---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :
Buddhists seem to have a BIG PR problem. Maybe they don't spend as much on advertising as the TMO? Maybe they (shock horror) don't think it's as important. Everyone is familiar with all of the celebrities who practice and endorse TM. How could we be otherwise, in our shallow age whether a celebrity does something is the most important indicator of its worth. Just the other day I got an email from TM HQ about how many famous slebs do TM, not sure what I was supposed to think of it, maybe if I do TM I'll be famous like them, is that it? Or is it just to say that I chose wisely because all these fabulous people sit still in the same way I used to? TM is widely recognized as a way to "transmit" all the tools necessary for enlightenment. Widely recognised by.....? The additional benefit, is that the student is far more independent of the teacher, with TM, than hanging on his coattails, as is true of the Buddhist transmission method. Not even remotely true, you can practise any meditation anywhere. You didn't do much research for this did you? And what about Buck in the Dome and all the others who spend hours and hours every day and thousands and thousands extra on add-ons like prayers and east facing homes. The TMO encourages dependence for your own good. Most TM-lifers never get beyond thinking there is an alternative to the slavish dogma. The longer you are involved, the less chance there is of learning anything else. Buddhism creates beautiful art, probably the most beautiful, depicting the state of inner serenity. That appears to be its sole purpose, aside from giving a few westerners swelled heads. I agree with you about the art but maybe Buddhists think they are better off without Russell Brand and "world renowned" physicists talking bollocks on their behalf? There's something to be said for humility. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote : Define "spiritual accomplishments." I'll wait... Seriously, try. What can you come up with that falls outside the general area of "I *claim* to have had the following completely subjective experiences."? For me, there is no such criterion. Creating a "tradition" means nothing, and "number of students" means nothing. Certainly "making a lot of money" means nothing, or Maharishi would be a spiritual luminary, instead of being the sad joke he's considered by most people on the planet. Performing (or even claiming to have performed) sidhis doesn't do diddley for me, because I've been there, done that with witnessing sidhis, and know that they don't have anything to do with "spiritual accomplishment," or even with being a nice guy. I've seen at least one person levitate fer real and turn invisible and stuff like that and then turn around and act like a total dick. As for "austere and disciplined," what makes you believe those criteria have anything to do with spiritual realization, or accomplishment? As for "what the Buddha was trying to say," I personally would venture that no human being on earth -- including the original Buddha -- has ever known that. I hold the supposed "Buddhist canon" as being no more reflective of anything actually said or taught by the original Buddha than the New Testament is reflective of anything actually said or taught by the supposed Jesus. *Without exception*, any of the "scriptures" suggesting otherwise in either case were written by non-enlightened people decades to centuries after the supposed teacher's life. *** I think you're trying to cling to generic "rules and regs" for spiritual teachers made up by those who have never been spiritual teachers, only groupies on the sidelines. Me, I just like characters, and the Turquoise Bee certainly was one. I don't like him because he was some grandiose spiritual "master," but because he was a great *character*. One of the stories about him I like best is that there is a possibility that he *wasn't* murdered by the Chinese, but that instead he faked his death so that he could free himself from the yoke of being the Dalai Lama and just walk the earth, like Caine in Kung-fu. :-) *** I'm serious about this, by the way. I don't believe that anything of any lasting value about either enlightenment or spiritual "realization" or attaining it can *possibly* be captured in words. My experience in life suggests to me that any of these things can be conveyed only by transmission from a living person who embodies that which he or she is hoping to share with others. No words are necessary for this process to occur, and no words can possibly capture what is transmitted wordlessly. IMO, of course. From: "s3raphita@..." <s3raphita@...> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2014 4:46 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM Thanks for the reply. I followed your link and enjoyed the poems. Turquoise Bee was clearly someone who enjoyed the more earthy pleasures. And he didn't try to hide his preferences so can't be accused of being a hypocrite. Nothing wrong with that - but did he display any spiritual accomplishments? I'm sure that an austere, disciplined Theravada Buddhist would dismiss Turquoise Bee as a man who had no sympathy or understanding of what the Buddha was trying to say. Tibetan Buddhists have always struck me as being enriched (contaminated?) by other traditions (such as Bon) so I can never decide whether they are esoteric masters or lost souls. Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche was a more recent superstar. He openly slept with his female disciples. I recall someone claiming in mitigation that his compulsive promiscuity was not what it seemed: he actually preferred cuddling up to his women for emotional comfort rather than engaging in a hedonistic sex session. But that only makes it seem worse! Does practising being a Buddhist leave you emotionally needy and insecure? If so what's the point?
