--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote: > > You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity > I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct > as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife. > Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL.
We'll miss you. :-) Seriously, dude, what would you call all your endless posts denouncing Bevan and the Rajas? "Negative" is a RELATIVE concept, not an absolute one. I'd be willing to bet that any of the people you rail against would consider you and your "Buck" char- acter more than a little negative. And, from their point of view, they'd be correct, because to them "negative" means anything that criticizes or goes against what they believe to be true and correct. I thought that earlier you yourself were making the point that the injunction to "never entertain nega- tivity and never denounce anyone" was a two-edged sword that could be (and, as I remember you suggest- ing, was) used by the TMO to control minds and opinions. I agree with that earlier assessment, and feel that what you propose above is just another flavor of it. Who gets to decide what is "negative" and what is not? You? The mysterious "we" you refer to below? Not. Gonna. Happen. :-) > You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right. We > should do more to protect that privilege. This is a simple > guideline that is very easily enforced. Coulld just revoke > someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being > negative like that. Call the media. "Buck" has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) > Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so > it comes up every time. It's a uniform code of justice to > attend to that we could all use and our moderators enforce. > We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to be. I can think of no place on earth that would be a safer place to be with someone of the "Buck" mindset running it. Just sayin'. > Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; > may It nourish us both together; > May we work conjointly with great energy, > May our study be vigorous and effective; > May we not mutually dispute > or may we not hate any. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <wrote: > > > > > > I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of that > > hymn. Thanks Cardm, > > > > Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; > > may It nourish us both together; > > May we work conjointly with great energy, > > May our study be vigorous and effective; > > May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time! > > > > > > Well then, no wonder. > > > > > > > > > > > > saha nau avatu . > > > > > > saha nau bhunaktu . > > > > > > saha viiryaM karavaavahai . > > > > > > tejasvi nau; > > > > > > adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak. > > > > > The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this: > > > > > > > > > > saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . > > > > > tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . > > > > > > > > > > That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav', > > > > > without any effect on the *semantic* level. > > > > > > > > > > > > > This seems to be the most accurate translation I could > > > > find quickly: > > > > > > > > Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together; > > > > May we work conjointly with great energy, > > > > May our study be vigorous and effective; > > > > May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). > > > > > > > > > > Oh, so that's the correct translation. For us meditators here, it reads > > > really well substituting in `Unified Field. It's beautiful even if it is > > > not the way Maharishi and Bevan used it. > > > > > > Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; > > > may It nourish us both together; > > > May we work conjointly with great energy, > > > May our study be vigorous and effective; > > > May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). > > > > > > > > > > > > > May He protect (avatu) us both (nau [~now] accusative *dual*) together > > > > (saha); > > > > may He nourish (bhunaktu) us both (nau) together (saha); > > > > May we work (karavaavahai) conjointly (saha) > > > > with great energy (viiryam), > > > > May our study be (adhiitam [study] astu [may (it) be]) > > > > vigorous-and-effective (tejasvi); > > > > May we not (maa: 'we' in the verb ->) mutually-dispute (vidviSaavahai) > > > > (or may we not hate any: vidviSaavahai). > > > > > > > > > >
