[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
Whether or not my intellect was satisfied with this or that superficial thing about Maharishi or the Movement is irrelevant. Anybody who has experienced that magic moment of surrender and engagement just before liftoff in the flying sutra, how can they fret over such little things? Power, enormity and bliss. I'll fret over those. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: I'm more than happy with the results that my association with Maharishi brought me. Was there a level of PR (aka bullshit) that MMY and the TMO promoted? Of course, but I simply ignored this because it had nothing to do with me. Maharishi introduced me to the transcendent foundation of personal existence. This is wonderful, extraordinary, and profoundly mysterious. I don't think there has been a powerful spiritual teacher, such as MMY, in history that was not surrounded by a level of profound wisdom and also personal and political bullshit. You simply have to discriminate between what the wheat and the chaff is for you. But, I want to add, that I certainly understand people complaining of Maharishi's gross over-sell. It was, at times, quite ridiculous and maybe that's why I never really invested in it. --- On Sun, 8/8/10, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: Rick Archer r...@... Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, August 8, 2010, 9:52 AM From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of raunchydog Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 8:27 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: What I'm saying is that Maharishi promised numerous benefits from the practice of his techniques, but neither he nor any of his students exemplified those benefits to the degree to which they were advertised. How many people have had such experiences? According to Rick not almost everyone...in fact no one exemplifies the benefits as advertised, not even Maharishi. How would Rick know what anyone's experience really is anyway? Even if he interviews thousands of supposedly awakened people as extensively as he does, he will never know anyone's experience as intimately as they do.  Maharishi didnât merely offer subjective benefits from TM (i.e., gratifying internal states). In keeping with the scientific age to which he catered, he offered a host of objective benefits and results, and touted them as objectively verifiable.  In fact, he insisted that yogic flying was the acid test of enlightenment, yet neither he nor any of his followers ever mastered it, or if he (they) did, they never demonstrated it. But even if they did, I would consider that mastery less important than the basic human development one would hope to find in any normal person in his fifties, what to say of a man who had supposedly attained the highest stage of human development (enlightenment). In simple terms, if a Guru is hitting on 19-year-old girls, does that say something about the completeness of his enlightenment or the efficacy of his techniques, or can we give it a pass? Iâm with Curtis in suggesting that to give it a pass is to say âdonât look at that man behind the curtainâ. I think that the TM movement could mature dramatically through the self-examination these questions require, and could end up becoming much more successful as a result.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron R giveabigh...@... wrote: Whether or not my intellect was satisfied with this or that superficial thing about Maharishi or the Movement is irrelevant. Anybody who has experienced that magic moment of surrender and engagement just before liftoff in the flying sutra, how can they fret over such little things? Power, enormity and bliss. I'll fret over those. Power, enormity and bliss. The fascinations of 14-year-old boys. I'll leave you to fret over them, or to consider them worth your time. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 3:29 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Good question. If he was flawed, then his criteria may well have been misguided. I was waiting for the time when Rick found a flaw in Guru Dev; now he even dares to say so. I was referring to MMY, but IMO, if you're alive, you're flawed on some level. Lesh Avidya and all that. Maharishis criteria for everything He did came from Guru Dev, thus it's Him you're critisizing. That said Maharishi was not an Avatar, which He repeated again and again saying upon direct question: I'm an ordinary human being But even if He was an Avatar I'm sure Rick Archer would be able to dig stuff than in his view are flaws. At least in the beginning days of Purusha He adressed us as friends, not someone on an elevated level. Since then I've had that outlook; that He is a great friend.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
You forgot to add, I am no longer willing to embarrass myself in public the way I used to do by claiming that I could possibly know that 'TM is the best.' So instead I'm going to try to taunt Barry into arguing about what I want him to argue about, so I can slink away and no one will notice that I have the spine of a jellyfish. :-) I repeat my challenge, Judy. Don't point to some old post that you consider a high spot in the legend of yourself that plays over and over in your own mind. Take on the claim anew...show us your stuff. Try to make a case for a human being such as yourself *being able* to claim that one technique that she has experienced is 'better' than techniques she has *never* experienced. I want people here to see how insane you really are, so I'd like to see you trying to make the case that you having a theory about something allows you to declare that thing 'the best,' with ZERO exper- ience of that thing necessary. Don't be a pussy, Judy. If you really believe that you can make a case for TM being 'best,' do it. Personally I don't think you'll do it. You'll dodge and weave and try to get me and others to focus on irrelevancies, all so that you don't have to try to defend the indefensible. In other words, you'll do what you always do and posture and distract, while running away from the challenge or the actual issue. The actual issue here is the claim that TM is best. Either address that and make what you think is a viable reason for being able to say that (in other words, throw out some theoretical bullshit), or get off the pot. Hint: No one cares whether you're outraged at having been described differently than you want to describe yourself. But they do care when you're too cowardly to support a position that they all know you hold. Have fun... :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: =-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Here's a thought: How would it look different if TM *were* the best (specifically, the most efficient technique currently easily available to householders for developing higher states of consciousness)? Would no TMer ever then say so? If they were an on the program TMer, they would be UNABLE to say so. You forgot to add, In my opinion. Because they would never have been able to try any other technique, and thus could never know for sure that TM was better than any of these other techniques, let alone best. And only an idiot, after all, would be stupid enough to say The thing I've experienced is better than all these things I've never exper- ienced. Again you forgot to add, In my opinion. And yet if memory serves me right you have chosen in the past to be one of those idiots. You have put yourself on the record -- on a.m.t. if not here on FFL -- as defending the notion that TM is the best. You forgot to include my qualifiations: the most efficient technique currently easily available to householders for developing higher states of consciousness. For the record, could you do it again? Refresh my memory. How exactly is it you can be certain that TM is better than or more effective than a technique of meditation you have never personally practiced? I never really got that. Could you explain it to me again? I'll remind you of my bicycle-riding analogy. That should be enough. The TM cocoon I was speaking of is being able to make the statement TM is the best technique of meditation on the planet with a straight face. No, it wasn't. Only five days, and already you've forgotten which lie you told: I honestly think that part of the disconnect going down between you and Curtis over this issue is that he doesn't realize how *isolated* and *cocooned* you have to have been for the last 30+ years to still hold the views of Maharishi you hold. It was all about how I didn't realize anybody thought MMY was a charlatan. Even though you know otherwise for a fact.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron R giveabighand@ wrote: Whether or not my intellect was satisfied with this or that superficial thing about Maharishi or the Movement is irrelevant. Anybody who has experienced that magic moment of surrender and engagement just before liftoff in the flying sutra, how can they fret over such little things? Power, enormity and bliss. I'll fret over those. BINGO ! Let the small minds fret over small things, simply leave them to enjoy their playground. Most of whom has not had your experience. Not having these experiences they are emptyhanded, and like the Turq facing old age and death, many of them know that they have vasted their lives.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron R giveabighand@ wrote: Whether or not my intellect was satisfied with this or that superficial thing about Maharishi or the Movement is irrelevant. Anybody who has experienced that magic moment of surrender and engagement just before liftoff in the flying sutra, how can they fret over such little things? Power, enormity and bliss. I'll fret over those. BINGO ! Let the small minds fret over small things... As I suggested to Ron, that's what the fascination with power, enormity and bliss sounds like to me. Sounds like a 14-year-old boy masturbating, and fascinated by imagined enormity and the equally imagined power and bliss derived from playing with his dick. :-) ...simply leave them to enjoy their playground. Most of whom has not had your experience. Not having these experiences they are emptyhanded... See what I mean? Emptyhanded sure sounds to me like Ron and Nabby are talking about the same thing: whacking off. And now Nabby is suggesting that those who outgrew such adolescent pastimes are emptyhanded. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why does SSRS think he can get away with marauding a congregation?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: Are you talking about me or just generic others? I got plenty of results through TM and the TM-siddhis program. Those results were pure grace and freed me from any conceptual bondage to any organization or guru. I'm in bondage to the lotus eyed lord only in all his infinite forms You want to share intimacies? I'll have to run that by my wife! I never jumped ship. I love Maharishi dearly, although I'm a little baffled by the recent Judy revelations. In fact I was just talking to Maharishi the other night after I read Judith's book. We had a delightful conversation. He is a little chagrined by his past behavior and actually needs our deeper understanding of him and our forgiveness. It's hard to convey the conversation in detail because it was quite subtle and quite intimate. Maharishi is an amazing being/soul, whatever you want to call him. Go ahead, talk to him. He's right there. Very nice, thanks for posting this Peter.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: I repeat my challenge, Judy. Don't point to some old post that you consider a high spot in the legend of yourself that plays over and over in your own mind. Take on the claim anew...show us your stuff. Try to make a case for a human being such as yourself *being able* to claim that one technique that she has experienced is 'better' than techniques she has *never* experienced. I want people here to see how insane you really are, so I'd like to see you trying to make the case that you having a theory about something allows you to declare that thing 'the best,' with ZERO exper- ience of that thing necessary. That is, ...with ZERO experience of the thing you're comparing TM to and claiming TM is 'best'. That's the riff I'd like to see you try to run with a straight face again, Judy. Personally, why I'm taunting you with it is that I kinda suspect that by now you're thoroughly embarrassed by having several times put yourself on record as supporting the TM is the best claim, and want to distance yourself from such an idiotic position as much as possible and admit, Of course I have no earthly idea which technique of meditation is 'best'; I have only experienced one of them...how could I *possibly* say anything about the ones I've never experienced? But you can't do that because that might suggest that you were w...w...w...wrong at some point in the past, and we all know that you cannot allow that perception to arise. So instead of dealing with the challenge anew and taking it on, you'll point to old posts that you *know* no one is ever going to look up, and *pretend* that you've dealt with it so thoroughly in the past that there is no need to do so again. There is a need to do so again. You have insinuated that you still *could* make a case for declaring TM 'the best' compared to some technique (*ANY* technique) that you have never studied or practiced or experienced yourself. I'm challenging you to do this, because I do not think you can do it without essentially saying, My *theory* about how the universe works is more important than anyone's direct experience of how the universe works. If my theory says that something is 'the best' it's the best, and that's that. Reality is irrelevant. THAT is the case I think you've tried to make in the past on this issue, and THAT is the case I suspect you would try to make again, were you not too cowardly to do so. I'd like to see you try to punch your way out of the I don't have to actually have had any experience with the thing I'm talking about to make declarations about it corner you've painted yourself into -- again -- by blindly following the TMO dogma.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Churchill ordered UFO cover-up, National Archives show
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_re...@... wrote: Churchill ordered UFO cover-up, National Archives show The reason apparently was because Churchill believed it would cause mass panic and it would shatter people's religious views. That's the bit that caught my eye - shatter people's religious views. I wonder how far that would be true? And if so, why? I suppose he was thinking it would upset the idea that humans are the only important things on God's mind. A bit like an only child discovering he/she really has some secret siblings. I wonder if there were Churchills in the age of discovery who worried that their galleons might stumble upon some Atlantis, some race of superior beings, in the course of their travels. And with similar consequences for religion? Perhaps their religious conviction was so strong that they just *knew* that wasn't going to happen... Maybe it's not so much the idea that there might exist other types of God's children out there that threatens Churchillian religion. No, perhaps it's discovering the fact that we might not after all be top dog that would be so destabilising? Which is interesting in view of the fact that in many religions there IS a recognition that we are not top of the spiritual food chain (as it were). The belief in higher beings of all kinds of types, up to and including junior and major league gods and goddesses, is very widespread after all. (Even so, there is this odd idea in the perennial philosophy of the human incarnation being somehow special). Of course my old Sunday school teacher would have brushed those folks aside as just primitive, superstitious, heathens ripe for the converting! (IMO an attitude that finds its mirror- image in scientistic types, or displaced christians as some might say). But wait a minute - aren't there angels in Christianity? And in Islam? They trump us don't they? So I'm not sure where Churchill was coming from really. (Don't say Mars!).
[FairfieldLife] WPA in Denmark and weather in Russia?
Invitation to World Peace Assembly at Maharishi Peace Palace in Hellerup, Copenhagen September 5 - 11 incl. Maharishi Gandharva Veda concert with Shrimati Anita Roy Invitation to a course in Gandharva Veda song Sept 3 - 5 Dear Sidha Inspired by two recent very successful World Peace Assemblies here at the Peace Palace, we arrange one more WPA in September. We are pleased to invite you to come and create coherence, happiness and development in your own life and in the collective consciousness. TM teacher Svend Jensen will be the course leader, and he is supplemented by other TM teachers. We offer a varied program with different topics from Maharishi Vedic knowledge, incl. tapes with Maharishi, themes brought in the Maharishi Channel, and Vedic recitations. Maharishi Peace Palace is located at Gammel Vartov Vej 16, Hellerup, a quiet and prominent area, 6 km north of central Copenhagen. There are fine opportunities for walks in the beautiful neighbourhood with many old houses of unique and distinctive styles. You can also walk to Oeresund (the channel between Denmark and Sweden) to enjoy the fresh air from the sea. Meals and breaks can be enjoyed outdoors in our cozy patio. We offer accommodation in double rooms, including a few rooms with private bathroom. You are also welcome to stay in a comfortable tent in the garden. Course fee for 6 days, Sept 5 - 11 Tent: Euro 190 Double room: Euro 270 Double room with private bathroom: Euro 330 We may be able to help you if you need sponsorship. During the weekend, Sept 3 - 5, there will be a course on Gandharva Veda song by Shrimati Anita Roy, a very skillful and renowned vocalist in India and abroad. She has been awarded the title of honour `India's Nightingale' by the Indian government. Anita has given courses and concerts all over the world for more than 20 years. Course fee for 2 days, Sept 3 - 5 Tent: Euro 115 Double room: Euro 140 Double room with private bathroom: Euro 180 Please apply as soon as possible and before August 31 By email helle...@tmnu.dk or phone 0045 3325 5404 We look forward to welcome you to some blissful days with Sidha-friends from Scandinavia and Russia. Best wishes Maharishi Peace Palace Jai Guru Dev I'm quite sure the weather conditions in Russia shall become much more benign if lots of Russian siddhas attend the assembly... :D
[FairfieldLife] Eraserhead: In heaven everything is fine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EtJtiSc_Kgfeature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EtJtiSc_Kgfeature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRK5In_Z_6QNR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRK5In_Z_6QNR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9CzJkxKKd0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9CzJkxKKd0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qrb3P-b6iAfeature=channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qrb3P-b6iAfeature=channel
[FairfieldLife] David Lynch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9CzJkxKKd0NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9CzJkxKKd0NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qrb3P-b6iAfeature=channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qrb3P-b6iAfeature=channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oayum8rKkg0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oayum8rKkg0 On Philadelphia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAzZKMzhPHAfeature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAzZKMzhPHAfeature=related David Lynch sings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1yLmiOlxvwfeature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1yLmiOlxvwfeature=related The Dark Night of the Soul: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsNTH5gi4xEfeature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsNTH5gi4xEfeature=related David Lynch Foundation Television http://dlf.tv/2009/dlw-live/ http://dlf.tv/2009/dlw-live/ David Russel Visits ideal Academy http://www.youtube.com/dlftv http://www.youtube.com/dlftv http://www.youtube.com/dlftv http://www.youtube.com/dlftv
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: You forgot to add, I am no longer willing to embarrass myself in public the way I used to do by claiming that I could possibly know that 'TM is the best.' So instead I'm going to try to taunt Barry into arguing about what I want him to argue about, so I can slink away and no one will notice that I have the spine of a jellyfish. Translation: I embarrassed--nay, irretrievably humiliated--myself in public twice last week: First with my patently idiotic claim that she's been in a TMO 'cocoon' since she learned TM and thus wasn't aware of MMY's reputation among non-TMers as a 'charlatan'--when everybody knows *I* know that isn't true, because she and I were both on alt.m.t, where MMY was routinely denounced as such starting in 1995. And second, with my insanely STOPID attempt to misrepresent her exchange with Curtis, which was so egregiously factually false Curtis himself had to step in and confirm what actually took place. So having exposed *myself* as a charlatan and a liar, it's crucially important that I distract everybody by trying to pin something on her, or I'll look like a spineless jellyfish for not being able to own up to what I've done and what it says about me. Here's the deal, Barry: Man up. Take responsibility for once and acknowledge how badly you fouled up in those two instances (not that they're the only two, simply the most recent and among the most foolish of your attempts to Get Judy--be grateful I don't demand you admit to all of them), and I'll be happy to repeat my explanation for why I say TM is the most efficient technique currently easily available to householders for development of consciousness. Oh, and two other conditions: First, you may not attribute the quote TM is best to me. Once you've fulfilled the first requirement and ask me to comply with my end of the deal, you are to attribute to me only my exact phrasing above as the view you want me to explain. Second, if you try this again-- Personally I don't think you'll do it. You'll dodge and weave and try to get me and others to focus on irrelevancies, all so that you don't have to try to defend the indefensible. In other words, you'll do what you always do and posture and distract, while running away from the challenge or the actual issue. --if you attempt to paint the bloopers I'm requiring that you admit to as irrelevancies, or add *any* more lies to the mountain of 'em you've already built, the deal is off. We're either going to have an honest exchange for once or none at all. Got it? Think of this as a learning experience, a karmic lesson you've attempted to avoid for far too long, an opportunity to take the first step on the long path of redemption. Bear in mind that if you try to slough it off as you usually do, you'll have to do so very publicly. Don't make it any more difficult for yourself than you already have. And I *guarantee* you, you'll feel better once you've met the challenge and gotten the top two boulders in your mountain of lies off your chest.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Eraserhead: In heaven everything is fine
When I was in college, after I watched Eraserhead, I went home and took a shower. Peter On Aug 9, 2010, at 8:00 AM, nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EtJtiSc_Kgfeature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRK5In_Z_6QNR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9CzJkxKKd0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qrb3P-b6iAfeature=channel
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of raunchydog Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 12:52 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis Walking one's talk is certainly important, but a judging a person's level of consciousness from outward appearances and actions leaves a lot to be desired with respect to accuracy. If someone leads a righteous life from outward appearances, their inward experience might be quite ordinary. On the other hand, isn't it's possible for a person to be a scoundrel, and still have extraordinary inward experiences? We can spend all day judging other people's consciousness, but in the end we can only judge the quality of our own experience. IMO it's presumptuous in the extreme to judge the level of consciousness of others. I agree, and I'm not doing that. As far as I can tell, MMY was in an extraordinarily high state of consciousness (with apologies to Curtis). According to his teaching, that should correlate with an extraordinarily high degree of moral development. There's the rub. Rick, of course you've been judging the consciousness of others. It's silly not to own it. IMO it's just as presumptuous of you to say Maharishi was in an extraordinarily higher state of consciousness as it is for anyone to say he wasn't. AGAIN...it is not possible to judge a person's level of consciousness by his or her actions. Everyone is entitled to speculate about Maharishi's inner life based on his outer life, but by what criteria? Maybe we can employ the shtupping scale. One shtup BC, two shtups GC, three shtups CC, etc. It's deplorable behavior to take advantage of a young woman when you're in a position of authority but it still doesn't say anything about Maharishi's level of consciousness. By the way Curtis is going to kick your ass for saying Maharishi isn't in low-life consciousness. B.F. Skinner, really? I'd say he's more like Funky Winkerbean...with emphasis on funky. Perhaps you've been trying for years to reconcile Maharishi's behavior with what you believe to be his higher state of consciousness. I appreciate this is an important issue for you, but IMO you've set before you an impossible task. I hope you find peace with it. From my own perspective I know it's possible to teach TM and not be the least bit enlightened. But what do my students know about my level of consciousness? Nothing. I haven't taught TM in years, but through the Grace of Guru Dev, Maharishi made the the steps of initiation so effortless, I could do it again in a heart-beat. Initiation is a methodical process, but there's an undeniable magic that fills the person's Being when he or she transcends for the first time. It's a glorious mystery I am blessed to share with others. I don't doubt or question how is it that I, an unenlightened person, can actually teach someone TM because I know that it isn't really *me* creating the process of transcending. I leave that to the play of the eternal, immutable nature of Being bubbling up for expression. I'm just the stagehand. Maybe that's all that Maharishi ever was as well. [http://joshreads.com/images/10/08/i100808fw.jpg]
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why does SSRS think he can get away with marauding a congregation?
Yes very much like Suzanne Seagal. It's there in Maharshi's discourse, but it is more overt Buddhist literature. Peter On Aug 8, 2010, at 10:58 PM, emptybill emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: Oh, you are talking about me! Yes, in 1986 I was on the rebound because my poor I was utterly missing. Thus spake Suzanne Segal. I had to read a lot of Buddhist literature to figure out what was going on. A free soul, I ejaculated! Thus spake Yogananda. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: Really Edg (sic.), you crack me up, man. I'll answer you questions below. --- On Sun, 8/8/10, Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Why does SSRS think he can get away with marauding a congregation? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, August 8, 2010, 7:32 PM Why would anyone give this guy a free pass after he mimics Maharishi down to his giggle and then comes to the one town where that Maharishi's followers are and sets up business there to ride the coattails and grab some bucks? You got me. Lots of assumptions there that have more to do with you than SSRS. Honestly, I don't know. You'll have to ask him. But you don't really want answers though, these are just complaints. You probably have only seen tapes of SSRS. Really, he's not like Maharishi at all. I used to think that he was too when I first saw a tape of him. I actually was a little pissed-off too. But then I met him personally and over the years I've had quite a bit of interaction with him. In fact, I saw him about two weeks ago. I assure you, not like MMY at all outside of a white dhoti, long hair, beard and an Indian accent. Why would any previously true believing in TMer deign to put up with this wannabe? Well, maybe the true believer is still a true believer and doesn't perceive him to be a wannabe. I don't agree with your assumptions, obviously. Why would this TMO DESERTER think he could wedge himself into this community and not come off as a conniving spiritual thief? The hell if I know! Why do you see him as wedging himself into the Fairfield/TM community? I think he came to Fairfield once a number of years ago, but he was uncomfortable with being perceived as the very same thing you are accusing him of. Why would anyone in FF after decades of no results jump ship to another ship made by a cowardly disciple of the builder of a just-abandoned ship? Are you talking about me or just generic others? I got plenty of results through TM and the TM-siddhis program. Those results were pure grace and freed me from any conceptual bondage to any organization or guru. I'm in bondage to the lotus eyed lord only in all his infinite forms How stupid does a person have to be to think, Oh, here's a personal guru sure to love me forever and always tell the truth and never be smug or snobby or elitist or too busy like Maharishi? You're right, you'd have to be very stupid, spiritually immature, lacking life discernment or naive to assume a relationship with a Sat guru is all a cake walk. Sounds someone was on the rebound. Oh, you are talking about me! Yes, in 1986 I was on the rebound because my poor I was utterly missing. I had to read a lot of Buddhist literature to figure out what was going on. Maharishi's concepts were a good basic context to place a label on what was occurring and to understand certain dynamics, but I needed more detail. Life was not bliss, but a flat 2 dimensional skein over pure consciousness. Very odd indeed. There's your questions, Pete. Let's see you and your mostly worthless PhD talk yourself out of this corner you've painted yourself into. First, I don't have a Ph.D., it's a Psy.D.. Now this corner you refer to seems to be a construct of your mind, not mine. I don't see a corner. What is the corner you see? Tell us why you jumped ship? Bet you can't without lying or spinning the truth or saying something like Edg is too angry right now for me to share this kind of intimacy. You want to share intimacies? I'll have to run that by my wife! I never jumped ship. I love Maharishi dearly, although I'm a little baffled by the recent Judy revelations. In fact I was just talking to Maharishi the other night after I read Judith's book. We had a delightful conversation. He is a little chagrined by his past behavior and actually needs our deeper understanding of him and our forgiveness. It's hard to convey the conversation in detail because it was quite subtle and quite intimate. Maharishi is an amazing being/soul, whatever you want to call him. Go ahead, talk to him. He's right there. And you can't even spell my name
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
From: authfriend jst...@panix.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, 9 August, 2010 7:37:23 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: You forgot to add, I am no longer willing to embarrass myself in public the way I used to do by claiming that I could possibly know that 'TM is the best.' So instead I'm going to try to taunt Barry into arguing about what I want him to argue about, so I can slink away and no one will notice that I have the spine of a jellyfish. Translation: I embarrassed--nay, irretrievably humiliated--myself in public twice last week: First with my patently idiotic claim that she's been in a TMO 'cocoon' since she learned TM and thus wasn't aware of MMY's reputation among non-TMers as a 'charlatan'--when everybody knows *I* know that isn't true, because she and I were both on alt.m.t, where MMY was routinely denounced as such starting in 1995. And second, with my insanely STOPID attempt to misrepresent her exchange with Curtis, which was so egregiously factually false Curtis himself had to step in and confirm what actually took place. So having exposed *myself* as a charlatan and a liar, it's crucially important that I distract everybody by trying to pin something on her, or I'll look like a spineless jellyfish for not being able to own up to what I've done and what it says about me. Here's the deal, Barry: Man up. Take responsibility for once and acknowledge how badly you fouled up in those two instances (not that they're the only two, simply the most recent and among the most foolish of your attempts to Get Judy--be grateful I don't demand you admit to all of them), and I'll be happy to repeat my explanation for why I say TM is the most efficient technique currently easily available to householders for development of consciousness. Oh, and two other conditions: First, you may not attribute the quote TM is best to me. Once you've fulfilled the first requirement and ask me to comply with my end of the deal, you are to attribute to me only my exact phrasing above as the view you want me to explain. Second, if you try this again-- Personally I don't think you'll do it. You'll dodge and weave and try to get me and others to focus on irrelevancies, all so that you don't have to try to defend the indefensible. In other words, you'll do what you always do and posture and distract, while running away from the challenge or the actual issue. --if you attempt to paint the bloopers I'm requiring that you admit to as irrelevancies, or add *any* more lies to the mountain of 'em you've already built, the deal is off. We're either going to have an honest exchange for once or none at all. Got it? Think of this as a learning experience, a karmic lesson you've attempted to avoid for far too long, an opportunity to take the first step on the long path of redemption. Bear in mind that if you try to slough it off as you usually do, you'll have to do so very publicly. Don't make it any more difficult for yourself than you already have. And I *guarantee* you, you'll feel better once you've met the challenge and gotten the top two boulders in your mountain of lies off your chest.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why does SSRS think he can get away with marauding a congregation?
Tone in writing is never certain -- one can always read a post or essay in a variety of different tones -- each having a different inflection of meaning. The tone we hear is often, it seems, reflective of what we would intend in writing such words. This may be particularly true when words, in themselves, are amped up, a characteristic, perhaps talent, that edg displays. When words in themselves are amped up, I tend to read tone in a way I would deliver such a message. Which may have nothing to do with the writer -- only my own inner dynamics. As an exercise, more for fun, I often try to read the same post in several different, opposing, or variant tones. Its quite amazing how different the message is -- from the exact same words. Everything is a reflection of ourselves -- certainly true in ordinary consciousness. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: Well, it's a good thing we all know now that Edg is not angry. --- On Sun, 8/8/10, emptybill emptyb...@... wrote: From: emptybill emptyb...@... Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why does SSRS think he can get away with marauding a congregation? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, August 8, 2010, 8:07 PM I'm not always pissed off -- as my posts herein prove -- and even when I'm turning out another screed, I do so as a writer trying his best to create with aplomb and really put some neat flourishes onto my insults. Edg, You're just a comedian with a hopped up sense of rage. It may not be in the manual yet but as a layman I'm diagnosing you with a psycho- humour malabnormality - I'm calling it Luniticle Syndrome. Maybe you'll become famous - in the bardo at least. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Why would anyone give this guy a free pass after he mimics Maharishi down to his giggle and then comes to the one town where that Maharishi's followers are and sets up business there to ride the coattails and grab some bucks? Why would any previously true believing in TMer deign to put up with this wannabe? Why would this TMO DESERTER think he could wedge himself into this community and not come off as a conniving spiritual thief? Why would anyone in FF after decades of no results jump ship to another ship made by a cowardly disciple of the builder of a just-abandoned ship? How stupid does a person have to be to think, Oh, here's a personal guru sure to love me forever and always tell the truth and never be smug or snobby or elitist or too busy like Maharishi? Sounds someone was on the rebound. There's your questions, Pete. Let's see you and your mostly worthless PhD talk yourself out of this corner you've painted yourself into. Tell us why you jumped ship? Bet you can't without lying or spinning the truth or saying something like Edg is too angry right now for me to share this kind of intimacy. And you can't even spell my name correctly. How'd you get a PhD with that inability to pick up on a common detail that everyone attends? Some psychologist you are to lose your cool and label me as always pissed off and come down to my level by a juvenile sniping at my name's spelling -- if I can put a burr under your saddle so easily, I wonder how long you can keep a client from seeing your attachments disabling your therapeutic usefulness. I'm not always pissed off -- as my posts herein prove -- and even when I'm turning out another screed, I do so as a writer trying his best to create with aplomb and really put some neat flourishes onto my insults. Didn't your psychological training give you the insight to see the difference? I'm doing stand-up, performance art here, but if you learned anything in college it should have been that being pissed off is the death of a truly soaring creativity. Best a pissed off person can do is iterate a one note song again and again as it attaches to issues. Maybe just maybe Michelangelo was pissed when he yelled at Moses, Why don't you speak! -- but that would be about as rare and artistic moment as what ever wuz. I amplify my nuances into nose-dives with nine-yards aspewin' for the sheer impact of doing so, and once in print, I'm done and on to the next moment of my lifeI un-invest myself of the nuance thereby, see? I specialize in being angry in print, but I've not thrown a punch in 55 years, never been fired for insulting fellow employees, have never taken anyone to small claims court, and was in the dome for five years morning and evening sessions and if that didn't quell my cantankerousness, then why would you glom onto a wannabe technique of the same ilk if it has had so little effect -- after 29 years of almost perfect dedication to it -- on my personality? Face it: you
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending:
On Aug 7, 2010, at 11:27 AM, tartbrain wrote: what about that automatic transcending chinese meditation that was studied? and the other vedic auto transcending ones? I remember reading this study when it first was being passed around. It clearly seemed to be a case of 'let's find an example of transcendence that makes it look like 'theirs is SO slow, ours is much betterer'. And then publish it to see if people fall for it. This and a couple of other papers are actually knee-jerk reactions to a bunch of papers on Buddhist meditation, that got published in peer-review journals and showed the neurological maps for transcendence and Open Monitoring styles of meditation. It made TM look lackluster and unimpressive in comparison, so sometime after these papers appeared, a couple of no, we're still the bestest meditation technique out there papers came out from TM market researchers. As such reactionary papers often are flawed by their underlying, rather emotional reactions, this paper was no exception. But it was a real strong example of bending science to your own true believerisms while trying hard to diss the other meditation research that is emerging.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deepak Chopra's God 2.0
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/michael-shermer/deepak-chopras-god-20 LINK Deepak Chopra's God 2.0 The quantum flapdoodle of the New Age author is a failed effort to update medieval theology. For those interested in the exploration of ideas rather than the ejaculation of dittoes, there is some interesting discussion in the Comments to Shermer's blog post. The meatiest thread begins with a comment by Tam Hunt, apparently an academic in the field of philosophy of science. The subsequent dialogue between Hunt and others is fascinating. The comments are arranged chronologically from newest to oldest, so you have to click on 2 or last at the end of the comments underneath Shermer's post, start with Hunt's comment (fifth from the bottom), then follow the continuing exchange among Hunt and others up to the most recent. Here's Hunt's first comment, which s/he elaborates in subsequent comments in response to various challenges: - Shermer is a smart guy, and I read his columns every month, but like every materialist he doesn't recognize his own metaphysical assumptions. Every thinker has metaphysical assumptions. You can't be alive and conscious without such assumptions. Shermer is part of the increasingly pervasive materialist school of thought, which I call 'crude materialism,' that believes all aspects of the universe can be described in full as matter in motion, following the laws of physics. Indeed, all things can be described as matter in motion under the laws of physics but unless you include mind in your description of matter you are left with an explanation of the universe that leaves the explainer necessarily out of the picture (as pointed out by Schopenhauer almost two hundred years ago). Accordingly, we must explain mind in order to have an accurate picture of reality. Materialist explanations of the mind fail in principle because it is literally impossible to get from the materialist version of matter (which we can describe crudely as tiny billiard balls) to mind. No matter how many little billiard balls you put together, in no matter what configuration, no mind will ever spring forth from what is fundamentally lifeless. And this is the problem with crude materialism: it has no place for mind. Many thinkers have offered viable solutions to this problem by revising their notion of matter. Alfred North Whitehead, William James, Henri Bergson, Charles Hartshorne, John Cobb Jr., David Ray Griffin, and many other process thinkers, have described matter as include mind. They are two sides of the same thing. Thus literally all things enjoy some iota of mentality, which compounds in things like us to a very complex level of mentality. This is known as panpsychism and is a concept that has been around since the dawn of philosophy. Under a panpsychist view of the universe, which actually includes mind and is thus a more coherent and more adequate view of reality than crude materialism, we also have a place for God. This is the case because, as Freeman Dyson has said, God is simply what mind does when it proceeds beyond the level of human comprehension. We are a collection of matter with a high level of consciousness. What is the universal consciousness? God. This view is far more rigorous, coherent and adequate to human experience than crude materialism and it is quite likely that it will be recognized as such in coming decades. Chopra's views described above do not do justice to this view but Chopra is in fact very sympathetic to panpsychism and I doubt he would disagree with anything I've written here. - I just barely have the chops to follow the discussion; it's vastly more thoughtful and sophisticated than Shermer's post, pretty much leaving it in the dust. In particular I was rather appalled by his God 1.0-God 2.0 table (quoted below), which is shallow and juvenile, inferring similarity between ideas that have nothing to do with each other (e.g., God 1.0's leap of faith vs. God 2.0's quantum leap). Chopra's ideas may well be flapdoodle, but Shermer's post doesn't even come close to making that case. (The tabular format isn't reproduced in the quote below, unfortunately; I've numbered the items in the two lists to correspond instead. Go to the link Vaj provides to see this as a two-column table.) Chopra's New Age theology is essentially an updating of this medieval scheme, with ample borrowings from the vocabulary of particle physics. This upgrade from God 1.0 to God 2.0 can be summarized in the following chart (inspired by my friend and colleague Stephen Beckner): God 1.0 1. omnipresent 2. fully man/fully God 3. miracle 4. leap of faith 5. transubstantiation 6. Council of Rome 7. supernatural forces 8. heaven 9. hell 10. eternity 11. prayer 12. the Godhead 13. the Trinity 14. orgiveness of sin 15.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: snip As such reactionary papers often are flawed by their underlying, rather emotional reactions, this paper was no exception. Very funny. You really have to have a very active imagination to see any emotional reaction in the paper. But it was a real strong example of bending science to your own true believerisms while trying hard to diss the other meditation research that is emerging. Which example Vaj, unfortunately, won't have the time, or more likely the inclination, to attempt to debunk on its merits.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
Not a response or challenge to anyones words, just some observations on the words themselves. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of raunchydog Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 12:52 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis Walking one's talk is certainly important, but a judging a person's level of consciousness from outward appearances and actions leaves a lot to be desired with respect to accuracy. If someone leads a righteous life from outward appearances, their inward experience might be quite ordinary. On the other hand, isn't it's possible for a person to be a scoundrel, and still have extraordinary inward experiences? We can spend all day judging other people's consciousness, but in the end we can only judge the quality of our own experience. IMO it's presumptuous in the extreme to judge the level of consciousness of others. I agree, and I'm not doing that. As far as I can tell, MMY was in an extraordinarily high state of consciousness (with apologies to Curtis). According to his teaching, that should correlate with an extraordinarily high degree of moral development. There's the rub. Rick, of course you've been judging the consciousness of others. It's silly not to own it. IMO it's just as presumptuous of you to say Maharishi was in an extraordinarily higher state of consciousness as it is for anyone to say he wasn't. Words create a bit of a jail for the mind. How can unboundedness (again a word jail) be higher or lower. But after years of using the word higher with relationship to consciousness, we may actually see it as physically spatially higher. Distortions always eventually get whipped around by the actual. Using an internal concept of higher tends to create distance not intimacy. Maybe just call it pedestal consciousness so we we can always adore it from afar -- as something 'up there. Even if we say refined instead of higher -- how can Consciousness be refined? Consciousness is what it is. Perhaps its the use of the term Consciousness -- which having multiple meanings -- muddies the waters. I find using the sanskrit term can help clarify the muddle. How can Atman be refined is a more precise casting of the same question. It can't. Our consciousness is a reflection of that. Sometimes clearer, sometimes more smudged. AGAIN...it is not possible to judge a person's level of consciousness by his or her actions. The cultural, emotional and intellectual interpretation of actions will always vary greatly from setting to setting. Interpretation of actions are always contextual. How could consciousness be tied to a certain set of appropriate actions - appropriate for all ages, cultures, people and circumstances. And one has to ask -- where do actions come from if identity is not found in those actions -- no doer. Do they come from a consciousness that is vastly separate from actions? Or do they come from something separate from consciousness. If separate, then where is the connection to consciousness. Does Atman create actions? Does Atman categorize actions into appropriate for Atman and not appropriate for Atman? Or perhaps one sees all actions as a play of consciousness. Then from this appreciation of things, all actions, world wide, are the play of consciousness - not just some of them. Does Atman say These good and cool things are a play or Atman -- the bad and totally uncool actions are not a play of Atman. It appears that its all or nothing -- not much room for some good actions are related to Atman nd other bad actions are not. Everyone is entitled to speculate about Maharishi's inner life based on his outer life, but by what criteria? Think of ourselves and our own lives. Has anyone ever misinterpreted your actions, not really gotten where you were coming from? The only thing we can see from another's actions, is usually, what our own mind state would be if those actions came out of us. We might assume that if we did x y or z, then our inner space must be this or that-- something we have experienced within. If you have not experienced all possible inner realms, all reflections of consciousness, all reflections of Atman, how could one begin to know what actions are possible from that space. Maybe we can employ the shtupping scale. One shtup BC, two shtups GC, three shtups CC, etc. It's deplorable behavior to take advantage of a young woman when you're in a position of authority but it still doesn't say anything about Maharishi's level of consciousness. By the way Curtis is going to kick your ass for saying Maharishi isn't in low-life consciousness. B.F. Skinner, really? I'd say he's more like Funky Winkerbean...with emphasis on
[FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Aug 7, 2010, at 11:27 AM, tartbrain wrote: what about that automatic transcending chinese meditation that was studied? and the other vedic auto transcending ones? I remember reading this study when it first was being passed around. It clearly seemed to be a case of 'let's find an example of transcendence that makes it look like 'theirs is SO slow, ours is much betterer'. And then publish it to see if people fall for it. This and a couple of other papers are actually knee-jerk reactions to a bunch of papers on Buddhist meditation, that got published in peer-review journals and showed the neurological maps for transcendence and Open Monitoring styles of meditation. It made TM look lackluster and unimpressive in comparison, so sometime after these papers appeared, a couple of no, we're still the bestest meditation technique out there papers came out from TM market researchers. As such reactionary papers often are flawed by their underlying, rather emotional reactions, this paper was no exception. But it was a real strong example of bending science to your own true believerisms while trying hard to diss the other meditation research that is emerging. If one drives to FF by way of deserts and another gets there by way of mountains -- is FF actually different to the two drivers?
[FairfieldLife] Two new Crop Circles reported during the last few days
http://www.earthfiles.com/shop.php Pewsey White Horse, nr Pewsey, Wiltshire. Reported 8th August Map Ref: This Page has been accessed [Hit Counter] Updated Monday 9th August 2010 http://www.7fires.net/ AERIAL SHOTS http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2010/pewseywhitehorse/pewseywhitehor\ se2010a.html GROUND SHOTS http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2010/pewseywhitehorse/groundshots.ht\ ml DIAGRAMS http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2010/pewseywhitehorse/diagrams.html FIELD REPORTS http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2010/pewseywhitehorse/fieldreports.h\ tml COMMENTS http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2010/pewseywhitehorse/comments.html ARTICLES http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2010/pewseywhitehorse/articles.html 09/08/10 08/08/10 09/08/10 00/00/10 00/00/10 00/00/10 The details for the circle discovered below the White Horse Pewsey are as follows. I was out testing my aircraft engine that was fixed last night and was found to be a little lacking in power when flown home. I got up very early this morning and flew as far as Clench Common airfield and back to give the engine a proper warm. The engine seemed fine today. Turning back from clench over Pewsey I saw a very large crop circle beneath the White Horse chalk marking. I flew over and took some photos and it seemed a complicated and very large design. Then I flew back through my regular route of the Barge Inn Honeystreet and saw another new circle next to the barge. There was also an apparent wind damage circle which looked very pronounced in the field next to the Barge Inn circle. I think it would be worth people checking that circle out. Hope the info and photos are of use to you. Matthew Williams http://www.cccvault.com/cccvideos/trailer2010a.html CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST CROP CIRCLE CONNECTOR DVD http://www.cccvault.com/cccvideos/trailer2010a.html http://www.thecropcircleshop.com/ Make a donation to keep the web site alive... Thank you Images Matthew Williams Copyright 2010 http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/anasazi/conduct.html A shot by Pierre Beake taken from the hillside of crop circle on Sunday 8th August 2010 at 8.45am Image Pierre Beake Copyright 2010 http://www.earthfiles.com/shop.php Horton, nr Devizes, Wiltshire. Reported 9th August. Map Ref: This Page has been accessed [Hit Counter] Updated Monday 9th August 2010 http://www.7fires.net/ AERIAL SHOTS http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2010/horton/horton2010a.html GROUND SHOTS http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2010/horton/groundshots.html DIAGRAMS http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2010/horton/diagrams.html FIELD REPORTS http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2010/horton/fieldreports.html COMMENTS http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2010/horton/comments.html ARTICLES http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2010/horton/articles.html 09/08/10 00/00/10 00/00/10 00/00/10 00/00/10 00/00/10 The Farmer has harvested the field and formation. http://www.cccvault.com/cccvideos/trailer2010a.html CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST CROP CIRCLE CONNECTOR DVD http://www.cccvault.com/cccvideos/trailer2010a.html http://www.thecropcircleshop.com/ Make a donation to keep the web site alive... Thank you http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/anasazi/conduct.html Images Olivier Morel Copyright 2010
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: According to his teaching, that should correlate with an extraordinarily high degree of moral development. There's the rub. Well, it contradicts one part of his message -- if you mean high moral development as something that can be codified. If it can't be codified, then your high level of moral development may be quite distinct from anothers. Meditate and act. Maharishi spoke in analogies -- like other spoke in parables perhaps. To me a more likely interpretation is that ON THE ROAD to more refined reflections of Consciousness, garbage that limits our views, makes us petty, makes us want to take an not give, these things tend to go away. And thus ones actions flow from a larger perspective on things, less petty and individual, kinder, more empathic. But that is not Consciousness acting. Some say milestones in the reflections of Consciousness occur when, not because, satva increases substantively. Same idea. Better social behavior results when satva is stronger. But that has nothing to do with Atman. And when or ones view is soaked in love, when each thing is loved, then actions fit better with others. One does things that support others, that don't diminish others. But that is not the reflections of Consciousness itself. What if high moral code was simply one does things that support others, that don't diminish others? We may have different views on this, but my view of MMY's actions was that he was supportive of others, not diminishing of others. YMMV.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: By the way Curtis is going to kick your ass for saying Maharishi isn't in low-life consciousness. B.F. Skinner, really? I'd say he's more like Funky Winkerbean...with emphasis on funky. B.F. Skinner, too clinical for a performing artist, Funky Winkerbean, bit too depressing from the few strips I have read... so I was hoping to be the hetero James Randi! As to Maharishi's state of consciousness, I wouldn't pick low-life as a description. The guy was exceptional in many ways. Just not all the ways the that he promoted himself to be. Lets start with the Horacio Alger's story of an Indian business man creating a world empire. Not too shabby on its own even with the deduction for the slave labor he used to renovate and flip his real estate ventures. And his insight on teaching people how to teach meditation was a Henry Ford brilliance of mass marketing meditation. And in my experience it really worked well. So even without a model of his being in a unique state of mind ala higher states the guy was not a lower anything IMO. But even with all the hype about his love of knowledge, he was more a repetitive marketer mind than a real scholar even by his own admission. Looking at his higher state of consciousness model, which really should have been his big detailed contribution to human thought: can you really say he gave the kind of details that an expert would be able to give? I saw hours and hours of tapes of him discussing higher states and it never really reached beyond the level of translating the brochure descriptions from the Sanskrit. Given how rich these state should be in terms of detailed knowledge concerning how the world works, am I the only one to be underwhelmed by his descriptions? They seem useful in their lack of detail so people who are having some type of unusual internal experience can say, yeah that's me, between Unity and Braham as you hear on BATGAP. Vague oneness and seeing my SELF everywhere and kumbaya my lord kumbaya. But Maharishi was no lower anything. He was kicking ass and taking numbers. (the only question we may disagree on is whose asses were getting kicked and whose numbers where being taken.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of raunchydog Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 12:52 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis Walking one's talk is certainly important, but a judging a person's level of consciousness from outward appearances and actions leaves a lot to be desired with respect to accuracy. If someone leads a righteous life from outward appearances, their inward experience might be quite ordinary. On the other hand, isn't it's possible for a person to be a scoundrel, and still have extraordinary inward experiences? We can spend all day judging other people's consciousness, but in the end we can only judge the quality of our own experience. IMO it's presumptuous in the extreme to judge the level of consciousness of others. I agree, and I'm not doing that. As far as I can tell, MMY was in an extraordinarily high state of consciousness (with apologies to Curtis). According to his teaching, that should correlate with an extraordinarily high degree of moral development. There's the rub. Rick, of course you've been judging the consciousness of others. It's silly not to own it. IMO it's just as presumptuous of you to say Maharishi was in an extraordinarily higher state of consciousness as it is for anyone to say he wasn't. AGAIN...it is not possible to judge a person's level of consciousness by his or her actions. Everyone is entitled to speculate about Maharishi's inner life based on his outer life, but by what criteria? Maybe we can employ the shtupping scale. One shtup BC, two shtups GC, three shtups CC, etc. It's deplorable behavior to take advantage of a young woman when you're in a position of authority but it still doesn't say anything about Maharishi's level of consciousness. By the way Curtis is going to kick your ass for saying Maharishi isn't in low-life consciousness. B.F. Skinner, really? I'd say he's more like Funky Winkerbean...with emphasis on funky. Perhaps you've been trying for years to reconcile Maharishi's behavior with what you believe to be his higher state of consciousness. I appreciate this is an important issue for you, but IMO you've set before you an impossible task. I hope you find peace with it. From my own perspective I know it's possible to teach TM and not be the least bit enlightened. But what do my students know about my level of consciousness? Nothing. I haven't taught TM in years, but through the Grace of Guru Dev, Maharishi made the the steps of initiation so effortless,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: snip Looking at his higher state of consciousness model, which really should have been his big detailed contribution to human thought: can you really say he gave the kind of details that an expert would be able to give? I saw hours and hours of tapes of him discussing higher states and it never really reached beyond the level of translating the brochure descriptions from the Sanskrit. Given how rich these state should be in terms of detailed knowledge concerning how the world works, am I the only one to be underwhelmed by his descriptions? Detailed knowledge concerning how the world works, such as what? What questions about how the world works would you have expected to have answered if he had been an expert? (For the record, his basuc model of higher states wasn't original with him. His contribution was more in his systematic, highly integrated explanations thereof in layman's language. IMHO, had it been significantly more detailed, it wouldn't really have suited the purpose; it would have been likely to cause confusion rather than clarity. It was hard enough to get the basics across.)
[FairfieldLife] Suzanne Segal
Yes very much like Suzanne Seagal. It's there in Maharshi's discourse, but it is more overt in Buddhist literature. I found her story very interesting but also quite funny. Apparently some people didn't listen when he was describing the transition from TC into CC in terms of subjective experience. Oh, I will be expanded into unbounded consciousness must have been her thought, and shows she definitely did not listen and had no clue. The futility of looking for an I to keep for a reference was highlighted by MMY a number of times. She also had a very intense attachment to her Jewish identity, something I found hilarious. The continual need to search out such an identify to make sure it was still findable caused her lots of suffering, all of it self induced. From Reb Yonnasan Gershom's book, Beyond the Ashes, I learned just how crystallized a Jewish identity could be circulating across many life times just to keep itself intact. Bullshit karma but at last she gave it up, realized the illusion and worked to help other people. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter L Sutphen drpetersutp...@... wrote: Yes very much like Suzanne Segal. It's there in Maharshi's discourse, but it is more overt Buddhist literature. Peter On Aug 8, 2010, at 10:58 PM, emptybill emptyb...@... wrote: Oh, you are talking about me! Yes, in 1986 I was on the rebound because my poor I was utterly missing. Thus spake Suzanne Segal. I had to read a lot of Buddhist literature to figure out what was going on.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
Thought so. Not just an idiotic loudmouth, but a spineless idiotic loudmouth. You don't make the rules, Judy. You either play the game as given or you don't play. And if you don't play, I think we're all justified in assuming it's because you're afraid to. Buh-bye, coward. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: You forgot to add, I am no longer willing to embarrass myself in public the way I used to do by claiming that I could possibly know that 'TM is the best.' So instead I'm going to try to taunt Barry into arguing about what I want him to argue about, so I can slink away and no one will notice that I have the spine of a jellyfish. Translation: I embarrassed--nay, irretrievably humiliated--myself in public twice last week: First with my patently idiotic claim that she's been in a TMO 'cocoon' since she learned TM and thus wasn't aware of MMY's reputation among non-TMers as a 'charlatan'--when everybody knows *I* know that isn't true, because she and I were both on alt.m.t, where MMY was routinely denounced as such starting in 1995. And second, with my insanely STOPID attempt to misrepresent her exchange with Curtis, which was so egregiously factually false Curtis himself had to step in and confirm what actually took place. So having exposed *myself* as a charlatan and a liar, it's crucially important that I distract everybody by trying to pin something on her, or I'll look like a spineless jellyfish for not being able to own up to what I've done and what it says about me. Here's the deal, Barry: Man up. Take responsibility for once and acknowledge how badly you fouled up in those two instances (not that they're the only two, simply the most recent and among the most foolish of your attempts to Get Judy--be grateful I don't demand you admit to all of them), and I'll be happy to repeat my explanation for why I say TM is the most efficient technique currently easily available to householders for development of consciousness. Oh, and two other conditions: First, you may not attribute the quote TM is best to me. Once you've fulfilled the first requirement and ask me to comply with my end of the deal, you are to attribute to me only my exact phrasing above as the view you want me to explain. Second, if you try this again-- Personally I don't think you'll do it. You'll dodge and weave and try to get me and others to focus on irrelevancies, all so that you don't have to try to defend the indefensible. In other words, you'll do what you always do and posture and distract, while running away from the challenge or the actual issue. --if you attempt to paint the bloopers I'm requiring that you admit to as irrelevancies, or add *any* more lies to the mountain of 'em you've already built, the deal is off. We're either going to have an honest exchange for once or none at all. Got it? Think of this as a learning experience, a karmic lesson you've attempted to avoid for far too long, an opportunity to take the first step on the long path of redemption. Bear in mind that if you try to slough it off as you usually do, you'll have to do so very publicly. Don't make it any more difficult for yourself than you already have. And I *guarantee* you, you'll feel better once you've met the challenge and gotten the top two boulders in your mountain of lies off your chest.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: According to his teaching, that should correlate with an extraordinarily high degree of moral development. There's the rub. Well, it contradicts one part of his message -- if you mean high moral development as something that can be codified. If it can't be codified, then your high level of moral development may be quite distinct from anothers. FWIW, in SBAL, he specifies three sources of such codification: the scriptures of one's religion, the laws of the land, and the views of one's elders. These are what he recommends consulting when one is unsure about the right thing to do. But this is while one is still en route to enlightenment. Once one has attained realization, purportedly the small self is no longer making such decisions; they're dictated by Nature. Then the question arises, might Nature's dictates ever go against the codifications, for reasons that may be entirely inscrutable, even to the realized person?
RE: [FairfieldLife] Suzanne Segal
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of emptybill Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 11:44 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Suzanne Segal Yes very much like Suzanne Seagal. It's there in Maharshi's discourse, but it is more overt in Buddhist literature. I found her story very interesting but also quite funny. Apparently some people didn't listen when he was describing the transition from TC into CC in terms of subjective experience. Oh, I will be expanded into unbounded consciousness must have been her thought, and shows she definitely did not listen and had no clue. The futility of looking for an I to keep for a reference was highlighted by MMY a number of times. She also had a very intense attachment to her Jewish identity, something I found hilarious. The continual need to search out such an identify to make sure it was still findable caused her lots of suffering, all of it self induced. From Reb Yonnasan Gershom's book, Beyond the Ashes, I learned just how crystallized a Jewish identity could be . circulating across many life times just to keep itself intact. Bullshit karma but at last she gave it up, realized the illusion and worked to help other people. Until she died of a brain tumor. I think part of her problem was that she had been away from any spiritual teaching for several years before her awakening, so maybe her understanding had gotten rusty. Also, as many say, the actual experience turns out to be quite different from what we had conceptualized it to be.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip You don't make the rules, Judy. You either play the game as given or you don't play. As given--you mean, by *your* rules. Guess what, bub? *I* decide whose rules I'm going to play by. Sorry, but this time you get to play by *my* rules or *you* don't play. And if you don't play, you'll be exposed as the sniveling spineless jellyfish. Got it?
RE: [FairfieldLife] Suzanne Segal
--- On Mon, 8/9/10, Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com wrote: From: Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Suzanne Segal To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, August 9, 2010, 1:04 PM From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of emptybill Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 11:44 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Suzanne Segal Yes very much like Suzanne Seagal. It's there in Maharshi's discourse, but it is more overt in Buddhist literature. I found her story very interesting but also quite funny. Apparently some people didn't listen when he was describing the transition from TC into CC in terms of subjective experience. Oh, I will be expanded into unbounded consciousness must have been her thought, and shows she definitely did not listen and had no clue. The futility of looking for an I to keep for a reference was highlighted by MMY a number of times. She also had a very intense attachment to her Jewish identity, something I found hilarious. The continual need to search out such an identify to make sure it was still findable caused her lots of suffering, all of it self induced. From Reb Yonnasan Gershom's book, Beyond the Ashes, I learned just how crystallized a Jewish identity could be … circulating across many life times just to keep itself intact. Bullshit karma but at last she gave it up, realized the illusion and worked to help other people. Until she died of a brain tumor. I think part of her problem was that she had been away from any spiritual teaching for several years before her awakening, so maybe her understanding had gotten rusty. Also, as many say, the actual experience turns out to be quite different from what we had conceptualized it to be. To go from a bound, localized identity to absolutely no localization and hence no individual identity in a finger snap blows the mind to pieces. The waking state thought that I will have this experience of unboundedness or I will be unbounded is completely false, although this is the best a waking state mind can do because that 'I-thought, as Ramana Maharishi called it, is the foundation of waking state. Consciousness is completely unlocalized and unbounded to any space and time limitation. Therefore the mind, a localized expression of consciousness, is incapable of knowing pure consciousness. In waking state, the mind knows pure consciousness as a concept only.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Suzanne Segal
Yep, but other than premonitions, I find every experience to be other than how I conceptualize it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of emptybill Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 11:44 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Suzanne Segal Yes very much like Suzanne Seagal. It's there in Maharshi's discourse, but it is more overt in Buddhist literature. I found her story very interesting but also quite funny. Apparently some people didn't listen when he was describing the transition from TC into CC in terms of subjective experience. Oh, I will be expanded into unbounded consciousness must have been her thought, and shows she definitely did not listen and had no clue. The futility of looking for an I to keep for a reference was highlighted by MMY a number of times. She also had a very intense attachment to her Jewish identity, something I found hilarious. The continual need to search out such an identify to make sure it was still findable caused her lots of suffering, all of it self induced. From Reb Yonnasan Gershom's book, Beyond the Ashes, I learned just how crystallized a Jewish identity could be . circulating across many life times just to keep itself intact. Bullshit karma but at last she gave it up, realized the illusion and worked to help other people. Until she died of a brain tumor. I think part of her problem was that she had been away from any spiritual teaching for several years before her awakening, so maybe her understanding had gotten rusty. Also, as many say, the actual experience turns out to be quite different from what we had conceptualized it to be.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
Off the Program... Dude, your post was made at 1:27 in the AM! Couldn't you sleep? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron R giveabighand@ wrote: Whether or not my intellect was satisfied with this or that superficial thing about Maharishi or the Movement is irrelevant. Anybody who has experienced that magic moment of surrender and engagement just before liftoff in the flying sutra, how can they fret over such little things? Power, enormity and bliss. I'll fret over those. BINGO ! Let the small minds fret over small things... As I suggested to Ron, that's what the fascination with power, enormity and bliss sounds like to me. Sounds like a 14-year-old boy masturbating, and fascinated by imagined enormity and the equally imagined power and bliss derived from playing with his dick. :-) ...simply leave them to enjoy their playground. Most of whom has not had your experience. Not having these experiences they are emptyhanded... See what I mean? Emptyhanded sure sounds to me like Ron and Nabby are talking about the same thing: whacking off. And now Nabby is suggesting that those who outgrew such adolescent pastimes are emptyhanded. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Looking at his higher state of consciousness model, which really should have been his big detailed contribution to human thought: can you really say he gave the kind of details that an expert would be able to give? I saw hours and hours of tapes of him discussing higher states and it never really reached beyond the level of translating the brochure descriptions from the Sanskrit. Given how rich these state should be in terms of detailed knowledge concerning how the world works, am I the only one to be underwhelmed by his descriptions? Detailed knowledge concerning how the world works, such as what? What questions about how the world works would you have expected to have answered if he had been an expert? Don't you think permanent access to Ritam should provide some pretty rock'n details about anything? Maharishi started quite a few businesses so it was not out of line to think he might have come up with something really innovative like how to get energy out of french fries or something. But lets just look at the detail he did provide as a basis. Would you be happy in any other area of human knowledge to get the kind of formulaic responses to describing the state that we got from him? Let's just take GC where the celestial level of life is open to perceptions. Do you think that a person who could see this level might have some useful insights about the finest aspect of the relative? Instead we got hours of word dissection or how pra the absolute becomes the relative in chetana in the Vedic word prachetana. Sort of interesting in a scholarly way but a long way from the kind of details a naturalist would give if they really were somewhere describing it. But if you are satisfied with the details of his description for each stage of development, then you are all set. For me they seem kind of lame and lacking in the depth and detail I expect in a book about Tuscan's approach to Italian cooking in the waking state of consciousness enhanced by a bit of Chianti. (For the record, his basuc model of higher states wasn't original with him. His contribution was more in his systematic, highly integrated explanations thereof in layman's language. I think you are giving him a bit more credit for what he came up with in interpretation than it might deserve. But it never evolved. You would think with people in the movement growing into these states we would have unceasingly detail descriptions beyond what you might overhear over the trance-dance music at a rave. What other field of human knowledge billed as a science had so little growth of perspective in the decades Maharishi was in charge? We saw lots of innovations in marketing. But in terms of his insights about life we saw almost no growth of knowledge. Just rehashed cliches enhanced with the new Vedic word of the moment that made it all seem as if something new was coming out instead of the same old points with some new buzz words. And the higher states model was particularly stagnant and I find the the most surprising. That should have been the most vibrant growth part of his teaching considering all the researchers in consciousness were focusing their (even with my jaded perspective) intelligent minds on the task. IMHO, had it been significantly more detailed, it wouldn't really have suited the purpose; it would have been likely to cause confusion rather than clarity. It was hard enough to get the basics across.) I don't agree that it would have caused confusion, why? Any field of knowledge is confusing until you learn the basics then then build on them. But he never did really build on the basics,he repeated them. And we used to get the basics across in a single advanced lecture on the seven states of consciousness in centers. People's descriptions today haven't really gone beyond those catch-phrases.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why does SSRS think he can get away with marauding a congregation?
On Aug 9, 2010, at 9:18 AM, tartbrain wrote: Tone in writing is never certain -- one can always read a post or essay in a variety of different tones -- each having a different inflection of meaning. The tone we hear is often, it seems, reflective of what we would intend in writing such words. This may be particularly true when words, in themselves, are amped up, a characteristic, perhaps talent, that edg displays. When words in themselves are amped up, I tend to read tone in a way I would deliver such a message. Which may have nothing to do with the writer -- only my own inner dynamics. As an exercise, more for fun, I often try to read the same post in several different, opposing, or variant tones. Its quite amazing how different the message is -- from the exact same words. Everything is a reflection of ourselves -- certainly true in ordinary consciousness. Which of course~~on the great bus ride that's life~~ most of us left behind a long time ago (snicker). Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Suzanne Segal
This is why MMY's description of the gradual increase in and culturing of the simultaneity of waking and witnessing is significant for a practitioner in figuring out was is happening. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: --- On Mon, 8/9/10, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: Rick Archer r...@... Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Suzanne Segal To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, August 9, 2010, 1:04 PM From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of emptybill Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 11:44 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Suzanne Segal   Yes very much like Suzanne Seagal. It's there in Maharshi's discourse, but it is more overt in Buddhist literature. I found her story very interesting but also quite funny. Apparently some people didn't listen when he was describing the transition from TC into CC in terms of subjective experience. Oh, I will be expanded into unbounded consciousness must have been her thought, and shows she definitely did not listen and had no clue. The futility of looking for an I to keep for a reference was highlighted by MMY a number of times. She also had a very intense attachment to her Jewish identity, something I found hilarious. The continual need to search out such an identify to make sure it was still findable caused her lots of suffering, all of it self induced. From Reb Yonnasan Gershom's book, Beyond the Ashes, I learned just how crystallized a Jewish identity could be ⦠circulating across many life times just to keep itself intact. Bullshit karma but at last she gave it up, realized the illusion and worked to help other people. Until she died of a brain tumor. I think part of her problem was that she had been away from any spiritual teaching for several years before her awakening, so maybe her understanding had gotten rusty. Also, as many say, the actual experience turns out to be quite different from what we had conceptualized it to be. To go from a bound, localized identity to absolutely no localization and hence no individual identity in a finger snap blows the mind to pieces. The waking state thought that I will have this experience of unboundedness or I will be unbounded is completely false, although this is the best a waking state mind can do because that 'I-thought, as Ramana Maharishi called it, is the foundation of waking state. Consciousness is completely unlocalized and unbounded to any space and time limitation. Therefore the mind, a localized expression of consciousness, is incapable of knowing pure consciousness. In waking state, the mind knows pure consciousness as a concept only.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip You don't make the rules, Judy. You either play the game as given or you don't play. As given--you mean, by *your* rules. I was the one who invited you to display your intellectual fortitude by defending the TM is the best meme. You either do it or you don't. End of story. I have no interest in the latest mistake or misstatement of mine you're obsessing on, and will never have in the future. I see you obsessing from time to time and declaring that you've caught me in some kind of mistake or misstatement and that I should own up to it and I think to myself, That woman is Bat Shit Crazy and I stop reading. I'm not even sure what the latest hideous nitpick offense you're obsessing on right now IS. Call me anything you want, Judy. Nothing you can ever say can get me to debate Bat Shit Crazy stuff with a Bat Shit Crazy person.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Suzanne Segal
On Aug 9, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Bullshit karma but at last she gave it up, realized the illusion and worked to help other people. Until she died of a brain tumor. I think part of her problem was that she had been away from any spiritual teaching for several years before her awakening, so maybe her understanding had gotten rusty. Also, as many say, the actual experience turns out to be quite different from what we had conceptualized it to be. I think her awakening was little more than a major case of depression~~ starting during her pregnancy and continuing on afterwards, not to mention being in a foreign country, her dad being seriously ill, etc~~that went perpetually untreated. Not a nice thing for her friends to have let her deal with quite alone, it would seem. And then try and rationalize her obvious desperation by putting the above spin on it, and any number of similar ones over the years since her death. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Suzanne Segal
Oh yah. It was just the brain tumor slowly developing over the years. But then you gotta have a brain rather than be like Dorothy's scarecrow. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine I think her awakening was little more than a major case of depression~~ starting during her pregnancy and continuing on afterwards, not to mention being in a foreign country, her dad being seriously ill, etc~~that went perpetually untreated. Not a nice thing for her friends to have let her deal with quite alone, it would seem. And then try and rationalize her obvious desperation by putting the above spin on it, and any number of similar ones over the years since her death. Sal
RE: [FairfieldLife] Suzanne Segal
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Sal Sunshine Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 12:40 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Suzanne Segal On Aug 9, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Bullshit karma but at last she gave it up, realized the illusion and worked to help other people. Until she died of a brain tumor. I think part of her problem was that she had been away from any spiritual teaching for several years before her awakening, so maybe her understanding had gotten rusty. Also, as many say, the actual experience turns out to be quite different from what we had conceptualized it to be. I think her awakening was little more than a major case of depression~~ starting during her pregnancy and continuing on afterwards, not to mention being in a foreign country, her dad being seriously ill, etc~~that went perpetually untreated. Not a nice thing for her friends to have let her deal with quite alone, it would seem. And then try and rationalize her obvious desperation by putting the above spin on it, and any number of similar ones over the years since her death. Sal Are you basing that upon having known her personally, or upon having read her book?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Suzanne Segal
Sal, I never saw her experience as being related to her brain tumor. Three reasons. First, many people before and after her have reported similar experiences. Two, I had identical experiences as she did and to the best of my knowledge, I don't have a brain tumor. Three, her symptoms don't match any sort of neurological dysfunction that would occur from a brain tumor. Remember, I have a master's degree in science! ;-) --- On Mon, 8/9/10, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@lisco.com wrote: From: Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@lisco.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Suzanne Segal To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, August 9, 2010, 1:39 PM On Aug 9, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Bullshit karma but at last she gave it up, realized the illusion and worked to help other people. Until she died of a brain tumor. I think part of her problem was that she had been away from any spiritual teaching for several years before her awakening, so maybe her understanding had gotten rusty. Also, as many say, the actual experience turns out to be quite different from what we had conceptualized it to be. I think her awakening was little more than a major case of depression~~ starting during her pregnancy and continuing on afterwards, not to mention being in a foreign country, her dad being seriously ill, etc~~that went perpetually untreated. Not a nice thing for her friends to have let her deal with quite alone, it would seem. And then try and rationalize her obvious desperation by putting the above spin on it, and any number of similar ones over the years since her death. Sal 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-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
[FairfieldLife] WG: Colombian president receiving blessing of the older brothers
this article is made by David Nayan, one of the secretaries of Raja Luis. Subject: great blog post about Colombian president receiving blessing of the older brothers http://theaccidentalmonk.com/2010/unprecedented-presidential-oath/ Unprecedented Presidential Oath By David NayanPublished: August 8, 2010
Re: [FairfieldLife] Suzanne Segal
Plus I also think that many TM'ers have a wooden idea of what enlightenment is. Since it is basically the experience of the transcendent along with activity that experience can vary somewhat depending on one's samskaras ( or remains of ignorance). Peter wrote: Sal, I never saw her experience as being related to her brain tumor. Three reasons. First, many people before and after her have reported similar experiences. Two, I had identical experiences as she did and to the best of my knowledge, I don't have a brain tumor. Three, her symptoms don't match any sort of neurological dysfunction that would occur from a brain tumor. Remember, I have a master's degree in science! ;-) --- On Mon, 8/9/10, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@lisco.com wrote: From: Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@lisco.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Suzanne Segal To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, August 9, 2010, 1:39 PM On Aug 9, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Bullshit karma but at last she gave it up, realized the illusion and worked to help other people. Until she died of a brain tumor. I think part of her problem was that she had been away from any spiritual teaching for several years before her awakening, so maybe her understanding had gotten rusty. Also, as many say, the actual experience turns out to be quite different from what we had conceptualized it to be. I think her awakening was little more than a major case of depression~~ starting during her pregnancy and continuing on afterwards, not to mention being in a foreign country, her dad being seriously ill, etc~~that went perpetually untreated. Not a nice thing for her friends to have let her deal with quite alone, it would seem. And then try and rationalize her obvious desperation by putting the above spin on it, and any number of similar ones over the years since her death. Sal 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-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending:
On Aug 9, 2010, at 11:08 AM, tartbrain wrote: If one drives to FF by way of deserts and another gets there by way of mountains -- is FF actually different to the two drivers? According to recent research like this paper by TM researchers, their map of transcendence (long considered insignificant for anything other than for relaxation effects by independent researchers) is the RIGHT one. An even more recent observation by a leading meditation researcher that ANY basic meditation technique you like is equally beneficial was also met with boos by frightened TM researchers. The key thing is that it's something you like, as that means it's likely you'll continue with the practice. It really doesn't matter if it's the TM brand, the Mindfulness brand or whatever.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Suzanne Segal
On Aug 9, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Peter wrote: Sal, I never saw her experience as being related to her brain tumor. Pete, I never said it did~~I said it as being related to her depression. Not just related, actually~~but the awakening (so-called) being simply a prolonged case of depression that went undiagnosed. (see below). I didn't address the issue of the brain tumor at all. But I wouldn't be surprised if prolonged depression could make you more susceptible to other brain abnormalities. In any case, it's very sad and is yet one more instance of a TMer (or in this case a former one) dying~~possibly unnecessarily~~long before their time. I think her awakening was little more than a major case of depression~~ starting during her pregnancy and continuing on afterwards, not to mention being in a foreign country, her dad being seriously ill, etc~~that went perpetually untreated. Not a nice thing for her friends to have let her deal with quite alone, it would seem. And then try and rationalize her obvious desperation by putting the above spin on it, and any number of similar ones over the years since her death.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Masters and libido
You left out the Afro dude... Satya Sai Baba. Just loved to *purify* little blond headed boys. M used to say that *religious behavior* was the natural behavior of the enlightened but not possible for the unenlightened. I think a lot of well intentioned yogis come to the west to teach but eventually get corrupted by western values. Very liberal views here, regarding sex, seems to be their un-doing. From: shanti2218411 kc...@epix.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, August 8, 2010 9:51:52 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Masters and libido Re Maharishi difficulties with staying celibate and/or not sexually exploiting female disciples. A number of other enlightened masters have apparently also had this problem.This list would include; Swami Rama Amrit Desai Ramesh Balsekar J.Krishnamurti Sogyal Rinpoche Adi Da Swami Muktananda a bunch of others whose names I can't remember I think that the fact that this appears to be a relatively common problem suggests that(if you assume these people are enlightened) the assumption that being enlightened will necessarily lead to certain level of moral and social functioning is unfounded and that it would be a mistake to automatically attribute to these people qualities/virtues they do not in fact possess them.Just food for thought.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip You don't make the rules, Judy. You either play the game as given or you don't play. As given--you mean, by *your* rules. I was the one who invited you to display your intellectual fortitude by defending the TM is the best meme. You either do it or you don't. End of story. As I said, I get to decide whose rules I'm going to play by. This time around, they aren't yours. I decided I'd display my intellectual fortitude only after you owned up to your two latest horrendous bloopers. Things don't always go the way you want them to go in life, Barry, and for you this is one of those times. I have no interest in the latest mistake or misstatement of mine you're obsessing on, Sure, Barry, sure. If your lies and STOOPID mistakes meant so little to you, you wouldn't go to such lengths to cover them up and avoid admitting to them. snip I'm not even sure what the latest hideous nitpick offense you're obsessing on right now IS. Yeah, you know exactly what they are. And just so everyone else does, I'll repeat from my previous post my translation of your challenge: I embarrassed--nay, irretrievably humiliated--myself in public twice last week: First with my patently idiotic claim that she's been in a TMO 'cocoon' since she learned TM and thus wasn't aware of MMY's reputation among non-TMers as a 'charlatan'--when everybody knows *I* know that isn't true, because she and I were both on alt.m.t, where MMY was routinely denounced as such starting in 1995. And second, with my insanely STOPID attempt to misrepresent her exchange with Curtis, which was so egregiously factually false Curtis himself had to step in and confirm what actually took place. So having exposed *myself* as a charlatan and a liar, it's crucially important that I distract everybody by trying to pin something on her, or I'll look like a spineless jellyfish for not being able to own up to what I've done and what it says about me. The more you try to wiggle out of them, the more they get repeated. See how that works? You don't *get* to flush them down the memory hole. And by the way, the deal is off. I told you a condition of the deal was that you not lie about your mistakes (or anything else), but you just did so by calling them a nitpick (as well as by pretending you don't care about them). Call me anything you want, Judy. Nothing you can ever say can get me to debate Bat Shit Crazy stuff with a Bat Shit Crazy person. What's Bat Shit Crazy is your pretense that there's any *debate* here, Barry. You made the humiliating bloopers; they're on the record. You had a chance to admit to them and you passed it up like the blubbering, whiny coward you are. If you'd admitted to them, you *could* have had the debate you wanted to have with me about my view of TM. Now you don't get to have that. Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you. This time you got eaten. Better luck next time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Looking at his higher state of consciousness model, which really should have been his big detailed contribution to human thought: can you really say he gave the kind of details that an expert would be able to give? I saw hours and hours of tapes of him discussing higher states and it never really reached beyond the level of translating the brochure descriptions from the Sanskrit. Given how rich these state should be in terms of detailed knowledge concerning how the world works, am I the only one to be underwhelmed by his descriptions? Detailed knowledge concerning how the world works, such as what? What questions about how the world works would you have expected to have answered if he had been an expert? Don't you think permanent access to Ritam should provide some pretty rock'n details about anything? Maharishi started quite a few businesses so it was not out of line to think he might have come up with something really innovative like how to get energy out of french fries or something. My understanding of this kind of siddhi is that it's on a need-to-know basis. What can be perceived via ritam isn't decided by the individual in question. But lets just look at the detail he did provide as a basis. Would you be happy in any other area of human knowledge to get the kind of formulaic responses to describing the state that we got from him? At that stage of the teaching process, with this kind of knowledge, I'd expect to hear the basics until the teacher was satisfied that everyone had mastered them. Let's just take GC where the celestial level of life is open to perceptions. Do you think that a person who could see this level might have some useful insights about the finest aspect of the relative? Maybe, maybe not. See above about need to know. In this case, on the part of the students as well as the teacher. But if you are satisfied with the details of his description for each stage of development, then you are all set. For me they seem kind of lame and lacking in the depth and detail I expect in a book about Tuscan's approach to Italian cooking in the waking state of consciousness enhanced by a bit of Chianti. As you know, I've never been confident you actually got the depth. I've never seen you demonstrate any real understanding of it. (For the record, his basuc model of higher states wasn't original with him. His contribution was more in his systematic, highly integrated explanations thereof in layman's language. I think you are giving him a bit more credit for what he came up with in interpretation than it might deserve. It's less credit than you gave him! But it never evolved. You would think with people in the movement growing into these states we would have unceasingly detail descriptions beyond what you might overhear over the trance-dance music at a rave. I haven't seen much in the way of detailed descriptions from you of your experiences of advanced states. Maybe you didn't have anything beyond the trance-dance level? What other field of human knowledge billed as a science had so little growth of perspective in the decades Maharishi was in charge? We saw lots of innovations in marketing. But in terms of his insights about life we saw almost no growth of knowledge. I don't think higher states involve insights about life. Those would be relative concepts. Just rehashed cliches enhanced with the new Vedic word of the moment that made it all seem as if something new was coming out instead of the same old points with some new buzz words. And the higher states model was particularly stagnant and I find the the most surprising. That should have been the most vibrant growth part of his teaching considering all the researchers in consciousness were focusing their (even with my jaded perspective) intelligent minds on the task. Growth of consciousness isn't *about* focusing the mind on the task. Again, that's all relative stuff. The growth is internal and subjective (and very largely indescribable anyway; words aren't an adequate tool for the job). IMHO, had it been significantly more detailed, it wouldn't really have suited the purpose; it would have been likely to cause confusion rather than clarity. It was hard enough to get the basics across.) I don't agree that it would have caused confusion, why? Any field of knowledge is confusing until you learn the basics then then build on them. But he never did really build on the basics,he repeated them. And we used to get the basics across in a single advanced lecture on the seven states of consciousness in centers. People's descriptions today haven't really gone beyond those
[FairfieldLife] Re: Suzanne Segal
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Aug 9, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Peter wrote: Sal, I never saw her experience as being related to her brain tumor. Pete, I never said it did~~I said it as being related to her depression. Not just related, actually~~but the awakening (so-called) being simply a prolonged case of depression that went undiagnosed. FWIW, a couple of years before I started TM, I was diagnosed with full-blown clinical depression (which fortunately lifted after about a year). Nothing in my experience of what it was like to be depressed resonates even *faintly* with her descriptions. Couldn't possibly have been more different, except in that it was very unpleasant.
[FairfieldLife] Re: When the date for the promised Apocalypse comes and goes...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: ...the leader sets a new date and everyone resets their count-down clocks! I am hearing a trend of divorcing Maharishi's claims for his practice from our evaluation of the value of his system in some posts. Aren't we then re-writing the whole scriptural basis of this philosophy when we divorce the inner state and the effect of virtue on the ethics of a person? By their fruits yee shall know them and all? What we have is a classic case of the counterexample attempting to be explained away as a non-counter-example to the claim. We are changing the bullseye to fit where the arrow landed. The abstract idea of enlightenment divorced from making a person better in some recognizable way either through science or our own personal observation means that any flight of inner experience fancy qualifies as the goal. The words are too vague to be meaningful for evaluation like hanging around people on acid. The connection between godliness or whatever you want to call it and ethical virtue is an indisputable cornerstone of Maharishi's teaching and I would say of most religious systems. I think the direction of this conversation is in the Charlie Manson direction of If God is one, what is right or wrong? Again this is counter to the whole premise of scientifically verified benefits of TM. You are making an appeal of not evaluating the broad claims of the system against the evidence. When was that a good policy? As a *policy*, it's not so hot. In specific instances, though, it may be appropriate. But at any rate, what *I'm* saying is that those particular claims are fundamentally wrong. So I *am* evaluating them. It may not suit the scientifically minded to simply leave it at subjective experience that can't itself be evaluated, but that may just be the nature of the beast. As to the Charlie Manson direction, some people do interpret it like that, but that's a bg mistake. Manson was using If all is One, what can be wrong? to *excuse* his murderous behavior. As I see it, the issue is simply whether bad behavior is incompatible with enlightenment, not whether enlightened people who behave badly are accountable for their misdeeds: they are, just as much as anybody else (maybe more so, if they've had occasion to spend time studying the ethical principles of their path or their religion or society). If behavior indeed can't be taken as evidence of enlightenment, the interesting questions, it seems to me, are: How and why did the idea that good behavior *is* evidence of enlightenment (and the reverse, that bad behavior is evidence of lack of same) get embedded in so many spiritual traditions? And if enlightenment doesn't produce ethical behavior, what the hell good is it? I suspect the answers are related.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
On Aug 9, 2010, at 8:46 AM, raunchydog wrote: AGAIN...it is not possible to judge a person's level of consciousness by his or her actions. I think this basic TM dogma, is just a bad, half-told version of the general Hindu idea that one can not necessarily tell someone is enlightened by external cues but --and this is the part that is left out-- sometimes you can grok someone is in a different (although not necessarily higher or more integrated) state of consciousness. In some cases, an experienced teacher may give one a taste through various forms of shaktipat or they might want to assist one in recognizing a unified state, as in direct introduction to rigpa by Dzogchen masters. In such cases they can directly show who they are but unless one is actually trained in discriminating samsaric patterns from nirvanic ones, one can easily delude oneself with their own projections as to what's really going on. Some people will go through the most elaborate somersaults to justify their guru's actions. The you can't tell a person's level of consciousness through their actions canard is a favorite rationalization of the desperate. It's also a fav of the neo- and pseudo- advaitin look Ma, I'm enlightened school where it's very helpful to always have a built-in way out.
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Aug 07 00:00:00 2010 End Date (UTC): Sat Aug 14 00:00:00 2010 192 messages as of (UTC) Mon Aug 09 21:11:21 2010 21 nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 20 Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com 19 authfriend jst...@panix.com 12 Peter drpetersutp...@yahoo.com 11 emptybill emptyb...@yahoo.com 10 tartbrain no_re...@yahoogroups.com 10 raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com 9 curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com 9 cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com 8 TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com 7 Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@lisco.com 5 seventhray1 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net 4 Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net 4 Robert babajii...@yahoo.com 4 Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net 3 jpgillam jpgil...@yahoo.com 3 Tom Pall thomas.p...@gmail.com 3 Buck dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 2 pranamoocher bh...@hotmail.com 2 merlin vedamer...@yahoo.de 2 gullible fool ffl...@yahoo.com 2 Peter L Sutphen drpetersutp...@yahoo.com 2 PaliGap compost...@yahoo.co.uk 2 Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com 2 Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com 2 Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com 1 yifuxero yifux...@yahoo.com 1 shukra69 shukr...@yahoo.ca 1 shanti2218411 kc...@epix.net 1 sgrayatlarge no_re...@yahoogroups.com 1 merudanda no_re...@yahoogroups.com 1 marekreavis reavisma...@sbcglobal.net 1 johnlasher20002000 johnltheob...@mchsi.com 1 giveabighand giveabigh...@yahoo.com 1 fflmod ffl...@yahoo.com 1 feste37 fest...@yahoo.com 1 ditzyklanmail carc...@yahoo.co.in 1 Yifu Xero yifux...@yahoo.com 1 Ron R giveabigh...@yahoo.com 1 John jr_...@yahoo.com Posters: 40 Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times = Daylight Saving Time (Summer): US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM Standard Time (Winter): US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
Vaj wrote: On Aug 9, 2010, at 8:46 AM, raunchydog wrote: AGAIN...it is not possible to judge a person's level of consciousness by his or her actions. I think this basic TM dogma, is just a bad, half-told version of the general Hindu idea that one can not necessarily tell someone is enlightened by external cues but --and this is the part that is left out-- sometimes you can grok someone is in a different (although not necessarily higher or more integrated) state of consciousness. In some cases, an experienced teacher may give one a taste through various forms of shaktipat or they might want to assist one in recognizing a unified state, as in direct introduction to rigpa by Dzogchen masters. In such cases they can directly show who they are but unless one is actually trained in discriminating samsaric patterns from nirvanic ones, one can easily delude oneself with their own projections as to what's really going on. Some people will go through the most elaborate somersaults to justify their guru's actions. The you can't tell a person's level of consciousness through their actions canard is a favorite rationalization of the desperate. It's also a fav of the neo- and pseudo- advaitin look Ma, I'm enlightened school where it's very helpful to always have a built-in way out. Some Indians say you can tell if there is light emitting from the third eye. Of course that's a little hard to do on an Yahoo Group. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: WG: Colombian president receiving blessing of the older brothers
so beautiful, thank you --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merlin vedamer...@... wrote: this article is made by David Nayan, one of the secretaries of Raja Luis. Subject: great blog post about Colombian president receiving blessing of the older brothers http://theaccidentalmonk.com/2010/unprecedented-presidential-oath/ Unprecedented Presidential Oath By David NayanPublished: August 8, 2010
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
Please excuse the lack of around Judy's comments. I cut and pasted this into another doc while yahoo groups was not cooperating this afternoon. I'll put a ME: in front of my stuff. Re: Response to Curtis --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Looking at his higher state of consciousness model, which really should have been his big detailed contribution to human thought: can you really say he gave the kind of details that an expert would be able to give? I saw hours and hours of tapes of him discussing higher states and it never really reached beyond the level of translating the brochure descriptions from the Sanskrit. Given how rich these state should be in terms of detailed knowledge concerning how the world works, am I the only one to be underwhelmed by his descriptions? Detailed knowledge concerning how the world works, such as what? What questions about how the world works would you have expected to have answered if he had been an expert? Don't you think permanent access to Ritam should provide some pretty rock'n details about anything? Maharishi started quite a few businesses so it was not out of line to think he might have come up with something really innovative like how to get energy out of french fries or something. My understanding of this kind of siddhi is that it's on a need-to-know basis. What can be perceived via ritam isn't decided by the individual in question. Me: Maharishi sold it as volitional but either way I have no reason to view it as more than just another Vedic myth like flying monkeys. But lets just look at the detail he did provide as a basis. Would you be happy in any other area of human knowledge to get the kind of formulaic responses to describing the state that we got from him? At that stage of the teaching process, with this kind of knowledge, I'd expect to hear the basics until the teacher was satisfied that everyone had mastered them. Me: 50 years and then just die without laying out more? I'm gunna go with he didn't have more or he would have packaged it and sold it. Let's just take GC where the celestial level of life is open to perceptions. Do you think that a person who could see this level might have some useful insights about the finest aspect of the relative? Maybe, maybe not. See above about need to know. In this case, on the part of the students as well as the teacher. Me: So everything with the flow of knowledge is the best of all possible worlds? Well you are the one who needs to be satisfied here so if you are good for you. But if you are satisfied with the details of his description for each stage of development, then you are all set. For me they seem kind of lame and lacking in the depth and detail I expect in a book about Tuscan's approach to Italian cooking in the waking state of consciousness enhanced by a bit of Chianti. As you know, I've never been confident you actually got the depth. I've never seen you demonstrate any real understanding of it. Me: This has always been your oddest line of attack since as we both know I am the only one officially vetted and awarded with accolades as having understood it really well by both MIU and MERU. That said, my conversations with you started after I had been out for some time and some of the details of the teaching have an angels on the head of a pin quality to me now. I wouldn't expect you to think I understood his teaching now. I re-phrase his idea in my own way now unless I am specifically pointing out what I heard him say. The way I express how I understand it all now is not as Maharishi wanted us to understand, or how I did when I was a believer. I disagree with him about HIS grasp of the details of human consciousness. I think he made a lot of stuff up. (For the record, his basuc model of higher states wasn't original with him. His contribution was more in his systematic, highly integrated explanations thereof in layman's language. I think you are giving him a bit more credit for what he came up with in interpretation than it might deserve. It's less credit than you gave him! But it never evolved. You would think with people in the movement growing into these states we would have unceasingly detail descriptions beyond what you might overhear over the trance-dance music at a rave. I haven't seen much in the way of detailed descriptions from you of your experiences of advanced states. Me: I don't view them as advanced but just altered. Describing them isn't my job it was his. Why would you try to throw this burden of proof on me now? Maybe you didn't have anything beyond the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Struggle between VasiSTha and Vishvaamitra?
over the title Brahmarishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_re...@... wrote:
vasiSTha mfn. (superl. fr. 1. %{va4su} ; cf. %{va4sIyas} and under 3.
%{vas}) most excellent , best , richest RV. AV. Br. ChUp. MBh. ; m. (wrongly
written %{vaziSTha}) , ` the most wealthy 'N. of a celebrated Vedic R2ishi
or sage (owner of the ` cow of plenty ' , called Nandini1 , offspring of
Surabhi , which by gransing all desires made him , as his name implies ,
master of every %{vasu} or desirable object ; he was the typical
representative of Bra1hmanical rank , and the legends of his conflict with
Vis3va1-mitra , who raised himself from the kingly or Kshatriya to the
Bra1hmanical class , were probably founded on the actual struggles which took
place between the Bra1hmans and Kshatriyas ; a great many hymns of the RV.
are ascribed to these two great rivals ; those of the seventh Man2d2ala ,
besides some others , being attributed to Vasisht2ha , while those of the
third Man2d2ala are assigned to Vis3va1-mitra ; in one of Vasishtha's hymns
he is represented as king Su-da1s ' family priest , an office to which
Vis3va1-mitra also aspired ; in another hymn Vasisht2ha claims to have been
inspired by Varun2a , and in another [RV. vii , 33 , 11] he is called the son
of the Apsaras Urvas3i1 by Mitra and Varun2a , whence his patronymic
Maitra1varun2i [930,3] ; in Manu i , 35 , he is enumerated among the ten
Praja1-patis or Patriarchs produced by Manu Sva1yambhuva for the peopling of
the universe ; in the MBh. he is mentioned as the family priest of the solar
race or family of Ikshva1ku and Ra1ma-candra , and in the Pura1n2as as one of
the arrangers of the Vedas in the Dva1para age ; he is , moreover , called
the father of Aurva [Hariv.] , of the Suka1lins [Mn.] , of seven sons [Hariv.
Pur.] , and the husband of Aksha-ma1la1 or Arundhati1 [MBh.] and of U1rja1
[Pur.] ; other legends make him one of the 7 patriarchal sages regarded as
forming the Great Bear in which he represents the star (see %{RSi}) RV. c.
c. (cf. IW. 361 ; 402 n. 1 c.) ; N. of the author of a law-book and other
wks. (prob. intended to be ascribed to the Vedic R2ishi above) ; pl. the
family of Vasisht2ha RV. S3Br. S3rS. (%{vasiSThasyA7GkuzaH} c.N. of Sa1mans
A1rshBr.) ; N. of an Anuva1ka Pat. on Pa1n2. 4-3 , 131 Va1rtt. 2 ; n. flesh
Gal.
[FairfieldLife] Re: When the date for the promised Apocalypse comes and goes...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: ...the leader sets a new date and everyone resets their count-down clocks! I am hearing a trend of divorcing Maharishi's claims for his practice from our evaluation of the value of his system in some posts. Aren't we then re-writing the whole scriptural basis of this philosophy when we divorce the inner state and the effect of virtue on the ethics of a person? By their fruits yee shall know them and all? What we have is a classic case of the counterexample attempting to be explained away as a non-counter-example to the claim. We are changing the bullseye to fit where the arrow landed. The abstract idea of enlightenment divorced from making a person better in some recognizable way either through science or our own personal observation means that any flight of inner experience fancy qualifies as the goal. The words are too vague to be meaningful for evaluation like hanging around people on acid. The connection between godliness or whatever you want to call it and ethical virtue is an indisputable cornerstone of Maharishi's teaching and I would say of most religious systems. I think the direction of this conversation is in the Charlie Manson direction of If God is one, what is right or wrong? Again this is counter to the whole premise of scientifically verified benefits of TM. You are making an appeal of not evaluating the broad claims of the system against the evidence. When was that a good policy? As a *policy*, it's not so hot. In specific instances, though, it may be appropriate. But at any rate, what *I'm* saying is that those particular claims are fundamentally wrong. So I *am* evaluating them. It may not suit the scientifically minded to simply leave it at subjective experience that can't itself be evaluated, but that may just be the nature of the beast. I'm not sure descriptions of internal states can't be discussed rigorously, if not in the language of hard science, than perhaps the arts. There are other ways to evaluate internal values other than science. In artistic evaluation the value of the state might be in its expression and the effect that has on others. As to the Charlie Manson direction, some people do interpret it like that, but that's a bg mistake. Manson was using If all is One, what can be wrong? to *excuse* his murderous behavior. And of course he was just F'n nuts! As I see it, the issue is simply whether bad behavior is incompatible with enlightenment, not whether enlightened people who behave badly are accountable for their misdeeds: they are, just as much as anybody else (maybe more so, if they've had occasion to spend time studying the ethical principles of their path or their religion or society). If behavior indeed can't be taken as evidence of enlightenment, the interesting questions, it seems to me, are: How and why did the idea that good behavior *is* evidence of enlightenment (and the reverse, that bad behavior is evidence of lack of same) get embedded in so many spiritual traditions? And if enlightenment doesn't produce ethical behavior, what the hell good is it? I suspect the answers are related. That was a great response. I think most people, Maharishi included, believe they are related but it just hasn't panned out. We need to take a look at the value of the states produced by meditation outside the context of these old systems and decide their value. They still might have uses but they may not live up the solution to all problems hype.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Don't Indulge in Past Life Stuff'
That's an easy one. Jerry was a trilobite in a former life. http://www.tinyurl.com/2fh7dco --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii...@... wrote: Jerry said, to not indulge in past life stuff , right now... Because it would be like looking in the trash, Of things long gone... It's also dangerous to dwell too much on past stuff, Because you could actually recreate the same pattern, Which went before... So... Who Jerry might have been in a past life... I can't really say, at this time. Robert~(Babaji)
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Don't Indulge in Past Life Stuff'
Thanks Chaim - that is so comforting. Can we sing kumbaya now? Our present life already includes those past life karmas, sanskaras and vasanas. They will not suddenly disappear because we don't know what they are or fail to influence us because we meditate. While we will not learn much from someone telling us about a past life, we can learn a lot from temporarily re-immersing ourselves in one provided it is done properly. And, contrary to your quote above, this is part of Buddhist training in the Jhana/Dhyana samaapatti-s. It is even considered quite valuable because it clearly demonstrates the utterly ephemeral nature of human identity and human experience. It breaks down the lie of a permanent `I'. Your good buddy, heinrich --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii...@... wrote: Jerry said, to not indulge in past life stuff , right now... Because it would be like looking in the trash, Of things long gone... It's also dangerous to dwell too much on past stuff, Because you could actually recreate the same pattern, Which went before... So... Who Jerry might have been in a past life... I can't really say, at this time. Robert~(Babaji)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: Vaj wrote: On Aug 9, 2010, at 8:46 AM, raunchydog wrote: AGAIN...it is not possible to judge a person's level of consciousness by his or her actions. I think this basic TM dogma, is just a bad, half-told version of the general Hindu idea that one can not necessarily tell someone is enlightened by external cues but --and this is the part that is left out-- sometimes you can grok someone is in a different (although not necessarily higher or more integrated) state of consciousness. In some cases, an experienced teacher may give one a taste through various forms of shaktipat or they might want to assist one in recognizing a unified state, as in direct introduction to rigpa by Dzogchen masters. In such cases they can directly show who they are but unless one is actually trained in discriminating samsaric patterns from nirvanic ones, one can easily delude oneself with their own projections as to what's really going on. Some people will go through the most elaborate somersaults to justify their guru's actions. The you can't tell a person's level of consciousness through their actions canard is a favorite rationalization of the desperate. It's also a fav of the neo- and pseudo- advaitin look Ma, I'm enlightened school where it's very helpful to always have a built-in way out. Some Indians say you can tell if there is light emitting from the third eye. Of course that's a little hard to do on an Yahoo Group. ;-) My gaze cuts through 1/2 inch steel plate. Does that count?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Suzanne Segal
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of emptybill Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 11:44 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Suzanne Segal Yes very much like Suzanne Seagal. It's there in Maharshi's discourse, but it is more overt in Buddhist literature. I found her story very interesting but also quite funny. Apparently some people didn't listen when he was describing the transition from TC into CC in terms of subjective experience. Oh, I will be expanded into unbounded consciousness must have been her thought, and shows she definitely did not listen and had no clue. The futility of looking for an I to keep for a reference was highlighted by MMY a number of times. She also had a very intense attachment to her Jewish identity, something I found hilarious. The continual need to search out such an identify to make sure it was still findable caused her lots of suffering, all of it self induced. From Reb Yonnasan Gershom's book, Beyond the Ashes, I learned just how crystallized a Jewish identity could be . circulating across many life times just to keep itself intact. Bullshit karma but at last she gave it up, realized the illusion and worked to help other people. Until she died of a brain tumor. I think part of her problem was that she had been away from any spiritual teaching for several years before her awakening, so maybe her understanding had gotten rusty. Also, as many say, the actual experience turns out to be quite different from what we had conceptualized it to be. I suppose there is another hypothesis there. That htey are not experiencing what was conceptually laid out. Paint the target around the arrow. Regarding an adjacent post -- about what acts loftier (sounding) states of consciousness - Nature is one common TMO response. Though I read a debate on recently about whether the Divine was doing all the actions in ones life.The general consensus was yes. The concept has a funny side, several actually. But ba back to Nature -- which some would say is the Divine, I see it karma. All just the resolution and unwinding of karma. Which is what is happening pre loss of I -- where authorship of actions are falsely claimed. Karma is nature IMO. Thus, in a more general, simpler, easier to market way, saying nature acts conveeys the same truth -- but in more publicly bland way. Though some don't give much credence to karma, to cause and effect. Which makes a lot of sense, given there i so little cause and effect in nature -- its all just pretty random. :)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Aug 9, 2010, at 11:08 AM, tartbrain wrote: If one drives to FF by way of deserts and another gets there by way of mountains -- is FF actually different to the two drivers? According to recent research like this paper by TM researchers, their map of transcendence (long considered insignificant for anything other than for relaxation effects by independent researchers) is the RIGHT one. An even more recent observation by a leading meditation researcher that ANY basic meditation technique you like is equally beneficial was also met with boos by frightened TM researchers. The key thing is that it's something you like, as that means it's likely you'll continue with the practice. It really doesn't matter if it's the TM brand, the Mindfulness brand or whatever. That was my point. TM may be an ox cert, but if it gets you there, if you maintain the practice for embedded reasons (family, friends, socially etc) then it is of value. Other methods may be awesomely more fantastic. But if both routes get you to where you wnat to go, seems ok. And non techniques work. One can transcend on just awareness -- an dI am sure many through the ages did this -- and that perhaps many inspirations came from this non method.
[FairfieldLife] Re: When the date for the promised Apocalypse comes and goes...
Yea, this is a pretty neat post. Seems to me, on the surface, and for quite a few levels below the surface, (pretty much as far as I can see) you would expect this to be the case: namely that the development of higher states of consciousness, especially among, someone considered enlightened would equate to a higher standard of behavior. Now that this has been demonstrated to not be the case (at least if you consider his behavior of sexual relations with students/disciples to be an example of low level behavior), then you have to deal with a pretty big disconnect. Of course this is what we have been preoccupied for the last three weeks. I guess each will continue processing it in his/her own way. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: ...the leader sets a new date and everyone resets their count-down clocks! I am hearing a trend of divorcing Maharishi's claims for his practice from our evaluation of the value of his system in some posts. Aren't we then re-writing the whole scriptural basis of this philosophy when we divorce the inner state and the effect of virtue on the ethics of a person? By their fruits yee shall know them and all? What we have is a classic case of the counterexample attempting to be explained away as a non-counter-example to the claim. We are changing the bullseye to fit where the arrow landed. The abstract idea of enlightenment divorced from making a person better in some recognizable way either through science or our own personal observation means that any flight of inner experience fancy qualifies as the goal. The words are too vague to be meaningful for evaluation like hanging around people on acid. The connection between godliness or whatever you want to call it and ethical virtue is an indisputable cornerstone of Maharishi's teaching and I would say of most religious systems. I think the direction of this conversation is in the Charlie Manson direction of If God is one, what is right or wrong? Again this is counter to the whole premise of scientifically verified benefits of TM. You are making an appeal of not evaluating the broad claims of the system against the evidence. When was that a good policy?
[FairfieldLife] Re: When the date for the promised Apocalypse comes and goes...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: ...the leader sets a new date and everyone resets their count-down clocks! I am hearing a trend of divorcing Maharishi's claims for his practice from our evaluation of the value of his system in some posts. Aren't we then re-writing the whole scriptural basis of this philosophy when we divorce the inner state and the effect of virtue on the ethics of a person? By their fruits yee shall know them and all? What we have is a classic case of the counterexample attempting to be explained away as a non-counter-example to the claim. We are changing the bullseye to fit where the arrow landed. The abstract idea of enlightenment divorced from making a person better in some recognizable way either through science or our own personal observation means that any flight of inner experience fancy qualifies as the goal. The words are too vague to be meaningful for evaluation like hanging around people on acid. The connection between godliness or whatever you want to call it and ethical virtue is an indisputable cornerstone of Maharishi's teaching and I would say of most religious systems. I think the direction of this conversation is in the Charlie Manson direction of If God is one, what is right or wrong? Again this is counter to the whole premise of scientifically verified benefits of TM. You are making an appeal of not evaluating the broad claims of the system against the evidence. When was that a good policy? I have made similar arguments as yours above. And human virtues, regardless of whether they come from liberation or not, probably trump liberation. (not a short simple topic) However, I am not tied to traditions of MMY's teaching, religious teaching, or ethics. Towards a dogma free zone is my direction. Looking at it freshly, all ethics and correct action are contextual, they are relative to time, place, age, geography, culture and context. Consciousness (as in Atman, not consciousness of something) is totally non-contextual, it is not dependent upon, or relative to anything. Thus, how can action and Consciousness (Atman) have any relationship what so ever?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
Ritam-bhara prajna is not described this way by Vyasa so I am not sure where this interpretation comes from. Ritam prajna is described by him as direct non-conceptual knowing of particularity in which there is no such thing as a general idea (that means no abstraction whatsoever, whether linguistic or conceptual). This type of direct cognition is unconditioned by concepts or space, time or cause. That means this insight or direct perception is independent of: 1. any locus of the seer/seeing /seen 2. any sequence of moments in which it occurs 3. any causal conditions which seem to anchor or produce such insight. This type of direct cognition sees the specific characteristics and qualities of an object just as it is in itself without regard to the overlays of conditioning, either by language or culture, whether known or unknown. Although Ritam is described in the Rig Veda as the Right, it is conjoined with Satyam (Truth) and Brihat (the Vast Expanse) i.e. these are three mutual values that uphold the universe. Just as prakriti is just the three guna-s functioning together in coordination, so Dharma is satyam, ritam, brihat conjoined in universal functioning.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
tartbrain wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: Vaj wrote: On Aug 9, 2010, at 8:46 AM, raunchydog wrote: AGAIN...it is not possible to judge a person's level of consciousness by his or her actions. I think this basic TM dogma, is just a bad, half-told version of the general Hindu idea that one can not necessarily tell someone is enlightened by external cues but --and this is the part that is left out-- sometimes you can grok someone is in a different (although not necessarily higher or more integrated) state of consciousness. In some cases, an experienced teacher may give one a taste through various forms of shaktipat or they might want to assist one in recognizing a unified state, as in direct introduction to rigpa by Dzogchen masters. In such cases they can directly show who they are but unless one is actually trained in discriminating samsaric patterns from nirvanic ones, one can easily delude oneself with their own projections as to what's really going on. Some people will go through the most elaborate somersaults to justify their guru's actions. The you can't tell a person's level of consciousness through their actions canard is a favorite rationalization of the desperate. It's also a fav of the neo- and pseudo- advaitin look Ma, I'm enlightened school where it's very helpful to always have a built-in way out. Some Indians say you can tell if there is light emitting from the third eye. Of course that's a little hard to do on an Yahoo Group. ;-) My gaze cuts through 1/2 inch steel plate. Does that count? From your third eye?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Aug 9, 2010, at 8:46 AM, raunchydog wrote: AGAIN...it is not possible to judge a person's level of consciousness by his or her actions. I think this basic TM dogma, is just a bad, half-told version of the general Hindu idea that one can not necessarily tell someone is enlightened by external cues but --and this is the part that is left out-- sometimes you can grok someone is in a different (although not necessarily higher or more integrated) state of consciousness. In some cases, an experienced teacher may give one a taste through various forms of shaktipat or they might want to assist one in recognizing a unified state, as in direct introduction to rigpa by Dzogchen masters. In such cases they can directly show who they are but unless one is actually trained in discriminating samsaric patterns from nirvanic ones, one can easily delude oneself with their own projections as to what's really going on. Some people will go through the most elaborate somersaults to justify their guru's actions. The you can't tell a person's level of consciousness through their actions canard is a favorite rationalization of the desperate. It's also a fav of the neo- and pseudo- advaitin look Ma, I'm enlightened school where it's very helpful to always have a built-in way out. Perhaps not intended, but this sort of sets up a false set of choices: a) enlightenment correlates with moral behavior or b) all shit breaks loose and every phony has a good alibi. I think there are strong reasons and experience that Atman has nothing to do with morals. Atman can coexist with quite kinky prarabdha karma / lesh avidya. And per adjacent post, how can something totally non contextual (Atman) have anything to do with something totally contextual -- moral action and ethics.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: When the date for the promised Apocalypse comes and goes...
Unfathomable is the course of action! Another take on the situation --- On Mon, 8/9/10, seventhray1 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net wrote: From: seventhray1 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: When the date for the promised Apocalypse comes and goes... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, August 9, 2010, 11:05 PM Yea, this is a pretty neat post. Seems to me, on the surface, and for quite a few levels below the surface, (pretty much as far as I can see) you would expect this to be the case: namely that the development of higher states of consciousness, especially among, someone considered enlightened would equate to a higher standard of behavior. Now that this has been demonstrated to not be the case (at least if you consider his behavior of sexual relations with students/disciples to be an example of low level behavior), then you have to deal with a pretty big disconnect. Of course this is what we have been preoccupied for the last three weeks. I guess each will continue processing it in his/her own way. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: ...the leader sets a new date and everyone resets their count-down clocks! I am hearing a trend of divorcing Maharishi's claims for his practice from our evaluation of the value of his system in some posts. Aren't we then re-writing the whole scriptural basis of this philosophy when we divorce the inner state and the effect of virtue on the ethics of a person? By their fruits yee shall know them and all? What we have is a classic case of the counterexample attempting to be explained away as a non-counter-example to the claim. We are changing the bullseye to fit where the arrow landed. The abstract idea of enlightenment divorced from making a person better in some recognizable way either through science or our own personal observation means that any flight of inner experience fancy qualifies as the goal. The words are too vague to be meaningful for evaluation like hanging around people on acid. The connection between godliness or whatever you want to call it and ethical virtue is an indisputable cornerstone of Maharishi's teaching and I would say of most religious systems. I think the direction of this conversation is in the Charlie Manson direction of If God is one, what is right or wrong? Again this is counter to the whole premise of scientifically verified benefits of TM. You are making an appeal of not evaluating the broad claims of the system against the evidence. When was that a good policy?
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Don't Indulge in Past Life Stuff'
Heinrich? http://graveyardrecords.com/images/adolf_hitler2.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptyb...@... wrote: Thanks Chaim - that is so comforting. Can we sing kumbaya now? Our present life already includes those past life karmas, sanskaras and vasanas. They will not suddenly disappear because we don't know what they are or fail to influence us because we meditate. While we will not learn much from someone telling us about a past life, we can learn a lot from temporarily re-immersing ourselves in one provided it is done properly. And, contrary to your quote above, this is part of Buddhist training in the Jhana/Dhyana samaapatti-s. It is even considered quite valuable because it clearly demonstrates the utterly ephemeral nature of human identity and human experience. It breaks down the lie of a permanent `I'. Your good buddy, heinrich --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@ wrote: Jerry said, to not indulge in past life stuff , right now... Because it would be like looking in the trash, Of things long gone... It's also dangerous to dwell too much on past stuff, Because you could actually recreate the same pattern, Which went before... So... Who Jerry might have been in a past life... I can't really say, at this time. Robert~(Babaji)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Don't Indulge in Past Life Stuff'
SSRS has a past life technique called the Eternity Process. I did it once. Pretty interesting. --- On Mon, 8/9/10, emptybill emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: From: emptybill emptyb...@yahoo.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Don't Indulge in Past Life Stuff' To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, August 9, 2010, 10:01 PM Thanks Chaim - that is so comforting. Can we sing kumbaya now? Our present life already includes those past life karmas, sanskaras and vasanas. They will not suddenly disappear because we don't know what they are or fail to influence us because we meditate. While we will not learn much from someone telling us about a past life, we can learn a lot from temporarily re-immersing ourselves in one – provided it is done properly. And, contrary to your quote above, this is part of Buddhist training in the Jhana/Dhyana samaapatti-s. It is even considered quite valuable because it clearly demonstrates the utterly ephemeral nature of human identity and human experience. It breaks down the lie of a permanent `I'. Your good buddy, heinrich --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii...@... wrote: Jerry said, to not indulge in past life stuff , right now... Because it would be like looking in the trash, Of things long gone... It's also dangerous to dwell too much on past stuff, Because you could actually recreate the same pattern, Which went before... So... Who Jerry might have been in a past life... I can't really say, at this time. Robert~(Babaji)
[FairfieldLife] Re: When the date for the promised Apocalypse comes and goes...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sun...@... wrote: Thanks Steve. I think the more interesting (disturbing?) disconnect for me is the lack of anything exceptional coming out of awakened people, Maharishi types or otherwise. It may be enough to just bill it as a really great way to feel inside that doesn't happen to make you any less boring if that is what you are serving up before you get all enlightened up or whatever. We are so used to the Maharishi into lecture package about these states and what they mean and how wonderful every level of life becomes. Now that we have more examples of the proof of the pudding (thanks for the analogy hook-up Rick) I see no reason to reach for a spoon. I'm doing great inside, I'm just looking for more ways to express myself more effectively. And frankly the last place I would seek this information is from the people I have seen so far who have billed themselves as awakened. I would like to have seen Maharishi work a crowd on the street, without all the fawning supporters. He might have had some stand-up chops when he first started, but he quickly stacked the audience deck to make sure he couldn't flop. In the end he was able to get standing ovations on the spiritual teaching equivalent of fart jokes. (I'm not gunna top that so I had better stop here!) Yea, this is a pretty neat post. Seems to me, on the surface, and for quite a few levels below the surface, (pretty much as far as I can see) you would expect this to be the case: namely that the development of higher states of consciousness, especially among, someone considered enlightened would equate to a higher standard of behavior. Now that this has been demonstrated to not be the case (at least if you consider his behavior of sexual relations with students/disciples to be an example of low level behavior), then you have to deal with a pretty big disconnect. Of course this is what we have been preoccupied for the last three weeks. I guess each will continue processing it in his/her own way. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: ...the leader sets a new date and everyone resets their count-down clocks! I am hearing a trend of divorcing Maharishi's claims for his practice from our evaluation of the value of his system in some posts. Aren't we then re-writing the whole scriptural basis of this philosophy when we divorce the inner state and the effect of virtue on the ethics of a person? By their fruits yee shall know them and all? What we have is a classic case of the counterexample attempting to be explained away as a non-counter-example to the claim. We are changing the bullseye to fit where the arrow landed. The abstract idea of enlightenment divorced from making a person better in some recognizable way either through science or our own personal observation means that any flight of inner experience fancy qualifies as the goal. The words are too vague to be meaningful for evaluation like hanging around people on acid. The connection between godliness or whatever you want to call it and ethical virtue is an indisputable cornerstone of Maharishi's teaching and I would say of most religious systems. I think the direction of this conversation is in the Charlie Manson direction of If God is one, what is right or wrong? Again this is counter to the whole premise of scientifically verified benefits of TM. You are making an appeal of not evaluating the broad claims of the system against the evidence. When was that a good policy?
[FairfieldLife] Re: WG: Colombian president receiving blessing of the older brothers
I am surprised that the news media chose to report that the Vice President had a stroke rather than report on this beautiful gesture by the incoming Colombian President. It is a GREAT post - the photos are amazing! Just a month ago when Bolivia's President Evo Morales took power for his second term he also participated in an indigenous ceremony that was beautiful to look at. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 shukr...@... wrote: so beautiful, thank you --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merlin vedamerlin@ wrote: this article is made by David Nayan, one of the secretaries of Raja Luis. Subject: great blog post about Colombian president receiving blessing of the older brothers http://theaccidentalmonk.com/2010/unprecedented-presidential-oath/ Unprecedented Presidential Oath By David NayanPublished: August 8, 2010
[FairfieldLife] Re: When the date for the promised Apocalypse comes and goes...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: Unfathomable is the course of action! Another take on the situation I don't believe a recognition of the complexity of our actions effects on the world and vice versa, is meant to be applied to a restricted set of claims for a specific process and its benefits. I don't think it means we can't know anything about anything or predict some things. Or that the simple prediction that meditation with bring tangible measurable results gets a pass because life is complex. --- On Mon, 8/9/10, seventhray1 steve.sun...@... wrote: From: seventhray1 steve.sun...@... Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: When the date for the promised Apocalypse comes and goes... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, August 9, 2010, 11:05 PM Yea, this is a pretty neat post. Seems to me, on the surface, and for quite a few levels below the surface, (pretty much as far as I can see) you would expect this to be the case: namely that the development of higher states of consciousness, especially among, someone considered enlightened would equate to a higher standard of behavior. Now that this has been demonstrated to not be the case (at least if you consider his behavior of sexual relations with students/disciples to be an example of low level behavior), then you have to deal with a pretty big disconnect. Of course this is what we have been preoccupied for the last three weeks. I guess each will continue processing it in his/her own way. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: ...the leader sets a new date and everyone resets their count-down clocks! I am hearing a trend of divorcing Maharishi's claims for his practice from our evaluation of the value of his system in some posts. Aren't we then re-writing the whole scriptural basis of this philosophy when we divorce the inner state and the effect of virtue on the ethics of a person? By their fruits yee shall know them and all? What we have is a classic case of the counterexample attempting to be explained away as a non-counter-example to the claim. We are changing the bullseye to fit where the arrow landed. The abstract idea of enlightenment divorced from making a person better in some recognizable way either through science or our own personal observation means that any flight of inner experience fancy qualifies as the goal. The words are too vague to be meaningful for evaluation like hanging around people on acid. The connection between godliness or whatever you want to call it and ethical virtue is an indisputable cornerstone of Maharishi's teaching and I would say of most religious systems. I think the direction of this conversation is in the Charlie Manson direction of If God is one, what is right or wrong? Again this is counter to the whole premise of scientifically verified benefits of TM. You are making an appeal of not evaluating the broad claims of the system against the evidence. When was that a good policy?
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Don't Indulge in Past Life Stuff'
I've never tried it but I know a teacher who did. He had a pretty intense experience lasting about 2-3 hours if I remembe correctly. I would be interested in what you experienced with the process. Click on my handle and send it off line if you're more confortable that way. All of this is a recorded conversation, after all, on an internet log somewhere. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: SSRS has a past life technique called the Eternity Process. I did it once. Pretty interesting. --- On Mon, 8/9/10, emptybill emptyb...@... wrote: From: emptybill emptyb...@... Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Don't Indulge in Past Life Stuff' To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, August 9, 2010, 10:01 PM Thanks Chaim - that is so comforting. Can we sing kumbaya now? Our present life already includes those past life karmas, sanskaras and vasanas. They will not suddenly disappear because we don't know what they are or fail to influence us because we meditate. While we will not learn much from someone telling us about a past life, we can learn a lot from temporarily re-immersing ourselves in one â provided it is done properly. And, contrary to your quote above, this is part of Buddhist training in the Jhana/Dhyana samaapatti-s. It is even considered quite valuable because it clearly demonstrates the utterly ephemeral nature of human identity and human experience. It breaks down the lie of a permanent `I'. Your good buddy, heinrich
[FairfieldLife] Lou Valentino announces engagement to Rohmelen Solis
08/09/2010 Dear Astrological clients, spiritual friends and family, It comes with great joy on this new Moon in Leo night to announce my engagement to Rohmelen Solis. With my progressed Moon in the first house trine to both my Sun and Mercury in the 9th house of foreign lands my fiancé is from the Philippines and currently working in Taiwan. The ninth house also represents the second marriage. I want to thank all of you for your support over the last year and a half. I went through a six year period where I lost my marriage, sold my home and lost Patti to breast cancer. A very emotional time for me. Now a new chapter has started in my life. I work as a produce clerk at Shop Rite in both Clinton and New London Connecticut as I continue to do astrology readings and teach guitar. Over the next year or so I will be working to have Rohmelen come to America. The obstacles are many but with your prayers and light in this I know things will quickly move with ease and grace. To see pictures of Rohmelen go to my facebook account. If you are not friends with me on facebook feel free to allow me to be your friend. Many more photos will be going up soon. In my recent e-book “Full Moon Messages from the Pleiadians” I have a chapter dedicated to the new model of romance. I talk about soul twins and how the great I AM presence will bring many soul twins together over the next couple of years. That the age difference could be significant. Rome is 24 years old and is soul twin to me. We talk everyday on IM, webcam or telephone. Feel free to send your prayers and light into this situation so that Rohmelen and I can be together and be married sometime around our birthdays in the first week of March 2011. We are both born under the sign of Pisces and have a Venus/Moon conjunction in Aquarius. Again, thank you for all of your support over these last 16 months. What can I say? I’m the luckiest man in the world to be so loved by the most adorable women in the world. Namaste Lou Valentino
[FairfieldLife] Re: When the date for the promised Apocalypse comes and goes...
This has been a good thread and brought up some interesting issues. Some comments using yours as a spring board -- perhaps a few off topic. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: Thanks Steve. I think the more interesting (disturbing?) disconnect for me is the lack of anything exceptional coming out of awakened people, Maharishi types or otherwise. I have similar views. I miss not seeing spiritual movements being part of, or nest for, social action movements. Amma and SSRS, and others have some of that -- seva programs. I am thinking/dreaming, as at least a subset -- more radical groups -- like say, Jivan Muktis against Genocide out fighting on the front lines -- getting bashed up a bit, going to jail -- civil disobediance, hunger strikes, working 24/7, totally focussed on thier cause --having samadhi-ins on the steps of congress. Or environmental activists. More who walk the talk of -- There is no I -- I see the Unity of all things -- I act total to support that wholeness -- and less yuppified neo-advaitins. And there are many groups with people focussed like that. And they don't (pro)claim enlightenment. Actually, MMY -- lots of others, SSRS, Amma come to mind, work(ed) 100% on their mission. The hardest working man in show biz they said of James Brown. Well, MMY was the James Brown of eastern teachers then -- he was the energizer bunny of projects, new projects, new knowledge, ... Your questions begs another -- how do you know they aren't doing the best, and greatest things possible. To answer that, you need to know what is right actions, perfect action, best action. (Though I suppose someone could cop to the I don't know what it is(pornography or right action) but I know it when I see it ploy. It may be enough to just bill it as a really great way to feel inside that doesn't happen to make you any less boring if that is what you are serving up before you get all enlightened up or whatever. Which is not bad. And if everyone felt just super inside, the world would be a happier, less confrontational, cooperative, progressive place. Most people are motivated to make themselves feel good -- some are short-term some longer term strategies -- with much less real effort in helping others, or abstract causes. We are so used to the Maharishi into lecture package about these states and what they mean and how wonderful every level of life becomes. Now that we have more examples of the proof of the pudding (thanks for the analogy hook-up Rick) I see no reason to reach for a spoon. I'm doing great inside, I'm just looking for more ways to express myself more effectively. And frankly the last place I would seek this information is from the people I have seen so far who have billed themselves as awakened. If method X brought about E state and E state made people with qualities that every one admired -- looked up to -- inspired people -- then method X wouldn't need much marketing, scientific research, or hoopla -- people would be running to the Method X centers. So far, I don't see many, any method Xs. I would like to have seen Maharishi work a crowd on the street, without all the fawning supporters. He might have had some stand-up chops when he first started, but he quickly stacked the audience deck to make sure he couldn't flop. In the end he was able to get standing ovations on the spiritual teaching equivalent of fart jokes. (I'm not gunna top that so I had better stop here!) One thing, he did seem to be a home with anyone. (Other teachers are like this too). I think, on the street, he would do pretty well. Yea, this is a pretty neat post. Seems to me, on the surface, and for quite a few levels below the surface, (pretty much as far as I can see) you would expect this to be the case: namely that the development of higher states of consciousness, especially among, someone considered enlightened would equate to a higher standard of behavior. Now that this has been demonstrated to not be the case (at least if you consider his behavior of sexual relations with students/disciples to be an example of low level behavior), then you have to deal with a pretty big disconnect. Of course this is what we have been preoccupied for the last three weeks. I guess each will continue processing it in his/her own way. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: ...the leader sets a new date and everyone resets their count-down clocks! I am hearing a trend of divorcing Maharishi's claims for his practice from our evaluation of the value of his system in some posts. Aren't we then re-writing the whole scriptural basis of this philosophy when we divorce the inner state and the effect of virtue on the ethics of a person? By
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: Please excuse the lack of around Judy's comments. I cut and pasted this into another doc while yahoo groups was not cooperating this afternoon. I'll put a ME: in front of my stuff. Re: Response to Curtis --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Looking at his higher state of consciousness model, which really should have been his big detailed contribution to human thought: can you really say he gave the kind of details that an expert would be able to give? I saw hours and hours of tapes of him discussing higher states and it never really reached beyond the level of translating the brochure descriptions from the Sanskrit. Given how rich these state should be in terms of detailed knowledge concerning how the world works, am I the only one to be underwhelmed by his descriptions? Detailed knowledge concerning how the world works, such as what? What questions about how the world works would you have expected to have answered if he had been an expert? Don't you think permanent access to Ritam should provide some pretty rock'n details about anything? Maharishi started quite a few businesses so it was not out of line to think he might have come up with something really innovative like how to get energy out of french fries or something. My understanding of this kind of siddhi is that it's on a need-to-know basis. What can be perceived via ritam isn't decided by the individual in question. Me: Maharishi sold it as volitional I'll leave that to empty bill to sort out; I wasn't really able to follow what he was saying, and I'm not sure which of us he was responding to. Hopefully he'll explain further. but either way I have no reason to view it as more than just another Vedic myth like flying monkeys. Irrelevant. Here we're discussing what the teaching *is*, not whether we believe it. You have a tendency to get the two confused. But lets just look at the detail he did provide as a basis. Would you be happy in any other area of human knowledge to get the kind of formulaic responses to describing the state that we got from him? At that stage of the teaching process, with this kind of knowledge, I'd expect to hear the basics until the teacher was satisfied that everyone had mastered them. Me: 50 years and then just die without laying out more? I'm gunna go with he didn't have more or he would have packaged it and sold it. ?? Sheesh, he's constantly being accused of bringing out all kinds of new stuff to package and sell. Let's just take GC where the celestial level of life is open to perceptions. Do you think that a person who could see this level might have some useful insights about the finest aspect of the relative? Maybe, maybe not. See above about need to know. In this case, on the part of the students as well as the teacher. Me: So everything with the flow of knowledge is the best of all possible worlds? I guess that's one way of putting it, especially if your intention is to put it down. Well you are the one who needs to be satisfied here so if you are good for you. See, again you're getting the substance confused with belief. But if you are satisfied with the details of his description for each stage of development, then you are all set. For me they seem kind of lame and lacking in the depth and detail I expect in a book about Tuscan's approach to Italian cooking in the waking state of consciousness enhanced by a bit of Chianti. As you know, I've never been confident you actually got the depth. I've never seen you demonstrate any real understanding of it. Me: This has always been your oddest line of attack since as we both know I am the only one officially vetted and awarded with accolades as having understood it really well by both MIU and MERU. Mm-hmm. Some here would laugh at you for insisting on your Authoriteh. I stand by what I said. That said, my conversations with you started after I had been out for some time and some of the details of the teaching have an angels on the head of a pin quality to me now. I wouldn't expect you to think I understood his teaching now. I re-phrase his idea in my own way now unless I am specifically pointing out what I heard him say. The way I express how I understand it all now is not as Maharishi wanted us to understand, or how I did when I was a believer. I disagree with him about HIS grasp of the details of human consciousness. I think he made a lot of stuff up. Sure gets you off the hook, don't it? snip But it never evolved. You
