Hi fellow FFLers I have recently had troubles connecting to the internet, a problem that the ISP acknowledges is their responsibility. I mention this because I have only just picked up on this curious strand trashing me.
Why is it that those talking heads who try to trash me, never ever come up with any souceable useful information to gainsay any of my research or propositions? You just use me as the fall guy to give vent to your fury which might be more appropriately directed to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Shame on you!!! Ironically, it is you who wish to appear as supporters, protectors and advocates of TM, that seem to disprove just about ALL the claims MMY made for his meditation. Is it true that none of you are meditators and that you are hirelings of some fundamentalist anti-MMY, anti-TM organisation in the pay of the CIA? Jay Gurudev --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "nablusos108" <nablusos108@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "nablusos108" <nablusos108@> > > > > wrote: > > > > I have no strong opinion on Heaven or Hell. Perhaps those > > > > states of Bliss and Tamas excist, perhaps not. But if Hell > > > > excists I think this Paul Mason fellow is a strong candidate > > > > for a prolonged stay in one of those premises. I mean, > > > > spreading slander about an outstanding Saint for money ?? > > > > It's like a plea for a stay in an unpleasant place. IMO. > > > > To be subdued and treated by Tamas for a long period > > > > of time at least is a guarantee for not having to deal > > > > with this lowlife fellow in our next incarnation. > > > > > > *************** > > > > > > Yeah, Mason is a jerk, but jerks/demons are part of creation, > > > and in fact, creation COULD NOT EXIST without demons. Why? > > > Because the jig would be up if life were too sattvic > > > (transparent) -- it would be trying to play hide-and-so-seek > > > with no trees to hide behind. So although the dull-witted and > > > demonic level is dominant now, and will naturally be reduced > > > in the natural course of time, there will always be some > > > demonic activity, even in the Sat Yuga. > > > > > > From Vasistha's Yoga p. 201 http://tinyurl.com/6xndt : > > > > > > "This seemingly unending world-appearance is sustained by impure > > > (rajasa) and dull (tamasa) beings, even as a superstructure is > > > sustained by pillars. But it is playfully and easily abandoned > > > by those who are of a pure nature, even as the slough is > > > effortlessly abandoned by a snake." > > > > Very interesting comment. You are absolutely correct. One > > should try to ignore/accept demonic forces represented by > > beings like Paul Mason as a part of nature. But it is not easy... > > Please reread the comments above in the light of > what I just wrote to Tom T. > > The speakers are two long-time TMers who consider > themselves On The Program and sane. They believe > strongly in Maharishi and TM. And they have NO > PROBLEM with going onto a public forum and calmly > discussing their belief that Paul, who did nothing > more than write a few things they don't like is a > DEMON, and in league with demonic forces. > > THAT, not the simple, easily-learned technique of > Transcendental Meditation, is unfortunately the > legacy of Maharishi and the TM movement. What > started (at least in the minds of the early TM > teachers) as a noble, well-intentioned attempt to > make the benefits of meditation available to as > many people as possible at a reasonable cost has > degenerated over the years into the proponents > of Maharishi's teachings calmly declaring someone > a DEMON because he doesn't agree with what they > believe. > > THAT is a more than a little scary in my opinion. > > What's equally scary is the people who regularly > react to those who write things that disagree with > what they believe by attempting, seemingly ration- > ally, to discredit the writer. These people are on > a seemingly never-ending campaign to portray the > more well-spoken critics of TM as 1) having hidden > motives, 2) being untrustworthy, 3) "lying" when > they express simple *opinion*, and other similar > things. To me, both sets of people represent the > same cult phenomenon, just to different degrees. > > And to be honest, the latter are more dangerous. > They attempt to HIDE their systematic demonization. > At least Bob, Nablusos, and Frank Lotz are honest > about it. >
