I suspect after any close proximity to Maharishi for a number of hours, one would feel as if x-rayed.:-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Yogi" <raviyogi@...> wrote: > > Jim, love it. But seriously Mark was a lucky guy to have been in > immediate proximity to M and I'm sure M enjoyed the beauty of "hell" > :-) > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> > wrote: > > > > [Maharishi] turned to me [on the flight] and said, "This is hell." > > > > To which you replied (in the spirit of the Letterman Countdown): > > > > #7: "Well, its no picnic sitting next to *you* either..." > > > > #6: "But I thought hell was in the other direction?..." > > > > #5: "I already said I was sorry I didn't pack fresh batteries for your > I-pod, Maharishi-ji" > > > > #4: "And here I assumed your 'Heaven On Earth' franchise extended to > air travel..." > > > > #3: "Aren't you the Grumpy Gus, all because the flight attendant > wouldn't agree to dinner after the flight?" > > > > #2: "Yeah, real 'enlightened', Dude" > > > > and, finally > > > > #1: "Not exactly *yogic* flying, now is it?" > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau <m@...> wrote: > > > > > > I was on a long flight in a Spanish plane with M once, which allowed > anyone to smoke anywhere in the plane. We were in first class, but a > lot of people were smoking throughout the plane, including in our > section. He turned to me and said, "This is hell." > > > > > > On Jul 30, 2011, at 10:21 PM, RoryGoff wrote: > > > > > > > ---- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Rory, In terms of your inclusion of CC, GC and UC within > Brahman, I had been wondering what that feels like to experience - > clearly doing one of "MMY's big three"; CC, GC, UC, out of the blue (in > a context of inclusiveness vs. getting lost in the "higher" SOC). > > > > > > > > * * Utterly impossible to describe, as description is already > filtering us through intellect and duality, but it feels something like > Nothing in particular, being simply a contentment or fullness in which > states of consciousness are not our primary descriptors; they don't > contain us; we contain them. That is, it simply IS (or We ARE) the > Understanding that being absolutely nothing we contain everything, and > the IS provides an arena to create the experience of whatever state(s) > of consciousness might be needed by particular particle(s) predominant > in our body, and which we provide by attending or not-attending in the > requisite degree to the particular particle(s). > > > > > > > > > I was recently into about the fourth hour of a six hour flight - > it was one of those where it was too warm, packed, at night, turbulence, > guy putting his bare feet on the seat back next to me, just not a lot of > fun. There was no reason to do anything except keep pretty much to my > core, refuge in silence and a still mind. Because no matter how much I > tried, I couldn't break out of CC! That aluminum tube became my CC > prison. The vast and comforting silence within me couldn't be > overshadowed, and yet I sure could not find Oneness with my immediate > surroundings! :-) > > > > > > > > > * * Yes, as a particle I have occasionally found myself "stuck" in > CC-prison, and it was sometimes not a lot of fun! It can be a bit like a > standing wave of Self risen up in a column of separation from all the > rest of us. One way out of this has been simply to realize what is up, > and to relax back into appreciating the surroundings as also-us; this > always allows the wave to dissolve back into the ocean. If we feel like > a CC-column, the surroundings are generally presenting us with a quality > which we are shrinking back from allowing to be perfect. We have > withheld our Being from something "outside" of us because of a subtle or > not-so-subtle story that it somehow is not perfect too. > > > > > > > > Or, we can do particle-work on the being in Us which needs some > form of our Love, and which we have been unconsciously withholding... > which is pretty much the same technique as the first one, only stated > slightly differently :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
