[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, michael  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> http://globalcountryofworldpeace.org:80/maharishi_vedic_pandits12.html
> �
> in maharishi vedic city
> �
>


INteresting. 

L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk"  wrote:
>
> Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do 
> you all think fuck each other? After I quit Purusha 
> I learned of many abhorrent goings on.

Now that's interesting. I don't remember this
particular subject having come up before. 

I would bet not only that homosexual relation-
ships are common, but that they are done in a
state of almost total denial. That is, the
people involved can't admit even to each other
what they are doing to each other. 

I used to see a similar behavior pattern among
the supposedly-celibate guys working on staff
at Seelisberg and on courses in Europe, but in
a heterosexual way. These guys would see a 
woman they liked and seduce her with the olde
"I know that I should be celibate but you're
just s beautiful" routine. And after one
or two rolls in the hay, they would forget 
the women. 

Not just drop them, FORGET them. Ask these guys
three weeks later if they had ever had a sexual
relationship with this woman, and they would
not only deny it, but deny it "truthfully," 
from their point of view. They had so completely
put it out of their minds that to them it was 
as if it had never happened. And then they would
run the exact same number on another course a
month or two later.

Once one of these scumbags did this to a female
friend of mine. I happened to be on a course in
the same town, and so we talked about it when
he dumped her. So I took her with me and we
confronted the guy together, in person, and he
denied to BOTH of us that anything had ever
happened between him and the woman in question.
Blew her mind. She stood there in total and
complete shock, partly because the scumbag in
question was one of Maharishi's "favorites"
at the time.

That's why I think that this would be how homo-
sexual relationships, if they are present, 
would work themselves out. Everyone knows that
they are somehow "bad," so the guys would have
to first talk themselves into it by pretending
to be "swept away" by emotion or something of
the sort. And then my bet is that the next morn-
ing they would do the olde "college girl the
morning after balling the entire football team"
routine and say, "I don't remember a thing." 
Within a week they would have convinced them-
selves that it never happened.

This is pure speculation, based on dozens and
dozens of hetero assignations I saw go down in
"course environments." I was never on Purusha
and never would have been, so I don't know for
sure that the guys get it on with each other.
But based on how these *same* people (many of
the "course leader" slimeballs later went on
to join Purusha) around women, I can't believe
that they would act any differently around men.

I'm speaking so far about Purusha. With regard
to the pundits, I would expect somewhat similar
behavior, based on Indian guys I have worked
with in the computer world. Many of them were
basically being treated as slaves by relatives
who had brought them to the U.S. and gotten 
them jobs for which they charged the company
$75-150 an hour, but they were then paying the
Indian guys $15-25 an hour, and putting them up
at the local YMCA. So these guys didn't really
have the money to go out with women, and from
time to time there would be rumors of some of
them having gotten it on together at the Y. 
The reaction? Always total denial, even when
someone had walked in on them and seen them.


> - Original Message - 
> From: "sparaig" 
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 1:54 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, michael  wrote:
> >
> > http://globalcountryofworldpeace.org:80/maharishi_vedic_pandits12.html
> > �
> > in maharishi vedic city
> > �
> >
> 
> INteresting.
> 
> L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk"  wrote:
>
> Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them
> do you all think fuck each other? After I quit
> Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on.

Abhorrent because the Purusha were supposed to be
celibate, or abhorrent because the goings-on were
homosexual?

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[bob_brigante]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk"  wrote:
> >
> > Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do 
> > you all think fuck each other? After I quit Purusha 
> > I learned of many abhorrent goings on.
> 
> Now that's interesting. I don't remember this
> particular subject having come up before. 
> 



Purusha were (mainly) a group of oddballs, not celibate-monk-qualified, but 
just goofy householders. That's because the early adopters of TM in the West 
were heavily canted in favor of screwballs and misfits. 

The pundits in India, on the other hand, are from the mainstream of society, so 
judgments about their behavior extrapolated from Purusha don't work.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[enlightened_dawn11]

thanks for sharing this-- glad to see the pandit numbers are growing. very 
powerful and enjoyable chanting.

and thanks again to the TM critics and proponents alike for continuing to keep 
TM in the forefront-- more than Yogananda, more than the DL, more than 
Scientology, Rama or any of the lesser lights. TM is and always will be the way 
of the householder. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, michael  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> http://globalcountryofworldpeace.org:80/maharishi_vedic_pandits12.html
>  
> in maharishi vedic city
>  
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[enlightened_dawn11]

nail on the head Bob!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do 
> > > you all think fuck each other? After I quit Purusha 
> > > I learned of many abhorrent goings on.
> > 
> > Now that's interesting. I don't remember this
> > particular subject having come up before. 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> Purusha were (mainly) a group of oddballs, not celibate-monk-qualified, but 
> just goofy householders. That's because the early adopters of TM in the West 
> were heavily canted in favor of screwballs and misfits. 
> 
> The pundits in India, on the other hand, are from the mainstream of society, 
> so judgments about their behavior extrapolated from Purusha don't work.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk"  wrote:
>
> Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think fuck each 
> other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on.

Not to be a punk or anything, but how amny celibate male religious types
of ALL persuasions, including Japanese Zen Buddhists, do you think indulge
in that kind of thing?

THe rationale for the Japanese is that its "relations with WOMEN" that are a 
no-no
not relations with men, and it was traditional for the Zen monastaries to room
the accolytes across the hall from teh senior monks for easier access.


Of course, Tibetan Buddhists, and Indian Hindu monks would NEVER indulge in that
kind of "abhorrent goings on..." just the Japanese Zen types and the Catholic
types, but not Tibetan or Hindu, nosireee.



L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk"  wrote:
> >
> > Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do 
> > you all think fuck each other? After I quit Purusha 
> > I learned of many abhorrent goings on.
> 
> Now that's interesting. I don't remember this
> particular subject having come up before. 
> 
> I would bet not only that homosexual relation-
> ships are common, but that they are done in a
> state of almost total denial. That is, the
> people involved can't admit even to each other
> what they are doing to each other. 
> 
> I used to see a similar behavior pattern among
> the supposedly-celibate guys working on staff
> at Seelisberg and on courses in Europe, but in
> a heterosexual way. These guys would see a 
> woman they liked and seduce her with the olde
> "I know that I should be celibate but you're
> just s beautiful" routine. And after one
> or two rolls in the hay, they would forget 
> the women. 
> 
> Not just drop them, FORGET them. Ask these guys
> three weeks later if they had ever had a sexual
> relationship with this woman, and they would
> not only deny it, but deny it "truthfully," 
> from their point of view. They had so completely
> put it out of their minds that to them it was 
> as if it had never happened. And then they would
> run the exact same number on another course a
> month or two later.
> 
> Once one of these scumbags did this to a female
> friend of mine. I happened to be on a course in
> the same town, and so we talked about it when
> he dumped her. So I took her with me and we
> confronted the guy together, in person, and he
> denied to BOTH of us that anything had ever
> happened between him and the woman in question.
> Blew her mind. She stood there in total and
> complete shock, partly because the scumbag in
> question was one of Maharishi's "favorites"
> at the time.
> 
> That's why I think that this would be how homo-
> sexual relationships, if they are present, 
> would work themselves out. Everyone knows that
> they are somehow "bad," so the guys would have
> to first talk themselves into it by pretending
> to be "swept away" by emotion or something of
> the sort. And then my bet is that the next morn-
> ing they would do the olde "college girl the
> morning after balling the entire football team"
> routine and say, "I don't remember a thing." 
> Within a week they would have convinced them-
> selves that it never happened.
> 
> This is pure speculation, based on dozens and
> dozens of hetero assignations I saw go down in
> "course environments." I was never on Purusha
> and never would have been, so I don't know for
> sure that the guys get it on with each other.
> But based on how these *same* people (many of
> the "course leader" slimeballs later went on
> to join Purusha) around women, I can't believe
> that they would act any differently around men.
> 
> I'm speaking so far about Purusha. With regard
> to the pundits, I would expect somewhat similar
> behavior, based on Indian guys I have worked
> with in the computer world. Many of them were
> basically being treated as slaves by relatives
> who had brought them to the U.S. and gotten 
> them jobs for which they charged the company
> $75-150 an hour, but they were then paying the
> Indian guys $15-25 an hour, and putting them up
> at the local YMCA. So these guys didn't really
> have the money to go out with women, and from
> time to time there would be rumors of some of
> them having gotten it on together at the Y. 
> The reaction? Always total denial, even when
> someone had walked in on them and seen them.


On the other hand, Arabs sitting in a room jerking themselves
off in a competition to see who lasts longest, IS not seen as homosexual
behavior, from I understand.


ANd if course, the Japanese mainstream teenager-oriented sports cartoon
that contains myriad "elephant jokes' bout the one kid who is well hung
shouldn't be seen as homosexual either. NOr the fact that his friends scrawled
obscene messages on his dick while he was unconscious in the hospital.

IN fact, these guys are NOT seen as gay, since they're 1) tolerant of gays, and 
2)
only chase after girls.



SO one culture's abhorrent behavior is another's divinely inspired...

Or should we not talk about the temple prostitutes in ancient Rome?

Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do 
> > > you all think fuck each other? After I quit Purusha 
> > > I learned of many abhorrent goings on.
> > 
> > Now that's interesting. I don't remember this
> > particular subject having come up before. 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> Purusha were (mainly) a group of oddballs, not celibate-monk-qualified, but 
> just goofy householders. That's because the early adopters of TM in the West 
> were heavily canted in favor of screwballs and misfits. 
> 
> The pundits in India, on the other hand, are from the mainstream of society, 
> so judgments about their behavior extrapolated from Purusha don't work.
>

Nor is behavior extrapolated from what we think high-brow Hindus should behave 
like.

Kama sutra anyone?


L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Kirk  wrote:
> > Both Plus. Descriptions of activities from my gay Purusha buddy 
> > was beyond fears.
> >
> > > > Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them
> > > > do you all think fuck each other? After I quit
> > > > Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on.
> > >
> > > Abhorrent because the Purusha were supposed to be
> > > celibate, or abhorrent because the goings-on were
> > > homosexual?
> 
> Years ago I dated a lady TM teacher who had been on staff 
> at MIU.  We spoke once over veggies and tofu (yuk!) about 
> whether or not TM would !cure! homosexuality.  She told me 
> that there was a significant amount of gay men working on 
> staff at MIU (woman seem to really pick up on this and 
> can't let it go, even to this day).  She also told me about
> massive amounts of corruption, lots of people pocketing MIU 
> money. This would have been around the 1970s. Now my 
> understanding was that Maharishi considered homosexuality 
> an abomination.

Just as an example of the kinds of "breaks"
we cut to people based upon the idea that we
"should" cut them those breaks because they
are "holy," the person who "considered homo-
sexuality an abomination" is the same guy
who had only one strong love relationship
in his entire life, with another man.

This relationship was so strong and so over-
whelming that when the other man died, the
person who considered homosexuality an abom-
ination reputedly dived into the river he
was being buried in and tried to accompany
the coffin to the bottom of the river.

He then dedicated the rest of his life to
the memory of this other man, with photos 
of him everywhere, giving long, loving talks
about his amazing qualities. He trained his 
own followers to basically worship the other 
man as he did and bow down to him and revere 
him as a near-god.

But there's nothing gay there, right?

Just sayin'... 

I am NOT suggesting that Maharishi's love
for Guru Dev was of the gay variety, merely
that the *same* people who see a little some-
thing light in the loafers with, say, Batman
and Robin and their relationship don't see
anything even the *least* bit gay in suppos-
edly "spiritual" relationships in which one
man basically becomes devoted to another man
to the level of obsession.

Many of them don't see this even when the men
in question write long rants about the evil
nature of women and characterize them as 
temptresses whose only purpose is to lure
otherwise spiritual men away from the path.
They don't see it even when the men in ques-
tion spend their lives treating women as
second-class citizens and don't allow them
into their physical presence. 

Somehow, this behavior becomes something
"other" than fear of women and latent homo-
sexuality when it's in a "spiritual" context.

Curious, eh?

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal  wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Kirk  wrote:
> > > Both Plus. Descriptions of activities from my gay Purusha buddy 
> > > was beyond fears.
> > >
> > > > > Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them
> > > > > do you all think fuck each other? After I quit
> > > > > Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on.
> > > >
> > > > Abhorrent because the Purusha were supposed to be
> > > > celibate, or abhorrent because the goings-on were
> > > > homosexual?
> > 
> > Years ago I dated a lady TM teacher who had been on staff 
> > at MIU.  We spoke once over veggies and tofu (yuk!) about 
> > whether or not TM would !cure! homosexuality.  She told me 
> > that there was a significant amount of gay men working on 
> > staff at MIU (woman seem to really pick up on this and 
> > can't let it go, even to this day).  She also told me about
> > massive amounts of corruption, lots of people pocketing MIU 
> > money. This would have been around the 1970s. Now my 
> > understanding was that Maharishi considered homosexuality 
> > an abomination.
> 
> Just as an example of the kinds of "breaks"
> we cut to people based upon the idea that we
> "should" cut them those breaks because they
> are "holy," the person who "considered homo-
> sexuality an abomination" is the same guy
> who had only one strong love relationship
> in his entire life, with another man.
> 
> This relationship was so strong and so over-
> whelming that when the other man died, the
> person who considered homosexuality an abom-
> ination reputedly dived into the river he
> was being buried in and tried to accompany
> the coffin to the bottom of the river.
> 
> He then dedicated the rest of his life to
> the memory of this other man, with photos 
> of him everywhere, giving long, loving talks
> about his amazing qualities. He trained his 
> own followers to basically worship the other 
> man as he did and bow down to him and revere 
> him as a near-god.
> 
> But there's nothing gay there, right?
> 
> Just sayin'... 
> 
> I am NOT suggesting that Maharishi's love
> for Guru Dev was of the gay variety, merely
> that the *same* people who see a little some-
> thing light in the loafers with, say, Batman
> and Robin and their relationship don't see
> anything even the *least* bit gay in suppos-
> edly "spiritual" relationships in which one
> man basically becomes devoted to another man
> to the level of obsession.
> 
> Many of them don't see this even when the men
> in question write long rants about the evil
> nature of women and characterize them as 
> temptresses whose only purpose is to lure
> otherwise spiritual men away from the path.
> They don't see it even when the men in ques-
> tion spend their lives treating women as
> second-class citizens and don't allow them
> into their physical presence. 
> 
> Somehow, this behavior becomes something
> "other" than fear of women and latent homo-
> sexuality when it's in a "spiritual" context.
> 
> Curious, eh?
>
It all depends on what energy is activated...
Whether you believe in the system of 'Chakras' or not,
We all can identify with feeling of the 'Heart'...
Feelings of will in the gut, fear and ambition.
Feeling of pleasure in the sexual regions, feeling of creative play.
Feelings of feeling comfortable, feeling 'at home' when we are grounded or not.
Feelings of speaking the truth, or hiding something, lieing.
Feeling of 'seeing' spiritually from the soul.

When someone is wanting to not concentrate so much on pleasure, then one would 
not want to put much attention on things that would tempt one.
Our culture is completely based on temptations.
In India, things were not so materialistic, so it was more natural there, to 
strive for things, not of the flesh.

I can feel love and closeness to another man, but won't have sex with him.
It just doesn't feel right...
It feels like I would have to give into lust, pure lust.
People on a spiritual path, attempt to avoid, lust for lusts sake.
Now, this also applies to heterosexual relationsips.
Most are based on lust.
A few transcend that through time, but not many.
This is the way it is.
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Hugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Kirk  wrote:
> > Both Plus. Descriptions of activities from my gay Purusha buddy was beyond
> > fears.
> >>> Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them
> >>> do you all think fuck each other? After I quit
> >>> Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on.
> >>
> >> Abhorrent because the Purusha were supposed to be
> >> celibate, or abhorrent because the goings-on were
> >> homosexual?
> >>
> 
> Years ago I dated a lady TM teacher who had been on staff at MIU.  We
> spoke once over veggies and tofu (yuk!) about whether or not TM would
> !cure! homosexuality.  She told me that there was a significant amount
> of gay men working on staff at MIU (woman seem to really pick up on
> this and can't let it go, even to this day).  She also told me about
> massive amounts of corruption, lots of people pocketing MIU money.
> This would have been around the 1970s.   Now my understanding was that
> Maharishi considered homosexuality an abomination.
>


Homosexuality was discussed on a course I was on and the teacher
said the "official" TM position was that being gay was due to 
stress, and in an enlightened society it therefore wouldn't occur.

"Stress" can mean anything to someone steeped in SCI, but they
were quick to point out that it's the way the world is and the 
gays aren't to blame(!) Seems to imply that they thought it 
wasn't a stress picked up in this life or that they weren't 
really thinking at all. Sounded to me like a way to hedge
your bets and (hopefully) avoid offending anyone.

This must mean that the gay guys I knew on purusha wouldn't
ever get enlightenened, according to the prevailing view, until
they had "transcended" their sexuality. The path is indeed long
and winding!

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal  wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Kirk  wrote:
> > > Both Plus. Descriptions of activities from my gay Purusha buddy was beyond
> > > fears.
> > >>> Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them
> > >>> do you all think fuck each other? After I quit
> > >>> Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on.
> > >>
> > >> Abhorrent because the Purusha were supposed to be
> > >> celibate, or abhorrent because the goings-on were
> > >> homosexual?
> > >>
> > 
> > Years ago I dated a lady TM teacher who had been on staff at MIU.  We
> > spoke once over veggies and tofu (yuk!) about whether or not TM would
> > !cure! homosexuality.  She told me that there was a significant amount
> > of gay men working on staff at MIU (woman seem to really pick up on
> > this and can't let it go, even to this day).  She also told me about
> > massive amounts of corruption, lots of people pocketing MIU money.
> > This would have been around the 1970s.   Now my understanding was that
> > Maharishi considered homosexuality an abomination.
> >
> 
> 
> Homosexuality was discussed on a course I was on and the teacher
> said the "official" TM position was that being gay was due to 
> stress, and in an enlightened society it therefore wouldn't occur.
> 
> "Stress" can mean anything to someone steeped in SCI, but they
> were quick to point out that it's the way the world is and the 
> gays aren't to blame(!) Seems to imply that they thought it 
> wasn't a stress picked up in this life or that they weren't 
> really thinking at all. Sounded to me like a way to hedge
> your bets and (hopefully) avoid offending anyone.
> 
> This must mean that the gay guys I knew on purusha wouldn't
> ever get enlightenened, according to the prevailing view, until
> they had "transcended" their sexuality. The path is indeed long
> and winding!
>
The Clintonian way: Don't Ask, Don't Tell...

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:

This was a great rap Turq.  The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking to 
his fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression when his relationship with 
Guru Dev can only be characterized as love between men is so absurd and hurtful 
to gay men everywhere.

I remember how Yogananda's highest desire was to spoon with his master all 
night.  He was absolutely giddy as he wrote about how wonderful it was when his 
master fulfilled his wish to spend the night with him in his bed.

By trying to elevate these relationships to some cosmic level we are denying 
their humanity. Any time humans find love with each other it is a beautiful 
thing.  I think it would help our society advance from his primitive oppression 
of gay people to admit the obvious when we see it, instead of trying to make up 
a story.  

I know that this insinuation is gunna be met with a lot of flack and I don't 
really care to parse words about what either of these pairs of men actually did 
together.  That cheapens it.  But both of these couples express the same kind 
of love I have for women.  And there really is nothing wrong with that.  


>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal  wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Kirk  wrote:
> > > Both Plus. Descriptions of activities from my gay Purusha buddy 
> > > was beyond fears.
> > >
> > > > > Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them
> > > > > do you all think fuck each other? After I quit
> > > > > Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on.
> > > >
> > > > Abhorrent because the Purusha were supposed to be
> > > > celibate, or abhorrent because the goings-on were
> > > > homosexual?
> > 
> > Years ago I dated a lady TM teacher who had been on staff 
> > at MIU.  We spoke once over veggies and tofu (yuk!) about 
> > whether or not TM would !cure! homosexuality.  She told me 
> > that there was a significant amount of gay men working on 
> > staff at MIU (woman seem to really pick up on this and 
> > can't let it go, even to this day).  She also told me about
> > massive amounts of corruption, lots of people pocketing MIU 
> > money. This would have been around the 1970s. Now my 
> > understanding was that Maharishi considered homosexuality 
> > an abomination.
> 
> Just as an example of the kinds of "breaks"
> we cut to people based upon the idea that we
> "should" cut them those breaks because they
> are "holy," the person who "considered homo-
> sexuality an abomination" is the same guy
> who had only one strong love relationship
> in his entire life, with another man.
> 
> This relationship was so strong and so over-
> whelming that when the other man died, the
> person who considered homosexuality an abom-
> ination reputedly dived into the river he
> was being buried in and tried to accompany
> the coffin to the bottom of the river.
> 
> He then dedicated the rest of his life to
> the memory of this other man, with photos 
> of him everywhere, giving long, loving talks
> about his amazing qualities. He trained his 
> own followers to basically worship the other 
> man as he did and bow down to him and revere 
> him as a near-god.
> 
> But there's nothing gay there, right?
> 
> Just sayin'... 
> 
> I am NOT suggesting that Maharishi's love
> for Guru Dev was of the gay variety, merely
> that the *same* people who see a little some-
> thing light in the loafers with, say, Batman
> and Robin and their relationship don't see
> anything even the *least* bit gay in suppos-
> edly "spiritual" relationships in which one
> man basically becomes devoted to another man
> to the level of obsession.
> 
> Many of them don't see this even when the men
> in question write long rants about the evil
> nature of women and characterize them as 
> temptresses whose only purpose is to lure
> otherwise spiritual men away from the path.
> They don't see it even when the men in ques-
> tion spend their lives treating women as
> second-class citizens and don't allow them
> into their physical presence. 
> 
> Somehow, this behavior becomes something
> "other" than fear of women and latent homo-
> sexuality when it's in a "spiritual" context.
> 
> Curious, eh?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[authfriend]

Male-male (and female-female) bonding ("cosmic" or mundane)
that has nothing to do with sexual attraction has been
around as long as human beans (or at least as long as the
Hebrew Bible--e.g., David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi).
MMY's views on homosexuality were objectionable in the
extreme, but to accuse him of hypocrisy on the basis of his 
relationship with Guru Dev is so idiotic as to defy comment (especially given 
the flak about his purported 
relationships with women).

If you've never had an intense but wholly platonic
friendship with another man, Curtis, you've missed
something that's part of the human experience.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> 
> This was a great rap Turq.  The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking to 
> his fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression when his relationship with 
> Guru Dev can only be characterized as love between men is so absurd and 
> hurtful to gay men everywhere.
> 
> I remember how Yogananda's highest desire was to spoon with his master all 
> night.  He was absolutely giddy as he wrote about how wonderful it was when 
> his master fulfilled his wish to spend the night with him in his bed.
> 
> By trying to elevate these relationships to some cosmic level we are denying 
> their humanity. Any time humans find love with each other it is a beautiful 
> thing.  I think it would help our society advance from his primitive 
> oppression of gay people to admit the obvious when we see it, instead of 
> trying to make up a story.  
> 
> I know that this insinuation is gunna be met with a lot of flack and I don't 
> really care to parse words about what either of these pairs of men actually 
> did together.  That cheapens it.  But both of these couples express the same 
> kind of love I have for women.  And there really is nothing wrong with that.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> Male-male (and female-female) bonding ("cosmic" or mundane)
> that has nothing to do with sexual attraction has been
> around as long as human beans (or at least as long as the
> Hebrew Bible--e.g., David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi).
> MMY's views on homosexuality were objectionable in the
> extreme, but to accuse him of hypocrisy on the basis of his 
> relationship with Guru Dev is so idiotic as to defy comment (especially given 
> the flak about his purported 
> relationships with women).
> 
> If you've never had an intense but wholly platonic
> friendship with another man, Curtis, you've missed
> something that's part of the human experience.

Sure I have but it never resulted in me desiring to sleep in their bed with 
them or to talk about him in the over-the-top terms that Maharishi uses.  And 
for idiotic, I'll give you the assumption that religiously repressed gay men 
never sleep with women.  Especially in the use and discard style that his 
accusers reported. And using characters from  scriptures is bogus because it 
doesn't offer the kind of detail we would need to know to determine if there 
was a gay aspect to it.  Look at Plato's dialogues to see how there was not 
always a very clear line historically.

To believe that his complete attraction and devotion to Guru Dev which he 
himself describes as love at first sight (before he knew his personality enough 
to be in love with that) requires a whole set of beliefs that I don't share.  
The fact is that neither of us know the nature of their relationship, we are 
both guessing from what we have heard from him.  So you call it your way and 
I'll call it my way.  In either case his stance on homosexuals was abhorrent 
with or without the hypocrisy added.

But I'll tell you as a man, whenever a man has started a friendship quickly 
with me based on must meeting me, and if they ever start using the kind of term 
of endearment Maharishi uses about his feelings for Guru Dev, they turned out 
to be a gay attraction. My close male friends, some who have been my close 
friends for decades never express themselves in that way.  It has nothing to do 
with how much we care about each other, it is a straight version of friendship 
and it really isn't hard for a man to know the difference.  I love you man is a 
lot different from I love love you man. 




> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > 
> > This was a great rap Turq.  The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking 
> > to his fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression when his relationship 
> > with Guru Dev can only be characterized as love between men is so absurd 
> > and hurtful to gay men everywhere.
> > 
> > I remember how Yogananda's highest desire was to spoon with his master all 
> > night.  He was absolutely giddy as he wrote about how wonderful it was when 
> > his master fulfilled his wish to spend the night with him in his bed.
> > 
> > By trying to elevate these relationships to some cosmic level we are 
> > denying their humanity. Any time humans find love with each other it is a 
> > beautiful thing.  I think it would help our society advance from his 
> > primitive oppression of gay people to admit the obvious when we see it, 
> > instead of trying to make up a story.  
> > 
> > I know that this insinuation is gunna be met with a lot of flack and I 
> > don't really care to parse words about what either of these pairs of men 
> > actually did together.  That cheapens it.  But both of these couples 
> > express the same kind of love I have for women.  And there really is 
> > nothing wrong with that.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> But I'll tell you as a man, whenever a man has started 
> a friendship quickly with me based on just meeting me, 
> and if they ever start using the kind of term of endearment 
> Maharishi uses about his feelings for Guru Dev, they turned 
> out to be a gay attraction. My close male friends, some who 
> have been my close friends for decades never express 
> themselves in that way. It has nothing to do with how much 
> we care about each other, it is a straight version of 
> friendship and it really isn't hard for a man to know the 
> difference. I love you man is a lot different from I love 
> love you man. 

Curtis, I would say that what you are describing
is more an "appropriate" version of friendship
than a "straight" one. 

The reason I say this is that I have had a number
of fairly close gay friends. Some of them were
fellow Rama students with me, a few of them are
current friends here in Sitges. Their gaydar is
without flaw; they took one look at me and knew
that I was straight, and so anything gay was off
the table. And almost immediately they shifted
into an "appropriate" level of banter and friend-
ship that would fit the extent to which we knew
each other.

As we got to know each other better, that sense
of appropriateness never wavered. I was never the
least bit uncomfortable with them, and they have
told me that they are never the least bit uncom-
fortable with me. We're just friends.

What seems inappropriate to me in Maharishi's 
relationship with Guru Dev is that fawning bhakti
thing. Yeah, yeah...I know that there is a whole
tradition of that in India, and that one gets
brownie points in spiritual traditions for *how*
fawning one can be and *how* flowery the language
one can think up to describe one's teacher is,
but *really*...is all that shit NECESSARY?

At various times I have respected the spiritual
teachers I've worked with, but I never felt the
need to describe them the way that Maharishi
described Guru Dev, or that some of the more
bhaktied-out TM TBs on this forum have described
him. Like Nabby referring to Maharishi by capi-
talizing He. Like the ones who droned on and on 
when he died about Him being in some heaven higher 
than the gods. 

I'm sorry, but that is *learned* behavior, and
IMO not completely appropriate behavior. It's a
social thing, something that is perpetuated and
encouraged by groups, or by the teachers them-
selves. It's often a form of "spiritual one-
upsmanship. I've actually seen people *punished*
in the TMO (by looks of stern disapproval, if
not by denying them access to MMY in the future)
for not being fawning and bhaktied-out ENOUGH.

He "set the standard" for how one was "supposed"
to think about and talk about one's spiritual
teacher in the way in which he talked about Guru
Dev. And he clearly expected to be talked about
and related to the same way. And God help you if 
you didn't.

I just don't think it's necessary. I can hang
out and laugh and have fun with my gay guy 
friends without wanting to get into their pants.
And I can study with and fully respect a spir-
itual teacher without *sounding like* I want to
get into his pants.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> I just don't think it's necessary. I can hang
> out and laugh and have fun with my gay guy 
> friends without wanting to get into their pants.
snip


To have missed having gay friends is punishment for homophobia!  If you want to 
watch your gaydar meter redline hang out with Nandkashore and listen to him 
talk about Maharishi.  And if you take a good look at Maharishi's preference 
for skin boys you see a common physical theme.

> And I can study with and fully respect a spir-
> itual teacher without *sounding like* I want to
> get into his pants.

That totally cracked me up!




>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > But I'll tell you as a man, whenever a man has started 
> > a friendship quickly with me based on just meeting me, 
> > and if they ever start using the kind of term of endearment 
> > Maharishi uses about his feelings for Guru Dev, they turned 
> > out to be a gay attraction. My close male friends, some who 
> > have been my close friends for decades never express 
> > themselves in that way. It has nothing to do with how much 
> > we care about each other, it is a straight version of 
> > friendship and it really isn't hard for a man to know the 
> > difference. I love you man is a lot different from I love 
> > love you man. 
> 
> Curtis, I would say that what you are describing
> is more an "appropriate" version of friendship
> than a "straight" one. 
> 
> The reason I say this is that I have had a number
> of fairly close gay friends. Some of them were
> fellow Rama students with me, a few of them are
> current friends here in Sitges. Their gaydar is
> without flaw; they took one look at me and knew
> that I was straight, and so anything gay was off
> the table. And almost immediately they shifted
> into an "appropriate" level of banter and friend-
> ship that would fit the extent to which we knew
> each other.
> 
> As we got to know each other better, that sense
> of appropriateness never wavered. I was never the
> least bit uncomfortable with them, and they have
> told me that they are never the least bit uncom-
> fortable with me. We're just friends.
> 
> What seems inappropriate to me in Maharishi's 
> relationship with Guru Dev is that fawning bhakti
> thing. Yeah, yeah...I know that there is a whole
> tradition of that in India, and that one gets
> brownie points in spiritual traditions for *how*
> fawning one can be and *how* flowery the language
> one can think up to describe one's teacher is,
> but *really*...is all that shit NECESSARY?
> 
> At various times I have respected the spiritual
> teachers I've worked with, but I never felt the
> need to describe them the way that Maharishi
> described Guru Dev, or that some of the more
> bhaktied-out TM TBs on this forum have described
> him. Like Nabby referring to Maharishi by capi-
> talizing He. Like the ones who droned on and on 
> when he died about Him being in some heaven higher 
> than the gods. 
> 
> I'm sorry, but that is *learned* behavior, and
> IMO not completely appropriate behavior. It's a
> social thing, something that is perpetuated and
> encouraged by groups, or by the teachers them-
> selves. It's often a form of "spiritual one-
> upsmanship. I've actually seen people *punished*
> in the TMO (by looks of stern disapproval, if
> not by denying them access to MMY in the future)
> for not being fawning and bhaktied-out ENOUGH.
> 
> He "set the standard" for how one was "supposed"
> to think about and talk about one's spiritual
> teacher in the way in which he talked about Guru
> Dev. And he clearly expected to be talked about
> and related to the same way. And God help you if 
> you didn't.
> 
> I just don't think it's necessary. I can hang
> out and laugh and have fun with my gay guy 
> friends without wanting to get into their pants.
> And I can study with and fully respect a spir-
> itual teacher without *sounding like* I want to
> get into his pants.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal  wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Kirk  wrote:
> > > Both Plus. Descriptions of activities from my gay Purusha buddy was beyond
> > > fears.
> > >>> Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them
> > >>> do you all think fuck each other? After I quit
> > >>> Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on.
> > >>
> > >> Abhorrent because the Purusha were supposed to be
> > >> celibate, or abhorrent because the goings-on were
> > >> homosexual?
> > >>
> > 
> > Years ago I dated a lady TM teacher who had been on staff at MIU.  We
> > spoke once over veggies and tofu (yuk!) about whether or not TM would
> > !cure! homosexuality.  She told me that there was a significant amount
> > of gay men working on staff at MIU (woman seem to really pick up on
> > this and can't let it go, even to this day).  She also told me about
> > massive amounts of corruption, lots of people pocketing MIU money.
> > This would have been around the 1970s.   Now my understanding was that
> > Maharishi considered homosexuality an abomination.
> >
> 
> 
> Homosexuality was discussed on a course I was on and the teacher
> said the "official" TM position was that being gay was due to 
> stress, and in an enlightened society it therefore wouldn't occur.
> 
> "Stress" can mean anything to someone steeped in SCI, but they
> were quick to point out that it's the way the world is and the 
> gays aren't to blame(!) Seems to imply that they thought it 
> wasn't a stress picked up in this life or that they weren't 
> really thinking at all. Sounded to me like a way to hedge
> your bets and (hopefully) avoid offending anyone.
> 
> This must mean that the gay guys I knew on purusha wouldn't
> ever get enlightenened, according to the prevailing view, until
> they had "transcended" their sexuality. The path is indeed long
> and winding!
>

Can't speak to all homosexual behavior, but it IS established that
male mammals tend to turn homosexual in high-stress situations.

And I've known flaming queers who were happily married heterosexual
men until their wives died in tragic accidents, whereupon they flipped
orientation AND personality and "came out of the closet" in an aggressive
way complete with flaming mannerisms that were never there before.

In my own experience, there  was a period in my life where I had extreme
illness/fever, and was totally obsessed with my male friends at the same time

I dealt with it by reminding myself of the stress factor, didn't indulge my 
obsession,
and once my physical health improved, the obsession went away.

Was I temporarily gay, or merely stressed out? Am I "in the closet" now because
I didn't act out what I considered to be a fever-induced tendency?

Who judges these things?



Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk"  wrote:
>
> You miss the point.  My point was really that - does it matter what sort of 
> personal ethics ones pundits have? As far as the outcome of theor yajna?
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "sparaig" 
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 8:58 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk"  wrote:
> >>
> >> Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think fuck 
> >> each
> >> other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on.
> >
> > Not to be a punk or anything, but how amny celibate male religious types
> > of ALL persuasions, including Japanese Zen Buddhists, do you think indulge
> > in that kind of thing?
> >
> > THe rationale for the Japanese is that its "relations with WOMEN" that are 
> > a no-no
> > not relations with men, and it was traditional for the Zen monastaries to 
> > room
> > the accolytes across the hall from teh senior monks for easier access.
> >
> >
> > Of course, Tibetan Buddhists, and Indian Hindu monks would NEVER indulge 
> > in that
> > kind of "abhorrent goings on..." just the Japanese Zen types and the 
> > Catholic
> > types, but not Tibetan or Hindu, nosireee.
> >

What is the "personal ethics" in this situation?

Are you saying that the gay pundits (assuming there are any) are de facto
unethical?


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > Male-male (and female-female) bonding ("cosmic" or mundane)
> > that has nothing to do with sexual attraction has been
> > around as long as human beans (or at least as long as the
> > Hebrew Bible--e.g., David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi).
> > MMY's views on homosexuality were objectionable in the
> > extreme, but to accuse him of hypocrisy on the basis of his 
> > relationship with Guru Dev is so idiotic as to defy comment (especially 
> > given the flak about his purported 
> > relationships with women).
> > 
> > If you've never had an intense but wholly platonic
> > friendship with another man, Curtis, you've missed
> > something that's part of the human experience.
> 
> Sure I have but it never resulted in me desiring to
> sleep in their bed with them or to talk about him in
> the over-the-top terms that Maharishi uses.

And because *you* haven't had the kind of relationship
that led you to talk about the other guy in over-the-top
terms (sleeping in the same bed was Yogananda, I believe,
not MMY), therefore that's the standard?

> And for idiotic, I'll give you the assumption that
> religiously repressed gay men never sleep with women.
> Especially in the use and discard style that his
> accusers reported.

I wasn't making that assumption. See if you can figure
out why I mentioned it.

> And using characters from  scriptures is bogus because
> it doesn't offer the kind of detail we would need to
> know to determine if there was a gay aspect to it.

This is a whole 'nother topic, but there is in fact
a good deal of textual evidence that David/Jonathan
and Ruth/Naomi had very deep but straight friendships
that were recognized as such by the biblical writers.

> Look at Plato's dialogues to see how there was not
> always a very clear line historically.
> 
> To believe that his complete attraction and devotion
> to Guru Dev which he himself describes as love at
> first sight (before he knew his personality enough to
> be in love with that) requires a whole set of beliefs
> that I don't share.

Such as?

> The fact is that neither of us know the nature of
> their relationship, we are both guessing from what we
> have heard from him.  So you call it your way and
> I'll call it my way.

Might want to reread your recent post on how we know
what we think we know, which concludes:

"It is the ability to notice the quality of evidence
that I consider 'being thoughtful.' Which way you lean
after that seems to be more a of an emotional rather
than an intellectual issue."

In the post I was responding to, you wrote:

"The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking to his
fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression when his
relationship with Guru Dev can only be characterized
as love between men is so absurd and hurtful to gay
men everywhere."

"Can only be characterized as" sounds like a lot more
than a "guess" to me.

> In either case his stance on homosexuals was abhorrent
> with or without the hypocrisy added.

Granted. But you felt you just *had* to add the hypocrisy
charge. His homophobia didn't reflect badly enough on him
to suit you, even on top of (you should excuse the
expression) his fooling around with women.

> But I'll tell you as a man, whenever a man has started
> a friendship quickly with me based on must meeting me

Again the assumption that *your* experience and behavior
are the standard, even given the marked cultural and
contextual differences.



, and if they ever start using the kind of term of endearment Maharishi uses 
about his feelings for Guru Dev, they turned out to be a gay attraction. My 
close male friends, some who have been my close friends for decades never 
express themselves in that way.  It has nothing to do with how much we care 
about each other, it is a straight version of friendship and it really isn't 
hard for a man to know the difference.  I love you man is a lot different from 
I love love you man. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Male-male (and female-female) bonding ("cosmic" or mundane)
> > > that has nothing to do with sexual attraction has been
> > > around as long as human beans (or at least as long as the
> > > Hebrew Bible--e.g., David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi).
> > > MMY's views on homosexuality were objectionable in the
> > > extreme, but to accuse him of hypocrisy on the basis of his 
> > > relationship with Guru Dev is so idiotic as to defy comment (especially 
> > > given the flak about his purported 
> > > relationships with women).
> > > 
> > > If you've never had an intense but wholly platonic
> > > friendship with another man, Curtis, you've missed
> > > something that's part of the human experience.
> > 
> > Sure I have but it never resulted in me desiring to
> > sleep in their bed with them or to talk about him in
> > the over-the-top terms that Maharishi uses.
> 
> And because *you* haven't had the kind of relationship
> that led you to talk about the other guy in over-the-top
> terms (sleeping in the same bed was Yogananda, I believe,
> not MMY), therefore that's the standard?

This is a personal judgment about someone's personal life.  Whose standard 
would you recommend I go with?

> 
> > And for idiotic, I'll give you the assumption that
> > religiously repressed gay men never sleep with women.
> > Especially in the use and discard style that his
> > accusers reported.
> 
> I wasn't making that assumption. See if you can figure
> out why I mentioned it.

If you didn't consider it to be counter evidence to his having a gay 
relationship with Guru Dev then I have no idea.

> 
> > And using characters from  scriptures is bogus because
> > it doesn't offer the kind of detail we would need to
> > know to determine if there was a gay aspect to it.
> 
> This is a whole 'nother topic, but there is in fact
> a good deal of textual evidence that David/Jonathan
> and Ruth/Naomi had very deep but straight friendships
> that were recognized as such by the biblical writers.

I'm not sure we can be confident of how cultures so far away handled this 
situation.  There is always society's official stand and then what actually 
happens.  That was my point.
> 
> > Look at Plato's dialogues to see how there was not
> > always a very clear line historically.
> > 
> > To believe that his complete attraction and devotion
> > to Guru Dev which he himself describes as love at
> > first sight (before he knew his personality enough to
> > be in love with that) requires a whole set of beliefs
> > that I don't share.
> 
> Such as?

That it was a spiritual "love at first sight" which is how he pitches it rather 
than the more common personal "love at first sight."

> 
> > The fact is that neither of us know the nature of
> > their relationship, we are both guessing from what we
> > have heard from him.  So you call it your way and
> > I'll call it my way.
> 
> Might want to reread your recent post on how we know
> what we think we know, which concludes:
> 
> "It is the ability to notice the quality of evidence
> that I consider 'being thoughtful.' Which way you lean
> after that seems to be more a of an emotional rather
> than an intellectual issue."

Thanks for reading.

> 
> In the post I was responding to, you wrote:
> 
> "The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking to his
> fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression when his
> relationship with Guru Dev can only be characterized
> as love between men is so absurd and hurtful to gay
> men everywhere."
> 
> "Can only be characterized as" sounds like a lot more
> than a "guess" to me.

I don't know why you think this is a contradiction.  We are all compelled by 
our own reasoning, both intellectual and as a feeling.  It IS more than a guess 
for me, it is my opinion which could be completely wrong.  But as I said, we 
evaluate what we can from the evidence and then go with our complete feeling.  
If you had hung around Nandkashore a bit you might know better why I am 
guessing in this direction.

> 
> > In either case his stance on homosexuals was abhorrent
> > with or without the hypocrisy added.
> 
> Granted. But you felt you just *had* to add the hypocrisy
> charge.

Because I believe it is true and it is so common among religious 
fundamentalists who are anti gay to be hypocrites.  

 His homophobia didn't reflect badly enough on him
> to suit you, even on top of (you should excuse the
> expression) his fooling around with women.

I don't know why you are trying to shame me for offering my opinion.  I am not 
keeping score on how many "bad" things I write about him.  For me his being gay 
is not the issue, it IS the hypocrisy of how he treated gays in the movement 
with lines like "they might as well not even meditate."  I had gay friends in 
the movement an this teach

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

> > And because *you* haven't had the kind of relationship
> > that led you to talk about the other guy in over-the-top
> > terms (sleeping in the same bed was Yogananda, I believe,
> > not MMY), therefore that's the standard?
> 
> This is a personal judgment about someone's personal
> life.  Whose standard would you recommend I go with?

Curtis, I lose respect for your much-(self-)touted
reasoning skills by the day. You talk a wonderful
game in the abstract, but when it gets down to cases,
your noble principles go straight out the window,
most strikingly where anything concerning MMY or Guru
Dev is concerned.

There's no point in trying to explain to you what's
wrong with the above comment or any of the other
absurdities in your response. It's just too
depressing. "Just a guess" doesn't contradict "can
only be characterized as"?? Give me a BREAK.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:45 AM, authfriend  wrote:
> > Male-male (and female-female) bonding ("cosmic" or mundane)
> > that has nothing to do with sexual attraction has been
> > around as long as human beans (or at least as long as the
> > Hebrew Bible--e.g., David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi).
> > MMY's views on homosexuality were objectionable in the
> > extreme, but to accuse him of hypocrisy on the basis of his
> > relationship with Guru Dev is so idiotic as to defy comment (especially 
> > given the flak about his purported
> > relationships with women).
> >
> > If you've never had an intense but wholly platonic
> > friendship with another man, Curtis, you've missed
> > something that's part of the human experience.
> 
> Judy, just consider the source.  Only Barry would stretch
> a life of devotion to one's guru as a homosexual
> relationship.  Only Barry would be sick enough to grasp at
> every possible straw in his perpetual attempt to denigrate
> TM and Maharishi.  Sane people who didn't like their
> experience would, after a couple of decades of mean
> mouthing, tire and find something else to be a true
> disbeliever of.

I wouldn't even bother to address Barry on this point.
I was responding to *Curtis*, who is blessed with
superior reasoning skills and has rid himself of all
emotional undercurrents that might affect his
logical conclusions (just ask him).

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > > And because *you* haven't had the kind of relationship
> > > that led you to talk about the other guy in over-the-top
> > > terms (sleeping in the same bed was Yogananda, I believe,
> > > not MMY), therefore that's the standard?
> > 
> > This is a personal judgment about someone's personal
> > life.  Whose standard would you recommend I go with?
> 
> Curtis, I lose respect for your much-(self-)touted
> reasoning skills by the day. You talk a wonderful
> game in the abstract, but when it gets down to cases,
> your noble principles go straight out the window,
> most strikingly where anything concerning MMY or Guru
> Dev is concerned.

So I should just make the assumption that they didn't have a gay relationship, 
would that show superior skills of reasoning?

> 
> There's no point in trying to explain to you what's
> wrong with the above comment or any of the other
> absurdities in your response.

Now who is blowing their own horn about their superior reasoning ability?


 It's just too
> depressing.

You might want to have that checked.  Hearing different opinions from your own 
shouldn't be depressing.

 "Just a guess" 

By me.  I'm the poster.  I am not speaking for all humanity.

doesn't contradict "can
> only be characterized as"?? Give me a BREAK.

It was my reasoned guess.  What do you think your opinion is based on?  This is 
a personal unknowable issue.  I am expressing my opinion. 


> 
> 
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

> I wouldn't even bother to address Barry on this point.
> I was responding to *Curtis*, who is blessed with
> superior reasoning skills and has rid himself of all
> emotional undercurrents that might affect his
> logical conclusions (just ask him).


Yeah, it is my hidden resentment that makes me believe Maharishi was in love 
love with Guru Dev.  It couldn't be based on what he said about his feelings 
for the guy.  

And don't think I haven't noticed that you have not weighted in with an opinion 
on this.  As usual you have gotten distracted with personal insults to the 
people here when discussing Maharishi.

>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal  wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:45 AM, authfriend  wrote:
> > > Male-male (and female-female) bonding ("cosmic" or mundane)
> > > that has nothing to do with sexual attraction has been
> > > around as long as human beans (or at least as long as the
> > > Hebrew Bible--e.g., David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi).
> > > MMY's views on homosexuality were objectionable in the
> > > extreme, but to accuse him of hypocrisy on the basis of his
> > > relationship with Guru Dev is so idiotic as to defy comment (especially 
> > > given the flak about his purported
> > > relationships with women).
> > >
> > > If you've never had an intense but wholly platonic
> > > friendship with another man, Curtis, you've missed
> > > something that's part of the human experience.
> > 
> > Judy, just consider the source.  Only Barry would stretch
> > a life of devotion to one's guru as a homosexual
> > relationship.  Only Barry would be sick enough to grasp at
> > every possible straw in his perpetual attempt to denigrate
> > TM and Maharishi.  Sane people who didn't like their
> > experience would, after a couple of decades of mean
> > mouthing, tire and find something else to be a true
> > disbeliever of.
> 
> I wouldn't even bother to address Barry on this point.
> I was responding to *Curtis*, who is blessed with
> superior reasoning skills and has rid himself of all
> emotional undercurrents that might affect his
> logical conclusions (just ask him).
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal  wrote:
>
> Judy, just consider the source.  Only Barry would stretch 
> a life of devotion to one's guru as a homosexual relationship.  
> Only Barry would be sick enough to grasp at every possible 
> straw in his perpetual attempt to denigrate TM and Maharishi.

Some might suggest that someone who gets his
buttons pushed this strongly just by someone
reminding him of the simple facts of his 
teacher's lifelong obsession with another man 
might be feeling this button-pushed because it 
suggests reasons he's uncomfortable with for
his own obsession with that teacher.

In other words, are you more concerned about
someone looking at Maharishi's love for a man
without the polite spiritual trappings, or 
your own love of Maharishi, without the same 
spiritual trappings? 

T'would seem that the only thing that makes
people crazier than suggesting that Maharishi
was human enough to spring the occasional boner
for a woman is to suggest that he might have
been human enough to spring the occasional 
boner for a man.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:20 PM, curtisdeltablues
>  wrote:
> > I've been to India and have Indian close friends.  Of course it is my own 
> > experiences with this culture and its customs that are a part of my 
> > opinion.  So I draw my personal opinion for personal experiences.  So are 
> > you, we just have come to different conclusions.
> 
> I've been to India a few times but have spent a lot of time in the
> Middle East.  I've gotten used to walking down the street hand in hand
> with another guy and swapping spit with him.

Wait a second.  Kissing a man with tongue IS gay behavior.

As far as the hand holding or walking arm in arm goes, I have done this with 
monks and never felt anything gay about it.  I don't have perfect gaydar but 
you can usually tell what is in play.




  Being straight, this of
> course first made me very, very uncomfortable to the extreme, but I'm
> a good actor so I never let on.  This sort of show of affection is
> common in many parts of the world between men and between women.  I
> remember that my mother used to walk down the street hand in hand with
> her friends and I suspect that her father and mother walked arm in arm
> down the street in old country.




>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Richard J. Williams]

TurquoiseB wrote:
> Some might suggest that someone who gets his
> buttons pushed this strongly just by someone
> reminding him of the simple facts of his 
> teacher's lifelong obsession with another man 
> might be feeling this button-pushed because it 
> suggests reasons he's uncomfortable with for
> his own obsession with that teacher...
> 
From: Uncle Tantra
Subject: Open Letter To Willytex
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: August 6, 2003

Willy, since fucking prairie dogs or whatever 
you do with your time doesn't seem to fill enough 
of it lately, and you've been going out of your 
way to associate me with Rama and thus with a big, 
bad cult figure, I figure I should explain a 
couple of things...

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> 
> T'would seem that the only thing that makes
> people crazier than suggesting that Maharishi
> was human enough to spring the occasional boner
> for a woman is to suggest that he might have
> been human enough to spring the occasional 
> boner for a man.

I have laughed out loud so many times with this topic today.  Thanks Turq!

The idea that such a relationship denigrates Maharishi is some way is very 
revealing.  The assumption is that if it were true it would lesson Maharishi 
somehow says a lot.  But being free enough to consider it as a possibility is 
actually more respectful of Maharishi the man.  




>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal  wrote:
> >
> > Judy, just consider the source.  Only Barry would stretch 
> > a life of devotion to one's guru as a homosexual relationship.  
> > Only Barry would be sick enough to grasp at every possible 
> > straw in his perpetual attempt to denigrate TM and Maharishi.
> 
> Some might suggest that someone who gets his
> buttons pushed this strongly just by someone
> reminding him of the simple facts of his 
> teacher's lifelong obsession with another man 
> might be feeling this button-pushed because it 
> suggests reasons he's uncomfortable with for
> his own obsession with that teacher.
> 
> In other words, are you more concerned about
> someone looking at Maharishi's love for a man
> without the polite spiritual trappings, or 
> your own love of Maharishi, without the same 
> spiritual trappings? 
> 
> T'would seem that the only thing that makes
> people crazier than suggesting that Maharishi
> was human enough to spring the occasional boner
> for a woman is to suggest that he might have
> been human enough to spring the occasional 
> boner for a man.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Richard J. Williams]

Curtis wrote: 
> Wait a second. Kissing a man with tongue 
> IS gay behavior...
> 
Kissing a man 'with tongue' for a gay man simply 
means 'hello' and 'how are you doing?' Now, if 
it was a straight man doing that, then I'd worry,
Curtis. : )

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

> 
> And because *you* haven't had the kind of relationship
> that led you to talk about the other guy in over-the-top
> terms (sleeping in the same bed was Yogananda, I believe,
> not MMY), therefore that's the standard?



The Turq is now as low as it gets, even within his own standards.

What we see is that after the huge success of the concert with Paul and Ringo 
for the David Lynch Foundation the Turq, and other TM-haters, have become 
increasingly desperate. 

That they would resort to this kind of arguments is really sad. And quite 
telling for their desperation.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > 
> > T'would seem that the only thing that makes
> > people crazier than suggesting that Maharishi
> > was human enough to spring the occasional boner
> > for a woman is to suggest that he might have
> > been human enough to spring the occasional 
> > boner for a man.
> 
> I have laughed out loud so many times with this topic 
> today.  Thanks Turq!

Thanks for getting it enough to laugh.

> The idea that such a relationship denigrates Maharishi 
> is some way is very revealing. The assumption is that 
> if it were true it would lessen Maharishi somehow says 
> a lot.  But being free enough to consider it as a 
> possibility is actually more respectful of Maharishi 
> the man.  

I completely agree. Please see my post
on The Dark Night Of The Soul.

Assume that San Juan de la Cruz' poem
was originally about a sexual union with
another man. Does that somehow "denigrate"
or "lessen" the fact that it is ALSO one
of the most beautiful poems about union
with God ever written?

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Richard J. Williams]

Nab wrote:
> The Turq is now as low as it gets, even within 
> his own standards.
> 
Maybe so, but I'd like to suggest John Manning
for the top honors:

From: John Manning
Subject: According to witnesses
Newsgroups: alt.religion.mormon
Date: November 21, 2000

According to witnesses just like Joe Smith had 
witnesses - we now have video taped accounts of 
witnesses confirming Gordon B. Hinckley's sensual 
activities with young boys and prostitutes. His 
wife, with another observer, caught Joe porking 
another woman in the barn...

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > 
> > T'would seem that the only thing that makes
> > people crazier than suggesting that Maharishi
> > was human enough to spring the occasional boner
> > for a woman is to suggest that he might have
> > been human enough to spring the occasional 
> > boner for a man.
> 
> I have laughed out loud so many times with this topic
> today.  Thanks Turq!
> 
> The idea that such a relationship denigrates Maharishi
> is some way is very revealing. The assumption is that
> if it were true it would lesson Maharishi somehow says
> a lot.

Yeah, Curtis, tell us what it says, since you and
Barry are the ones who are using it to denigrate MMY.

> But being free enough to consider it as a possibility
> is actually more respectful of Maharishi the man.

Right, this is so respectful of MMY the man:

"The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking
to his fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression
when his relationship with Guru Dev can only be
characterized as love between men is so absurd and
hurtful to gay men everywhere."

Doesn't lessen MMY one bit, nosireebob. Furthest
thing from your mind, right, Curtis?

And you're accusing *him* of hypocrisy?

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Richard J. Williams]

TurquoiseB wrote:
> Thanks for getting it enough to laugh.
> 
Yeah, lets hear a big laugh!!!

"Bogumils are derived from Paulicans, Paulicans from 
Manicheans, Manicheans from Gnostics. Thus Cathars 
are derived from Gnostics. Moggers can understand this 
simple fact, 'cletantra' can't." - Klaus Schilling

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:

> "The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking
> to his fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression
> when his relationship with Guru Dev can only be
> characterized as love between men is so absurd and
> hurtful to gay men everywhere."
> 
> Doesn't lessen MMY one bit, nosireebob. Furthest
> thing from your mind, right, Curtis?

So you are still missing the point?  It is the hypocrisy of his position on 
gayness that I am criticizing. Not that he might be gay.  You remind me of my 
cats Judy.  When I point my finger at a treat, they look at my finger.  

And you missed Turq's point also.  He wasn't even going as far as I was in 
speculation.  He was commenting on their over the top expressions of love for 
each other while denying that to men who may feel the same way but also 
physically. 

Speculating on their relationship is just another chance for you express rancor 
to me personally isn't it Judy?  You aren't even following the actual topic we 
are discussing. 

> And you're accusing *him* of hypocrisy?> >

Yes I was.  He, with his "devotion" to Guru Dev, out of anyone should 
understand how men can love each other, and should stay off their case.  
Neither you nor I know what that included.  




> 
> And you're accusing *him* of hypocrisy?> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > 
> > > T'would seem that the only thing that makes
> > > people crazier than suggesting that Maharishi
> > > was human enough to spring the occasional boner
> > > for a woman is to suggest that he might have
> > > been human enough to spring the occasional 
> > > boner for a man.
> > 
> > I have laughed out loud so many times with this topic
> > today.  Thanks Turq!
> > 
> > The idea that such a relationship denigrates Maharishi
> > is some way is very revealing. The assumption is that
> > if it were true it would lesson Maharishi somehow says
> > a lot.
> 
> Yeah, Curtis, tell us what it says, since you and
> Barry are the ones who are using it to denigrate MMY.
> 
> > But being free enough to consider it as a possibility
> > is actually more respectful of Maharishi the man.
> 
> Right, this is so respectful of MMY the man:
> 
> "The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking
> to his fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression
> when his relationship with Guru Dev can only be
> characterized as love between men is so absurd and
> hurtful to gay men everywhere."
> 
> Doesn't lessen MMY one bit, nosireebob. Furthest
> thing from your mind, right, Curtis?
> 
> And you're accusing *him* of hypocrisy?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Duveyoung]

"curtisdeltablues" wrote:it IS the hypocrisy of how he [MMY]treated gays in the 
movement with lines like "they might as well not even meditate."  I had gay 
friends in the movement an this teaching tormented them. I hold him accountable 
for that.

Curtis,

Man you've been in the thick of it what with Pencil-J and Richard J. stomping 
around with jack boots in a strawberry patch.

In your quote above, I'm guessing that you knew that any gay person who stayed 
with the movement despite Maharishi's known disdain was responsible for any 
further abuse he was subjected to if he remained in the TMO.  That was my big 
mistake: not getting out when I knew a moral line had be crossed by my own 
standards.  I should have at least screamed about  it from the back of the 
room, ya know?...and gotten kicked out and been honorable to that extent at 
least.

It was my decision -- many times -- to be in some sort of scientific denial, 
i.e. I could see if things changed...take in more data...see if the course 
office ever treated anyone as a human being, or, say, found an usher who didn't 
save seats up front for his friends, or, if ever Bevan could lose a single 
pound.  Like that I thought I could afford to hang around and let TM purify the 
ranks.

Not being gay, to my shame, I was not triggered THEN about Maharishi's  stance, 
but now I see it as a clear sign, a sign that is not unlike his cursing all of 
Britain, etc.  

Let's say it plainly:  Maharishi could be one mother fucking bastard and was 
often, and yet all of us gave him wiggle room of cosmic proportions.

Consider what anyone's opinion of Obama would be if he were to be caught on 
tape being homophobic.  Instantly, his constituency would be riled into 
reformation. His vaunted image would be trashed, but Maharishi was caught like 
this time and time again -- starting with how he treated women, yet all of us 
dug deep and came up with the rationalizations to purify his actions.

I think my sin of not seeing what abuse is heaped upon others is equal to the 
sin of homophobia, so it's hard to toss a stone at Maharishi who was obviously 
raised like anyone and was a product of his culture.  His homophobia was 
innocent compared to my knowing something was wrong and doing nothing about it.

My hair is going to be messy for the rest of the day -- no way am I looking in 
a mirror right now.

Edg

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[shukra69]

I have also heard other than what you suggest, some one else mentioned here 
that Maharishi had some real flamers as close assistants at times.I have never 
heard that Maharishi was ever on tape saying anything like this.

h--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> "curtisdeltablues" wrote:it IS the hypocrisy of how he [MMY]treated gays in 
> the movement with lines like "they might as well not even meditate."  I had 
> gay friends in the movement an this teaching tormented them. I hold him 
> accountable for that.
> 
> Curtis,
> 
> Man you've been in the thick of it what with Pencil-J and Richard J. stomping 
> around with jack boots in a strawberry patch.
> 
> In your quote above, I'm guessing that you knew that any gay person who 
> stayed with the movement despite Maharishi's known disdain was responsible 
> for any further abuse he was subjected to if he remained in the TMO.  That 
> was my big mistake: not getting out when I knew a moral line had be crossed 
> by my own standards.  I should have at least screamed about  it from the back 
> of the room, ya know?...and gotten kicked out and been honorable to that 
> extent at least.
> 
> It was my decision -- many times -- to be in some sort of scientific denial, 
> i.e. I could see if things changed...take in more data...see if the course 
> office ever treated anyone as a human being, or, say, found an usher who 
> didn't save seats up front for his friends, or, if ever Bevan could lose a 
> single pound.  Like that I thought I could afford to hang around and let TM 
> purify the ranks.
> 
> Not being gay, to my shame, I was not triggered THEN about Maharishi's  
> stance, but now I see it as a clear sign, a sign that is not unlike his 
> cursing all of Britain, etc.  
> 
> Let's say it plainly:  Maharishi could be one mother fucking bastard and was 
> often, and yet all of us gave him wiggle room of cosmic proportions.
> 
> Consider what anyone's opinion of Obama would be if he were to be caught on 
> tape being homophobic.  Instantly, his constituency would be riled into 
> reformation. His vaunted image would be trashed, but Maharishi was caught 
> like this time and time again -- starting with how he treated women, yet all 
> of us dug deep and came up with the rationalizations to purify his actions.
> 
> I think my sin of not seeing what abuse is heaped upon others is equal to the 
> sin of homophobia, so it's hard to toss a stone at Maharishi who was 
> obviously raised like anyone and was a product of his culture.  His 
> homophobia was innocent compared to my knowing something was wrong and doing 
> nothing about it.
> 
> My hair is going to be messy for the rest of the day -- no way am I looking 
> in a mirror right now.
> 
> Edg
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> 
> > "The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking
> > to his fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression
> > when his relationship with Guru Dev can only be
> > characterized as love between men is so absurd and
> > hurtful to gay men everywhere."
> > 
> > Doesn't lessen MMY one bit, nosireebob. Furthest
> > thing from your mind, right, Curtis?
> 
> So you are still missing the point?  It is the hypocrisy
> of his position on gayness that I am criticizing.

That's exactly the criticism I've been addressing,
Curtis.

It would be hypocritical only if he and Guru Dev had
been sexually involved.

"The assumption is that if it were true it would lesson
Maharishi somehow says a lot."

But it doesn't lessen him to call him a hypocrite,
right?


> > And you're accusing *him* of hypocrisy?

"The assumption is that if it were true it would lesson
Maharishi somehow says a lot."

But it doesn't lessen him to call him a hypocrite,
right? That's the hypocrisy of yours I was referring
to.

> Yes I was.  He, with his "devotion" to Guru Dev,
> out of anyone should understand how men can love
> each other, and should stay off their case.

This is a backpedal, Curtis. You wouldn't have
brought up Yogananda wanting to spend the night
with his guru if you weren't insinuating a sexual
relationship in MMY's case.

But to address the backpedal on its own terms:

Homophobia isn't based on men loving each other;
that is honored and respected in virtually all
cultures. Devotion to one's guru is honored and
respected in guru-centered spiritual traditions.

Homophobia is based on men having sex with each
other, which until recently has been reviled in
most cultures.

It may be short-sighted for people not to be able
to extrapolate from men loving each other
nonsexually to men having loving sexual
relationships, but it's hardly hypocritical. For
many people, that extrapolation would be a huge
leap.

Those who still revile homosexuality do so in
large part because they were taught that homosexual
relationships are *only* about sex and that sexual
preference is a free choice. Again, it's only very
recently that loving, committed same-sex
relationships and the likelihood that people are
born homosexual appeared on the radar.

MMY was a child of his culture and his time where
his social views were concerned. To call him a
hypocrite (in your backpedaled version) because his
views on homosexuality didn't measure up to the most
modern perspectives is off the wall.

One can loathe his *views* because they don't measure
up in this regard, but there's no need to loathe him
for holding them, unless one is looking for an excuse
to do so.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > 
> > > "The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking
> > > to his fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression
> > > when his relationship with Guru Dev can only be
> > > characterized as love between men is so absurd and
> > > hurtful to gay men everywhere."
> > > 
> > > Doesn't lessen MMY one bit, nosireebob. Furthest
> > > thing from your mind, right, Curtis?
> > 
> > So you are still missing the point?  It is the hypocrisy
> > of his position on gayness that I am criticizing.
> 
> That's exactly the criticism I've been addressing,
> Curtis.
> 
> It would be hypocritical only if he and Guru Dev had
> been sexually involved.

I don't believe that.  It is still hypocritical considering... let's call it a 
more neutral "outside the box, male bonding."  Maharishi was very clear that he 
wanted a personal relationship with Guru Dev and contrived a scheme to make it 
happen.  He was not looking for a way to sneak into his Vedic study class.  You 
are drawing different conclusions than I am from the few facts we do know about 
the guy.

> 
> "The assumption is that if it were true it would lesson
> Maharishi somehow says a lot."
> 
> But it doesn't lessen him to call him a hypocrite,
> right?

No, that does.  It is meant to.  As one example of the misery his teaching on 
this caused was a good friend of mine at the College of Natural Law in DC who 
was gay and very devoted to Maharishi's teaching.  He was really tormented by 
this aspect of his teaching.  It was a wake up call for me but as Edg pointed 
out, I was not strong enough to stand up against it and take the consequences. 
So calling him a homophobe is a much bigger criticism than calling him a 
hypocrite.  That is just a bonus observation. 

> 
> 
> > > And you're accusing *him* of hypocrisy?
> 
> "The assumption is that if it were true it would lesson
> Maharishi somehow says a lot."
> 
> But it doesn't lessen him to call him a hypocrite,
> right? That's the hypocrisy of yours I was referring
> to.

It makes a difference for what reason you object to his behavior.  You are 
looking for any excuse to pull out your favorite "H" word I know, but I'm not 
the guy teaching people that homosexuals are violating natural law.  I'm not 
being a hypocrite for pointing that out.   
Of course I am calling him out for his whole view.  I am speculating about the 
circumstances of his own life.  But I am not lessening him for being shitty to 
gays in the movement.  He did that all on his own.  In addition I believe it 
was hypocritical since he was in love with Guru Dev, define it how you wish.

> 
> > Yes I was.  He, with his "devotion" to Guru Dev,
> > out of anyone should understand how men can love
> > each other, and should stay off their case.
> 
> This is a backpedal, Curtis. You wouldn't have
> brought up Yogananda wanting to spend the night
> with his guru if you weren't insinuating a sexual
> relationship in MMY's case.

Do you think I am taking a stand of certainty here?  I said no one knows the 
truth.  I have my opinion, you can have yours.  It is not a backpedal it is an 
honest discussion of all the aspects of the topic.  So yes, I believe there was 
towel shaping and sword fighting going on in Joitir Math. 

> 
> But to address the backpedal on its own terms:
> 
> Homophobia isn't based on men loving each other;
> that is honored and respected in virtually all
> cultures. Devotion to one's guru is honored and
> respected in guru-centered spiritual traditions.
> 
> Homophobia is based on men having sex with each
> other, which until recently has been reviled in
> most cultures.

It is practiced in many including the Mideast.

"There's a boy across the river with a bottom like a peach, but alas I cannot 
swim" is a famous folk song in Afghanistan.

 It was a big part of Greek life.  It had a place in American Indian societies 
as well as in India itself.  Our own culture maintains prisons such that men 
can have sex with each other.  It is a fact at many levels of society outside 
just gay culture.  Read about the history of sailing ships.  I believe it 
happens in ashrams too.  

> 
> It may be short-sighted for people not to be able
> to extrapolate from men loving each other
> nonsexually to men having loving sexual
> relationships, but it's hardly hypocritical. For
> many people, that extrapolation would be a huge
> leap.

And for some it isn't a big leap given the level of love as it was described by 
Maharishi himself.  So for me I find it hypocritical.  He could have been more 
understanding. 

> 
> Those who still revile homosexuality do so in
> large part because they were taught that homosexual
> relationships are *only* about sex and that sexual
> preferenc

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:

I can't believe I typed the best joke in the post!



It should, of course, read: "towel SNAPPING and sword fighting going on in 
Joitir math."  


>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > "The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking
> > > > to his fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression
> > > > when his relationship with Guru Dev can only be
> > > > characterized as love between men is so absurd and
> > > > hurtful to gay men everywhere."
> > > > 
> > > > Doesn't lessen MMY one bit, nosireebob. Furthest
> > > > thing from your mind, right, Curtis?
> > > 
> > > So you are still missing the point?  It is the hypocrisy
> > > of his position on gayness that I am criticizing.
> > 
> > That's exactly the criticism I've been addressing,
> > Curtis.
> > 
> > It would be hypocritical only if he and Guru Dev had
> > been sexually involved.
> 
> I don't believe that.  It is still hypocritical considering... let's call it 
> a more neutral "outside the box, male bonding."  Maharishi was very clear 
> that he wanted a personal relationship with Guru Dev and contrived a scheme 
> to make it happen.  He was not looking for a way to sneak into his Vedic 
> study class.  You are drawing different conclusions than I am from the few 
> facts we do know about the guy.
> 
> > 
> > "The assumption is that if it were true it would lesson
> > Maharishi somehow says a lot."
> > 
> > But it doesn't lessen him to call him a hypocrite,
> > right?
> 
> No, that does.  It is meant to.  As one example of the misery his teaching on 
> this caused was a good friend of mine at the College of Natural Law in DC who 
> was gay and very devoted to Maharishi's teaching.  He was really tormented by 
> this aspect of his teaching.  It was a wake up call for me but as Edg pointed 
> out, I was not strong enough to stand up against it and take the 
> consequences. So calling him a homophobe is a much bigger criticism than 
> calling him a hypocrite.  That is just a bonus observation. 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > > > And you're accusing *him* of hypocrisy?
> > 
> > "The assumption is that if it were true it would lesson
> > Maharishi somehow says a lot."
> > 
> > But it doesn't lessen him to call him a hypocrite,
> > right? That's the hypocrisy of yours I was referring
> > to.
> 
> It makes a difference for what reason you object to his behavior.  You are 
> looking for any excuse to pull out your favorite "H" word I know, but I'm not 
> the guy teaching people that homosexuals are violating natural law.  I'm not 
> being a hypocrite for pointing that out.   
> Of course I am calling him out for his whole view.  I am speculating about 
> the circumstances of his own life.  But I am not lessening him for being 
> shitty to gays in the movement.  He did that all on his own.  In addition I 
> believe it was hypocritical since he was in love with Guru Dev, define it how 
> you wish.
> 
> > 
> > > Yes I was.  He, with his "devotion" to Guru Dev,
> > > out of anyone should understand how men can love
> > > each other, and should stay off their case.
> > 
> > This is a backpedal, Curtis. You wouldn't have
> > brought up Yogananda wanting to spend the night
> > with his guru if you weren't insinuating a sexual
> > relationship in MMY's case.
> 
> Do you think I am taking a stand of certainty here?  I said no one knows the 
> truth.  I have my opinion, you can have yours.  It is not a backpedal it is 
> an honest discussion of all the aspects of the topic.  So yes, I believe 
> there was towel shaping and sword fighting going on in Joitir Math. 
> 
> > 
> > But to address the backpedal on its own terms:
> > 
> > Homophobia isn't based on men loving each other;
> > that is honored and respected in virtually all
> > cultures. Devotion to one's guru is honored and
> > respected in guru-centered spiritual traditions.
> > 
> > Homophobia is based on men having sex with each
> > other, which until recently has been reviled in
> > most cultures.
> 
> It is practiced in many including the Mideast.
> 
> "There's a boy across the river with a bottom like a peach, but alas I cannot 
> swim" is a famous folk song in Afghanistan.
> 
>  It was a big part of Greek life.  It had a place in American Indian 
> societies as well as in India itself.  Our own culture maintains prisons such 
> that men can have sex with each other.  It is a fact at many levels of 
> society outside just gay culture.  Read about the history of sailing ships.  
> I believe it happens in ashrams too.  
> 
> > 
> > It may be short-sighted for people not to be able
> > to extrapolate from men loving each other
> > nonsexually to men having loving sexual
> > relations

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > "The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking
> > > > to his fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression
> > > > when his relationship with Guru Dev can only be
> > > > characterized as love between men is so absurd and
> > > > hurtful to gay men everywhere."
> > > > 
> > > > Doesn't lessen MMY one bit, nosireebob. Furthest
> > > > thing from your mind, right, Curtis?
> > > 
> > > So you are still missing the point?  It is the hypocrisy
> > > of his position on gayness that I am criticizing.
> > 
> > That's exactly the criticism I've been addressing,
> > Curtis.
> > 
> > It would be hypocritical only if he and Guru Dev had
> > been sexually involved.
> 
> I don't believe that.  It is still hypocritical
> considering... let's call it a more neutral "outside
> the box, male bonding."  Maharishi was very clear that
> he wanted a personal relationship with Guru Dev and
> contrived a scheme to make it happen.  He was not
> looking for a way to sneak into his Vedic study class.
> You are drawing different conclusions than I am from
> the few facts we do know about the guy.

That's a pretty standard form of sadhana in India. It's
called Guru-Bhakti Yoga. In that context, it's not at
all out-of-the-box. Google it; there's over 15,000 hits.
And the way he described how he went about it in that
one tape that's been transcribed and posted a number of
times is in very close accord with the traditional
formulations.


> > > > And you're accusing *him* of hypocrisy?
> > 
> > "The assumption is that if it were true it would lesson
> > Maharishi somehow says a lot."
> > 
> > But it doesn't lessen him to call him a hypocrite,
> > right? That's the hypocrisy of yours I was referring
> > to.
> 
> It makes a difference for what reason you object to
> his behavior.  You are looking for any excuse to pull
> out your favorite "H" word I know, but I'm not the guy
> teaching people that homosexuals are violating natural
> law.  I'm not being a hypocrite for pointing that out.

Never said you were, as I just explained. Read it again,
please.


> > Homophobia isn't based on men loving each other;
> > that is honored and respected in virtually all
> > cultures. Devotion to one's guru is honored and
> > respected in guru-centered spiritual traditions.
> > 
> > Homophobia is based on men having sex with each
> > other, which until recently has been reviled in
> > most cultures.
> 
> It is practiced in many including the Mideast.

Homosexuality has been around as long as loving
nonsexual male relationships. But in most cultures,
it's been reviled, considered an abomination, a
perversion, a sickness, degenerate, sinful, whereas
loving nonsexual relationships have been honored
and respected, as has devotion to the guru.

Point being, it's ridiculous to call someone who
had a relationship of the latter type hypocritical
because they objected to the former type. As far
as they're concerned, it's apples and oranges.


> > It may be short-sighted for people not to be able
> > to extrapolate from men loving each other
> > nonsexually to men having loving sexual
> > relationships, but it's hardly hypocritical. For
> > many people, that extrapolation would be a huge
> > leap.
> 
> And for some it isn't a big leap given the level
> of love as it was described by Maharishi himself.
> So for me I find it hypocritical.  He could have
> been more understanding.

So a dude who grew up in India and went from college
straight into an ashram who isn't understanding to
your modern Western standards is hypocritical?

Curtis, *listen* to yourself.

> > Those who still revile homosexuality do so in
> > large part because they were taught that homosexual
> > relationships are *only* about sex and that sexual
> > preference is a free choice. Again, it's only very
> > recently that loving, committed same-sex
> > relationships and the likelihood that people are
> > born homosexual appeared on the radar.
> 
> You are a fan of the classics right?  Wanna rethink
> that statement?

Nope, sure don't.

Do you think MMY read these "classics"?

> > MMY was a child of his culture and his time where
> > his social views were concerned. To call him a
> > hypocrite (in your backpedaled version) because his
> > views on homosexuality didn't measure up to the most
> > modern perspectives is off the wall.
> 
> MMY was supposed to be more than a "child of his
> culture" he was deified as "nature speaking English.

Non sequitur. I'm not deifying him.

And according to Barry, the two of you are critizing
him the way you would any other human being. If that's
the case, you don't get to criticize him fo

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > I don't believe that.  It is still hypocritical
> > considering... let's call it a more neutral "outside
> > the box, male bonding."  Maharishi was very clear that
> > he wanted a personal relationship with Guru Dev and
> > contrived a scheme to make it happen.  He was not
> > looking for a way to sneak into his Vedic study class.
> > You are drawing different conclusions than I am from
> > the few facts we do know about the guy.
> 
> That's a pretty standard form of sadhana in India. It's
> called Guru-Bhakti Yoga. In that context, it's not at
> all out-of-the-box. Google it; there's over 15,000 hits.
> And the way he described how he went about it in that
> one tape that's been transcribed and posted a number of
> times is in very close accord with the traditional
> formulations.

What Judy is trying to obscure is that 
Curtis and I are CHALLENGING that "trad-
itional formulation." We think it's a 
"cover" for something more mundane, the
love of one man for another man.

The "traditional formulation" is a way
of pretending that guru-bhakti love is 
something *different* than the love of 
one man for another man. It's "loftier," 
more "spiritual," and all about God, 
not flesh.

I don't think it is. I think it's just a
way to not only excuse what the SAME 
society felt was inexcusable, but elevate
it and put it on a pedestal as something 
noble and admirable. 

The "traditional formulation" of guru wor-
ship and devotion is ON ONE LEVEL a way
that men who are attracted to other men
can do it and GET AWAY WITH IT. It's
a social structure that allows them to 
get all weepy and blissed-out and bhakti-
fied about another man not only without 
being dragged out into an alley and left 
to die in a pool of blood for doing it, 
but getting *praised* for doing it.

The guru-bhakti "traditional formulation"
is a way of turning socially unacceptable
male-to-male behavior into socially
acceptable male-to-male behavior. Men in
ashram situations are *praised* and put 
on pedestals for the SAME behavior with
regard to gushing over other men that 
would get them beaten to a pulp in Texas,
or even in Bombay.

ALL that Curtis and I are doing is pointing
out the *artificiality* of this "traditional
formulation" and looking at it a different
way than the "tradition" looks at it.

And Judy's RESPONSE to that intellectual
questioning and "out of the box" thinking?
Attack! Vilify! Call the "out of the box"
thinkers names. Accuse them of everything
she can possibly think of.

And WHY?

Because we not only thought "out of the box,"
but suggested that the "box" was more than
a little artificial and self-serving. That's
all. 

I have NOT ONCE in these discussions suggested
that Maharishi was gay and *acted on it*. I
believe that he was so sexually repressed that
he would never in a million years have been
able to do that. But I *DO* believe that there
were *elements* of "man-love" involved in his
obsessional relationship with Guru Dev, and
that one of the reasons he was drawn to the
ashram life was that its "traditional formu-
lation" allowed him to express what he was
really feeling about other men in a way that
was IN THAT CONTEXT socially acceptable.

And not ONLY socially acceptable...he could
get "brownie points" and "strokes" for doing
what would have gotten him beaten to a pulp
in Bombay. The more flowery the language he 
used to describe Guru Dev, the more he was 
praised. The more he gushed over him and
treated him as if he was the master in a 
master-slave relationship, the more Maharishi
was seen as a "good student," an example of
bhakti, a veritable budding Trotakacharya 
to Guru Dev's Shankara.

I don't know about Curtis, but I'm really just
playing with ideas here. I think that ON ONE
LEVEL the guru-bhakti "traditional formulation"
is a *cover* for something. And that on that
same level, the men who are drawn to such
environments are "looking for cover."

Judy is so offended by me and Curtis expressing 
these ideas that's she's trying her best to
vilify us. In words, she's acting out the counter-
part of dragging us out behind the bar and beat-
ing us to a pulp because we've done something
that she considers "socially unacceptable."

Judy is ideaphobic in the same way that some
men are homophobic. 

The homophobic men are so challenged and threat-
ened by men who act "outside the box" that they
feel the need to attack them.

Ideaphobic Judy is so challenged and threatened
by men who *think* "outside the box" that she
feels the need to attack them.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't believe that.  It is still hypocritical
> > > considering... let's call it a more neutral "outside
> > > the box, male bonding."  Maharishi was very clear that
> > > he wanted a personal relationship with Guru Dev and
> > > contrived a scheme to make it happen.  He was not
> > > looking for a way to sneak into his Vedic study class.
> > > You are drawing different conclusions than I am from
> > > the few facts we do know about the guy.
> > 
> > That's a pretty standard form of sadhana in India. It's
> > called Guru-Bhakti Yoga. In that context, it's not at
> > all out-of-the-box. Google it; there's over 15,000 hits.
> > And the way he described how he went about it in that
> > one tape that's been transcribed and posted a number of
> > times is in very close accord with the traditional
> > formulations.
> 
> What Judy is trying to obscure is that 
> Curtis and I are CHALLENGING that "trad-
> itional formulation." We think it's a 
> "cover" for something more mundane, the
> love of one man for another man.
> 

Positing that Maharishi's love for Guru Dev was possibly a cover for repressed 
homosexuality was yet another TM critic's excursion into, "Let's think outside 
the box, and have some fun taking a cheap shot at Maharishi. Aren't we so 
creative? Now let's sit back and watch their heads explode." 

Such behavior reminds me of a bunch of 8th grade boys ganging up on a kid who 
brought his beloved teacher an apple and for that, they decide to bully and 
humiliate him. The boy's expression of pure love for his teacher, made them 
feel squeamish and perhaps insecure about their own budding manhood. To keep 
their feelings of superiority and manliness intact, they must crush any 
expression of delicacy of spirit in others; surrender of the heart makes them 
feel weak. 

One has to question the motivation of chronic TM critics and marvel at the 
lengths they will go to get their rocks off bashing Maharishi. Challenge away. 
Have some fun. Your cynicism only exposes your inability to appreciate the 
delicacy of spirit and trollish obsession to crush the hearts of TMers.

> The "traditional formulation" is a way
> of pretending that guru-bhakti love is 
> something *different* than the love of 
> one man for another man. It's "loftier," 
> more "spiritual," and all about God, 
> not flesh.
> 
> I don't think it is. I think it's just a
> way to not only excuse what the SAME 
> society felt was inexcusable, but elevate
> it and put it on a pedestal as something 
> noble and admirable. 
> 
> The "traditional formulation" of guru wor-
> ship and devotion is ON ONE LEVEL a way
> that men who are attracted to other men
> can do it and GET AWAY WITH IT. It's
> a social structure that allows them to 
> get all weepy and blissed-out and bhakti-
> fied about another man not only without 
> being dragged out into an alley and left 
> to die in a pool of blood for doing it, 
> but getting *praised* for doing it.
> 
> The guru-bhakti "traditional formulation"
> is a way of turning socially unacceptable
> male-to-male behavior into socially
> acceptable male-to-male behavior. Men in
> ashram situations are *praised* and put 
> on pedestals for the SAME behavior with
> regard to gushing over other men that 
> would get them beaten to a pulp in Texas,
> or even in Bombay.
> 
> ALL that Curtis and I are doing is pointing
> out the *artificiality* of this "traditional
> formulation" and looking at it a different
> way than the "tradition" looks at it.
> 
> And Judy's RESPONSE to that intellectual
> questioning and "out of the box" thinking?
> Attack! Vilify! Call the "out of the box"
> thinkers names. Accuse them of everything
> she can possibly think of.
> 
> And WHY?
> 
> Because we not only thought "out of the box,"
> but suggested that the "box" was more than
> a little artificial and self-serving. That's
> all. 
> 
> I have NOT ONCE in these discussions suggested
> that Maharishi was gay and *acted on it*. I
> believe that he was so sexually repressed that
> he would never in a million years have been
> able to do that. But I *DO* believe that there
> were *elements* of "man-love" involved in his
> obsessional relationship with Guru Dev, and
> that one of the reasons he was drawn to the
> ashram life was that its "traditional formu-
> lation" allowed him to express what he was
> really feeling about other men in a way that
> was IN THAT CONTEXT socially acceptable.
> 
> And not ONLY socially acceptable...he could
> get "brownie points" and "strokes" for doing
> what would have gotten him beaten to a pulp
> in Bombay. The more flowery the language he 
> used to describe Guru Dev, the more he was 
> praised. The more he gushed over him and
> treated him as if he was the master in a 
> master-slave relationship, 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Richard J. Williams]

Curtis wrote:
> Maharishi was very clear that he wanted a 
> personal relationship with Guru Dev and 
> contrived a scheme to make it happen.  He 
> was not looking for a way to sneak into his 
> Vedic study class.  You are drawing different 
> conclusions than I am from the few facts we 
> do know about the guy...
> 
Based on what they've written in this thread,
I'd say that Curtis, Barry, and Edg all wanted
to have a sexual relationship with the Marshy,
but because they were homophobes, they couldn't
overcome the peer pressure. Edg admitted as 
much and even confessed to being a hypocrite.

This of course, is just my *opinion*. 

It's obvious that they all had a 'personal 
relationship' with the Marshy and they all 
contrived a 'scheme' to make it happen. They 
all tried to 'sneak' into his Vedic study 
classes. 

Now it looks like Curtis, Barry, and Edg are 
desperate to make themselves look innocent 
by leveling charges against their dead guru 
- that's the hypocrisy, in my *opinion*.

But the truth is that Curtis, Barry, and Edg
probably spent less than a few minutes alone
with the Marshy in his bedroom, in fourteen
years - none of them were actually insiders 
- they were lackeys, pure and simple, robots,
who spouted the TMO party line. 

>From what I've heard, they all, Curtis, Barry, 
and Edg, sucked as TM teachers. One was kicked 
out, apparently, because the Marshy was up to 
his schemes. And I can't blame the Marshy for
kicking people out - I mean who would want
someone like Curtis, Barry, or Edg hanging out
by the bedroom door all the time? 

It's a very sick type of person who would want 
to get off on another guy's antelope skin. 
It's a perversion of spirituality, in my 
*opinion*. But what would i know, being *just 
a man*?

But as sick as this thread is, nothing can top
the rantings of Steve Perino and Vaj, who 
claim, without a shred of evidence, that the 
Marshy murdered the Guru Dev. That's just 
outrageous, in my *opinion*.

Forum: alt.meditation.transcendental
Subject: RE: Hard times for Perino
Author: Steve Perino 
Date: October 2, 2001

The fact is 'lil brahmachari mahesh' conspired 
with Shantinanda to rid the Ashram of their 
Master (Swami Brahmananda), by posioning him 
to death, with the help of the cook.

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
 wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't believe that.  It is still hypocritical
> > > considering... let's call it a more neutral "outside
> > > the box, male bonding."  Maharishi was very clear that
> > > he wanted a personal relationship with Guru Dev and
> > > contrived a scheme to make it happen.  He was not
> > > looking for a way to sneak into his Vedic study class.
> > > You are drawing different conclusions than I am from
> > > the few facts we do know about the guy.
> > 
> > That's a pretty standard form of sadhana in India. It's
> > called Guru-Bhakti Yoga. In that context, it's not at
> > all out-of-the-box. Google it; there's over 15,000 hits.
> > And the way he described how he went about it in that
> > one tape that's been transcribed and posted a number of
> > times is in very close accord with the traditional
> > formulations.
> 
> What Judy is trying to obscure is that 
> Curtis and I are CHALLENGING that "trad-
> itional formulation." We think it's a 
> "cover" for something more mundane, the
> love of one man for another man.

No, Barry, I'm not trying to "obscure" anything,
sorry. It would never have occurred to me that
either of you were suggesting the *whole
tradition* was a cover for homosexuality. If I had
realized that, I'd have *highlighted* it. So I'm
delighted you've laid it out so clearly.

However, I could be wrong, but I don't think this is
what Curtis had in mind. The way he describes what
MMY did in the quote above, it appears that he wasn't
aware of the tradition and thought it was MMY's own
unique idea.


> Judy is ideaphobic in the same way that some
> men are homophobic. 

No, Barry, I'm *dumb*-ideaphobic. This is a dumb
idea. It makes no sense. It does not compute. It's
a fantasy you've dreamed up because you don't like
the idea of devotion to the guru.

It's *OK* for you not to like it. You don't have
to invent a nitwit fantasy to justify your dislike
of it.

But the fact that you've done so is more revealing
about your state of mind than you realize. That's
why I'm happy you've presented that fantasy.

>From another of your posts:

> Add to that Willytex and Judy melting down
> and going purple-faced apoplectic in response
> to someone talking about their "more than
> human" teacher AS IF HE WERE HUMAN, and
> I'm sorry, but I don't think it's lookin'
> as Curtis and I are the 'gay' ones here.

Barry. I'm not the one who's been screaming in
capital letters all over my last batch of posts.
Look in the mirror. See what color your face is
and check your blood pressure.

I don't think MMY was "more than human," and my
posts reflect that. This is another of your very
silly ideas.

You're making yourself look like a raving 
paranoid lunatic.

Calm down before you bust an artery.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

> The homophobic views were bad enough. What I'm
> objecting to is your *adding* the hypocrisy charge
> when there's zero evidence for it.

Obviously I don't share that opinion.  I don't share your tolerance for his 
intolerance either. Understanding a person's culture doesn't get him off the 
hook for being a dick.  And I notice you are not extending me the same courtesy 
for my opinion being influenced by my culture and upbringing, are you?  So your 
"understanding" only extends to defending him doesn't it?

 That's petty and
> meanspirited and entirely gratuitous.

For calling the guy a hypocrite?  You have your meanspirited meter set too low. 
 You might want to raise it to say, people who present themselves as 
enlightened beings who teach their followers that gay people are destroying 
their personal evolution.  If you knew anything about the gay purging that went 
on at MIU you would understand the meaning of the word meanspirited. 

That's how I feel about your interjecting this into a discussion about 
Maharishi's life, "petty and  meanspirited and entirely gratuitous."

And here is the difference.  He is a dead guy and doesn't know I am judging him 
this way.

One last point:

> That's a pretty standard form of sadhana in India. It's
> called Guru-Bhakti Yoga. In that context, it's not at
> all out-of-the-box.

And neither you nor I know anything about what is involved in that relationship 
do we?  Like the relationship of a Catholic priest and his favorite alter boy 
perhaps?  Neither of us know.

What started out as an experiment in speculation like the entire media does 
with the personal life of public figures has turned into an interesting 
experiment in how long term meditators deal with cognitive dissonance.  But as 
usual you made many good points among the attempts to turn anything I say 
against the perfect image of Maharishi against me personally.  And as usual I 
had fun, so thanks for that.



 
> So a dude who grew up in India and went from college
> straight into an ashram who isn't understanding to
> your modern Western standards is hypocritical?
> 

The guy was a world traveler who had plenty of time to learn that he was wrong. 
He had more exposure to people and ideas than I will ever have in m life.  But 
he didn't learn and never amended his prejudice. 
Mr. Enlightened.

But I'm the bad guy for pointing this out. 

>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > "The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking
> > > > > to his fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression
> > > > > when his relationship with Guru Dev can only be
> > > > > characterized as love between men is so absurd and
> > > > > hurtful to gay men everywhere."
> > > > > 
> > > > > Doesn't lessen MMY one bit, nosireebob. Furthest
> > > > > thing from your mind, right, Curtis?
> > > > 
> > > > So you are still missing the point?  It is the hypocrisy
> > > > of his position on gayness that I am criticizing.
> > > 
> > > That's exactly the criticism I've been addressing,
> > > Curtis.
> > > 
> > > It would be hypocritical only if he and Guru Dev had
> > > been sexually involved.
> > 
> > I don't believe that.  It is still hypocritical
> > considering... let's call it a more neutral "outside
> > the box, male bonding."  Maharishi was very clear that
> > he wanted a personal relationship with Guru Dev and
> > contrived a scheme to make it happen.  He was not
> > looking for a way to sneak into his Vedic study class.
> > You are drawing different conclusions than I am from
> > the few facts we do know about the guy.
> 
> That's a pretty standard form of sadhana in India. It's
> called Guru-Bhakti Yoga. In that context, it's not at
> all out-of-the-box. Google it; there's over 15,000 hits.
> And the way he described how he went about it in that
> one tape that's been transcribed and posted a number of
> times is in very close accord with the traditional
> formulations.
> 
> 
> > > > > And you're accusing *him* of hypocrisy?
> > > 
> > > "The assumption is that if it were true it would lesson
> > > Maharishi somehow says a lot."
> > > 
> > > But it doesn't lessen him to call him a hypocrite,
> > > right? That's the hypocrisy of yours I was referring
> > > to.
> > 
> > It makes a difference for what reason you object to
> > his behavior.  You are looking for any excuse to pull
> > out your favorite "H" word I know, but I'm not the guy
> > teaching people that homosexuals are violating natural
> > law.  I'm not being a hypocrite for pointing that out.
> 
> Never said you were, as I just explained. Read 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Duveyoung]

"curtisdeltablues"  wrote:
 So you are still missing the point?  It is the hypocrisy of his position on 
gayness that I am criticizing. Not that he might be gay.  You remind me of my 
cats Judy.  When I point my finger at a treat, they look at my finger.  

Curtis,

Now that was funny.  Judy in a nutshellemphasis on the word "shell."

I'm continually amazed that you debate her when you know it will come to naught 
in terms of helping her evolve her POV.

I'm guessing that you do it as an intellectual exercise for your own benefit -- 
practice makes clarity.

Edg

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> "curtisdeltablues"  wrote:
>  So you are still missing the point?  It is the hypocrisy of his position on 
> gayness that I am criticizing. Not that he might be gay.  You remind me of my 
> cats Judy.  When I point my finger at a treat, they look at my finger.  
> 
> Curtis,
> 
> Now that was funny.  Judy in a nutshellemphasis on the word "shell."
> 
> I'm continually amazed that you debate her when you know it will come to 
> naught in terms of helping her evolve her POV.

I'm definitely not trying to change her perspective on anything.  I can't 
remember any instance of this happening.  She has changed my POV sometimes 
though, by making me see something in a different way.

> 
> I'm guessing that you do it as an intellectual exercise for your own benefit 
> -- practice makes clarity.

It is a real asset for me to find out how I feel about something.  Most of the 
distracting noise of personal insults has subsided to a comfortable background 
drone.  I know I am discussing something with a person who thinks poorly of me 
and this keeps me on my toes.

But the real value is the invitation to discuss something in detail knowing 
that any slip will be challenged.  Although I am not always in agreement with 
what she is challenging, the general effect is sort of editor-like for my 
writing.  And since my main payoff here is not the content of the discussion, 
but the process of writing itself, this is a gift.

Although Judy can't be considered a friend here like I consider you, someone 
who wishes me well, and will not immediately interpret what I write as evidence 
of my personal faults, she is one of the main reasons I have stuck around. If 
you compare what she has written in this last exchange to the posters who have 
used it as a reason to fling the oddest personal insults only, you see how rare 
this is.  Most people with a TM orientation would ignore such an offensive 
thought exercise, some would fling invectives.  But there is Judy actually 
engaging in the topic in detail!

And I could say the same for you Edg.  You have also offered me the gift of a 
detailed response numerous times.  But with you I can relax a bit with that 
"bro is at home" good-will feeling underneath the challenges.  If I had my 
druthers, this is what I prefer.







> 
> Edg
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[authfriend]

(Although the Post Count will register this as my 51st
post for the week, in fact I had a duplicate post on
Monday (215357 and 215358), so this is really my 50th.)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > The homophobic views were bad enough. What I'm
> > objecting to is your *adding* the hypocrisy charge
> > when there's zero evidence for it.
> 
> Obviously I don't share that opinion.  I don't share
> your tolerance for his intolerance either. Understanding
> a person's culture doesn't get him off the hook for
> being a dick.  And I notice you are not extending me the
> same courtesy for my opinion being influenced by my
> culture and upbringing, are you?  So your "understanding"
> only extends to defending him doesn't it?

Huh?? Your last sentence makes no sense to me.

>  That's petty and
> > meanspirited and entirely gratuitous.
> 
> For calling the guy a hypocrite?  You have your
> meanspirited meter set too low.

We disagree.

  You might want to
> raise it to say, people who present themselves as
> enlightened beings who teach their followers that
> gay people are destroying their personal evolution.
> If you knew anything about the gay purging that
> went on at MIU you would understand the meaning of
> the word meanspirited.

So because very meanspirited things happened at MIU
many years ago, that makes it OK for you to be 
somewhat meanspirited here?


> > That's a pretty standard form of sadhana in India. It's
> > called Guru-Bhakti Yoga. In that context, it's not at
> > all out-of-the-box.
> 
> And neither you nor I know anything about what is
> involved in that relationship do we?  Like the
> relationship of a Catholic priest and his favorite
> alter boy perhaps?  Neither of us know.

Is that what you're calling "out-of-the-box male
bonding"?

Do you agree with Barry that the *entire tradition*
has always been a cover for homosexuality?

Just one point on the *rationality* of your
speculation: Ashrams are pressure cookers, and it's
not easy to keep secrets. The other disciples of
Guru Dev were reportedly pissed off at MMY in the
first place because he'd maneuvered himself into the
position of Guru Dev's secretary, to the point that
rumors were started after Guru Dev's death that MMY
had murdered him.

Do you really think that if there'd been any
suspicion that MMY lusted after Guru Dev, not a
whiff of it would have been noted anywhere on the
record?

> What started out as an experiment in speculation like
> the entire media does with the personal life of public
> figures has turned into an interesting experiment in
> how long term meditators deal with cognitive dissonance.

The "cognitive dissonance" mantra is intellectually
dishonest. It's just a cheap way to dismiss and
demean any objection to TM critics' ideas, no matter
how absurd those ideas may be.

If I suggested that you were a child abuser, would
it be cognitive dissonance for you to object?

> But as usual you made many good points among the
> attempts to turn anything I say against the perfect
> image of Maharishi against me personally.

Right, like my acknowledgments that he was a flawed
human being, had a highly objectionable view of
homosexuality, and had committed lots of other
hypocrisies. Yup, I'm sure defending a perfect image
of MMY, all right.

> > So a dude who grew up in India and went from college
> > straight into an ashram who isn't understanding to
> > your modern Western standards is hypocritical?
> 
> The guy was a world traveler who had plenty of time to
> learn that he was wrong. He had more exposure to people
> and ideas than I will ever have in m life.

People, yes. Ideas, especially about homosexuality,
I seriously doubt. And the ideas about homosexuality
back then were generally significantly less liberal
than those you've been exposed to. More likely he'd
have been exposed to *confirmation* of his ideas.

  But he didn't learn and never amended his prejudice. 
> Mr. Enlightened.
> 
> But I'm the bad guy for pointing this out.

You're a lot harder on him than is reasonable or fair,
yes. And sometimes you have to stand on your head to
justify adding yet another sin to the list.

BTW, the notion that higher consciousness fosters
perfect behavior according to human standards is a
pernicious one, IMHO (and if there are nonhuman
standards, we don't know what they are).

Either MMY believed higher consciousness *did* foster
perfect behavior and was wrong, or he knew it wasn't
but figured the idea that it was would nudge meditators
to improve their behavior in line with *his* standards.

But if that was his motivation, it backfired on him,
because *he* couldn't maintain those standards.

I don't think higher consciousness has much of any
correlation with behavior, positive or negative. So
I evaluate MMY's behavior as I would anyone else's.
But by the same token, I don't subtract enlightenment
points on the basis of his bad 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> (Although the Post Count will register this as my 51st
> post for the week, in fact I had a duplicate post on
> Monday (215357 and 215358), so this is really my 50th.)
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > 
> > > The homophobic views were bad enough. What I'm
> > > objecting to is your *adding* the hypocrisy charge
> > > when there's zero evidence for it.
> > 
> > Obviously I don't share that opinion.  I don't share
> > your tolerance for his intolerance either. Understanding
> > a person's culture doesn't get him off the hook for
> > being a dick.  And I notice you are not extending me the
> > same courtesy for my opinion being influenced by my
> > culture and upbringing, are you?  So your "understanding"
> > only extends to defending him doesn't it?
> 
> Huh?? Your last sentence makes no sense to me.

You are making excuses based on the cultural upbringing and culture for 
Maharishi for his views.  But my views are also shaped by my culture and 
upbringing.  For me to express mine is labeled as "meanspirited."  But for him, 
whose views actually hurt real people, it is just a cultural thing that we 
should all just understand and overlook like  when Uncle John scratches his 
balls at family gatherings.

> 
> >  That's petty and
> > > meanspirited and entirely gratuitous.
> > 
> > For calling the guy a hypocrite?  You have your
> > meanspirited meter set too low.
> 
> We disagree.
> 
>   You might want to
> > raise it to say, people who present themselves as
> > enlightened beings who teach their followers that
> > gay people are destroying their personal evolution.
> > If you knew anything about the gay purging that
> > went on at MIU you would understand the meaning of
> > the word meanspirited.
> 
> So because very meanspirited things happened at MIU
> many years ago, that makes it OK for you to be 
> somewhat meanspirited here?

I object to this whole angle Judy.  The guy is dead.  His feelings are not 
being hurt by my speculations.  IMO this whole discussion would have been 
vastly improved without this distraction. 

> 
> 
> > > That's a pretty standard form of sadhana in India. It's
> > > called Guru-Bhakti Yoga. In that context, it's not at
> > > all out-of-the-box.
> > 
> > And neither you nor I know anything about what is
> > involved in that relationship do we?  Like the
> > relationship of a Catholic priest and his favorite
> > alter boy perhaps?  Neither of us know.
> 
> Is that what you're calling "out-of-the-box male
> bonding"?

I am saying that I don't know the range of behaviors and you don't either.  But 
in my experience, the claim of asexuality often a cover for gay activity.  I 
don't believe that it is normal to be asexual.  When I tried to be a monk it 
just made my desire for women become stronger.  The intensity of fantasy life, 
the intensity of whenever I was with women makes me believe that more often 
something is going on.  I know people claim some men aren't like this.  I'll 
believe it when I see it and I haven't so far. Especially in over the top 
ambitious men like Maharishi.

> 
> Do you agree with Barry that the *entire tradition*
> has always been a cover for homosexuality?

I doubt he believes this either.  But it is not all one way or another.  Just 
as we know from the Catholic Church, religious institutions can be a context 
where gay men can exist in a society that forbids it.

> 
> Just one point on the *rationality* of your
> speculation: Ashrams are pressure cookers, and it's
> not easy to keep secrets. The other disciples of
> Guru Dev were reportedly pissed off at MMY in the
> first place because he'd maneuvered himself into the
> position of Guru Dev's secretary, to the point that
> rumors were started after Guru Dev's death that MMY
> had murdered him.
> 
> Do you really think that if there'd been any
> suspicion that MMY lusted after Guru Dev, not a
> whiff of it would have been noted anywhere on the
> record?

Neither of us know what rumors swirled around the ashram when his doors were 
closed.  For all we know this is an acceptable thing in the context of the 
"enlightened."  People sure were able to rationalize anything Maharishi did.  
So I don't take a lack of a recorded account of accusations to mean anything.  
It is not an unreasonable speculation for me.  We are only arguing about what 
his seemingly obsessive man-love included.

> 
> > What started out as an experiment in speculation like
> > the entire media does with the personal life of public
> > figures has turned into an interesting experiment in
> > how long term meditators deal with cognitive dissonance.
> 
> The "cognitive dissonance" mantra is intellectually
> dishonest. It's just a cheap way to dismiss and
> demean any objection to TM critics' ideas, no matter
> how absurd those ideas may be.
> 
> If I suggested that 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:

> I got a kick out of that too--it could be a nyaya sutra:
> 
> "Points finger at catnip but cat looks at finger."
> 
> Moral of sutra: the cat missing the catnip and choosing the finger is  
> a metaphor for those who intuitively or deliberately miss the point  
> of a comment.

The funny thing is that my cats have actually developed the ability to follow 
my finger's direction now.  I sometimes have to move it a bit in the direction 
to make it work.  This is one of the distinctions I have read about dog 
intelligence as shaped by human contact over higher level primates.  Apes don't 
"get" this connection as quickly as dogs do.


>
> 
> On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Duveyoung wrote:
> 
> > "curtisdeltablues"  wrote:
> >  So you are still missing the point?  It is the hypocrisy of his  
> > position on gayness that I am criticizing. Not that he might be  
> > gay.  You remind me of my cats Judy.  When I point my finger at a  
> > treat, they look at my finger.
> >
> > Curtis,
> >
> > Now that was funny.  Judy in a nutshellemphasis on the word  
> > "shell."
> >
> > I'm continually amazed that you debate her when you know it will  
> > come to naught in terms of helping her evolve her POV.
> >
> > I'm guessing that you do it as an intellectual exercise for your  
> > own benefit -- practice makes clarity.
> 
> 
> I got a kick out of that too--it could be a nyaya sutra:
> 
> "Points finger at catnip but cat looks at finger."
> 
> Moral of sutra: the cat missing the catnip and choosing the finger is  
> a metaphor for those who intuitively or deliberately miss the point  
> of a comment.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:


> You're making yourself look like a raving 
> paranoid lunatic.

Look like ?
 

> Calm down before you bust an artery.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk"  wrote:
>
> I am sorry but this whole Maharishi gayness thread is wa off track as 
> pertains to any sort of import.  My original question, I thought, was much 
> more ineresting and would provide much more insight into mechanics of 
> consciousness than this flubber.

You talking about my stomach or my argument?  I want you to know that I have a 
perfectly good set of six pack abs under there which I am protecting with that 
layer contributed mostly by members of the porcine product line.  When I grow 
it thick enough I'm gunna cure it into bacon.

> 
> My question was, does the ethos of the individual pundit effect the outcome > 
> of a yagya? 

No.  The outcome is equally nil except as a believe enhancing ritual for the 
participants and whoever was unlucky enough to give their money to have it done.


 What do you all think? Or is everyone so caught up in their 
> maras

First of all it was Mara who ordered all those disgusting lemon drop shots and 
it was Mara who conveniently spilled one on her tank top turning her headlights 
on and which lead me to invite her back to my place where she ate everything in 
my fridge and then puked into the cat litter box putting an end to any designs 
I had on her at the beginning of the evening.

 that they can't think coherently any longer?
> 
> My guess is yes.

Well you got that right.  Functioning while not being able to think coherently 
is a bit of a hobby for me.  My favorite is attempting to perform music that 
way.


> 
> Anyway, neverthefuckmind. it's all theory, and therefore as specious as the 
> present argument. I'll come back tomorrow when people wake up - hopefully.

And after I get all that Mara puke out of my cat box, hopefully.


> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Duveyoung" 
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:13 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
> 
> 
> > "curtisdeltablues"  wrote:
> > So you are still missing the point?  It is the hypocrisy of his position 
> > on gayness that I am criticizing. Not that he might be gay.  You remind me 
> > of my cats Judy.  When I point my finger at a treat, they look at my 
> > finger.
> >
> > Curtis,
> >
> > Now that was funny.  Judy in a nutshellemphasis on the word "shell."
> >
> > I'm continually amazed that you debate her when you know it will come to 
> > naught in terms of helping her evolve her POV.
> >
> > I'm guessing that you do it as an intellectual exercise for your own 
> > benefit -- practice makes clarity.
> >
> > Edg
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> > To subscribe, send a message to:
> > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Or go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Richard J. Williams]

> > Understanding a person's culture doesn't get him off 
> > the hook for being a dick.  And I notice you are not 
> > extending me the same courtesy for my opinion being 
> > influenced by my culture and upbringing, are you?  
> > So your "understanding" only extends to defending him 
> > doesn't it?
> >
Judy wrote:
> Huh?? Your last sentence makes no sense to me.
> 
Actually we should be holding Curtis, Barry, and Edg to a
higher standard than the Marshy. They knew better than to
persecute the gays in the TMO - but they chose not to
denounce these activities, knowing full well that it was 
immoral to be prejudiced against anyone's sexual preference.

But, Curtis, Barry, and Edg loved the Marshy and would do
anything to please him. Maybe they too had a secret desire
to have sexual relations with the Marshy. According to a
recent study cited by Curtis, these desires even increase
when attempting monkdom.

What's so nonsensical about this thread is that the Marshy
loved the Guru Dev, but it probably wasn't sexual love at
all, but platonic. It's really weird to see the gang-of-three
bashing the Marshy now, when for twenty or more years
they did his bidding.

In my *opinion*, what the three did was a lot worse than
the Marshy being homophobic - the three were actually
deceitful - wanting to be gurus themselves, but lacking
the honesty to speak up against the Marshy, until now,
years later, when it doesn't do any good and nobody cares
what they say anymore.

The three don't get off the hook by saying that they knew
it was wrong at the time, but didn't say anything because 
they loved the Marshy so much. Now that the Marshy is dead
they want to be forgiven?

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Richard J. Williams]

Kirk wrote:
> > What do you all think? Or is everyone so caught up 
> > in their maras...
> >
Curtis wrote:
> First of all it was Mara who ordered all those disgusting 
> lemon drop shots and it was Mara who conveniently spilled 
> one on her tank top turning her headlights on and which 
> lead me to invite her back to my place where she ate 
> everything in my fridge and then puked into the cat litter 
> box putting an end to any designs I had on her at the 
> beginning of the evening.
> 
Yep, it always seems to come back to sex with guys like
Curtis - almost any message is an excuse for posting some
tid-bit about their sexual repression, or libertinism.

The answer to Kirk is yes, they are so caught up in their
'maras' that they think 'maras' is 'Mara' -they don't even
have a clue what you're talking about Kirk - not a clue. 

It's all just an excuse to spout off and pass the time of
day. I mean, their hero is Vaj and Uncle Tantra and they
can't stand Judy. 

Give it up Kirk - you should know better by now - you've 
been posting for what, ten years now? Do you seriously 
think you are going to find out anything of substance 
from a 'Delta Blues' guy, a 'Vaj Nath' or an 'Uncle Tantra'? 

You'd probably find out more about life by visiting a 
bowling alley on Skid Row.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk"  wrote:
>
> Ah, my experience is that yagyas have an effect.

I don't believe that causality is ever experienced.  It is belief that bridges 
the cause and the effect in a person's mind.

 But then I do have them 
> done and I don't just spout off about them without ever having had one.

I actually have had a few and was there in person. Very enjoyable.  They have 
all sorts of benifits other than the claimed results.  I'm not selling you my 
POV, but it wasn't gained by me being never having had one.



> 
> Some people get on a flippant roll and think they actually are saying 
> something.
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "curtisdeltablues" 
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 1:40 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk"  wrote:
> >>
> >> I am sorry but this whole Maharishi gayness thread is wa off track as
> >> pertains to any sort of import.  My original question, I thought, was 
> >> much
> >> more ineresting and would provide much more insight into mechanics of
> >> consciousness than this flubber.
> >
> > You talking about my stomach or my argument?  I want you to know that I 
> > have a perfectly good set of six pack abs under there which I am 
> > protecting with that layer contributed mostly by members of the porcine 
> > product line.  When I grow it thick enough I'm gunna cure it into bacon.
> >
> >>
> >> My question was, does the ethos of the individual pundit effect the 
> >> outcome > of a yagya?
> >
> > No.  The outcome is equally nil except as a believe enhancing ritual for 
> > the participants and whoever was unlucky enough to give their money to 
> > have it done.
> >
> >
> > What do you all think? Or is everyone so caught up in their
> >> maras
> >
> > First of all it was Mara who ordered all those disgusting lemon drop shots 
> > and it was Mara who conveniently spilled one on her tank top turning her 
> > headlights on and which lead me to invite her back to my place where she 
> > ate everything in my fridge and then puked into the cat litter box putting 
> > an end to any designs I had on her at the beginning of the evening.
> >
> > that they can't think coherently any longer?
> >>
> >> My guess is yes.
> >
> > Well you got that right.  Functioning while not being able to think 
> > coherently is a bit of a hobby for me.  My favorite is attempting to 
> > perform music that way.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Anyway, neverthefuckmind. it's all theory, and therefore as specious as 
> >> the
> >> present argument. I'll come back tomorrow when people wake up - 
> >> hopefully.
> >
> > And after I get all that Mara puke out of my cat box, hopefully.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> - Original Message - 
> >> From: "Duveyoung" 
> >> To: 
> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:13 AM
> >> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
> >>
> >>
> >> > "curtisdeltablues"  wrote:
> >> > So you are still missing the point?  It is the hypocrisy of his 
> >> > position
> >> > on gayness that I am criticizing. Not that he might be gay.  You remind 
> >> > me
> >> > of my cats Judy.  When I point my finger at a treat, they look at my
> >> > finger.
> >> >
> >> > Curtis,
> >> >
> >> > Now that was funny.  Judy in a nutshellemphasis on the word 
> >> > "shell."
> >> >
> >> > I'm continually amazed that you debate her when you know it will come 
> >> > to
> >> > naught in terms of helping her evolve her POV.
> >> >
> >> > I'm guessing that you do it as an intellectual exercise for your own
> >> > benefit -- practice makes clarity.
> >> >
> >> > Edg
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 
> >> >
> >> > To subscribe, send a message to:
> >> > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> >> >
> >> > Or go to:
> >> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> >> > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> > To subscribe, send a message to:
> > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Or go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk"  wrote:
> >
> > Ah, my experience is that yagyas have an effect.
> 
> I don't believe that causality is ever experienced.  It is belief that 
> bridges the cause and the effect in a person's mind.
> 
>

Good explanation.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Mike Doughney]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk"  wrote:

> I used to see a similar behavior pattern among
> the supposedly-celibate guys working on staff
> at Seelisberg and on courses in Europe, but in
> a heterosexual way. These guys would see a 
> woman they liked and seduce her with the olde
> "I know that I should be celibate but you're
> just s beautiful" routine. And after one
> or two rolls in the hay, they would forget 
> the women. 
> 
> Not just drop them, FORGET them. 


The way this sort of thing was told to me, by a woman (a 
meditator/checker) who was very briefly involved with one such TM 
initiator sleazebag, was that after a night of rolling in the hay, so 
to speak, she was met with hostility and a lot of canned language 
about how their "evolution" had been sidetracked by having sex. After 
having consensual sex, the next morning the guy basically blamed her 
for harming him.

Just another data point illustrating how involvement with the TMO 
correlates with all kinds of unhealthy habits and attitudes, 
particularly with respect to intimate matters, like sex.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Mike Doughney  wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >>
> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk"  wrote:
> >
> >> I used to see a similar behavior pattern among
> >> the supposedly-celibate guys working on staff
> >> at Seelisberg and on courses in Europe, but in
> >> a heterosexual way. These guys would see a
> >> woman they liked and seduce her with the olde
> >> "I know that I should be celibate but you're
> >> just s beautiful" routine. And after one
> >> or two rolls in the hay, they would forget
> >> the women.
> >>
> >> Not just drop them, FORGET them.
> >
> >
> 
> And you're saying that this isn't typical guy behavior?  Love 'em and
> leave 'em is a slogan that's been around since the beginning of time.
> 
> 
> 
> There'll be no strings to bind your hands
> Not if my love can't bind your heart.
> And there's no need to take a stand
> For it was I who chose to start.
> I see no need to take me home,
> I'm old enough to face the dawn.
> 
> Just call me angel of the morning ANGEL
> Just touch my cheek before you leave me, baby.
> Just call me angel of the morning ANGEL
> then slowly turn away from me.
> 
> Maybe the sun's light will be dim
> And it won't matter anyhow.
> If morning's echo says we've sinned,
> Well, it was what I wanted now.
> And if we're the victims of the night,
> I won't be blinded by light.
> 
> Just call me angel of the morning ANGEL
> Just touch my cheek before you leave me, baby.
> Just call me angel of the morning ANGEL
> Then slowly turn away,
> I won't beg you to stay with me
> Through the tears of the day,
> Of the years, baby baby baby.
> Just call me angel of the morning ANGEL
> Just touch my cheek before you leave me, baby.
>
Great song...reminds me of my once intimate friend, Maggie May...
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Hugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk"  wrote:
>
> Ah, my experience is that yagyas have an effect. But then I do have them 
> done and I don't just spout off about them without ever having had one.
> 
> Some people get on a flippant roll and think they actually are saying 
> something.

Let's do a double-blind test just to see if what you
"experience" is anything other than what you might expect 
to experience having coughed up all those sponduliks.

I am happy to make a prediction: Nothing will happen.
This sin't flippant it's just that I know a lot of
people who have also had yagyas and I detect a certain
desperation in their attempts to justify the fact they didn't
get what they paid for. For instance, I knew a girl who
had five health yagyas, at several thousand dollars, a pop
to cure her of migraine. It didn't work, but she was convinced
it was working at a level she wasn't aware of (?)

This is the research that David Orme Johnson should be doing.

 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "curtisdeltablues" 
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 1:40 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk"  wrote:
> >>
> >> I am sorry but this whole Maharishi gayness thread is wa off track as
> >> pertains to any sort of import.  My original question, I thought, was 
> >> much
> >> more ineresting and would provide much more insight into mechanics of
> >> consciousness than this flubber.
> >
> > You talking about my stomach or my argument?  I want you to know that I 
> > have a perfectly good set of six pack abs under there which I am 
> > protecting with that layer contributed mostly by members of the porcine 
> > product line.  When I grow it thick enough I'm gunna cure it into bacon.
> >
> >>
> >> My question was, does the ethos of the individual pundit effect the 
> >> outcome > of a yagya?
> >
> > No.  The outcome is equally nil except as a believe enhancing ritual for 
> > the participants and whoever was unlucky enough to give their money to 
> > have it done.
> >
> >
> > What do you all think? Or is everyone so caught up in their
> >> maras
> >
> > First of all it was Mara who ordered all those disgusting lemon drop shots 
> > and it was Mara who conveniently spilled one on her tank top turning her 
> > headlights on and which lead me to invite her back to my place where she 
> > ate everything in my fridge and then puked into the cat litter box putting 
> > an end to any designs I had on her at the beginning of the evening.
> >
> > that they can't think coherently any longer?
> >>
> >> My guess is yes.
> >
> > Well you got that right.  Functioning while not being able to think 
> > coherently is a bit of a hobby for me.  My favorite is attempting to 
> > perform music that way.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Anyway, neverthefuckmind. it's all theory, and therefore as specious as 
> >> the
> >> present argument. I'll come back tomorrow when people wake up - 
> >> hopefully.
> >
> > And after I get all that Mara puke out of my cat box, hopefully.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> - Original Message - 
> >> From: "Duveyoung" 
> >> To: 
> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:13 AM
> >> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
> >>
> >>
> >> > "curtisdeltablues"  wrote:
> >> > So you are still missing the point?  It is the hypocrisy of his 
> >> > position
> >> > on gayness that I am criticizing. Not that he might be gay.  You remind 
> >> > me
> >> > of my cats Judy.  When I point my finger at a treat, they look at my
> >> > finger.
> >> >
> >> > Curtis,
> >> >
> >> > Now that was funny.  Judy in a nutshellemphasis on the word 
> >> > "shell."
> >> >
> >> > I'm continually amazed that you debate her when you know it will come 
> >> > to
> >> > naught in terms of helping her evolve her POV.
> >> >
> >> > I'm guessing that you do it as an intellectual exercise for your own
> >> > benefit -- practice makes clarity.
> >> >
> >> > Edg
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 
> >> >
> >> > To subscribe, send a message to:
> >> > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> >> >
> >> > Or go to:
> >> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> >> > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> > To subscribe, send a message to:
> > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Or go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
 wrote:
 
> I don't believe that causality is ever experienced.  It is 
> belief that bridges the cause and the effect in a person's mind.

Very elegantly put.

But it leads to a wicked thought. Doesn't that make the idea of 
"causality" and "scientific law" as much a PROJECTION on to the
shit that happens as is, say, the idea of deities, sprites, spirits,
and other "superstitious" what-not? They're just alternative
"language games" for the same thing (stuff-that-happens)? You
choose the one that floats your boat best down the shit stream. But the 
one you choose is not necessarily TRUE, it's just the one that's more 
or less able to get you from your chosen A to your chosen B?

Curtis -  I thought you had a more progessive epistemology than that!


>  But then I do have them 
> > done and I don't just spout off about them without ever having had 
one.
> 
> I actually have had a few and was there in person. Very enjoyable.  
They have all sorts of benifits other than the claimed results.  I'm 
not selling you my POV, but it wasn't gained by me being never having 
had one.
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Some people get on a flippant roll and think they actually are 
saying 
> > something.
> > 
> > ----- Original Message - 
> > From: "curtisdeltablues" 
> > To: 
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 1:40 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
> > 
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk"  
wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I am sorry but this whole Maharishi gayness thread is wa off 
track as
> > >> pertains to any sort of import.  My original question, I 
thought, was 
> > >> much
> > >> more ineresting and would provide much more insight into 
mechanics of
> > >> consciousness than this flubber.
> > >
> > > You talking about my stomach or my argument?  I want you to know 
that I 
> > > have a perfectly good set of six pack abs under there which I am 
> > > protecting with that layer contributed mostly by members of the 
porcine 
> > > product line.  When I grow it thick enough I'm gunna cure it into 
bacon.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> My question was, does the ethos of the individual pundit effect 
the 
> > >> outcome > of a yagya?
> > >
> > > No.  The outcome is equally nil except as a believe enhancing 
ritual for 
> > > the participants and whoever was unlucky enough to give their 
money to 
> > > have it done.
> > >
> > >
> > > What do you all think? Or is everyone so caught up in their
> > >> maras
> > >
> > > First of all it was Mara who ordered all those disgusting lemon 
drop shots 
> > > and it was Mara who conveniently spilled one on her tank top 
turning her 
> > > headlights on and which lead me to invite her back to my place 
where she 
> > > ate everything in my fridge and then puked into the cat litter 
box putting 
> > > an end to any designs I had on her at the beginning of the 
evening.
> > >
> > > that they can't think coherently any longer?
> > >>
> > >> My guess is yes.
> > >
> > > Well you got that right.  Functioning while not being able to 
think 
> > > coherently is a bit of a hobby for me.  My favorite is attempting 
to 
> > > perform music that way.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Anyway, neverthefuckmind. it's all theory, and therefore as 
specious as 
> > >> the
> > >> present argument. I'll come back tomorrow when people wake up - 
> > >> hopefully.
> > >
> > > And after I get all that Mara puke out of my cat box, hopefully.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> - Original Message - 
> > >> From: "Duveyoung" 
> > >> To: 
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:13 AM
> > >> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > "curtisdeltablues"  wrote:
> > >> > So you are still missing the point?  It is the hypocrisy of 
his 
> > >> > position
> > >> > on gayness that I am criticizing. Not that he might be gay.  
You remind 
> > >> > me
> > >> > of my cats Judy.  When I point my finger at a treat, they look 
at my
> > >> > finger.
> > >> >
> > >> > Curtis

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Richard J. Williams]

> > > It's all just an excuse to spout off and 
> > > pass the time of day.
> > >
Kirk wrote:
> > More ego here, more often, less valuable
> > conversation...
> >
Sal Sunshine wrote: 
> You got an ego here, an ego there, and pretty
> soon you're talking real egos!
> 
Sal is a case in point, Kirk - all hat, no cattle.

Wasted band space, no insight, nothing of substance,
nothing better to do, I guess. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
>  
> > I don't believe that causality is ever experienced.  It is 
> > belief that bridges the cause and the effect in a person's mind.
> 
> Very elegantly put.
> 
> But it leads to a wicked thought. Doesn't that make the idea of 
> "causality" and "scientific law" as much a PROJECTION on to the
> shit that happens as is, say, the idea of deities, sprites, spirits,
> and other "superstitious" what-not? They're just alternative
> "language games" for the same thing (stuff-that-happens)? You
> choose the one that floats your boat best down the shit stream. But the 
> one you choose is not necessarily TRUE, it's just the one that's more 
> or less able to get you from your chosen A to your chosen B?
> 
> Curtis -  I thought you had a more progessive epistemology than that!

Scientific choices are not as random as that. Humans have been at it long 
enough to no longer need to use characters from literature as starting points 
for theories. This shift is historically called the "enlightenment" which makes 
Maharishi's misuse of his "Age of Enlightenment"  which proposes going back to 
the pre-reason model, all the more ironically absurd.

You fill in the gaps as best as you can in the scientific method.  You give 
more or less weight to different descriptions as you discover if it applies to 
more areas that strengthen the overall theory. Then you test the shit out of 
all the falsifiable theories you can conjure up.  Occasionally very good 
evidence that cannot be denied comes along and blows your theory up, and a new 
model is necessary to explain it and what you have discovered before.  This is 
happening less and less, not more and more in science, because we do understand 
some stuff pretty well and we are building on that.


Probability, statistics, and vaguely worded unfalsifiable predictions give 
Yagyas all the wiggle room needed for people who already "know" their effect 
and how they work to find all the evidence they need.  We have so many 
cognitive gaps, and sometimes it is hard to face how poorly we are equipped to 
test such claims, especially after we have paid for them. 

And then you have A-hole scientists who sometimes subvert the process of 
inquiry into a way to support the latest pharmaceutical, only giving the method 
lip service(Not the kind that feels good) for some gold coins with "In God We 
Trust" stamped on them.

And finally we have a complex mysterious world that has defied our ability to 
achieve complete knowledge with absolute certainty and this makes some people 
so nervous they turn to an explanation from a fairy tale to help them go to 
sleep. 

So epistemological humility is appropriate in facing the world.  But that 
doesn't mean we don't know anything at all.  We just don't everything.  And we 
always have to be on the lookout for things we KNOW that aren't so.  If we care 
about keeping it real, that is.



> 
> 
> >  But then I do have them 
> > > done and I don't just spout off about them without ever having had 
> one.
> > 
> > I actually have had a few and was there in person. Very enjoyable.  
> They have all sorts of benifits other than the claimed results.  I'm 
> not selling you my POV, but it wasn't gained by me being never having 
> had one.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Some people get on a flippant roll and think they actually are 
> saying 
> > > something.
> > > 
> > > - Original Message - 
> > > From: "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > To: 
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 1:40 PM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk"  
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I am sorry but this whole Maharishi gayness thread is wa off 
> track as
> > > >> pertains to any sort of import.  My original question, I 
> thought, was 
> > > >> much
> > > >> more ineresting and would provide much more insight into 
> mechanics of
> > > >> consciousness than this flubber.
> > > >
> > > > You talking about my stomach or my argument?  I want you to know 
> that I 
> > > > have a perfectly good set of six pack abs under there which I am 
> > > > protecting with that layer contributed mostly by members of the 
> porcine 
> > > > product line.  When I grow it thick enough I'm gunna cure it i

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> >  
> > > I don't believe that causality is ever experienced.  It is 
> > > belief that bridges the cause and the effect in a person's mind.
> > 
> > Very elegantly put.
> > 
> > But it leads to a wicked thought. Doesn't that make the idea of 
> > "causality" and "scientific law" as much a PROJECTION on to the
> > shit that happens as is, say, the idea of deities, sprites, spirits,
> > and other "superstitious" what-not? They're just alternative
> > "language games" for the same thing (stuff-that-happens)? You
> > choose the one that floats your boat best down the shit stream. But 
the 
> > one you choose is not necessarily TRUE, it's just the one that's 
more 
> > or less able to get you from your chosen A to your chosen B?
> > 
> > Curtis -  I thought you had a more progessive epistemology than 
that!
> 
> Scientific choices are not as random as that. Humans have been at 
> it long enough to no longer need to use characters from literature
> as starting points for theories. This shift is historically called 
> the "enlightenment" which makes Maharishi's misuse of his "Age of
> Enlightenment"  which proposes going back to the pre-reason model,
> all the more ironically absurd.

Mmmm...The period known as "the age of enlightmenment" in the history 
of the West has nothing to with "enlightenment" (in a meditation 
sense). MMY had in mind the latter sense. He never "proposed" going 
back to a pre-reason model from what I know! You may well think what he 
advocated amounts to that - but then that's not the same as him 
"proposing" that, eh?

I should not have mentioned "progessive epistemology" - my bad. Your 
response was very interesting of course (but have you read Thomas 
Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?).

What I had in mind was something else really. It's that bit of yours 
where you say  "no longer need to use characters from literature as 
starting points for theories"!

Science does not just get us from A to B ("instrumentalism"). It 
carries with it an interpretation of the world that is NOT itself 
"science". It is metaphysics (or, dare I say it? Religion!). It was 
that excellent Curtis nugget that demonstrates this:

"I don't believe that causality is ever experienced.  It is 
belief that bridges the cause and the effect in a person's mind."

The religion of science (scientific triumphalism otherwise known as 
"scientism") is built on "causality" and all that is bound up with it. 
This is why triumphalists will assert that Science is laying bare "the 
Laws of Nature" (capital L, capital N, as opposed to finding handy, 
convenient associations which work fairly well for our purposes).

These reified, Platonic "laws" are very odd birds indeed. What ARE 
they? IMO they're nothing else but the modern equivalents of the 
deities of the ancients who believed that some order-behind-appearances 
"explained" the way things are. Gods? laws? TomRtoe? TomAtoe? 

So, no, we don't use "characters from literature as starting points for 
theories". We use the agencies and controllers of causality named as 
"laws" instead. And the meta-science is not itself Science.

Of course you CAN "do" science without subscribing to scientism. Many 
do. Rather the same way as you can "do" TM without being a triumphalist 
Hindu. And again, many do!


 
> You fill in the gaps as best as you can in the scientific
> method.  You give more or less weight to different descriptions
> as you discover if it applies to more areas that strengthen the 
>overall theory. Then you test the shit out of all the falsifiable 
theories you can conjure up.  Occasionally very good evidence that 
cannot be denied comes along and blows your theory up, and a new model 
is necessary to explain it and what you have discovered before.  This 
is happening less and less, not more and more in science, because we do 
understand some stuff pretty well and we are building on that.
> 
> 
> Probability, statistics, and vaguely worded unfalsifiable predictions 
give Yagyas all the wiggle room needed for people who already "know" 
their effect and how they work to find all the evidence they need.  We 
have so many cognitive gaps, and sometimes it is hard to face how 
poorly we are equipped to test such claims, especially after we have 
paid for them. 
> 
> And then you have A-hole scientists who sometimes subvert the process 
of inquiry into a way to support the latest pharmaceutical, only giving 
the method lip service(Not the kind that feels good) for some gold 
coins with "In God We Trust" stamped on them.
> 
> And finally we have a complex mysterious world that has defied our 
ability to achieve complete knowledge with absolute certainty and this 
makes some people so nervous they turn to an explanation from a fairy 
tale to help them go to

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[grate . swan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> >  
> > > I don't believe that causality is ever experienced.  It is 
> > > belief that bridges the cause and the effect in a person's mind.
> > 
> > Very elegantly put.
> > 
> > But it leads to a wicked thought. Doesn't that make the idea of 
> > "causality" and "scientific law" as much a PROJECTION on to the
> > shit that happens as is, say, the idea of deities, sprites, spirits,
> > and other "superstitious" what-not? They're just alternative
> > "language games" for the same thing (stuff-that-happens)? You
> > choose the one that floats your boat best down the shit stream. But the 
> > one you choose is not necessarily TRUE, it's just the one that's more 
> > or less able to get you from your chosen A to your chosen B?
> > 
> > Curtis -  I thought you had a more progessive epistemology than that!
> 
> Scientific choices are not as random as that. Humans have been at it long 
> enough to no longer need to use characters from literature as starting points 
> for theories. This shift is historically called the "enlightenment" which 
> makes Maharishi's misuse of his "Age of Enlightenment"  which proposes going 
> back to the pre-reason model, all the more ironically absurd.
> 
> You fill in the gaps as best as you can in the scientific method.  You give 
> more or less weight to different descriptions as you discover if it applies 
> to more areas that strengthen the overall theory. Then you test the shit out 
> of all the falsifiable theories you can conjure up.  Occasionally very good 
> evidence that cannot be denied comes along and blows your theory up, and a 
> new model is necessary to explain it and what you have discovered before.  
> This is happening less and less, not more and more in science, because we do 
> understand some stuff pretty well and we are building on that.
> 
> 
> Probability, statistics, and vaguely worded unfalsifiable predictions give 
> Yagyas all the wiggle room needed for people who already "know" their effect 
> and how they work to find all the evidence they need.  We have so many 
> cognitive gaps, and sometimes it is hard to face how poorly we are equipped 
> to test such claims, especially after we have paid for them. 
> 
> And then you have A-hole scientists who sometimes subvert the process of 
> inquiry into a way to support the latest pharmaceutical, only giving the 
> method lip service(Not the kind that feels good) for some gold coins with "In 
> God We Trust" stamped on them.
> 
> And finally we have a complex mysterious world that has defied our ability to 
> achieve complete knowledge with absolute certainty and this makes some people 
> so nervous they turn to an explanation from a fairy tale to help them go to 
> sleep. 
> 
> So epistemological humility is appropriate in facing the world.  But that 
> doesn't mean we don't know anything at all.  We just don't everything.  And 
> we always have to be on the lookout for things we KNOW that aren't so.  If we 
> care about keeping it real, that is.
> 
> 

Well, in a very real sense we KNOW nothing.  We can only know what is NOT, not 
what IS. Its Hume's problem of induction, How many white swans do you need to 
see until you "know the truth" that all swans are white? 1000, one million, one 
billion?   

At one billion, you may say, "well, the statistical probability of knowing that 
there are no black swans is astronomically huge -- we have a sample of one 
billion. The probability that there are other than white swans is on the far 
far side of the tail (of the normal distibution).  

The problem is that the normal distribution accounts for some things nicely, 
and yet is hugely flawed as a representative distribution for far more things. 
You don't really know the distribution until you have seen the entire 
population, not just a sample.  Many things have distributions with enormously 
fat tails. That is, they have a much higher probability of occurring than the 
normal distribution would predict.  But hey, the white swan theory worked 
extremely well at predicting the color of swans. Everyone continued to see only 
white swans, "What a marvelous model we have", everyone beamed. Until one black 
swan was discovered. Then many. opps -- our poor normal distribution totally 
sucked and we fell for it. If we had be significantly on this model, we would 
hve bee nwiped out. 

The only thing we know now is that NOT all swans are white. We don't know what 
IS only what is NOT. A doctor can say he finds no evidence of disease in you. 
That is far far from saying ."I have evidence of no disease in you". 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
 wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M"  
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > >  
> > > > I don't believe that causality is ever experienced.  It is 
> > > > belief that bridges the cause and the effect in a person's mind.
> > > 
> > > Very elegantly put.
> > > 
> > > But it leads to a wicked thought. Doesn't that make the idea of 
> > > "causality" and "scientific law" as much a PROJECTION on to the
> > > shit that happens as is, say, the idea of deities, sprites, 
spirits,
> > > and other "superstitious" what-not? They're just alternative
> > > "language games" for the same thing (stuff-that-happens)? You
> > > choose the one that floats your boat best down the shit stream. 
But the 
> > > one you choose is not necessarily TRUE, it's just the one that's 
more 
> > > or less able to get you from your chosen A to your chosen B?
> > > 
> > > Curtis -  I thought you had a more progessive epistemology than 
that!
> > 
> > Scientific choices are not as random as that. Humans have been at 
it long enough to no longer need to use characters from literature as 
starting points for theories. This shift is historically called the 
"enlightenment" which makes Maharishi's misuse of his "Age of 
Enlightenment"  which proposes going back to the pre-reason model, all 
the more ironically absurd.
> > 
> > You fill in the gaps as best as you can in the scientific method.  
You give more or less weight to different descriptions as you discover 
if it applies to more areas that strengthen the overall theory. Then 
you test the shit out of all the falsifiable theories you can conjure 
up.  Occasionally very good evidence that cannot be denied comes along 
and blows your theory up, and a new model is necessary to explain it 
and what you have discovered before.  This is happening less and less, 
not more and more in science, because we do understand some stuff 
pretty well and we are building on that.
> > 
> > 
> > Probability, statistics, and vaguely worded unfalsifiable 
predictions give Yagyas all the wiggle room needed for people who 
already "know" their effect and how they work to find all the evidence 
they need.  We have so many cognitive gaps, and sometimes it is hard to 
face how poorly we are equipped to test such claims, especially after 
we have paid for them. 
> > 
> > And then you have A-hole scientists who sometimes subvert the 
process of inquiry into a way to support the latest pharmaceutical, 
only giving the method lip service(Not the kind that feels good) for 
some gold coins with "In God We Trust" stamped on them.
> > 
> > And finally we have a complex mysterious world that has defied our 
ability to achieve complete knowledge with absolute certainty and this 
makes some people so nervous they turn to an explanation from a fairy 
tale to help them go to sleep. 
> > 
> > So epistemological humility is appropriate in facing the world.  
But that doesn't mean we don't know anything at all.  We just don't 
everything.  And we always have to be on the lookout for things we KNOW 
that aren't so.  If we care about keeping it real, that is.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Well, in a very real sense we KNOW nothing.  We can only know what is 
NOT, not what IS. Its Hume's problem of induction, How many white swans 
do you need to see until you "know the truth" that all swans are white? 
1000, one million, one billion?   
> 
> At one billion, you may say, "well, the statistical probability of 
knowing that there are no black swans is astronomically huge -- we have 
a sample of one billion. The probability that there are other than 
white swans is on the far far side of the tail (of the normal 
distibution).  
> 
> The problem is that the normal distribution accounts for some things 
nicely, and yet is hugely flawed as a representative distribution for 
far more things. You don't really know the distribution until you have 
seen the entire population, not just a sample.  Many things have 
distributions with enormously fat tails. That is, they have a much 
higher probability of occurring than the normal distribution would 
predict.  But hey, the white swan theory worked extremely well at 
predicting the color of swans. Everyone continued to see only white 
swans, "What a marvelous model we have", everyone beamed. Until one 
black swan was discovered. Then many. opps -- our poor normal 
distribution totally sucked and we fell for it. If we had be 
significantly on this model, we would hve bee nwiped out. 
> 
> The only thing we know now is that NOT all swans are white. We don't 
know what IS only what is NOT. A doctor can say he finds no evidence of 
disease in you. That is far far from saying ."I have evidence of no 
disease in you".
>

Aren't we in bigger shit than this though in reality? To "know" the
negative depends on "knowing" 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[grate . swan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
> >
>  
> > You fill in the gaps as best as you can in the scientific
> > method.  You give more or less weight to different descriptions
> > as you discover if it applies to more areas that strengthen the 
> >overall theory. Then you test the shit out of all the falsifiable 
> theories you can conjure up.  

Can yu share with us your list of how you have tested (hopefully the shit out 
of) the falsifiability of your theory that the practice of TM, twice day, is a 
religion?

>Occasionally very good evidence that 
> cannot be denied comes along and blows your theory up, and a new model 
> is necessary to explain it and what you have discovered before.  This 
> is happening less and less, not more and more in science, because we do 
> understand some stuff pretty well and we are building on that.
> > 
> > 
> > Probability, statistics, and vaguely worded unfalsifiable predictions 
> give Yagyas all the wiggle room needed for people who already "know" 
> their effect and how they work to find all the evidence they need.

Which reminds me of the method some have used to establish that the 2x day 
practice of TM is a religion.

What is your model for predicting something is a religion? And how is it 
falsified? 




  

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[grate . swan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M"  
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > >  
> > > > > I don't believe that causality is ever experienced.  It is 
> > > > > belief that bridges the cause and the effect in a person's mind.
> > > > 
> > > > Very elegantly put.
> > > > 
> > > > But it leads to a wicked thought. Doesn't that make the idea of 
> > > > "causality" and "scientific law" as much a PROJECTION on to the
> > > > shit that happens as is, say, the idea of deities, sprites, 
> spirits,
> > > > and other "superstitious" what-not? They're just alternative
> > > > "language games" for the same thing (stuff-that-happens)? You
> > > > choose the one that floats your boat best down the shit stream. 
> But the 
> > > > one you choose is not necessarily TRUE, it's just the one that's 
> more 
> > > > or less able to get you from your chosen A to your chosen B?
> > > > 
> > > > Curtis -  I thought you had a more progessive epistemology than 
> that!
> > > 
> > > Scientific choices are not as random as that. Humans have been at 
> it long enough to no longer need to use characters from literature as 
> starting points for theories. This shift is historically called the 
> "enlightenment" which makes Maharishi's misuse of his "Age of 
> Enlightenment"  which proposes going back to the pre-reason model, all 
> the more ironically absurd.
> > > 
> > > You fill in the gaps as best as you can in the scientific method.  
> You give more or less weight to different descriptions as you discover 
> if it applies to more areas that strengthen the overall theory. Then 
> you test the shit out of all the falsifiable theories you can conjure 
> up.  Occasionally very good evidence that cannot be denied comes along 
> and blows your theory up, and a new model is necessary to explain it 
> and what you have discovered before.  This is happening less and less, 
> not more and more in science, because we do understand some stuff 
> pretty well and we are building on that.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Probability, statistics, and vaguely worded unfalsifiable 
> predictions give Yagyas all the wiggle room needed for people who 
> already "know" their effect and how they work to find all the evidence 
> they need.  We have so many cognitive gaps, and sometimes it is hard to 
> face how poorly we are equipped to test such claims, especially after 
> we have paid for them. 
> > > 
> > > And then you have A-hole scientists who sometimes subvert the 
> process of inquiry into a way to support the latest pharmaceutical, 
> only giving the method lip service(Not the kind that feels good) for 
> some gold coins with "In God We Trust" stamped on them.
> > > 
> > > And finally we have a complex mysterious world that has defied our 
> ability to achieve complete knowledge with absolute certainty and this 
> makes some people so nervous they turn to an explanation from a fairy 
> tale to help them go to sleep. 
> > > 
> > > So epistemological humility is appropriate in facing the world.  
> But that doesn't mean we don't know anything at all.  We just don't 
> everything.  And we always have to be on the lookout for things we KNOW 
> that aren't so.  If we care about keeping it real, that is.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > Well, in a very real sense we KNOW nothing.  We can only know what is 
> NOT, not what IS. Its Hume's problem of induction, How many white swans 
> do you need to see until you "know the truth" that all swans are white? 
> 1000, one million, one billion?   
> > 
> > At one billion, you may say, "well, the statistical probability of 
> knowing that there are no black swans is astronomically huge -- we have 
> a sample of one billion. The probability that there are other than 
> white swans is on the far far side of the tail (of the normal 
> distibution).  
> > 
> > The problem is that the normal distribution accounts for some things 
> nicely, and yet is hugely flawed as a representative distribution for 
> far more things. You don't really know the distribution until you have 
> seen the entire population, not just a sample.  Many things have 
> distributions with enormously fat tails. That is, they have a much 
> higher probability of occurring than the normal distribution would 
> predict.  But hey, the white swan theory worked extremely well at 
> predicting the color of swans. Everyone continued to see only white 
> swans, "What a marvelous model we have", everyone beamed. Until one 
> black swan was discovered. Then many. opps -- our poor normal 
> distribution totally sucked and we fell for it. If we had be 
> significantly on this model, we would hve bee nwiped out. 
> > 
> > The only thing we know now is that NOT all swans are white. We don't 
> kn

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[curtisdeltablues]

I am running out of posts with my incessant blathering!  So I want to address 
both Grate Swan and Richard's post together.  Both of you never fail to make me 
think more deeply here so first a big nod and think you for that!

I believe both of you are taking a more purely philosophical look at our 
ability to know. Hume did point out our humble relationship with knowing, but 
it is a glass half empty situation.  The pragmatist, myself included, just goes 
with probabilities and finds that suits him pretty well most of the time.  Just 
don't put a low brow like me in a theoretical physics lab!  Although I would 
have to agree with the theoretical arguments of the absolute skeptic, I don't 
live that way.  I am not alone in this.  Knowing our limitations is one thing.  
Pushing on with existential enlightenment is another.  (I know I co-opted that 
word but I have used it for the ultimate in knowledge so long, I now use if for 
the good-enough epistemological world I have created for myself. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M"  wrote:

> Mmmm...The period known as "the age of enlightmenment" in the history 
> of the West has nothing to with "enlightenment" (in a meditation 
> sense). MMY had in mind the latter sense. He never "proposed" going 
> back to a pre-reason model from what I know! You may well think what he 
> advocated amounts to that - but then that's not the same as him 
> "proposing" that, eh?

I believe he did.  Every time he ridiculed modern science's lack of absolute 
knowledge and proposed religious texts as the solution.  If you listen to his 
argument with Jon Shear about the logical necessity for PC in between the other 
states, and hear him conclude with "Then you must change your logic", you see 
his true commitment to irrationality.  He only pay lip-service to reason for 
marketing purposes.  He always said the elephant has two sets of teeth, one to 
show and one to chew with.

> 
> I should not have mentioned "progessive epistemology" - my bad. Your 
> response was very interesting of course (but have you read Thomas 
> Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?).

So long ago, but even my faded memory makes me want to revise some of my 
statements below so thanks for mentioning it.

> 
> What I had in mind was something else really. It's that bit of yours 
> where you say  "no longer need to use characters from literature as 
> starting points for theories"!

Let me start here.  This statement is full of it as stated.  You can START from 
anywhere for a theory.  Why not Vedic literature or a dream even?  I should 
have been referring to the fact that with all the work that has been done in 
science, we can base a theory on another likely theory with some proof behind 
it now.  We have gone past, "then magic happened" in many areas.  However to 
discuss how the Vedic characters can help us transcend the limits of our 
imagination in theoretical physics...why not?

> 
> Science does not just get us from A to B ("instrumentalism"). It 
> carries with it an interpretation of the world that is NOT itself 
> "science". It is metaphysics (or, dare I say it? Religion!). It was 
> that excellent Curtis nugget that demonstrates this:
> 
> "I don't believe that causality is ever experienced.  It is 
> belief that bridges the cause and the effect in a person's mind."
> 
> The religion of science (scientific triumphalism otherwise known as 
> "scientism") is built on "causality" and all that is bound up with it. 
> This is why triumphalists will assert that Science is laying bare "the 
> Laws of Nature" (capital L, capital N, as opposed to finding handy, 
> convenient associations which work fairly well for our purposes).

I am somewhere between your skepticism and the scientific triumphalist on this 
point.  I don't have a perfectionist standard for knowledge to compare what we 
are doing in science to an ideal that is better.  I am accepting the human 
condition with the limits we have.  In my life the biggest gaps in knowledge 
don't come from the theoretical problems of causality, but from my own 
susceptibility to cognitive error. My knowledge issues are wy down the line 
from the issues posed by philosophers. It is what cognitive psychologists 
reveal to me that makes me cast a skeptical eye on anything I assert! 

> 
> These reified, Platonic "laws" are very odd birds indeed. What ARE 
> they? IMO they're nothing else but the modern equivalents of the 
> deities of the ancients who believed that some order-behind-appearances 
> "explained" the way things are. Gods? laws? TomRtoe? TomAtoe? 

Again, the pragmatist in me rejects the need to grapple with Plato's idealistic 
forms.  And the language does matter on one level because there are many 
implied beliefs in a word like "Gods" that are not contained in the word 
"laws."  For most purposes in science the term "laws" works better, especially 
when you may have to chuck them when new data comes in. "Killing Gods i

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> >  
> > > You fill in the gaps as best as you can in the scientific
> > > method.  You give more or less weight to different descriptions
> > > as you discover if it applies to more areas that strengthen the 
> > >overall theory. Then you test the shit out of all the falsifiable 
> > theories you can conjure up.  
> 
> Can yu share with us your list of how you have tested (hopefully the shit out 
> of) the falsifiability of your theory that the practice of TM, twice day, is 
> a religion?

I never said that.  And I would never use this method to determine such a 
thing.  I would use the definition of words to assess how these concepts are 
used.  You can practice TM twice a day and not have it be your religion.  But I 
also believe that teaching TM in schools is promoting a religious practice 
because of how it is taught and its origins.  I can also drink wine and take 
bread in a church and consider it an type of piss poor Tapas bar fare.  But 
that doesn't mean we should have a priest come in to third grade to see if it 
settles the kids down if he performs mass for them.

You are trying to use the scientific method in the wrong place. There are other 
areas of knowledge that we use for such questions and the answers are not so 
clear cut.  That is why we have courts to decide some of these question and you 
may disagree with their conclusions.  

> 
> >Occasionally very good evidence that 
> > cannot be denied comes along and blows your theory up, and a new model 
> > is necessary to explain it and what you have discovered before.  This 
> > is happening less and less, not more and more in science, because we do 
> > understand some stuff pretty well and we are building on that.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Probability, statistics, and vaguely worded unfalsifiable predictions 
> > give Yagyas all the wiggle room needed for people who already "know" 
> > their effect and how they work to find all the evidence they need.
> 
> Which reminds me of the method some have used to establish that the 2x day 
> practice of TM is a religion.
> 
> What is your model for predicting something is a religion? And how is it 
> falsified?

As I said, wrong application of the method.  Science is cross cultural, these 
questions are culture bound.  In the US we have made some distinctions that are 
meant to keep religious concepts from being taught outside religion classes.  
This is a big difference between our educational system and say, Afghanistan's.



>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M"  
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > >  
> > > > > > I don't believe that causality is ever experienced.  It is 
> > > > > > belief that bridges the cause and the effect in a person's mind.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Very elegantly put.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But it leads to a wicked thought. Doesn't that make the idea of 
> > > > > "causality" and "scientific law" as much a PROJECTION on to the
> > > > > shit that happens as is, say, the idea of deities, sprites, 
> > spirits,
> > > > > and other "superstitious" what-not? They're just alternative
> > > > > "language games" for the same thing (stuff-that-happens)? You
> > > > > choose the one that floats your boat best down the shit stream. 
> > But the 
> > > > > one you choose is not necessarily TRUE, it's just the one that's 
> > more 
> > > > > or less able to get you from your chosen A to your chosen B?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Curtis -  I thought you had a more progessive epistemology than 
> > that!
> > > > 
> > > > Scientific choices are not as random as that. Humans have been at 
> > it long enough to no longer need to use characters from literature as 
> > starting points for theories. This shift is historically called the 
> > "enlightenment" which makes Maharishi's misuse of his "Age of 
> > Enlightenment"  which proposes going back to the pre-reason model, all 
> > the more ironically absurd.
> > > > 
> > > > You fill in the gaps as best as you can in the scientific method.  
> > You give more or less weight to different descriptions as you discover 
> > if it applies to more areas that strengthen the overall theory. Then 
> > you test the shit out of all the falsifiable theories you can conjure 
> > up.  Occasionally very good evidence that cannot be denied comes along 
> > and blows your theory up, and a new model is necessary to explain it 
> > and what you have discovered before.  This is happening less and less, 
> > not more and more in science, because we do understand some stuff 
> > pretty well and we are building on that.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Probability, statistics, and vaguely worded unfalsifiable 
> > predictions give Yagyas all the wiggle room needed for people who 
> > already "know" their effect and how they work to find all the evidence 
> > they need.  We have so many cognitive gaps, and sometimes it is hard to 
> > face how poorly we are equipped to test such claims, especially after 
> > we have paid for them. 
> > > > 
> > > > And then you have A-hole scientists who sometimes subvert the 
> > process of inquiry into a way to support the latest pharmaceutical, 
> > only giving the method lip service(Not the kind that feels good) for 
> > some gold coins with "In God We Trust" stamped on them.
> > > > 
> > > > And finally we have a complex mysterious world that has defied our 
> > ability to achieve complete knowledge with absolute certainty and this 
> > makes some people so nervous they turn to an explanation from a fairy 
> > tale to help them go to sleep. 
> > > > 
> > > > So epistemological humility is appropriate in facing the world.  
> > But that doesn't mean we don't know anything at all.  We just don't 
> > everything.  And we always have to be on the lookout for things we KNOW 
> > that aren't so.  If we care about keeping it real, that is.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Well, in a very real sense we KNOW nothing.  We can only know what is 
> > NOT, not what IS. Its Hume's problem of induction, How many white swans 
> > do you need to see until you "know the truth" that all swans are white? 
> > 1000, one million, one billion?   
> > > 
> > > At one billion, you may say, "well, the statistical probability of 
> > knowing that there are no black swans is astronomically huge -- we have 
> > a sample of one billion. The probability that there are other than 
> > white swans is on the far far side of the tail (of the normal 
> > distibution).  
> > > 
> > > The problem is that the normal distribution accounts for some things 
> > nicely, and yet is hugely flawed as a representative distribution for 
> > far more things. You don't really know the distribution until you have 
> > seen the entire population, not just a sample.  Many things have 
> > distributions with enormously fat tails. That is, they have a much 
> > higher probability of occurring than the normal distribution would 
> > predict.  But hey, the white swan theory worked extremely well at 
> > predicting the color of swans. Everyone continued to see only white 
> > swans, "What a marvelous model we have", everyone beamed. Until one 
> > black swan was disco

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
 wrote:
> But what you gunna do? As long as I got rhythm, I got music, I got
> my girl... who could ask for anything more! 

Yep! Sounds as good as it gets...
Me - gotta work on the rhythm (white boy can't dance).

I'm gonna throw a Nabby at you here: "See Curtis - all that karma
yoga you did paid off!" 

(That's very irritating of me, sorry)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
 wrote:
>
> I am running out of posts with my incessant blathering!  So I want to 
address both Grate Swan and Richard's post together.  Both of you never 
fail to make me think more deeply here so first a big nod and think you 
for that!
> 
> I believe both of you are taking a more purely philosophical look at 
our ability to know. Hume did point out our humble relationship with 
knowing, but it is a glass half empty situation.  The pragmatist, 
myself included, just goes with probabilities and finds that suits him 
pretty well most of the time.  Just don't put a low brow like me in a 
theoretical physics lab!  Although I would have to agree with the 
theoretical arguments of the absolute skeptic, I don't live that way.  
I am not alone in this.  Knowing our limitations is one thing.  Pushing 
on with existential enlightenment is another.  (I know I co-opted that 
word but I have used it for the ultimate in knowledge so long, I now 
use if for the good-enough epistemological world I have created for 
myself. 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M"  wrote:
> 
> > Mmmm...The period known as "the age of enlightmenment" in the 
history 
> > of the West has nothing to with "enlightenment" (in a meditation 
> > sense). MMY had in mind the latter sense. He never "proposed" going 
> > back to a pre-reason model from what I know! You may well think 
what he 
> > advocated amounts to that - but then that's not the same as him 
> > "proposing" that, eh?
> 
> I believe he did.  Every time he ridiculed modern science's lack of 
absolute knowledge and proposed religious texts as the solution.  If 
you listen to his argument with Jon Shear about the logical necessity 
for PC in between the other states, and hear him conclude with "Then 
you must change your logic", you see his true commitment to 
irrationality.  He only pay lip-service to reason for marketing 
purposes.  He always said the elephant has two sets of teeth, one to 
show and one to chew with.
> 
> > 
> > I should not have mentioned "progessive epistemology" - my bad. 
Your 
> > response was very interesting of course (but have you read Thomas 
> > Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?).
> 
> So long ago, but even my faded memory makes me want to revise some of 
my statements below so thanks for mentioning it.
> 
> > 
> > What I had in mind was something else really. It's that bit of 
yours 
> > where you say  "no longer need to use characters from literature as 
> > starting points for theories"!
> 
> Let me start here.  This statement is full of it as stated.  You can 
START from anywhere for a theory.  Why not Vedic literature or a dream 
even?  I should have been referring to the fact that with all the work 
that has been done in science, we can base a theory on another likely 
theory with some proof behind it now.  We have gone past, "then magic 
happened" in many areas.  However to discuss how the Vedic characters 
can help us transcend the limits of our imagination in theoretical 
physics...why not?
> 
> > 
> > Science does not just get us from A to B ("instrumentalism"). It 
> > carries with it an interpretation of the world that is NOT itself 
> > "science". It is metaphysics (or, dare I say it? Religion!). It was 
> > that excellent Curtis nugget that demonstrates this:
> > 
> > "I don't believe that causality is ever experienced.  It is 
> > belief that bridges the cause and the effect in a person's mind."
> > 
> > The religion of science (scientific triumphalism otherwise known as 
> > "scientism") is built on "causality" and all that is bound up with 
it. 
> > This is why triumphalists will assert that Science is laying bare 
"the 
> > Laws of Nature" (capital L, capital N, as opposed to finding handy, 
> > convenient associations which work fairly well for our purposes).
> 
> I am somewhere between your skepticism and the scientific 
triumphalist on this point.  I don't have a perfectionist standard for 
knowledge to compare what we are doing in science to an ideal that is 
better.  I am accepting the human condition with the limits we have.  
In my life the biggest gaps in knowledge don't come from the 
theoretical problems of causality, but from my own susceptibility to 
cognitive error. My knowledge issues are wy down the line from the 
issues posed by philosophers. It is what cognitive psychologists reveal 
to me that makes me cast a skeptical eye on anything I assert! 
> 
> > 
> > These reified, Platonic "laws" are very odd birds indeed. What ARE 
> > they?

[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Doughney"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk"  wrote:
> 
> > I used to see a similar behavior pattern among
> > the supposedly-celibate guys working on staff
> > at Seelisberg and on courses in Europe, but in
> > a heterosexual way. These guys would see a 
> > woman they liked and seduce her with the olde
> > "I know that I should be celibate but you're
> > just s beautiful" routine. And after one
> > or two rolls in the hay, they would forget 
> > the women. 
> > 
> > Not just drop them, FORGET them. 
> 
> 
> The way this sort of thing was told to me, by a woman (a 
> meditator/checker) who was very briefly involved with one such TM 
> initiator sleazebag, was that after a night of rolling in the hay, so 
> to speak, she was met with hostility and a lot of canned language 
> about how their "evolution" had been sidetracked by having sex. After 
> having consensual sex, the next morning the guy basically blamed her 
> for harming him.
> 
> Just another data point illustrating how involvement with the TMO 
> correlates with all kinds of unhealthy habits and attitudes, 
> particularly with respect to intimate matters, like sex.
>


/me recalls several B'Hai and other fundamentalist girlfriends who insisted 
that sex before marriage was a no-no...

as long as you were romantically involved.

Once marriage/long-term committment was off the table, it was 
"anything goes..." wanna shag tonight since we're not engaged?


Unhealthy attitudes can be found in many different contexts.

L.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Kirk]

Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think fuck each 
other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on.

- Original Message - 
From: "sparaig" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 1:54 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, michael  wrote:
>
>
>
> http://globalcountryofworldpeace.org:80/maharishi_vedic_pandits12.html
> �
> in maharishi vedic city
> �
>


INteresting.

L.





To subscribe, send a message to:
fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com

Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Vaj]

Let's face it, the only reason they're here is because they're  
desperate--desperate for money, desperate for opportunity and from a  
country where their hereditary "right" to be a vedic priest means less  
and less every day. Being a Vedic magician just ain't what it used to  
be.

What's the underlying motivation here? To be a magical whore where  
there's more magical Johns?

If they're not allowed to bring women with them, I think it's fair to  
assume 'they'll get it where they can'.

On Apr 13, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Kirk wrote:

> Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think  
> fuck each
> other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Kirk]

Well, we pay pundits presupposing that they are focused on our well being. 
But what if they are seething with an undercurrent of rage and hatred of the 
West, or maybe even just bubbling with old base desires themselves? 
Therefore I don't think background of transcendence alone is 'it' for 
creating a new generation of pundits. What would be more perfect would be if 
the pundits were fully individuated and fulfilled before they perform their 
rituals.

We are told that yajnas work as based in numbers of reps and so on of 
invocation, but I more believe that since sacrafice is the real issue, the 
greater the hardship involved on behalf of the person funding the yajna the 
greater the faith and hence power behind it. Thus one penny sacrificed by an 
impoverished person is equal to a million bucks spent by a billionaire. 
There's really no objectivity in the whole system.

There are basic moral and integral issues regarding holding these 
pundit/slaves, even if it is mere usury and not actual slavery.  Caste 
promotion, etc One must consider the group of people they are supporting 
and decide if that's what they wish to represent.

Now personally I do like having yajnas done as I feel it clarifies my mind. 
But I have to like my pundits and feel that they perform the ritual out of 
love rather than material necessity. That love can only be developed in 
individual pundits and cannot be forced on them from outside.

The whole situation is very hokey in general.  I also feel nothing from 
watching the videos of Maharishi pundits.  I get more from local village 
tantrics and common practitioners who love what they are doing.
- Original Message - 
From: "Vaj" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits


> Let's face it, the only reason they're here is because they're
> desperate--desperate for money, desperate for opportunity and from a
> country where their hereditary "right" to be a vedic priest means less
> and less every day. Being a Vedic magician just ain't what it used to
> be.
>
> What's the underlying motivation here? To be a magical whore where
> there's more magical Johns?
>
> If they're not allowed to bring women with them, I think it's fair to
> assume 'they'll get it where they can'.
>
> On Apr 13, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Kirk wrote:
>
>> Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think
>> fuck each
>> other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on.
>
>
>
> 
>
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
>
> Or go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Vaj]

On Apr 13, 2009, at 5:07 PM, Kirk wrote:

> Well, we pay pundits presupposing that they are focused on our well  
> being.
> But what if they are seething with an undercurrent of rage and  
> hatred of the
> West, or maybe even just bubbling with old base desires themselves?
> Therefore I don't think background of transcendence alone is 'it' for
> creating a new generation of pundits. What would be more perfect  
> would be if
> the pundits were fully individuated and fulfilled before they  
> perform their
> rituals.
>
> We are told that yajnas work as based in numbers of reps and so on of
> invocation, but I more believe that since sacrafice is the real  
> issue, the
> greater the hardship involved on behalf of the person funding the  
> yajna the
> greater the faith and hence power behind it. Thus one penny  
> sacrificed by an
> impoverished person is equal to a million bucks spent by a  
> billionaire.
> There's really no objectivity in the whole system.
>
> There are basic moral and integral issues regarding holding these
> pundit/slaves, even if it is mere usury and not actual slavery.  Caste
> promotion, etc One must consider the group of people they are  
> supporting
> and decide if that's what they wish to represent.
>
> Now personally I do like having yajnas done as I feel it clarifies  
> my mind.
> But I have to like my pundits and feel that they perform the ritual  
> out of
> love rather than material necessity. That love can only be developed  
> in
> individual pundits and cannot be forced on them from outside.
>
> The whole situation is very hokey in general.  I also feel nothing  
> from
> watching the videos of Maharishi pundits.  I get more from local  
> village
> tantrics and common practitioners who love what they are doing.


I've enjoyed the yagna experience when I was staying at an ashram and  
it was part of what was happening and something I was participating  
in, but later I got more interested in doing sadhanas for yidams I had  
an affinity with--the whole bit, finding an appropriate place for  
retreat and doing the accumulations till I could work with the action  
mantras directly. After that I connected with others in the community  
of yogis I work with and we could do these together or for each other  
or for someone hurting. In that sense it becomes like something you  
have access to whenever needed. As I was trying to explain to someone  
off list recently, there's different levels of the guru. Most people  
latch onto the "outer" guru--even to the point of following them  
around or having to be physically near them, having to hear all their  
talks or craving seeing them like a darshan junky. But the ishta or  
yidam is the inner guru, and a bridge to more "secret" aspects of the  
guru like the wisdom dakini / jnana-shakti, so it would feel  
antithetical for me to be interested in anything external from my own  
practice or experience.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Kirk]

Both Plus. Descriptions of activities from my gay Purusha buddy was beyond 
fears.

- Original Message - 
From: "authfriend" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 3:39 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk"  wrote:
>>
>> Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them
>> do you all think fuck each other? After I quit
>> Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on.
>
> Abhorrent because the Purusha were supposed to be
> celibate, or abhorrent because the goings-on were
> homosexual?
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
>
> Or go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[I am the eternal]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Kirk  wrote:
> Both Plus. Descriptions of activities from my gay Purusha buddy was beyond
> fears.
>>> Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them
>>> do you all think fuck each other? After I quit
>>> Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on.
>>
>> Abhorrent because the Purusha were supposed to be
>> celibate, or abhorrent because the goings-on were
>> homosexual?
>>

Years ago I dated a lady TM teacher who had been on staff at MIU.  We
spoke once over veggies and tofu (yuk!) about whether or not TM would
!cure! homosexuality.  She told me that there was a significant amount
of gay men working on staff at MIU (woman seem to really pick up on
this and can't let it go, even to this day).  She also told me about
massive amounts of corruption, lots of people pocketing MIU money.
This would have been around the 1970s.   Now my understanding was that
Maharishi considered homosexuality an abomination.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Kirk]

At any rate accusation of child abuse and sexual misconduct were rife at 
NOIDA.

- Original Message - 
From: "Robert" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:40 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo"  wrote:
>>
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal  
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Kirk  wrote:
>> > > Both Plus. Descriptions of activities from my gay Purusha buddy was 
>> > > beyond
>> > > fears.
>> > >>> Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them
>> > >>> do you all think fuck each other? After I quit
>> > >>> Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on.
>> > >>
>> > >> Abhorrent because the Purusha were supposed to be
>> > >> celibate, or abhorrent because the goings-on were
>> > >> homosexual?
>> > >>
>> >
>> > Years ago I dated a lady TM teacher who had been on staff at MIU.  We
>> > spoke once over veggies and tofu (yuk!) about whether or not TM would
>> > !cure! homosexuality.  She told me that there was a significant amount
>> > of gay men working on staff at MIU (woman seem to really pick up on
>> > this and can't let it go, even to this day).  She also told me about
>> > massive amounts of corruption, lots of people pocketing MIU money.
>> > This would have been around the 1970s.   Now my understanding was that
>> > Maharishi considered homosexuality an abomination.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Homosexuality was discussed on a course I was on and the teacher
>> said the "official" TM position was that being gay was due to
>> stress, and in an enlightened society it therefore wouldn't occur.
>>
>> "Stress" can mean anything to someone steeped in SCI, but they
>> were quick to point out that it's the way the world is and the
>> gays aren't to blame(!) Seems to imply that they thought it
>> wasn't a stress picked up in this life or that they weren't
>> really thinking at all. Sounded to me like a way to hedge
>> your bets and (hopefully) avoid offending anyone.
>>
>> This must mean that the gay guys I knew on purusha wouldn't
>> ever get enlightenened, according to the prevailing view, until
>> they had "transcended" their sexuality. The path is indeed long
>> and winding!
>>
> The Clintonian way: Don't Ask, Don't Tell...
>
>
>
> 
>
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
>
> Or go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Kirk]

You miss the point.  My point was really that - does it matter what sort of 
personal ethics ones pundits have? As far as the outcome of theor yajna?

- Original Message - 
From: "sparaig" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 8:58 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk"  wrote:
>>
>> Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think fuck 
>> each
>> other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on.
>
> Not to be a punk or anything, but how amny celibate male religious types
> of ALL persuasions, including Japanese Zen Buddhists, do you think indulge
> in that kind of thing?
>
> THe rationale for the Japanese is that its "relations with WOMEN" that are 
> a no-no
> not relations with men, and it was traditional for the Zen monastaries to 
> room
> the accolytes across the hall from teh senior monks for easier access.
>
>
> Of course, Tibetan Buddhists, and Indian Hindu monks would NEVER indulge 
> in that
> kind of "abhorrent goings on..." just the Japanese Zen types and the 
> Catholic
> types, but not Tibetan or Hindu, nosireee.
>
>
>
> L.
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
>
> Or go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Kirk]

> What is the "personal ethics" in this situation?
> 
> Are you saying that the gay pundits (assuming there are any) are de facto
> unethical?
> 
> 
> Lawson

If they are brahmachari then yes.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Kirk]

> Who judges these things?
>
>
>
> Lawson


Such personal choices are judged by oneself. But I applaud you for being 
so self aware. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[I am the eternal]

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:45 AM, authfriend  wrote:
> Male-male (and female-female) bonding ("cosmic" or mundane)
> that has nothing to do with sexual attraction has been
> around as long as human beans

Judy, how long were human beans around?  Did they predate human
beings?  Were they edible?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[I am the eternal]

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:45 AM, authfriend  wrote:
> Male-male (and female-female) bonding ("cosmic" or mundane)
> that has nothing to do with sexual attraction has been
> around as long as human beans (or at least as long as the
> Hebrew Bible--e.g., David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi).
> MMY's views on homosexuality were objectionable in the
> extreme, but to accuse him of hypocrisy on the basis of his
> relationship with Guru Dev is so idiotic as to defy comment (especially given 
> the flak about his purported
> relationships with women).
>
> If you've never had an intense but wholly platonic
> friendship with another man, Curtis, you've missed
> something that's part of the human experience.

Judy, just consider the source.  Only Barry would stretch a life of
devotion to one's guru as a homosexual relationship.  Only Barry would
be sick enough to grasp at every possible straw in his perpetual
attempt to denigrate TM and Maharishi.  Sane people who didn't like
their experience would, after a couple of decades of mean mouthing,
tire and find something else to be a true disbeliever of.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[I am the eternal]

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:20 PM, curtisdeltablues
 wrote:
> I've been to India and have Indian close friends.  Of course it is my own 
> experiences with this culture and its customs that are a part of my opinion.  
> So I draw my personal opinion for personal experiences.  So are you, we just 
> have come to different conclusions.

I've been to India a few times but have spent a lot of time in the
Middle East.  I've gotten used to walking down the street hand in hand
with another guy and swapping spit with him.  Being straight, this of
course first made me very, very uncomfortable to the extreme, but I'm
a good actor so I never let on.  This sort of show of affection is
common in many parts of the world between men and between women.  I
remember that my mother used to walk down the street hand in hand with
her friends and I suspect that her father and mother walked arm in arm
down the street in old country.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[I am the eternal]

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Richard J. Williams  wrote:
> Curtis wrote:
>> Wait a second. Kissing a man with tongue
>> IS gay behavior...
>>
> Kissing a man 'with tongue' for a gay man simply
> means 'hello' and 'how are you doing?' Now, if
> it was a straight man doing that, then I'd worry,
> Curtis. : )
>

Where I come from, "swapping spit" means anything objectionable that
two guys would do together with their mouths.  And where I come from
homosexuality is anathema.   I meant to convey something beyond a mere
peck on the cheek.  I'm talking a big, slobbering kiss.  The first
time I received a kiss like that from a guy was from one of my workers
(aka "electrical men").  He was not gay, I am not gay and it was not a
gay thing.  It was a sign that I made the grade in the electrical
men's eyes.  Of course that all fell apart very quickly when I said to
one of the Copts that I really enjoyed going to church with him on
Sunday.  The guy who kissed me asked me if I was Christian.  I said of
course I'm Christian.  The whole bloody country is Christian (actually
a rough Arabic translation of that).  Suddenly all the Muslims fell on
the floor and whaled.  The next day he gave me a little statue of
Marium.  I accepted it.  Then the Copts took me to task for accepting
profane objects.  I got all of my men together and told them that we
needed peace in the Middle East and it oughta start with us.  A while
later I saw Copt and Muslim walking home hand in hand.  Well, I
accomplished something.  You see, the sidhis do work.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Vaj]

On Apr 14, 2009, at 5:06 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:


I wouldn't even bother to address Barry on this point.
I was responding to *Curtis*, who is blessed with
superior reasoning skills and has rid himself of all
emotional undercurrents that might affect his
logical conclusions (just ask him).



Yeah, it is my hidden resentment that makes me believe Maharishi was  
in love love with Guru Dev.  It couldn't be based on what he said  
about his feelings for the guy.


And don't think I haven't noticed that you have not weighted in with  
an opinion on this.  As usual you have gotten distracted with  
personal insults to the people here when discussing Maharishi.



It's interesting, this question 'was the Maharishi Gay' (or was the  
Maharishi Bi). I often wondered if he was Gay or Bi. However, after  
the facts came out on his sexual relationship with females I thought  
'Oh well, I guess he's not gay'. But since then I've wondered, could  
that have been a screen? The conclusion I came to is the androgynous  
aspect of atman/brahman and bhakti-oriented individuals is such that  
it seems, to us as westerners, that because they are both effeminate  
in speech and in their actions, they seem stereotypically "Gay". If  
disciples of his don't achieve that neutral equanimity and sameness of  
Brahman, they can also feign androgyny. Perfect examples of this would  
be Bevan Morris and more recently John Hagelin who sound, frankly,  
like posturing Vedic castratos to me. It just doesn't feel genuine.  
Then there's also the encouragement towards bliss addiction, and that  
drippy Vedic sentimentality and fabricated devotionalism which also  
can come across as "Gay".


The odd thing is, there are many aspects of Gay culture and  
alternative sexuality that are quite "at home" in India. They are  
recognized as part of the plan. I suspect the invasion of India by the  
British Raj and their imposition of Judeo-Christian mores has affected  
that original understanding and appreciation of Gays as the Tratriya  
Prakithi, the Third Nature.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Vaj]

On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Duveyoung wrote:


"curtisdeltablues"  wrote:
 So you are still missing the point?  It is the hypocrisy of his  
position on gayness that I am criticizing. Not that he might be  
gay.  You remind me of my cats Judy.  When I point my finger at a  
treat, they look at my finger.


Curtis,

Now that was funny.  Judy in a nutshellemphasis on the word  
"shell."


I'm continually amazed that you debate her when you know it will  
come to naught in terms of helping her evolve her POV.


I'm guessing that you do it as an intellectual exercise for your  
own benefit -- practice makes clarity.



I got a kick out of that too--it could be a nyaya sutra:

"Points finger at catnip but cat looks at finger."

Moral of sutra: the cat missing the catnip and choosing the finger is  
a metaphor for those who intuitively or deliberately miss the point  
of a comment.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Kirk]

I am sorry but this whole Maharishi gayness thread is wa off track as 
pertains to any sort of import.  My original question, I thought, was much 
more ineresting and would provide much more insight into mechanics of 
consciousness than this flubber.

My question was, does the ethos of the individual pundit effect the outcome 
of a yagya?  What do you all think? Or is everyone so caught up in their 
maras that they can't think coherently any longer?

My guess is yes.

Anyway, neverthefuckmind. it's all theory, and therefore as specious as the 
present argument. I'll come back tomorrow when people wake up - hopefully.

- Original Message - 
From: "Duveyoung" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:13 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits


> "curtisdeltablues"  wrote:
> So you are still missing the point?  It is the hypocrisy of his position 
> on gayness that I am criticizing. Not that he might be gay.  You remind me 
> of my cats Judy.  When I point my finger at a treat, they look at my 
> finger.
>
> Curtis,
>
> Now that was funny.  Judy in a nutshellemphasis on the word "shell."
>
> I'm continually amazed that you debate her when you know it will come to 
> naught in terms of helping her evolve her POV.
>
> I'm guessing that you do it as an intellectual exercise for your own 
> benefit -- practice makes clarity.
>
> Edg
>
>
>
> 
>
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
>
> Or go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Kirk]

BuhBye!

- Original Message - 
From: "authfriend" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 11:15 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits


> (Although the Post Count will register this as my 51st
> post for the week, in fact I had a duplicate post on
> Monday (215357 and 215358), so this is really my 50th.)
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
>>
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>>
>> > The homophobic views were bad enough. What I'm
>> > objecting to is your *adding* the hypocrisy charge
>> > when there's zero evidence for it.
>>
>> Obviously I don't share that opinion.  I don't share
>> your tolerance for his intolerance either. Understanding
>> a person's culture doesn't get him off the hook for
>> being a dick.  And I notice you are not extending me the
>> same courtesy for my opinion being influenced by my
>> culture and upbringing, are you?  So your "understanding"
>> only extends to defending him doesn't it?
>
> Huh?? Your last sentence makes no sense to me.
>
>>  That's petty and
>> > meanspirited and entirely gratuitous.
>>
>> For calling the guy a hypocrite?  You have your
>> meanspirited meter set too low.
>
> We disagree.
>
>  You might want to
>> raise it to say, people who present themselves as
>> enlightened beings who teach their followers that
>> gay people are destroying their personal evolution.
>> If you knew anything about the gay purging that
>> went on at MIU you would understand the meaning of
>> the word meanspirited.
>
> So because very meanspirited things happened at MIU
> many years ago, that makes it OK for you to be
> somewhat meanspirited here?
>
> 
>> > That's a pretty standard form of sadhana in India. It's
>> > called Guru-Bhakti Yoga. In that context, it's not at
>> > all out-of-the-box.
>>
>> And neither you nor I know anything about what is
>> involved in that relationship do we?  Like the
>> relationship of a Catholic priest and his favorite
>> alter boy perhaps?  Neither of us know.
>
> Is that what you're calling "out-of-the-box male
> bonding"?
>
> Do you agree with Barry that the *entire tradition*
> has always been a cover for homosexuality?
>
> Just one point on the *rationality* of your
> speculation: Ashrams are pressure cookers, and it's
> not easy to keep secrets. The other disciples of
> Guru Dev were reportedly pissed off at MMY in the
> first place because he'd maneuvered himself into the
> position of Guru Dev's secretary, to the point that
> rumors were started after Guru Dev's death that MMY
> had murdered him.
>
> Do you really think that if there'd been any
> suspicion that MMY lusted after Guru Dev, not a
> whiff of it would have been noted anywhere on the
> record?
>
>> What started out as an experiment in speculation like
>> the entire media does with the personal life of public
>> figures has turned into an interesting experiment in
>> how long term meditators deal with cognitive dissonance.
>
> The "cognitive dissonance" mantra is intellectually
> dishonest. It's just a cheap way to dismiss and
> demean any objection to TM critics' ideas, no matter
> how absurd those ideas may be.
>
> If I suggested that you were a child abuser, would
> it be cognitive dissonance for you to object?
>
>> But as usual you made many good points among the
>> attempts to turn anything I say against the perfect
>> image of Maharishi against me personally.
>
> Right, like my acknowledgments that he was a flawed
> human being, had a highly objectionable view of
> homosexuality, and had committed lots of other
> hypocrisies. Yup, I'm sure defending a perfect image
> of MMY, all right.
>
>> > So a dude who grew up in India and went from college
>> > straight into an ashram who isn't understanding to
>> > your modern Western standards is hypocritical?
>>
>> The guy was a world traveler who had plenty of time to
>> learn that he was wrong. He had more exposure to people
>> and ideas than I will ever have in m life.
>
> People, yes. Ideas, especially about homosexuality,
> I seriously doubt. And the ideas about homosexuality
> back then were generally significantly less liberal
> than those you've been exposed to. More likely he'd
> have been exposed to *confirmation* of his ideas.
>
>  But he didn't learn and never amended his prej

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Kirk]

Ah, my experience is that yagyas have an effect. But then I do have them 
done and I don't just spout off about them without ever having had one.

Some people get on a flippant roll and think they actually are saying 
something.

- Original Message - 
From: "curtisdeltablues" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 1:40 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk"  wrote:
>>
>> I am sorry but this whole Maharishi gayness thread is wa off track as
>> pertains to any sort of import.  My original question, I thought, was 
>> much
>> more ineresting and would provide much more insight into mechanics of
>> consciousness than this flubber.
>
> You talking about my stomach or my argument?  I want you to know that I 
> have a perfectly good set of six pack abs under there which I am 
> protecting with that layer contributed mostly by members of the porcine 
> product line.  When I grow it thick enough I'm gunna cure it into bacon.
>
>>
>> My question was, does the ethos of the individual pundit effect the 
>> outcome > of a yagya?
>
> No.  The outcome is equally nil except as a believe enhancing ritual for 
> the participants and whoever was unlucky enough to give their money to 
> have it done.
>
>
> What do you all think? Or is everyone so caught up in their
>> maras
>
> First of all it was Mara who ordered all those disgusting lemon drop shots 
> and it was Mara who conveniently spilled one on her tank top turning her 
> headlights on and which lead me to invite her back to my place where she 
> ate everything in my fridge and then puked into the cat litter box putting 
> an end to any designs I had on her at the beginning of the evening.
>
> that they can't think coherently any longer?
>>
>> My guess is yes.
>
> Well you got that right.  Functioning while not being able to think 
> coherently is a bit of a hobby for me.  My favorite is attempting to 
> perform music that way.
>
>
>>
>> Anyway, neverthefuckmind. it's all theory, and therefore as specious as 
>> the
>> present argument. I'll come back tomorrow when people wake up - 
>> hopefully.
>
> And after I get all that Mara puke out of my cat box, hopefully.
>
>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Duveyoung" 
>> To: 
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:13 AM
>> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
>>
>>
>> > "curtisdeltablues"  wrote:
>> > So you are still missing the point?  It is the hypocrisy of his 
>> > position
>> > on gayness that I am criticizing. Not that he might be gay.  You remind 
>> > me
>> > of my cats Judy.  When I point my finger at a treat, they look at my
>> > finger.
>> >
>> > Curtis,
>> >
>> > Now that was funny.  Judy in a nutshellemphasis on the word 
>> > "shell."
>> >
>> > I'm continually amazed that you debate her when you know it will come 
>> > to
>> > naught in terms of helping her evolve her POV.
>> >
>> > I'm guessing that you do it as an intellectual exercise for your own
>> > benefit -- practice makes clarity.
>> >
>> > Edg
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> >
>> > To subscribe, send a message to:
>> > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
>> >
>> > Or go to:
>> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
>> > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
>
> Or go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Kirk]

William, there's other people lurking out there who are rarely inspired to 
post due to obvious lack of content. It's to them I asked the question, or 
even to you, if you have a definite, or indefinite opinion. Somebody out of 
the 2000 members here might be intrigued to consider the topic.

But I catch your drift.  More ego here, more often, less valuable 
conversation.

- Original Message - 
From: "Richard J. Williams" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 2:59 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits


> Kirk wrote:
>> > What do you all think? Or is everyone so caught up
>> > in their maras...
>> >
> Curtis wrote:
>> First of all it was Mara who ordered all those disgusting
>> lemon drop shots and it was Mara who conveniently spilled
>> one on her tank top turning her headlights on and which
>> lead me to invite her back to my place where she ate
>> everything in my fridge and then puked into the cat litter
>> box putting an end to any designs I had on her at the
>> beginning of the evening.
>>
> Yep, it always seems to come back to sex with guys like
> Curtis - almost any message is an excuse for posting some
> tid-bit about their sexual repression, or libertinism.
>
> The answer to Kirk is yes, they are so caught up in their
> 'maras' that they think 'maras' is 'Mara' -they don't even
> have a clue what you're talking about Kirk - not a clue.
>
> It's all just an excuse to spout off and pass the time of
> day. I mean, their hero is Vaj and Uncle Tantra and they
> can't stand Judy.
>
> Give it up Kirk - you should know better by now - you've
> been posting for what, ten years now? Do you seriously
> think you are going to find out anything of substance
> from a 'Delta Blues' guy, a 'Vaj Nath' or an 'Uncle Tantra'?
>
> You'd probably find out more about life by visiting a
> bowling alley on Skid Row.
>
>
>
> 
>
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
>
> Or go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[I am the eternal]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Kirk  wrote:
> Ah, my experience is that yagyas have an effect. But then I do have them
> done and I don't just spout off about them without ever having had one.
>
> Some people get on a flippant roll and think they actually are saying
> something.

I have not done yagnas but have assisted in my own yagnas.   I've
sponsored perhaps 1,200 yagnas.  Then there was a year or two of
abortive yagnas with Ben Collins and my monthly yagns since 8/2005
with Yagna by Choice.

I have very powerful experiences with Yagna by Choice yagnas.  The
question doesn't come up, I don't believe, on the moral or sexual
activities of the pundits who perform my yagnas, since they are former
Maharish pundits who live, quite happily in a Vedic village.  These
are sidhas but they aren't part of the TMO machine.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[Sal Sunshine]

On Apr 15, 2009, at 8:03 PM, Kirk wrote:

William, there's other people lurking out there who are rarely  
inspired to
post due to obvious lack of content. It's to them I asked the  
question, or
even to you, if you have a definite, or indefinite opinion. Somebody  
out of

the 2000 members here might be intrigued to consider the topic.

But I catch your drift.  More ego here, more often, less valuable
conversation.


You got an ego here, an ego there, and pretty
soon you're talking real egos!

Sal

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[fflmod]

 
Somebody out of the 2000 members here might be intrigued to consider the topic.

 
Only 1250 members are subscribed to FFL, 150 of whom are bouncing and so 
probably not active. 
 
"Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only 
love." 
 
- Amma  

--- On Wed, 4/15/09, Kirk  wrote:


From: Kirk 
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 9:03 PM


William, there's other people lurking out there who are rarely inspired to 
post due to obvious lack of content. It's to them I asked the question, or 
even to you, if you have a definite, or indefinite opinion. Somebody out of 
the 2000 members here might be intrigued to consider the topic.

But I catch your drift.  More ego here, more often, less valuable 
conversation.

- Original Message - 
From: "Richard J. Williams" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 2:59 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits


> Kirk wrote:
>> > What do you all think? Or is everyone so caught up
>> > in their maras...
>> >
> Curtis wrote:
>> First of all it was Mara who ordered all those disgusting
>> lemon drop shots and it was Mara who conveniently spilled
>> one on her tank top turning her headlights on and which
>> lead me to invite her back to my place where she ate
>> everything in my fridge and then puked into the cat litter
>> box putting an end to any designs I had on her at the
>> beginning of the evening.
>>
> Yep, it always seems to come back to sex with guys like
> Curtis - almost any message is an excuse for posting some
> tid-bit about their sexual repression, or libertinism.
>
> The answer to Kirk is yes, they are so caught up in their
> 'maras' that they think 'maras' is 'Mara' -they don't even
> have a clue what you're talking about Kirk - not a clue.
>
> It's all just an excuse to spout off and pass the time of
> day. I mean, their hero is Vaj and Uncle Tantra and they
> can't stand Judy.
>
> Give it up Kirk - you should know better by now - you've
> been posting for what, ten years now? Do you seriously
> think you are going to find out anything of substance
> from a 'Delta Blues' guy, a 'Vaj Nath' or an 'Uncle Tantra'?
>
> You'd probably find out more about life by visiting a
> bowling alley on Skid Row.
>
>
>
> 
>
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
>
> Or go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 





To subscribe, send a message to:
fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links






  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[I am the eternal]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Mike Doughney  wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>>
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk"  wrote:
>
>> I used to see a similar behavior pattern among
>> the supposedly-celibate guys working on staff
>> at Seelisberg and on courses in Europe, but in
>> a heterosexual way. These guys would see a
>> woman they liked and seduce her with the olde
>> "I know that I should be celibate but you're
>> just s beautiful" routine. And after one
>> or two rolls in the hay, they would forget
>> the women.
>>
>> Not just drop them, FORGET them.
>
>

And you're saying that this isn't typical guy behavior?  Love 'em and
leave 'em is a slogan that's been around since the beginning of time.



There'll be no strings to bind your hands
Not if my love can't bind your heart.
And there's no need to take a stand
For it was I who chose to start.
I see no need to take me home,
I'm old enough to face the dawn.

Just call me angel of the morning ANGEL
Just touch my cheek before you leave me, baby.
Just call me angel of the morning ANGEL
then slowly turn away from me.

Maybe the sun's light will be dim
And it won't matter anyhow.
If morning's echo says we've sinned,
Well, it was what I wanted now.
And if we're the victims of the night,
I won't be blinded by light.

Just call me angel of the morning ANGEL
Just touch my cheek before you leave me, baby.
Just call me angel of the morning ANGEL
Then slowly turn away,
I won't beg you to stay with me
Through the tears of the day,
Of the years, baby baby baby.
Just call me angel of the morning ANGEL
Just touch my cheek before you leave me, baby.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits

[I am the eternal]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Robert  wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal  wrote:
>>
> Great song...reminds me of my once intimate friend, Maggie May...
> R.G.

I've always loved this C & W song.  It says so very much:

Tell me a lie
Say I look familiar
Though I know that you don’t even know my name
Tell me a lie
Say ya just got into town
Even though I’ve seen you here before
Just hangin’ around

Umm, tell me a lie
Say you’re not a married man
‘Cause you don’t know I saw you
Slip off your wedding band
Ooh, tell me a lie
Say ya got no place to stay
But you’ll be glad to drive me home
‘Cause it’s on your way

Tell me a lie
When you take me home
(Tell me a lie)
I don’t really want to spend the night alone
Tell me a lie
Don’t worry about my sorrow
You’ll be long gone tomorrow
And you won’t have to see me cry
Just tell me a lie

Tell me a lie
Come on, tell me that you need me
And I’ll pretend that it’s for real
The way you want me to
Please, tell me a lie
When you’re lying close beside me
And whisper when you hold me
Sweet words “I love you”

Ooh, tell me a lie
When our night is almost over
And make it easy on us both
When it’s time for you to go
Come on, tell me a lie
Say you’d really like to stay
Just tell me one more lie
That you’ll be back one day

Tell me a lie
When you take me home
(Tell me a lie)
I don’t really want to spend the night alone
Tell me a lie
Don’t worry about my sorrow
You’ll be long gone tomorrow
And you won’t have to see me cry
Just tell me a lie


Maggie Mays is the name of a very well known collegiate bar on 6th St.
here in Austin.  They have quite a number of well known (in Austin)
bumper stickers available at the bar.  One of these says

Beer.  It's just not for breakfast anymore.
Maggie Mays
Austin

Beats the Hell out of the one put out by Bertha's (raw and shell fish)
Bar in Glen Bernie, Baltimore:

Eat Bertha's Mussels




To subscribe, send a message to:
fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com

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/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:fairfieldlife-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
mailto:fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
fairfieldlife-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/