One difference in our views I think is that I am not espousing intellectual relativism. I actually do believe that my view of Maharihi's teaching is more "right" more accurate, better than Buck's. What I am advocating is a respect for each other personally given that difference. I can live with him feeling the same way about his view I just don't want to be bugged to convert. I'm sure my Muslim friends, in their heart or hearts believe that my godless life will lead to perdition ultimately. But as long as we can keep the topic on how to leaven whole wheat flat breads without ending up with coasters the consistency of shoe leather, we can enjoy each other's differences.
I remember how interesting it was for me to understand the non evangelical nature of Theravada Buddhism when I asked my religiously devoted GF at the time if it bothered her that I was an atheist. She was genuinely puzzled and said "how could it matter to me what you believe about God?" Doing more research I realized that it is what you point out, whether or not followers are taught to proselytize that makes all the difference. I have the same problem with multi-level marketing. It turns casual conversations into business opportunities. I hate living that way. When I find myself in a conversation with a stranger, I want to go the Dale Carnegie route and find out what makes them light up in conversation because it is talking about something they love. The last thing I want to do is try to get the to love blues or something. I am looking for something that only they can give me and I have to get out of my own way to find it. I can't assume that the most fascinating aspect of this interaction is ME and my preferences! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Good post, Curtis. This may seem like a non-sequitur, but > it reminds me of a historical tidbit about Japan. There > is a segment of its history that from a Western POV is > described in their history books as poor, isolated Japan > becoming opened to ideas from the West, to its betterment. > That same period is referred to in Japanese history books > as "the invasion of the barbarians." > > Why? Because Japanese society at the time may have been > many things, but one thing it was above all else was > tolerant. It was considered a *huge* affront to try to > convert someone away from their beliefs and convince > them that yours were superior. Spanish and Portuguese > explorers, armed with their cadres of Catholic priests, > arrived on Japan's shores and ignored this sensibility > completely. Not only did they attempt to "convert the > heathens," they attempted to do so by force. For the > Japanese, to conceive of doing this -- or to even want > to -- was considered barbaric. I tend to agree with this > description. > > In my view, no one on this planet has the market cornered > on Truth. It's a planet full of individuals with individual > opinions, none of which are inherently more superior than > others. The people I get along with understand this, and > adopt a laissez-faire attitude towards their interactions > with others. They may believe, and believe firmly, in their > particular POV or belief system, and present it *as opinion* > for friendly discussion, but to feel that this POV or > belief system can or should be "debated," or that someone > can or should be persuaded to adopt that POV? Barbaric > then, barbaric now. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@> wrote: > > > > The world would be the better place! > > > > First I don't "cavil" you. I point out your elitist triumphalism as a > > response to your expressions of it. > > > > Second, your "better world" involves more people who think as you do. That > > is the exact opposite of the world I enjoy just as it is. In my "its > > already a better world" you are happy as the pigs in shit who surround your > > little utopia (I hate to slander one of my favorite animals with an unfair > > and untrue characterization, the big agro-biz farms of Iowa are > > concentration camps for animals as intelligent as dogs, so it should be as > > UNHAPPY as a pig in shit). > > > > I am happy in the world I have chosen to live in. My world would not be > > improved one iota if I got a call from you tomorrow that started with the > > phrase "hey Curtis old buddy, you were right about everything..." If you > > decided to leave your pastoral existence and join me here to find your way > > outside your spiritual enclave, it wouldn't make a discernible blip on my > > happiness meter. Actually looking at it selfishly, I enjoy you where you > > are writing here as you do. I like to read different POVs, I already know > > my own. > > > > I don't share your desire to have us share thinking styles or conclusions. > > On more reflection, in my better world I guess I could do without the weird > > assumptive triumphalism as if you have figured out the ultimate secret of > > life and I have not. But that only wins by a smidgen. It keeps us from > > being true peers on the planet. > > > > I am happy to believe that you have found something of value to you and > > high five you for it. But I am not willing to assume an inferior position > > for my choices. I get it that you think you have found the secret of all > > life. Good on ya for that. But I believe it is childish to include that > > you KNOW beyond all doubt that you have done so. That surety smacks of > > immature religious clap trap that is so boringly common on this planet. > > Are you really soooo sure? Like the all the other super religious people > > who are soooo freak'n sure that they have THE WAY? I know plenty of > > religious people who don't take it to this obnoxious extreme, and can > > combine their faith with a little of the epistemological humility that is > > my litmus test for people I can relate to. > > > > So if you want to share a brotherhood of man with me, look me in the eye as > > an equal with respect for my own choices. In my better world we could hang > > out on your farm, which would fascinate me, and spend the day with you > > turning me on to your life with livestock. I would delight in all the > > difficulties, the moral dilemmas, the it's so F'ing cold this morningness > > of it all. I could really dig your life and you could share that with me. > > And if you wanted to have a meditation before lunch I would happily join > > you in that too. > > > > But if after lunch, after talking to your lovely wife about her recipes for > > this and that, if you decided to lecture me on how important is is for me > > to go to the stinky domes and sit there with my eyes closed for hours doing > > what our dead guru flung out into the world in a half baked, winging it > > while getting paid, and making absurd ,bloviated claims about it, I would > > take my rent-a-car back to Cedar Rapids and get on my plane back home. > > > > Because men should not "should" on each other. They shouldn't musterbate > > in each others presence. Men who see each other as equals can still enjoy > > their own choices as superior for THEMSELVES. I don't think you should > > play blues or help me reform arts integrated education in our schools. It > > is my mission and I would be happy to hear that you were doing the same for > > Iowa schools, but I don't think you SHOULD do it if that is not what is > > your personal passion. > > > > Perhaps that is the real bottom line for me. I believe that we should > > follow what really matters to us. I loved being in the movement when it > > was my passion. But it isn't now and other things are. Is it still your > > passion? OK, go for it. Perhaps playing by the rules so you could actually > > get into the domes you love so much would be a start. But that is up to > > you. Perhaps your passion is to be the rebel guy who beats the > > establishment at its own game and gets to see "saints" (I would rather > > receive darshan from your livestock veterinarian.) and still go to the > > domes. Maybe if you get them to change their minds you will feel the same > > accomplishment I feel when I get a bunch of kids to use more figurative > > language in their writing by helping them write a blues song. > > > > Perhaps collectivism and individualism is really the basic value in play > > here. But you told me not to use your real name here so I am dealing with > > "Buck". And Buck seems to think that he has found the secret of life, and > > I have not. But Buck doesn't know shit about my life and the passions that > > drive my creative life, the fulfillment it brings me, the lives I affect > > through my work. > > > > He just wants me to think more like him. Like every other "I have the > > secret of life and you don't" provincial perspective midget. I say, your > > loss, I am doing some cool stuff with my life too. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nay, no, that is not true you guys, you cavil me. Turqb a CurtisDb > > > > > you got me wrong. > > > > > We'd be nothing without each other here. I have nothing but goodwill > > > > > towards everyone here. > > > > > > > > > > Image two guys between meditation here (a laborer on the one hand and > > > > > an intellectual on the other) coming out of Revelations Café in > > > > > Fairfield crossing over to Paradiso Cafe arm-in-arm (may be it's even > > > > > Buck and Turqb) shouting to themselves, chanting to one another in > > > > > brotherly love, > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > May we not hate any. > > > > > > > > > > The world would be the better place! > > > > > > > > > > -Buck > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, this image would mean that Hell had just froze over > > > > considering that Turqb declines ever to come back to be with > > > > meditative Fairfield. But Om, the image gives hope. And just seeing > > > > it in mind brings some tears to mine eyes. > > > > > > Think now just how many grown old sons and daughters of meditation gone > > > away like Turq and CurtisDb are wandering out there to come back! The > > > prodigal children of TM. If they'd only come home. They should be > > > beautiful when they'd come back and could get in to the domes, if they > > > can. > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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" 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 > > > > > 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). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
