which is how Robin experienced it).
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Anyone can claim he or she is enlightened.  But can he or she fly?
> > > 
> > > Nobody in the TM movement can fly. Is that really a criteria related to 
> > > enlightenment? Is that anything a normal, healthy human being should be 
> > > able to do? Does it have relevance to anything worthwhile or useful? Are 
> > > humans who could fly smarter, more compassionate, more beautiful to look 
> > > at?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Basically, MMY said that anyone claiming to be in fully mature Unity 
> > Consciousness who was unable to perform any and all of the siddhis at will, 
> > was fooling themselves.
> > 
> > My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and the TM-Sidhis 
> > program regularly every day and start to believe that you are in Unity, you 
> > can consult your own personal history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your 
> > own beliefs: if you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, 
> > you certainly haven't suddenly attained "full enlightenment."
> > 
> > This is similar to the check for being in full-blown CC: you may have 24 
> > hour/day witnessing, but unless your meditation period leads you into 
> > transcending for the entire period, every time, you can be certain that you 
> > are not fully in CC.
> > 
> > 
> > L
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >  
> > > Outside of the TMO, many saints in the Catholic Curch were
> > > known to have levitated, including St. Teresa of Avila.  So,
> > > levitation or flying can be used as a criteria to determine
> > > one's state of consciousness, specifically that of
> > > enlightenment.
> > 
> > John, this is way too simplistic and creates significant
> > confusion.
> > 
> > The saints had no *intention* of levitating; it was
> > involuntary, and in many cases unwelcome--frightening and 
> > overwhelming. Teresa actually prayed that it wouldn't
> > happen.
> > 
> > Any devout Catholic, moreover, would be appalled at the
> > idea of such performances being used as a criterion of
> > spiritual development; that would be strictly against
> > Church doctrine. And the saints would never want to
> > attract attention to themselves in that way.
> > 
> > Aside from the issue of whether levitation is possible,
> > there really isn't any commonality between the
> > significance of levitation in the Western (Catholic)
> > tradition and its significance in the Eastern tradition.
> > You can't use one to justify the other.
> >
> Judy,
> 
> Levitation is the quick test for those who claim to be
> enlightened, in particular, those who follow Osho's
> techniques and philosophy.  Otherwise, it may take a
> very long time to prove conclusively that a person is
> enlightened.  Specifically, the Vatican has a very
> exhaustive method for canonizing a saint.

John, I have no idea what any of this has to do with what
I said. I don't think you read what I wrote.

The saints who levitated did not claim to be "enlightened,"
nor could they have passed that test.

Canonization by the Vatican has nothing to do with the
Eastern concept of enlightenment. This is all apples and
kiwi fruit. Church sainthood and enlightenment are not
at all the same thing.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to John

[Share Long]

Yes, the process of canonization is exhaustive.  And years later they might 
decide you weren't a saint after all!  Didn't that happen to St. Christopher?  
And fortunately levitation is NOT a requirement for sainthood according to the 
Church.  Otherwise we'd all have to be named after St. Joseph Cupertino (-:

Replying to another post:  Just going by logic, I'd say that there is not 
another planet EXACTLY like earth in this universe.  But other universes?   
Other dimensions?  That's another ball of stardust!




 From: John 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 1:37 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> 
> > Outside of the TMO, many saints in the Catholic Curch were
> > known to have levitated, including St. Teresa of Avila.  So,
> > levitation or flying can be used as a criteria to determine
> > one's state of consciousness, specifically that of
> > enlightenment.
> 
> John, this is way too simplistic and creates significant
> confusion.
> 
> The saints had no *intention* of levitating; it was
> involuntary, and in many cases unwelcome--frightening and 
> overwhelming. Teresa actually prayed that it wouldn't
> happen.
> 
> Any devout Catholic, moreover, would be appalled at the
> idea of such performances being used as a criterion of
> spiritual development; that would be strictly against
> Church doctrine. And the saints would never want to
> attract attention to themselves in that way.
> 
> Aside from the issue of whether levitation is possible,
> there really isn't any commonality between the
> significance of levitation in the Western (Catholic)
> tradition and its significance in the Eastern tradition.
> You can't use one to justify the other.
>
Judy,

Levitation is the quick test for those who claim to be enlightened, in 
particular, those who follow Osho's techniques and philosophy.  Otherwise, it 
may take a very long time to prove conclusively that a person is enlightened.  
Specifically, the Vatican has a very exhaustive method for canonizing a saint.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[Share Long]

Never heard this before, Mr. Soss.  Thanks for sharing.




 From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 3:20 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Yep, I agree Nabby!
> 
> Grand news of the burgeoning rise of the Age of Enlightenment due to Yogic 
> Flying in Latin America!
> All Glory to Marshy's Knowledge that we all know has been scientifically 
> proven and validated! 

I remember one fellow who became really negative towards Maharishi and the 
Movement. Privately Maharishi commented: "What is (name) doing to himself ?" He 
wasn't bothered about what the fellow said, but what he was doing to himself.

Just because they kicked you out of MUM doesn't mean it's healthy to be eaten 
up by negativity.


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Yep, I agree Nabby!
> 
> Grand news of the burgeoning rise of the Age of Enlightenment due to Yogic 
> Flying in Latin America!
> All Glory to Marshy's Knowledge that we all know has been scientifically 
> proven and validated! 



I remember one fellow who became really negative towards Maharishi and the 
Movement. Privately Maharishi commented: "What is (name) doing to himself ?" He 
wasn't bothered about what the fellow said, but what he was doing to himself.

Just because they kicked you out of MUM doesn't mean it's healthy to be eaten 
up by negativity.