Dear Buck - and hasn't Maharishi conning and defrauding millions of people not teach you anything that you have to keep repeating this garbage here?
These assembly line of life-abnegating, masochistic, poverty worshiping Gurus posing as avatars, divine mothers, fathers fashioning pseudo-spiritual values such as celibacy and renunciation which has caused all kinds of sexual perversion, repression, amassing personal fortunes. Do you have any newspapers, Television in your dome? Are you telling me someone has to torture themselves, abandon/destroy their families, abandon their social obligations to achieve enlightenment, awakening - you can't be more wrong because this grandiose, delusional mad Yogi is proof that it's not necessary. I'm sick and tired of this bullshit, this is just not acceptable in this modern age, I am telling you the future generations will not accept this garbage. Mysticism and Enlightenment has to be framed in the modern context, in the modern, intelligent, rational scientific context, in a language that a person growing up in this context. You are deluded if you think people will abandon material comforts, Scientific knowledge, their Iphones and Ipads to torture themselves for some stupid enlightenment - why? What's the point - I have more respect for people that enjoy their life than idiotic people like you. I absolutely love the Hindu metaphors of Divine Mother, Shiva and Krishna, but you under the tutelage of your retarded Gurus are causing a perversion of these beautiful metaphors. Please stop this nonsense. Love, Ravi On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Ravi Chivukula <chivukula.r...@gmail.com>wrote: > Yo Buckster you idiot, your message is nothing but garbage. > > There are no devatas - that's just hallucination including these parts *"Rick > Archer on BATGAP.com interviewed a guy recently who was on-line with the > laws of nature enough that they spoke through him" *and *Maharishi - "In > that state of celestial experience, if Krishna comes, then he is real > Krishna. If Shiva comes, he is real Shiva. If Divine Mother comes, she is > real Divine Mother. There is no mental hallucination, there is no other > than the real form in that perception"* - NO - these ARE nothing but > hallucinations. > > The laws of nature speaking through the man, LOL..this man is just a fraud > - can you please tell me the name of this person on Batgap? Maharishi's > statement also is garbage -Krishna, Shiva, Divine Mother - these are the > Hindu objectification's of the mystical energy, of existence, of God, of > the truth. Look I totally enjoy Shiva, Krishna, Divine Mother, in fact I > haven't seen anyone sing bhajans to Shiva, Krishna and Divine Mother as > blissfully as me but to think these are actual entities is just > hallucination. An objectification of truth, according to > one's conditioning, inclinations, social beliefs, customs, religion is not > truth, is not God. We create these visualizations of the truth, these > metaphors, these symbolisms, metaphors of the God so we can engage the > heart - but it doesn't make them real. > > Please stop misleading people, stop this dangerous drama, stop deluding > people with your fantasies, delusions, hallucinations. > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Buck <dhamiltony...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> ** >> >> >> Pam, there is a difference whence it is prakritis as devatas giving form >> in consciousness and then spiritism as you are more narrowly talking here >> and alarmed by that may also exhibit as psychosis. >> Spiritism as different from impulses of nature taking vector form in >> consciousness when this happens and communicate thus. Yes, there are people >> in town for who this is fluid at that level of having the laws of nature on >> line. There's a reality to that. This then is a spirituality different from >> entity spiritism or 'channeling' that you are making out correctly as >> spiritually bad in conclusion. >> -Buck in the Dome >> >> Also, Rick Archer on BATGAP.com interviewed a guy recently who was >> on-line with the laws of nature enough that they spoke through him. It is a >> distinction from hearing voices as entities. It was an interesting >> interview. >> >> Also I found this on the internet from 1966, Maharishi talking about it >> in his terms: >> >> MAHARISHI: ...When we talk of `glow`, we talk in terms of `seeing`, >> vision. Of course feeling is not eliminated. But seeing dominates more that >> experience. >> >> We never look forward to `glow`, never. Otherwise it won't `glow`. And in >> that subtle state of mind... because the mind is so very powerful, if you >> think something immediately, it will come. . But we don't want to think >> anything unless we become grounded in the perception of the celestial. >> field of life. >> >> Having been profoundly established on the experience of the celestial, >> then of course we could wish to see something here and there. And then just >> by our thought this thing will flash in its reality, in whatever form. That >> state of intellect is called ritam bhara. >> >> There was that point some day to express more clearly what ritam bhara >> pragya is. >> Ritam means satyam. Satyam means `truth`. Bhara (...?) which accepts only >> the truth. That state of intellect which only accepts the truth, or which >> only reflects the truth. In that state only the truth is reflected. >> >> That ritam bhara pragya is that state of intellect, which conceives or >> perceives things as they are. In that state of celestial experience, if >> Krishna comes, then he is real Krishna. If Shiva comes, he is real Shiva. >> If Divine Mother comes, she is real Divine Mother. There is no mental >> hallucination, there is no other than the real form in that perception. >> >> Until that thing has happened we don't want to desire to see anything. >> Otherwise, much before that state is gained, you could desire and something >> flashes, but there won't be the guarantee for truth of it. Something may be >> right, something may be wrong. Therefore we don't think to see anything >> until the celsetial vision becomes clear. >> >> And once that is clear, anything could be seen in that state. We desire >> something and it is there in its true colour. There won't be any mistake in >> there. >> >> That state of finest mind is called intellect. Much grosser than that >> also is said to be intellect, (but) that is decisive. That (ritam level) is >> very fine state of the mind. The thought will be materialized in that state >> very quickly. >> >> There are two aspects of materialization of a thought. One is the >> fulfilment of the thought, the other is the material perception of the >> thought. Both will happen. But as long ritam bhara pragya has not been >> fully developed, perceptions may be faulty, may be faulty. There won't be >> 100% guarantee for its truth. >> >> So, we allow it to develop. With regularity of practice it develops >> automatically. These are the fields where we don't force. (By) forcing we >> may be mislead. and may not be developed systematically. >> >> Question: The other evening you said that ritam bhara pragya would be >> something even beyond the celestial and you said that what would be >> responsible for the knowledge of `I am all this`, so to say... >> >> MAHARISHI: from there (the finest relative, celestial) to that extent (`I >> am all this`), all the way. >> >> Question: It is both celestial and beyond celestial? >> >> MAHARISHI: Because in the celestial (is) the materialization of the >> thoughts. Thoughts pertaining to relative life, anything pertaining to >> relative life, anything seen, anything known, anything in the relative >> field. That also dawns in its true reality, in its truth... >> >> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "pamtaylor108" <pamtaylor108@...> >> wrote: >> > >> > I want to address this thing some of us are doing, this communication >> with spirit sources. I realize there's arguments for gains, and for the >> blissful feelings one gets from the contact, but hear me out. >> > We have so little knowledge of the tolls taken on the person in direct >> contact with the spirit, god or goddess, that it ends up being a gamble as >> to whether or not it's safe. Other than the fact that contacting spirits >> makes us feel blissful, we don't know the mechanics taking place in the >> brain--no matter if the exchange is labeled channeling, or conversation, or >> anything else; and no matter if the spirit claims divinity--we don't know >> the amount of harm. All we know is that it could be harmful, according to >> certain great masters. >> > So, it's possible the receiver could sustain longterm psychological >> damage. We don't know. The receiver doesn't know. Even a saint wouldn't >> know. >> > We need to ask ourselves why the least amount of uncertainty or risk >> shouldn't be sufficient to inspire us not to do it. >> > I also want to point out that folks claiming to know for sure that >> contact with spirit sources are not harmful, have no sound foundation on >> which to lay that claim. None. Whereas my basis for objection is the known >> possibility of damage to the wellbeing of people communicating with these >> spirits, gods or goddesses. >> > That's it. That's all I wanted to say. Now, anyone wanting to shoot >> down this note, be my guest. >> > Well, one last thing. As we move together toward enlightenment, let's >> remember the old adage, "not all sources of joy are worthy of trust." >> > >> >> >> > >
