--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_re...@...> wrote:
I'm glad you took the time to re-post, that was an interesting angle. It was also very funny when you anticipated the moment my eyes were glazing over following terms that have lost their meaning for me. But I can remember how I used to think of them well enough to follow your point. Perhaps someone more conversant with the terms these days will take a crack at your inquiry. For me I can't get past the assumption that the silence we feel in meditation is more than what it appears to be, the mind being attentive to being more silent. I know that at one point in the 6 month courses Maharishis basically said we were all witnessing our meditations so that explained why we don't all sit in deep samadhi no mantra not thoughts for long periods of time in meditation. And experientially that does match my meditation experience in that if you keep it up you have a lot of silence along with thoughts and it can sort of dominate your attention. But I'm not ready to make any assumptions about its benefits. It just might be a thing our mind can do that is pleasurable and means absolutely nothing. I guess for people who are really impulsive or all wired up all the time or never feel centered it might be a help, but I can't relate to those problems. And the metaphysical claims that this state is an experience of the ground of all being or the Graceland where the gods hang out like the Memphis Mafia and all of us get to be our own Elvis and if we want a peanut butter, bacon and banana sandwich deep fried at two in the morning to take some of the edge off our last dose of Dexedrine...nature will serve it up in white panties and bra (his favorite groupie costume) because we are sooooo powerful with nature that we get what we want (if it coincidentally coincides with what nature wants)...I'm not buying that. I think we are a long way off from knowing what any of these experiences mean. So I'm no help in your quest for knowledge in this area. Big surprise huh? I'm just wondering if people in the movement believe that prayers to Maharishi reach him in the celestial relative with the gods, and if so, is there any way to stop them from delivering any more deep fried peanut butter, bacon and banana sandwiches to Bevan cuz that dude is heading the way of The King fast and I'm just waiting for the news that he ascended to heaven while on sitting on his porcelain throne. > > "curtisdeltablues" quasiquoted: > > We don't pray to Guru Dev. Prayer to absolute is useless. Puja isn't > > > prayer unless we want to call anything good prayer. Prayer has to > be > > > to someone in the relative who can listen and respond, say wish > > > granted, some this year some next year. > > > There are hordes of personal gods, anyone we can pick up an say "OK, > > > do it." > > Curtis, > > I'll try again, and yes, I am yet again composing in the Yahoo online > form. Shit. And it'll cost ya, cuz I'm a rambling fool as usual. > > So what popped for me is that here we have Maharishi completely tossing > Guru Dev into Absolute status and saying it's a waste of time to pray to > Guru Dev. (This neatly keeps attention on MMY; convenient, eh?) But, > my bitch is that this definition of the Absolute is at odds with the TM > Siddhi program. > > How so? Long answer, dude, long answer. You sure you want this? > > Of course you do! > > It's at odds, because samyama, as taught by MMY, is an instruction set > that includes the command to stop thinking. > > The way it is expressed is "go back to the Self." > > I remember being taken aback when I learned my first siddhi and was > given that instruction. "What? What the hell? You mean we're > marketing that a mantra is necessary to transcend until one finally > resides in amness, but for the siddhi, we have to somehow magically and > unexpectedly have this ability down pat?" > > Oh, they interpret the instruction for you with phrases like "back to > the Self means just sit quietly." And that's supposed to be all that > you need to hear, but fuck. As if. As if, "sitting quietly" means "the > same thing" to all folks -- especially since the siddhi courses were > democratic, and citizen siddhas were being taught right along side > initiators. The newbie meditator could have been only doing it for a > few months and yet still be allowed on a siddhi course, so a newbie is > expected to be able to, get this, be in Cosmic Consciousness by dint of > will power for 15 second bursts. Something like that. > > You introduce the sutra, and then, WHAT? Examine if your definition of > "what" jives with the TMO lectures. Put bluntly, no way in fucking hell > does anyone have the ability to stop thoughts by having been merely > instructed to go back to the Self. So what you end up with is that most > -- probably ALL -- persons learning the siddhis are sitting there after > the sutra with ideation flowing NORMALLY. Yet, who has ever been > refused entrance to the siddhi course for "having thoughts in > meditation?" It is therefore well known to the instructors that the > initiates CANNOT follow their instructions, yet they take their money. > > To me it was as if Maharishi had put a gun to my head and said, "You're > in CC now and you'd better not deny it. Pretend fucker pretend." > > And that's not all. > > To do the sutra correctly, you need to transcend into amness. You can't > merely skirt the skin of amness and ritam the siddhi. Nope, the > instruction is to do nothing -- not masturbate with da bliss of ritam > like Indra does. Just sit there, be, but be nothing, encourage no > thinking. Well, if you're able to do that, then that's a CC-on-demand > ability. (It's "CC junior" actually since attachment to amness is still > egoically operative, and the freedom of enlightenment isn't realized.) > > But here's my dead horse and I'm going to beat it again: Guru Dev, being > the Absolute, is the only "agency" that CAN emit a quality from amness. > Amness, being a perfectly balanced set of the gunas, cannot be > imbalanced, and only an "impulse from the Absolute" will spur feelings, > thoughts and actions in the mind of someone who is free from attachment > (attachment is defined by me as: unable to keep Identity from flowing > outwards.) The attached mind will let the gunas run wild, the > enlightened mind will await marching orders from beyond. > > So, by my analysis, to do a siddhi correctly, get this, GURU DEV HAS TO > GIVE AMESS THE ORDER TO HOVER. (Become unbalanced and triggered to > manifest qualities.) You are told to deal directly with the Absolute, > yet, here we have your notes of MMY saying "don't bother," yet his > technique can only succeed if that exact thing happens. > > So, to me the instruction is: sutra, get perfectly balanced even if > you're still identifying with being/amness, and then, wait. > > Wait for what? THEY NEVER SPELL THIS PART OUT. But it can only be that > you wait for the Absolute to flow into a set of amness' dynamics and > enliven them with sentience/Identity. And, hey, isn't that praying to > Guru Dev? Amness, being but the three gunas, can only be insentient > clockworks, right? > > Oh, I know, I know, you're so impatient with me using these bogus > religious terms, but the logic of how these terms are used seems > legitimate to me. If you say the word jackalope, I see qualities of > that imagined entity like pointy antlers, etc. The existence of the > jacklope is assumed, but the logic of what that jackalope "was" could > still be consistent within its assumptions, yes? > > When Brahma gave up on his lotus stalk diving, that was Him doing > samyama correctly. He, by His action of diving, communicated to > "whomever is listening," that He wanted to discover His source. When He > gave up action, being a perfect siddha, He then resided in amness at > that point. > > Whatever His very next thought was, it must have been a doozy. (He had > to do tapas to create the universe too, having, yep, failed at that task > when He first tried it too.) > > This notion of MMY's that tapas (retirement from action) is the way to > reside in amness still holds me. Seems logical. But, this waiting for > the Absolute to move amness of its holy ass is where illogic is as > troubling as seeing your proctologist pre-soaking his hands in ice-cold > water. > > Why? Because there's never a very good explanation for how Being could > manifest from the Absolute. > > Consciousness becoming conscious -- all that, yeah, I get it, but the > fact remains that no instrumentality is described for how sentience and > meat can have a commication/relationship. Amness is thus a foil -- > innocent. It cannot fulfill your wishes without permission from the > Absolute. Literally, residing in amness is stopping the breath. > Holding one's breath until the Absolute ponies up a siddhi seems to be > thus supported. Cosmic childish tantrum-ness! > > Siddhi instructions ask you to have just exactly that kind of attitude > even if, you know, you've done the technique one zillion times and still > no Guru Dev has emerged from the oil lamp you're rubbing. Cripes! -- > talk about the intense shame to be ignored by God, and talk about the > abusiveness of commanding practitioners to BUG GOD relentlessly. > > Maharishi knew no one was going to hover. But he took the dough, and > said, "Shame on you if it doesn't work. Probably you should give me > more money. Try that. See if that works." Like that. Puke, eh? > > Yeah, the world works like this. Each and every person is a sucker born > to some marauder who will take your money, waste your time, and leave > you to process this truth once you discover it while they're laughing at > the outside deposit drawer of their bank. > > The trail of broken hearts behind the gurus of the world is a true evil. > Any guru who pumps up your expectations without some modicum of > mitigation is a marauder no matter his intent. > > So there's my bitch. The siddhi technique asks you to "work the > universe such that the Absolute will respond, but don't anyone dare to > think that the Absolute can be contacted." My head spins. > > Funnily enough, I buy into most of this, because of Advaita. The big > issues about TM for me are "why bother when right now is so good?" and > "eh, tell me again how much time from my life I have to spend to improve > "vastly" whatever time I have left over?" After 29 years, I had no > improvements and many disasters, and seeing as I had maybe only 30 more > years of life to live, at the max, I couldn't see spending 43,800 MORE > HOURS to get "whatever I got from my first 29 years." If I thought I > was going to live another 100 years, maybe I'd give it another go, but > sheeesh, I don't have the faith man, I don't have the faith. > > And if I DID GET whatever I got from my first 29 years, I'm fairly sure > that all I would actually have is, not one, but, hey, TWO suits in which > to dress up my emperor. > > Edg >
