Siddhartha Gautama was the Buddha I chatted with , but he lets me just call him "Budd" (that's short for Buddha)
I never went to MUM, I went to MIU, a distinction I would think you would love to honor since you are such a stickler for correct names and origins of mantras. I never muttered my mantra in the Dome - I merely began with 30 seconds of silence then allowed myself to entertain a faint impression of my mantra, then allowed myself to ride the wave of bliss that naturally arose in the "meditation" process. (Unless I was thinking about women, in which case I was caught up in a different kind of bliss.) I did mutter in the Dome, mostly imprecations against certain people like the guy who used to crack his knuckles all during program. I would probably have muttered blasphemies against Bevan too, but I enjoyed it so much when he would get up and make announcements such as "Some of you think it is legitimate to come over to me while I am resting after flying and ask me questions. Let me assure you, it most certainly is not legitimate to do any such thing!" You have not stated why you think my statement of a chat with Buddha is an indication of lack of basic world history. It seems that your belief in Buddhist stuff being the basis of all things TM has short circuited your awareness. I bet it is a sight to see you in the check out lane at the grocery store, the cashier tells you total bill and you explode with: "What! What do you mean?! How can it be that much? Don't you idiots know the mantras are really Buddhist tantra? Don't you know that Guru Dev got 'em from so and so and that has to mean so and so, right?" I don't know for sure if reality is real. The authors of such fine literature as the Ashtavakra Gita and the Yoga Vasishtha certainly do. For my part, I feel all is real. Everything in the created worlds is created of the Energy that IS creation, therefore it is all Energy, which is real. SO if the Energy we create from and that the Universe creates from is real Energy, and all things in creation are composed of that Energy then the form must be real, tho impermanent. As Bill Moyers would say in the interest of full disclosure, I did not cognize that myself, John Randolph Price said it first. I await your Buddhist stupa and tantric mantra inspired reply. ________________________________ From: Richard J. Williams <rich...@rwilliams.us> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 10:00 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Talked to Buddha mjackson74: > I had a chat with Buddha tonight. > Which one? > He said the vastu was juuuuuust right underneath > that banyan tree he picked out. > Apparently you didn't take a World Civ 101 class at MUM! Do they even offer art history classes up there? One informant posting here claims he got a degree in philosophy at MUM, but he doesn't seem to know much about history. Another guy who got an English degree at MUM is a cook down in New Orleans. Hey! You already led us to assume that you thought physical reality was an illusion and not real. Go figure that one! The Patanalji Golden Dome where you muttered your mantra for all those years is a Buddhist stupa! You just don't seem to get it. LoL! "To the extent that the building embodies meanings conducive to an intellectual vision of the non-duality of principial Unity and manifested multiplicity, an edifice functions as a symbol, that is to say, as a representation of reality on another. The belief that the building is capable of performing this symbolic function is founded on the Indian doctrine that there exists an anlagous, or anagogical corespondence between the physical and the metaphysical orders of reality." So, if your world is an illusion like a dream, then it's entirely posssible that the sensible world is also a similitude of the intellectual, in such a way that: "This world is the image of that, and vice versa." (Aitareya Aranyaka, VIII.2, Keith) Work cited: 'The Symbolism of the Stupa' by Adrian Snodgrass Delhi, 1992 (Highly recommended reading for all who are interested in edifice architecture).
