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). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
