--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote:
> I'm not sure whether it's considered possible in MMY's > teaching to "abandon" higher consciousness once it's > become stable (Robin's, according to him, lasted for > at least a decade). According to Maharishi and according to tradition this is not possible. In this case it wasn't fully established. That is to say in TM lingo, 'there was still some stress', not matter how long it lasted to come out. It's the last stress, remember?, the most difficult one. > And again, if it wasn't "complete," > it wouldn't have been MMY's Unity Consciousness in the > first place. Now this is word-picking, it could have been on the way to UC or temporary experiences of UC, but not fully established. > At any rate, I think it's much more a matter of Robin's > personality and how he interacts with folks here than > his past experience with TM that we find appealing. > TM-wise, he's an anomaly any way you look at it. There is a considerable group dynamics in this, and Ravi is part of the equation, and you too. <snip> > > Not Brahma Chaitanya, but Brahmi Chetana. > > Well, OK, Brahma Chaitanya was emptybill's spelling (I've > now found the post), and he equated it with Unity > Consciousness. What he objected to was Robin saying his > ego was extinguished when he entered Unity. He said that > wasn't how Shankara or Vidyaranya described Unity. > > Here's his post if you're interested: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/295775 > > > Tell me a scripture where Brahmi Chetana is mentioned. I don't > > know, maybe there is, chetana simply means consciousness, > > Brahmi (of Brahman I think). I think that it is more a > > translation back from english. Just like bhavatita dhyan which > > is hindi for TM. I don't really think it is a 'term' of vedanta. > > And if it is, it probably has a different connotation than unity. > > You'll have to fight that out with emptybill. As a rule of thumb, I don't fight with emptybill. But I agree with him that the categories of his system and the definitions of MMY are different from tradition. <snip> > Well, thanks. I've said it before, at least the part > about what we hoped for from King Tony. I started > thinking about it way back when, not long after Tony's > coronation, when it had become clear he would be MMY's > designated successor. I think, Maharishi, till the very end of his life, when he officially withdrew, would never have given the reigns out of his hand. > I had the sense that after MMY > died, he'd emerge from the woodwork and take the reins. > And he still might. That would be a surprise. If he still wants to do something, he has to do it now, time is running out, many old TMers will be dead in 10 years, or simply incapable of doing anything. New people are hardly there. This is the situation. Anyway, leaders are known to act quickly, he doesn't have this mindset. You think maybe when Bevan dies? It will be too late. > For all we know, he could be > quietly working behind the scenes, and it's just not > evident yet. Yes, that is evident. They were developing this new course/technique of Vedic physiology at lightening speed, which they were already working on for 10 years when Maharishi was still alive. Tony Naders paperback edition of his book on vedic physiology, is also on the NYT bestseller list since years. <snip> > Right, you said he "commands a natural authority" (which > gave Feste fits). Hehe
