I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry, but since you 
nailed it I can get off with just a:

what he said.

Favorite line:


> Call the media. "Buck" has just suggested that Fairfield
> Life be run the way the TMO is.  :-)



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- 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).
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


Reply via email to