--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > wrote: > > > > > > PS to Barry, no, I am not talking about Jim here- this is > > > specifically straight from the Brahmananda Saraswati frequency. > Even > > > Jim on a good day cannot compare with Brahmananda Saraswati with > > > regards to His power and purity. > > > > PS to Jim. > > > > As much as I like you, I probably consider your > > own ideas of what is true and what is not a great > > deal more valid than I would consider ideas that > > you think come straight from a guy who has been > > dead for over 50 years. :-) > > > No thought in it- I guess it all depends on how you define 'dead' :- > ). Is death truly defined by just the body we have on earth dying? > Or is there a tangible element of life continuing as part of the > death process? Do a Byron Katie type inquiry on that one please, and > see what you come up with... > > I've had an active relationship with His Holiness for many many > years. > Is it out of the norm? Sure! Yes! Of course! > Is it absolutely real? Sure! Yes! Of course! > > Should I deny it, or not speak about it, or doubt my direct > perception for the last 25 years, just because those who haven't had > such an experience cannot comprehend it, or doubt it? > > I appreciate your honest response, though I do think it equally > important to always keep an open mind about such things. The > world is not always as it seems :-)
So here's a fun intellectual quandary to pursue... (Just to clarify, I am *not* saying the following about you personally, Jim, because we've never discussed this subject and I don't know where you stand on it. I'm just bringing it up because it's one of my favorite weirdnesses about the TM movement.) The thing that strikes me as a little odd is that without exception, the TMers I've met who believe that they can perceive or be in communication with something of Guru Dev's individual consciousness *also* believe, when you ask them about it, in Maharishi's dogma about what happens to an enlight- ened being when they die. You remember that dogma, right? It's "the drop returns to the ocean" rap, in which individuality is *over* when the enlightened being dies, kaput, toast, never to appear again. Me, I don't know either way, but I do have fun noticing that the *same* people who firmly believe that there is no individuality left after an enlightened being dies (as Maharishi says) have no problem whatsoever believing that they've at one point or another in their lives been in contact with Guru Dev's individuality. This contradiction really isn't one for me because I *don't* believe in Maharishi's "the drop returns to the ocean rap." So if I had run into Guru Dev's consciousness somewhere along the way (I haven't) I'd have had no intellectual problems with it. It just strikes me that those who claim to believe in Maharishi's theory *should* have an intellectual problem with running into the individual conscious- ness of someone they consider enlightened who died. It seems to me that if they truly believe that they've encountered Guru Dev's individual conscious- ness that they should believe that Maharishi is wrong about his "drop returning to the ocean" theory. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
