---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :
Salyavin, from your comments I wonder if you've ever NOT done your TM. What happened? What happened is what happens. Minus the belief stage. Without that, what is it really? More, less or identical? There's only one way to find out. From: salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 1:51 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Live Stream | 30th November ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mjackson74@...> wrote : "but that doesn't mean he didn't do a lot in teaching meditation and popularising spiritual seeking" This is something that even M's critics sometimes say, and I disagree. He wasn't the only huckster from India trying to make a living hawking his country's esoteric blabber as ultimate knowledge. What he did that made him seem to eclipse the others was he got lucky. The Beatles fell for his Anton Mesmer routine and he got tremendous amounts of attention from the news media due to them. And we see that they were done with him in less than a year. True but he did popularise meditation. I sure wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't for him! I'm just being charitable as like TM, I'm as aware as anyone here how the TMO turned out. I've seen the madness myself. Sat in the same room as it but I worked out what was going on and it never got it's claws into me. Not like it has poor old George Hammond. TM still works I just don't think it's doing what was promised. While it's better than not doing it I shall continue. Were it not for the Beatles, he would have been another long haired Indian vying for the attention of the gullible masses. He deserves no credit for "popularizing" meditation since he did it for total self serving purposes, which is I believe in direct contravention to any number of Hindu and Vedic admonishments to the contrary. Gullible masses or genuine seekers? Or does that end up as the same thing? I think there is a need or desire in everyone to go beyond what they are and experience something profound. We seem wired that way, I sure am I'm just re-evaluating what the experience means. And what did his teaching produce? Such men as George Hammond who are willing to stand in front of an audience and make a big ol' donkey of themselves spouting things that are obvious hallucinations and made up bullshit. Come on. LOL, you've got me there. Marshy would have seen what was happening with his devotees and didn't stop it. Encouraged it too. Introducing John Hagelin as the man who finished Einteins work is a case in point. Without the idea that he was some sort of superman a lot of the TMO wouldn't have happened. It's easier to get people working hard growing the movement when they think it's divinely inspired. But at least we now know that Jehovah and Jesus approved. Phew! From: salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 4:05 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Live Stream | 30th November ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mjackson74@...> wrote : I am going back and looking at this from the beginning - what a bunch of crap. I think this guy is using the "I talked to Marshy" deal as a platform to attract an audience to get 'em to listen to his off the wall beliefs. Just another (sincere) huckster following in Marshy's footsteps who was himself as one of the most successful hucksters in the 20th century. What if it was true and all these Gods did exist and had meetings together, would they actually accept Maharishi as one of their great representatives among mankind? To answer yes is to elevate him to the same historical standing as the others. I'm pretty sure that isn't going to happen worldwide, but that doesn't mean he didn't do a lot in teaching meditation and popularising spiritual seeking - at least at first . My worry is all the obvious profit making through selling of prayers and bullshit cult philosophy that the TMO does, I can't see Jehovah getting off on that. Or maybe he'd be pissed off that he didn't think of it first? It is nice that the gods all get along with each other though. There's an old atheist saw that says "You only believe in one of the thousands of gods, I just believe in one less than you" Now we know that we can believe in all of them! The idea that they are all faces of the same thing must be wrong, and I always thought that was a good idea of Marshy's - very inclusive - I see that Hammond forgot that part of his teaching. Surprised he wasn't reminded by the man himself! But I can't help thinking they'd all be more at odds with each other.The eastern and western religions really were different, the old testament god was a total wanker, vindictive and merciless. And the eastern ones were all fundamentalist, caste based anti-feminist fatalists. When did it all change, how come they are like a big new age happy family? They'd be smiting each other as badly as they used to do us. I'm starting to smell a rat.... If only he'd given the Scientologists a message from Xenu. Then we'd know he was in touch with the Great Ones and not just stringing us a line from a daydream he had. From: salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 3:19 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Live Stream | 30th November ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <noozguru@...> wrote : Everyone is "merged" with the absolute, the process of enlightenment is realizing it. The absolute is all that is and everything else is just an illusion. This is where I go wrong. I'm utterly convinced it's the other way round!