The conclusion I've come to is that mental techniques, if that's all they are (throwing in some simple pranayana exercises and some basic asanas don't really count for much, other than some fun), can attach you to your own mental models of reality. Slowly, over time, you invest more and more energy in this "mental body" (manamayakosha), which is actually an illusory body. It's not real. Thus you have TMers who become trance channelers or mediums who, convinced of the importance of this reality, report back messages from their new found world. The messages bubbling up for the unconscious are taken as messages from important disincarnate beings, anxious to impart their supposed wisdom. Some beings get so caught up in their believed reality they make livings out of communicating back to earth these "important" messages. Some may imagine they walk with their guru-hero or receive other important messages. Others mental life may begin to impinge on their waking reality, and like induced Synesthesia they believe they see visions. Their mental life and their subconscious spills over into other parts of their life.
Thus the spiritual ego grows. Confront one of these folks about this growing new ego, and you'll unleash a torrent of negativity at you. You see, they believe it's spiritual. But really, they've merely taken an illusory realm as "real" and enslaved themselves. The enslavement becomes even more pernicious as thought-forms get subtler. >From what I can tell, people can get stuck in this for a lifetime. I seriously >doubt that creating karma at subtler levels of our limited being is going to >help anyone in the long run. Indeed such people, relying on a steady diet of >their own subconscious often become overtly or subtly vain, narcissistic, >prone to hypomania and numerous personality disorders: sure signs of >not-transcending much at all, but instead trapped by the causative factors of >a mental technique and acquired beliefs. I bet Robin remembers of two brothers in FF who could channel in tandem (with their eyes closed). One would stop and the other would pick up with other left off. Wonderful people really, very fine people. But none of their predictions ever came to be. It's like Scotty had beamed them into a disconnected dream world from which they reported back wonderfully sounding facts, unrelated to the world we actually lived in! On Oct 15, 2011, at 5:23 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > There are a couple of threads going on recently, both involving > Curtis, that I think are revelatory about the state of mind of > many FFL members. Although I've only skimmed the first few para- > graphs of each, it seems to me that the anti-Curtis participants > are trying to make the same case (see Subject line). > > In one, someone is trying to make the case that because Curtis > feels free to mock the concept of God and/or deliver unto Him > the blame for all the Bad Stuff even believers in Him admit > He's responsible for, that means he "hates" God. > > Bzzzzzzzt. Does not compute. This line of unreasoning is as > stupid as someone who believes that Porky Pig is God saying > that someone who pokes fun at Porky Pig "hates" him. PORKY > PIG DOES NOT EXIST. He's a fictional character. For > those of us who are non-believers in God, is God. How can > someone who doesn't believe that God EXISTS "hate" Him? > This is just so stupid I don't see how anyone could possibly > propose such an idiotic argument. > > In the other thread, someone who is heavily attached to the > word-for-word parroted dogma taught to her by Maharishi and > his minions is claiming that because Vaj not only *isn't* > attached to it but feels free to use his own mind and his > own much broader experience with spiritual pursuits to come > up with more exact descriptions of TM and what it entails, > he was never a TM teacher. The anti-Vaj person also tries > -- often -- to claim that Vaj "hates" Maharishi and TM and > TMers, and is saying what he says out of malice, and with > nefarious intent. > > Bzzzzzt. I don't really see it that way. What I see *in > both cases* is people who are heavily invested in and attached > to a set of beliefs indulging in 1) projection of their own > emotions (projecting their own hatred onto others), and 2) > protection of their own self importance (I believe in this > stuff, therefore it's true). > > What does it MATTER if Curtis doesn't believe in God and > you do? His beliefs don't affect you in any way. The fact > that he occasionally pokes hilarious fun at a *made-up > concept* shouldn't really affect you at all. But it DOES. > So much so that you leave all sense of reason behind and > suggest that he "hates" the made-up concept. WTF? Please > take your Porky Pig-ism back to the spiritual kindergarten > you learned it in and get a checking. > > W.r.t Vaj, the fact that you are still so terrified of > saying something that isn't in the approved catechism of > TM dogma *does not mean* that Vaj should be or has to be > similarly terrified. He has learned something you have not, > the ability to think for himself. You suggesting that this > is a sin merely reveals how strongly you believe that > thinking for yourself IS a sin. > > From my point of view, Curtis "hates God" no more than Vaj > "hates Maharishi or TMers." They merely poke fun at things > that more than deserve to be made fun of, sometimes indulging > in hyperbole to do so. This hyperbole pushes the attachment > buttons of the True Believers, who then react by parroting > *another* piece of dogma that they've been taught, the phrase > in the Subject line of this post. > > It's embarrassing. If you had half a clue, you'd be as > embarrassed saying this stuff you say as some of us are > watching you say it. > > >
