[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > On May 26, 2011, at 9:45 PM, seventhray1 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: > > What part of "drooling TB" don't you understand? > > > Thank goodness for good 'ol name calling. Far better than using credible sources to make your point. > > Right~~"credible sources" on a man who died a > half-cnetury ago, in a remote hideaway in one > of the remotest locations in the world, and whose > very existence was almost unknown outside of > a small group of his followers. Yep, there > oughtta be just reams of credible sources > who can recall every detail, down to his very > last breath. Sal, there's some good news on that front. Evidently we do have someone on site here who appears to be in the know about such matters.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
On May 26, 2011, at 9:45 PM, seventhray1 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > What part of "drooling TB" don't you understand? > Thank goodness for good 'ol name calling. Far better than using credible sources to make your point. Right~~"credible sources" on a man who died a half-cnetury ago, in a remote hideaway in one of the remotest locations in the world, and whose very existence was almost unknown outside of a small group of his followers. Yep, there oughtta be just reams of credible sources who can recall every detail, down to his very last breath. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
Looks like a Yahoo burp. On 05/26/2011 07:19 PM, Alex Stanley wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, FFL PostCount wrote: >> Fairfield Life Post Counter >> === > Manual count for some of you: > >> 60 Yifu > 48 that includes the one post made after the Post Count > >> 57 turquoiseb > 47 > >> 52 whynotnow7 > 46 > >> 49 WillyTex > 41 > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > Go to post #48039 for the Mahapatra info Not a very flattering account.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
Some Nath-s and most Aghori-s claim their vibhuti is left over from charnel fires but that is just b.s. Charnel "ashes" come from the wood used as combustion for burning. The bodies themselves do not produce ashes. Since I had my wife's body cremated and have examined the residues (burned at 17oo degrees), I actually know this directly. These residues are totally sterile as one would expect and gem-like in quality throughout much of it. If you've seen the traveling Tibetan sharira-s you know what it looks like. The prohibitory value which Nath and Aghori-s both like about the cremation process only adheres to the so-called polluting nature of funeral rites in Indian culture. This is more important for aghori-s since their way is especially based upon nivritti not only reversal but also opposition to the usual world-absorbed states of mind. In the end it is only a set of cultural definitions and is only operative for eleven days,unless you're an aghori, which you've never claimed anyway. I'm no aghori but I do appreciate their view. I know in truth that I'm just another dead man walking. Welcome to the bone yard. That'll be $49.95. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On May 25, 2011, at 10:04 PM, emptybill wrote: > > > I'm selling the idea as a genuine return to an "old world charm" for imported nath-yogis, which V claims to be. > > > A real "old world charm" a la the Nathas would be ashes. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardnelson108" wrote: > Now can someone tell me what the reference to Mahapatra is about? > He is someone I have spent some time with, so I would like to know what he "supposedly" said according to the Vaj man. Then I can weigh in on what he directly told me. Thanks Get ye ready for the great Vaj disappearing act. I think I hear his nephew calling, "Hey Uncle Vaj, can you come over and help me with my final exams"
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > What part of "drooling TB" don't you understand? > Thank goodness for good 'ol name calling. Far better than using credible sources to make your point.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > Read: Vaj has corrected the historical record and placed Mahesh in his proper context: a crook and a molester of women. and whatever else may suit Vaj's fancy at the moment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, FFL PostCount wrote: > > Fairfield Life Post Counter > === Manual count for some of you: > 60 Yifu 48 that includes the one post made after the Post Count > 57 turquoiseb 47 > 52 whynotnow7 46 > 49 WillyTex 41
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
Thanks for giving me the post # on mahapatra. I can't really comment on it much. Some of it (about MMY's health) does match with what he told me. I can only say that he had only positive things to say about MMY, how much he loved him and how much teaching TM meant to him. He was clearly moved by his time with him. Oh, and by the way, regarding my research on the Guru Dev "poisoning", I did not go to India to look into this at all. I just happenned to be there and was introduced to that Supreme Court judge and it came up in conversation, among many other topics. Once it was brought up, I did drill him on it because I had heard the same rumors you all have heard. The same thing with the people I spoke to at the Shankaracahraya ashram. It was not the point of my conversations, my trips or my interests. It was a small footnote among many, many things that were discussed. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardnelson108" > wrote: > > > > Hey Vaj, > > I am NOT a TB. And I have read Judith's book. > > TM works for me and I value what is has given me. Thats all. > > And what you don't seem to ever want to admit is that TM and MMY may have > > some value for some people. It seems like that possibility does not exist > > for you. One does not have to be a TB to gain the benefits of TM. > > Millions have > > I am not here, as I have repeatedly said, to defend MMY. I am simply > > trying to establish what is true and what is rumor. > > > > Now can someone tell me what the reference to Mahapatra is about? > > He is someone I have spent some time with, so I would like to know what he > > "supposedly" said according to the Vaj man. Then I can weigh in on what > > he directly told me. Thanks > > Go to post #48039 for the Mahapatra info > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 26, 2011, at 8:32 AM, seventhray1 wrote: > > > > > > > As I understand it Richard Nelson's sources were first hand sources who > > > > acutally were in a position to know some of the details which were > > > > alleged to have taken place. Richard says he spoke directly with the > > > > lawyer who handled SBS's will, and traveled to some of various places > > > > at issue and spoke with people who were contempories of SBS, and M. > > > > Vaj's sources seem 2 or 3 steps removed from the events they are > > > > commenting on, and are never identified in any detail. Usually they > > > > are "a student of so and so" > > > > > > > > > You're confusing tow very different sources. > > > > > > And let's not mention that our Dear Richar N. sounds like a drooling TB. > > > I mena, how many of those are actually left who are hip to the news? > > > > > > HINT: Richard, read Bourque's expose on the "life-long celibate". Time to > > > wake up the kids. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
Same advice to you: read the posts rather than attempting another pitiful smear. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On May 26, 2011, at 8:50 AM, feste37 wrote: > > > Have you even read the posts by Richard you quote here? He presents a very > > strong case against all the accusations made by Vaj. Read it. All you do is > > try to smear him as "unstable," which is plainly not the case. > > > What part of "drooling TB" don't you understand? >
[FairfieldLife] signs and wonders at the Bethel Church
Redding, Ca: ("Angel feathers" for example)
http://www.redding.com/news/2010/jan/19/bethels-signs-and-wonders-include-angel-feathers/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
On May 26, 2011, at 7:34 PM, richardnelson108 wrote: > I am NOT a TB. And I have read Judith's book. > TM works for me and I value what is has given me. Thats all. > And what you don't seem to ever want to admit is that TM and MMY may have > some value for some people. Well one unfortunate piece of your thesis Richard is that I've already admitted that I've enjoyed TM and had classic "TM as advertised" results. Actually I was considered a kind of poster child at the time. And I DO have fond memories - many - from my TM daze. As I've stated before: people are different, so there will be people like you and me who benefitted from TM, (relatively speaking, of course). But I've also shared the shock in transcending that very same transcendent.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
On May 26, 2011, at 7:40 PM, wayback71 wrote: > I guess it depends on how you define "TB." In my version, a TB would never > ever go attempt to find out more about the rumors of the murder of Guru Dev. > TB's refuse to think about such info for more than a few seconds before > relegating the "bad" ideas to the trash bin. They would never ever ask > around in India. > > So, Richard to me seems like a person who really likes his TM and his TM > memories, but feels uncomfortable with much of the organization's garbage - > enough to ask some questions. Seems to me Richard is genuinely convinced he > got pretty much the real story firsthand for himself and can live with that > issue resolved. The womanizing is a whole different issue and I see no way a > person can ignore the reports. What you do with that info in your own mind > is enough material for many a dissertation. Unfortunately any info on SBS's poisoning (or alleged poisoning) have long since vanished. The person I first heard it from is a now deceased saint and yogic adept.
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat May 21 00:00:00 2011 End Date (UTC): Sat May 28 00:00:00 2011 738 messages as of (UTC) Thu May 26 23:55:02 2011 63 authfriend 60 Yifu 57 turquoiseb 52 whynotnow7 49 WillyTex 43 tartbrain 37 Buck 34 seventhray1 34 Ravi Yogi 31 Robert 30 emptybill 30 curtisdeltablues 27 Bhairitu 23 Vaj 20 cardemaister 16 raunchydog 16 nablusoss1008 15 Sal Sunshine 12 wayback71 10 Xenophaneros Anartaxius 9 Mike Dixon 8 feste37 8 "do.rflex" 7 richardnelson108 6 merudanda 6 Alex Stanley 5 Rick Archer 4 Tom Pall 4 Duveyoung 3 sparaig 3 PaliGap 3 John 2 shanti2218411 2 merlin 1 wvosteen 1 seekliberation 1 obbajeeba 1 marekreavis 1 jpgillam 1 azgrey 1 Yifu Xero 1 Peter 1 Paulo Barbosa Posters: 43 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
Are all Buddhists attention whores, or just you?:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On May 26, 2011, at 8:32 AM, seventhray1 wrote: > > > As I understand it Richard Nelson's sources were first hand sources who > > acutally were in a position to know some of the details which were alleged > > to have taken place. Richard says he spoke directly with the lawyer who > > handled SBS's will, and traveled to some of various places at issue and > > spoke with people who were contempories of SBS, and M. Vaj's sources seem > > 2 or 3 steps removed from the events they are commenting on, and are never > > identified in any detail. Usually they are "a student of so and so" > > > You're confusing tow very different sources. > > And let's not mention that our Dear Richar N. sounds like a drooling TB. I > mena, how many of those are actually left who are hip to the news? > > HINT: Richard, read Bourque's expose on the "life-long celibate". Time to > wake up the kids. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardnelson108" wrote: > > Hey Vaj, > I am NOT a TB. And I have read Judith's book. > TM works for me and I value what is has given me. Thats all. > And what you don't seem to ever want to admit is that TM and MMY may have > some value for some people. It seems like that possibility does not exist > for you. One does not have to be a TB to gain the benefits of TM. Millions > have > I am not here, as I have repeatedly said, to defend MMY. I am simply trying > to establish what is true and what is rumor. > > Now can someone tell me what the reference to Mahapatra is about? > He is someone I have spent some time with, so I would like to know what he > "supposedly" said according to the Vaj man. Then I can weigh in on what he > directly told me. Thanks Go to post #48039 for the Mahapatra info > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On May 26, 2011, at 8:32 AM, seventhray1 wrote: > > > > > As I understand it Richard Nelson's sources were first hand sources who > > > acutally were in a position to know some of the details which were > > > alleged to have taken place. Richard says he spoke directly with the > > > lawyer who handled SBS's will, and traveled to some of various places at > > > issue and spoke with people who were contempories of SBS, and M. Vaj's > > > sources seem 2 or 3 steps removed from the events they are commenting on, > > > and are never identified in any detail. Usually they are "a student of > > > so and so" > > > > > > You're confusing tow very different sources. > > > > And let's not mention that our Dear Richar N. sounds like a drooling TB. I > > mena, how many of those are actually left who are hip to the news? > > > > HINT: Richard, read Bourque's expose on the "life-long celibate". Time to > > wake up the kids. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardnelson108" wrote: > > Hey Vaj, > I am NOT a TB. And I have read Judith's book. > TM works for me and I value what is has given me. Thats all. > And what you don't seem to ever want to admit is that TM and MMY may have > some value for some people. It seems like that possibility does not exist > for you. One does not have to be a TB to gain the benefits of TM. Millions > have > I am not here, as I have repeatedly said, to defend MMY. I am simply trying > to establish what is true and what is rumor. > > Now can someone tell me what the reference to Mahapatra is about? > He is someone I have spent some time with, so I would like to know what he > "supposedly" said according to the Vaj man. Then I can weigh in on what he > directly told me. Thanks Our posts crossed paths. Would love to hear what Mahapatra told you. There were a few posts maybe 3 years ago made here on FFL about Mahapatra's views of MMY. Someone will be able to get you the numbers. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On May 26, 2011, at 8:32 AM, seventhray1 wrote: > > > > > As I understand it Richard Nelson's sources were first hand sources who > > > acutally were in a position to know some of the details which were > > > alleged to have taken place. Richard says he spoke directly with the > > > lawyer who handled SBS's will, and traveled to some of various places at > > > issue and spoke with people who were contempories of SBS, and M. Vaj's > > > sources seem 2 or 3 steps removed from the events they are commenting on, > > > and are never identified in any detail. Usually they are "a student of > > > so and so" > > > > > > You're confusing tow very different sources. > > > > And let's not mention that our Dear Richar N. sounds like a drooling TB. I > > mena, how many of those are actually left who are hip to the news? > > > > HINT: Richard, read Bourque's expose on the "life-long celibate". Time to > > wake up the kids. > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
On May 26, 2011, at 7:19 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: >> >> Pile on? Vaj has simply been exposed as a liar. Not sure >> what standard you look for in evaluating statements. But >> Vaj made a series of assertions and all of them turned >> out to be false. > > Not true. What actually happened is that several > people have *declared* them false. Those people > have IMO exactly the same level of credibility as > Vaj -- namely none. No one has presented verifiable > facts yet. And I'm not intending to present any verifiable facts, often simply because my source choose to remain anonymous. It might help to point out previous things I've been accused of "fabricating" have now been found to be true. Funny no one ever mentions that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On May 26, 2011, at 8:32 AM, seventhray1 wrote: > > > As I understand it Richard Nelson's sources were first hand sources who > > acutally were in a position to know some of the details which were alleged > > to have taken place. Richard says he spoke directly with the lawyer who > > handled SBS's will, and traveled to some of various places at issue and > > spoke with people who were contempories of SBS, and M. Vaj's sources seem > > 2 or 3 steps removed from the events they are commenting on, and are never > > identified in any detail. Usually they are "a student of so and so" > > > You're confusing tow very different sources. > > And let's not mention that our Dear Richar N. sounds like a drooling TB. I > mena, how many of those are actually left who are hip to the news? I guess it depends on how you define "TB." In my version, a TB would never ever go attempt to find out more about the rumors of the murder of Guru Dev. TB's refuse to think about such info for more than a few seconds before relegating the "bad" ideas to the trash bin. They would never ever ask around in India. So, Richard to me seems like a person who really likes his TM and his TM memories, but feels uncomfortable with much of the organization's garbage - enough to ask some questions. Seems to me Richard is genuinely convinced he got pretty much the real story firsthand for himself and can live with that issue resolved. The womanizing is a whole different issue and I see no way a person can ignore the reports. What you do with that info in your own mind is enough material for many a dissertation. > > HINT: Richard, read Bourque's expose on the "life-long celibate". Time to > wake up the kids. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
Hey Vaj, I am NOT a TB. And I have read Judith's book. TM works for me and I value what is has given me. Thats all. And what you don't seem to ever want to admit is that TM and MMY may have some value for some people. It seems like that possibility does not exist for you. One does not have to be a TB to gain the benefits of TM. Millions have I am not here, as I have repeatedly said, to defend MMY. I am simply trying to establish what is true and what is rumor. Now can someone tell me what the reference to Mahapatra is about? He is someone I have spent some time with, so I would like to know what he "supposedly" said according to the Vaj man. Then I can weigh in on what he directly told me. Thanks --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On May 26, 2011, at 8:32 AM, seventhray1 wrote: > > > As I understand it Richard Nelson's sources were first hand sources who > > acutally were in a position to know some of the details which were alleged > > to have taken place. Richard says he spoke directly with the lawyer who > > handled SBS's will, and traveled to some of various places at issue and > > spoke with people who were contempories of SBS, and M. Vaj's sources seem > > 2 or 3 steps removed from the events they are commenting on, and are never > > identified in any detail. Usually they are "a student of so and so" > > > You're confusing tow very different sources. > > And let's not mention that our Dear Richar N. sounds like a drooling TB. I > mena, how many of those are actually left who are hip to the news? > > HINT: Richard, read Bourque's expose on the "life-long celibate". Time to > wake up the kids. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
On May 26, 2011, at 8:50 AM, feste37 wrote: > Have you even read the posts by Richard you quote here? He presents a very > strong case against all the accusations made by Vaj. Read it. All you do is > try to smear him as "unstable," which is plainly not the case. What part of "drooling TB" don't you understand?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
On May 26, 2011, at 8:32 AM, seventhray1 wrote: > As I understand it Richard Nelson's sources were first hand sources who > acutally were in a position to know some of the details which were alleged to > have taken place. Richard says he spoke directly with the lawyer who handled > SBS's will, and traveled to some of various places at issue and spoke with > people who were contempories of SBS, and M. Vaj's sources seem 2 or 3 steps > removed from the events they are commenting on, and are never identified in > any detail. Usually they are "a student of so and so" You're confusing tow very different sources. And let's not mention that our Dear Richar N. sounds like a drooling TB. I mena, how many of those are actually left who are hip to the news? HINT: Richard, read Bourque's expose on the "life-long celibate". Time to wake up the kids.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
On May 26, 2011, at 8:01 AM, Sal Sunshine wrote: > That's what it seems to me as well~~ > if there were some posts made which > in any way proved Vaj's assertions to > be false, or even dealt with them on > any kind of level other than pseudo- > hysteria, I haven't seen them. Perhaps > lurk could point them out? Especially > since he seems so sure that Vaj has > been "exposed as a liar." We'll see what happens. Over time these things have a way of coming out. We've heard the expose of Mahapatra, his close physician and Judith Bourque, among others. But mark my words, the historical record will eventually bear witness to the real Mahesh - and it's not the one we were presented on the dais. That was merely, IMO, a stage character.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
On May 26, 2011, at 7:00 AM, seventhray1 wrote: > Pile on? Vaj has simply been exposed as a liar. Not sure what standard you > look for in evaluating statements. But Vaj made a series of assertions and > all of them turned out to be false. When asked to back up these assertions, > the best he could come up with, was "he heard it from someone" > > Uh huh. Read: Vaj has corrected the historical record and placed Mahesh in his proper context: a crook and a molester of women.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
On May 25, 2011, at 10:04 PM, emptybill wrote: > I'm selling the idea as a genuine return to an "old world charm" for imported > nath-yogis, which V claims to be. > A real "old world charm" a la the Nathas would be ashes.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
Well here is the corpus. One can draw whatever conclusons one wants. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardnelson108" wrote: > > You are right. I did not give a name. Unfortuneatly, I do not remember it. It was in Allahabad at the Kumbha Mela in 1995. > > And regarding everyone wanting to "sweep this under the rug", that is possible, however doubtful as the various people I spoke to are not all connected. For example, the retired Judge who handled the will was not connected to the Shankaracharya in any way. He mentioned to me that the will was handed over to him among many other cases he was handling at the time. Why would he want to sweep the "poisoning" under the rug? Maybe the ashram residents might want to, but he had no allegiance to anyone. > The point is that everyone has the point of view here and that's fine. I was there and tried to do some research, that's all. > You all can extrapolate whatever you want to from this. > As for Vaj... if you want to believe him, no skin off my back.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
On May 26, 2011, at 3:18 PM, turquoiseb wrote: > Steve, I give up. Same here. I think i'm discussing one thing... and then it turns out I'm doing this, requiring that, etc. It seems like I'm always trying to pull some kind of rabbit out of a hat, according to Steve. Apparently having a difference of opinion, and explaining why something doesn't jibe, is now a demand for percentages and beyond- a-shadow-of-a-doubt proof. Whatever. > You're beyond discussing things with. > Richard did NOT give either a name or a place, merely > a year. No, he didn't. > He made another vague, unverifiable claim. And > you not only never noticed, you claimed otherwise.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
You are right. I did not give a name. Unfortuneatly, I do not remember it. It was in Allahabad at the Kumbha Mela in 1995. And regarding everyone wanting to "sweep this under the rug", that is possible, however doubtful as the various people I spoke to are not all connected. For example, the retired Judge who handled the will was not connected to the Shankaracharya in any way. He mentioned to me that the will was handed over to him among many other cases he was handling at the time. Why would he want to sweep the "poisoning" under the rug? Maybe the ashram residents might want to, but he had no allegiance to anyone. The point is that everyone has the point of view here and that's fine. I was there and tried to do some research, that's all. You all can extrapolate whatever you want to from this. As for Vaj... if you want to believe him, no skin off my back. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > > > > All fine except the person Richard Nelson is referencing was > > connected to SBS, not Maharishi. So where's the motive to put > > a positive spin on it especially when according to Vaj, those > > closest to SBS absolutely despised MMY? But I guess you can > > arrange facts in any way you want. This person lies (if his > > account is contrary to your views.) This person is telling > > the truth (if it jibes with want to want to hear) And the > > only problem with this, is that Richards provides names, > > places and times, and Vaj provides anonymous sources. > > Steve, I give up. You're beyond discussing things with. > Richard did NOT give either a name or a place, merely > a year. He made another vague, unverifiable claim. And > you not only never noticed, you claimed otherwise. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 26, 2011, at 1:04 PM, richardnelson108 wrote: > > > > > > > > > To clarify, I met with the Supreme Court of Allahabad retired > > > > > judge who handled Guru Dev's will (not a lawyer). And yes, he > > > > > was alive and kicking and quite brilliant. And, oh yes, he > > > > > remembered all the details quite clearly. This was in 1995. > > > > > The point I was trying to make, and I will repeat myself, is > > > > > that both he and members of the Shankaracaharya ashram had > > > > > never heard of any poisoning. > > > > > > > > And the members of the ashram~~if they even > > > > exist~~were objective observers and would > > > > have been completely forthcoming if they > > > > *had* known of some shenanigans? Come > > > > on~~better to sweep anything still out under > > > > the carpet rather than open themselves > > > > up for questioning. > > > > > > > > > This is not opinion, this is fact. > > > > > > > > It's also India, where people will say > > > > anything rather than deal with > > > > unpleasantness. > > > > > > Or deal with the idea that a "guru" was corrupt or > > > that his behavior could require censure. For years > > > it's been impossible for complainants to pursue any > > > legal action against the pervert Sathya Sai Baba > > > because the leader of India was a devotee and > > > intervened to quash any such attempts. > > > > > > > Sounds like > > > > you feel for it hook, line and > > > > stinker. And now you feel > > > > people should accord your words > > > > magic powers and not question > > > > anything you say, because you supposedly > > > > spoke to a judge, THE judge in > > > > this case. Even if true, your opinion > > > > is still worth no more than anyone > > > > else's. Get over your self. > > > > > > Case in point, re Richard's supposed "source." I knew > > > both of Frederic Lenz's - Rama's lawyers pretty well. > > > We called them "the Normans," because they both had > > > the same first name. > > > > > > After the guy croaked himself, I had occasion to listen > > > to both of them talk about him. Both said things that > > > were absolute falsehoods, and could have been proven to > > > be in court. I knew this because they referenced incidents > > > that I had been involved in, and legal papers that *they > > > had written*. Both KNEW beyond a shadow of a doubt that > > > what they were saying about him in this talk were not true; > > > they had written the legal documents -- still on file -- > > > that disproved what they were saying. But they said it > > > anyway. > > > > > > Why? Because they had that "devotee mindset" going for > > > them. They had been wrapped by his charisma while he was > > > alive, and they were still wrapped by it after he killed > > > himself. For example, speaking to a group of his former > > > students, neither could bring themselves to actually > > > refer to his death as a suicide. They -- lawyers who had > > > never studied with him -- called it the same thing the > > > True Believers they were spea
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
Turquoiseb: > The "reality of FFL" is that since the beginning of > this posting week, five posters (Judy, Jim, Willytex, > Nabby, and Ravi) have made 62 posts either insulting > me, trying to "refute" something I said, or otherwise > putting me down... > "In 1989, Rama justified to the disciples his rising tuition. "I nearly killed myself by accepting your Negative Occult Energy," he said, "and now you are going to have to pay for it..." Besides avoiding negative energy and sharpening the mind, computer work brings in a lot of money, the main requirement for membership in Lenz's group. Costs range from US$20 a month for neophytes to, at one point, US$3,500 a month for "advanced students," according to ex-members who showed cancelled checks verifying payments of US$2,000 to Lenz's group..." '"Controversial guru coming to Santa Fe' The Santa Fe New Mexican March 24, 1992 'Computer Cult: Is the Leader Here?' The Santa Fe Reporter March 25, 1992 Read more: Subject: "Take Me For a Ride" -- Epilog, Part 3 Author: an113729 Newsgroups: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy Date: Friday July 15, 1994 http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/Rama/14.epil-3
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
Sal, I honestly don't see the value in mental masturbation (or the other kind) that you, Bozotronic Barry and Vaj do. Different strokes for different folks I guess.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > > On May 26, 2011, at 2:53 PM, whynotnow7 wrote: > > > I agree completely. It is pretty obvious that Vaj, Bozotronic Barry and Sal > > are trying their best to enforce a double standard here. > > Yes we are Jim...and if it weren't for your razor-sharp > mind, we'd have gotten away with it. > > > Anytime anyone says something positive about TM or Maharishi, they need a > > brief worthy of Supreme Court scrutiny in order to be believed by the > > naysayers. However, if the three stooges with 20 and 30 year old issues > > regarding TM and Maharishi ever proclaim something negative about the > > teacher or practice, their word is enough. > > > > Pretty obvious who the adults are here.:-) > > Indeed. > Sal >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
On May 26, 2011, at 2:53 PM, whynotnow7 wrote: > I agree completely. It is pretty obvious that Vaj, Bozotronic Barry and Sal > are trying their best to enforce a double standard here. Yes we are Jim...and if it weren't for your razor-sharp mind, we'd have gotten away with it. > Anytime anyone says something positive about TM or Maharishi, they need a > brief worthy of Supreme Court scrutiny in order to be believed by the > naysayers. However, if the three stooges with 20 and 30 year old issues > regarding TM and Maharishi ever proclaim something negative about the teacher > or practice, their word is enough. > > Pretty obvious who the adults are here.:-) Indeed. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
On May 26, 2011, at 3:02 PM, seventhray1 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > It's also India, where people will say > anything rather than deal with > unpleasantness. Sounds like > you feel for it hook, line and > stinker. And now you feel > people should accord your words > magic powers and not question > anything you say, because you supposedly > spoke to a judge, THE judge in > this case. Even if true, your opinion > is still worth no more than anyone > else's. Get over your self. I would say you're channeling your inner Raunchy. Another insult. You can ascribe a percentage to any possibibility for any event. But you just don't do this in life. But you do it here. There is a chance a meteor is going to slam into you when you walk out of your house, but you don't live considering that possiblity. But you seem willing to put forth all kinds low percentage possibilites in order to win a point, even if it sounds somewhat absurd And you should know, after reading my posts for so long, that the only reason I got into this nonsense was because of what i perceived as a pile-on, which is cowardly and you have not deigned to comment on. I could care less about any of it other than that. But you prefer to just ignore what you don't like and try to make it about proof and percentages. Cheap trick, lurk.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > > All fine except the person Richard Nelson is referencing was > connected to SBS, not Maharishi. So where's the motive to put > a positive spin on it especially when according to Vaj, those > closest to SBS absolutely despised MMY? But I guess you can > arrange facts in any way you want. This person lies (if his > account is contrary to your views.) This person is telling > the truth (if it jibes with want to want to hear) And the > only problem with this, is that Richards provides names, > places and times, and Vaj provides anonymous sources. Steve, I give up. You're beyond discussing things with. Richard did NOT give either a name or a place, merely a year. He made another vague, unverifiable claim. And you not only never noticed, you claimed otherwise. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: > > > > > > On May 26, 2011, at 1:04 PM, richardnelson108 wrote: > > > > > > > To clarify, I met with the Supreme Court of Allahabad retired > > > > judge who handled Guru Dev's will (not a lawyer). And yes, he > > > > was alive and kicking and quite brilliant. And, oh yes, he > > > > remembered all the details quite clearly. This was in 1995. > > > > The point I was trying to make, and I will repeat myself, is > > > > that both he and members of the Shankaracaharya ashram had > > > > never heard of any poisoning. > > > > > > And the members of the ashram~~if they even > > > exist~~were objective observers and would > > > have been completely forthcoming if they > > > *had* known of some shenanigans? Come > > > on~~better to sweep anything still out under > > > the carpet rather than open themselves > > > up for questioning. > > > > > > > This is not opinion, this is fact. > > > > > > It's also India, where people will say > > > anything rather than deal with > > > unpleasantness. > > > > Or deal with the idea that a "guru" was corrupt or > > that his behavior could require censure. For years > > it's been impossible for complainants to pursue any > > legal action against the pervert Sathya Sai Baba > > because the leader of India was a devotee and > > intervened to quash any such attempts. > > > > > Sounds like > > > you feel for it hook, line and > > > stinker. And now you feel > > > people should accord your words > > > magic powers and not question > > > anything you say, because you supposedly > > > spoke to a judge, THE judge in > > > this case. Even if true, your opinion > > > is still worth no more than anyone > > > else's. Get over your self. > > > > Case in point, re Richard's supposed "source." I knew > > both of Frederic Lenz's - Rama's lawyers pretty well. > > We called them "the Normans," because they both had > > the same first name. > > > > After the guy croaked himself, I had occasion to listen > > to both of them talk about him. Both said things that > > were absolute falsehoods, and could have been proven to > > be in court. I knew this because they referenced incidents > > that I had been involved in, and legal papers that *they > > had written*. Both KNEW beyond a shadow of a doubt that > > what they were saying about him in this talk were not true; > > they had written the legal documents -- still on file -- > > that disproved what they were saying. But they said it > > anyway. > > > > Why? Because they had that "devotee mindset" going for > > them. They had been wrapped by his charisma while he was > > alive, and they were still wrapped by it after he killed > > himself. For example, speaking to a group of his former > > students, neither could bring themselves to actually > > refer to his death as a suicide. They -- lawyers who had > > never studied with him -- called it the same thing the > > True Believers they were speaking to called it, his > > "Mahasamadhi." > > > > So do I believe Richard Nelson? I'm willing to believe > > he might have met such a person. Do I believe what this > > alleged person said is fact? Yeah, right. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
All fine except the person Richard Nelson is referencing was connected to SBS, not Maharishi. So where's the motive to put a positive spin on it especially when according to Vaj, those closest to SBS absolutely despised MMY? But I guess you can arrange facts in any way you want. This person lies (if his account is contrary to your views.) This person is telling the truth (if it jibes with want to want to hear) And the only problem with this, is that Richards provides names, places and times, and Vaj provides anonymous sources. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: > > > > On May 26, 2011, at 1:04 PM, richardnelson108 wrote: > > > > > To clarify, I met with the Supreme Court of Allahabad retired > > > judge who handled Guru Dev's will (not a lawyer). And yes, he > > > was alive and kicking and quite brilliant. And, oh yes, he > > > remembered all the details quite clearly. This was in 1995. > > > The point I was trying to make, and I will repeat myself, is > > > that both he and members of the Shankaracaharya ashram had > > > never heard of any poisoning. > > > > And the members of the ashram~~if they even > > exist~~were objective observers and would > > have been completely forthcoming if they > > *had* known of some shenanigans? Come > > on~~better to sweep anything still out under > > the carpet rather than open themselves > > up for questioning. > > > > > This is not opinion, this is fact. > > > > It's also India, where people will say > > anything rather than deal with > > unpleasantness. > > Or deal with the idea that a "guru" was corrupt or > that his behavior could require censure. For years > it's been impossible for complainants to pursue any > legal action against the pervert Sathya Sai Baba > because the leader of India was a devotee and > intervened to quash any such attempts. > > > Sounds like > > you feel for it hook, line and > > stinker. And now you feel > > people should accord your words > > magic powers and not question > > anything you say, because you supposedly > > spoke to a judge, THE judge in > > this case. Even if true, your opinion > > is still worth no more than anyone > > else's. Get over your self. > > Case in point, re Richard's supposed "source." I knew > both of Frederic Lenz's - Rama's lawyers pretty well. > We called them "the Normans," because they both had > the same first name. > > After the guy croaked himself, I had occasion to listen > to both of them talk about him. Both said things that > were absolute falsehoods, and could have been proven to > be in court. I knew this because they referenced incidents > that I had been involved in, and legal papers that *they > had written*. Both KNEW beyond a shadow of a doubt that > what they were saying about him in this talk were not true; > they had written the legal documents -- still on file -- > that disproved what they were saying. But they said it > anyway. > > Why? Because they had that "devotee mindset" going for > them. They had been wrapped by his charisma while he was > alive, and they were still wrapped by it after he killed > himself. For example, speaking to a group of his former > students, neither could bring themselves to actually > refer to his death as a suicide. They -- lawyers who had > never studied with him -- called it the same thing the > True Believers they were speaking to called it, his > "Mahasamadhi." > > So do I believe Richard Nelson? I'm willing to believe > he might have met such a person. Do I believe what this > alleged person said is fact? Yeah, right. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > It's also India, where people will say > anything rather than deal with > unpleasantness. Sounds like > you feel for it hook, line and > stinker. And now you feel > people should accord your words > magic powers and not question > anything you say, because you supposedly > spoke to a judge, THE judge in > this case. Even if true, your opinion > is still worth no more than anyone > else's. Get over your self. I would say you're channeling your inner Raunchy. You can ascribe a percentage to any possibibility for any event. But you just don't do this in life. But you do it here. There is a chance a meteor is going to slam into you when you walk out of your house, but you don't live considering that possiblity. But you seem willing to put forth all kinds low percentage possibilites in order to win a point, even if it sounds somewhat absurd.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > On May 26, 2011, at 1:04 PM, richardnelson108 wrote: > > > To clarify, I met with the Supreme Court of Allahabad retired > > judge who handled Guru Dev's will (not a lawyer). And yes, he > > was alive and kicking and quite brilliant. And, oh yes, he > > remembered all the details quite clearly. This was in 1995. > > The point I was trying to make, and I will repeat myself, is > > that both he and members of the Shankaracaharya ashram had > > never heard of any poisoning. > > And the members of the ashram~~if they even > exist~~were objective observers and would > have been completely forthcoming if they > *had* known of some shenanigans? Come > on~~better to sweep anything still out under > the carpet rather than open themselves > up for questioning. > > > This is not opinion, this is fact. > > It's also India, where people will say > anything rather than deal with > unpleasantness. Or deal with the idea that a "guru" was corrupt or that his behavior could require censure. For years it's been impossible for complainants to pursue any legal action against the pervert Sathya Sai Baba because the leader of India was a devotee and intervened to quash any such attempts. > Sounds like > you feel for it hook, line and > stinker. And now you feel > people should accord your words > magic powers and not question > anything you say, because you supposedly > spoke to a judge, THE judge in > this case. Even if true, your opinion > is still worth no more than anyone > else's. Get over your self. Case in point, re Richard's supposed "source." I knew both of Frederic Lenz's - Rama's lawyers pretty well. We called them "the Normans," because they both had the same first name. After the guy croaked himself, I had occasion to listen to both of them talk about him. Both said things that were absolute falsehoods, and could have been proven to be in court. I knew this because they referenced incidents that I had been involved in, and legal papers that *they had written*. Both KNEW beyond a shadow of a doubt that what they were saying about him in this talk were not true; they had written the legal documents -- still on file -- that disproved what they were saying. But they said it anyway. Why? Because they had that "devotee mindset" going for them. They had been wrapped by his charisma while he was alive, and they were still wrapped by it after he killed himself. For example, speaking to a group of his former students, neither could bring themselves to actually refer to his death as a suicide. They -- lawyers who had never studied with him -- called it the same thing the True Believers they were speaking to called it, his "Mahasamadhi." So do I believe Richard Nelson? I'm willing to believe he might have met such a person. Do I believe what this alleged person said is fact? Yeah, right.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > I, at least, understand the difference between a "source" > and a "claim of a source." You clearly do not. > I don't know what burden of proof you are looking for. Evidently it's pretty high. But I think in most instances we don't get the iron clad proof we may be looking form. I suppose that is why there is the notion of guilt beyond a "reasonable doubt" For me I am compelled to believe the accounts of Richard Nelson. You discount them. You ascribe reasons as to why I come down on the side that I do- I don't want to believe otherwise. I have a latent TB streak. I'm invested in a certain view of things. I'm okay with that. I listen to the evidence and then make a judgement. We all do that every day in one way or another.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
I agree completely. It is pretty obvious that Vaj, Bozotronic Barry and Sal are trying their best to enforce a double standard here. Anytime anyone says something positive about TM or Maharishi, they need a brief worthy of Supreme Court scrutiny in order to be believed by the naysayers. However, if the three stooges with 20 and 30 year old issues regarding TM and Maharishi ever proclaim something negative about the teacher or practice, their word is enough. Pretty obvious who the adults are here.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardnelson108" > wrote: > > As I have also said, if he or anyone else has issues with MMY, thats > fine with me. But if he is going to quote supposed events to make his > point, then use real events, not something he made up. > I am just trying to figure out what could be objectionable about this > statement or request. This would seem to be baseline for any > discussion along these lines. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
Sal On May 26, 2011, at 2:46 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote: > take offense when Vaj repeatedly makes reference to something that never > appears to have happened to make his opinion right. > As I have also said, if he or anyone else has issues with MMY, thats fine > with me. But if he is going to quote supposed events to make his point, then > use real events, not something he made up. Where has he ever quoted anyone? He's expressing an *opinion,* just like you. And, I'd like to add~~because reality is in the eye of the beholder, everyone's being slightly different. That's why we have juries, to puzzle things out when the "facts" are not always so clear. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
On May 26, 2011, at 1:04 PM, richardnelson108 wrote: > To clarify, I met with the Supreme Court of Allahabad retired judge who > handled Guru Dev's will (not a lawyer). And yes, he was alive and kicking and > quite brilliant. And, oh yes, he remembered all the details quite clearly. > This was in 1995. > The point I was trying to make, and I will repeat myself, is that both he and > members of the Shankaracaharya ashram had never heard of any poisoning. And the members of the ashram~~if they even exist~~were objective observers and would have been completely forthcoming if they *had* known of some shenanigans? Come on~~better to sweep anything still out under the carpet rather than open themselves up for questioning. > This is not opinion, this is fact. It's also India, where people will say anything rather than deal with unpleasantness. Sounds like you feel for it hook, line and stinker. And now you feel people should accord your words magic powers and not question anything you say, because you supposedly spoke to a judge, THE judge in this case. Even if true, your opinion is still worth no more than anyone else's. Get over your self. > I take offense when Vaj repeatedly makes reference to something that never > appears to have happened to make his opinion right. > As I have also said, if he or anyone else has issues with MMY, thats fine > with me. But if he is going to quote supposed events to make his point, then > use real events, not something he made up. Where has he ever quoted anyone? He's expressing an *opinion,* just like you. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardnelson108" wrote: > As I have also said, if he or anyone else has issues with MMY, thats fine with me. But if he is going to quote supposed events to make his point, then use real events, not something he made up. I am just trying to figure out what could be objectionable about this statement or request. This would seem to be baseline for any discussion along these lines.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
Ha-Ha! Why do you think the initials of the Cannabis Cup are "CC"? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > On 05/26/2011 10:23 AM, Ravi Yogi wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > >> On 05/26/2011 09:07 AM, Ravi Yogi wrote: > >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > Funny stuff, Tart. I particularly liked "Are they all > ex postal employees?" because the most rational and > restrained person on the forum these days *is* an ex > US Postal Service employee. :-) > > We never hear from lurkers. Duh. That's why they're > called lurkers. But what must they THINK of this zoo? > > I mean, we're all used to it. Whether we're still part > of the TM organization or not, if we were at one point > (as opposed to those here who never were, and just > gazed at it from the periphery, never got involved, > and lived on their fantasies of what it was like), we > have seen this kinda crazy so long and so often that > we've almost come to ignore it as "normal." > > It isn't. It's crazy. > > People arguing who's right and who's wrong about stuff > that can never be proven either, because it's all just > opinion. People spending well over half of their posts > each week trying to "get" the people they don't like. > And that's leaving out the couple of people who claim > to be fuckin' ENLIGHTENED, ferchrissakes, and then get > their buttons pushed so easily that they spend dozens > of posts acting out pre-adolescent revenge fantasies. > > Place is a fuckin' ZOO. > > >>> This is not a Zoo, this is the FFL Pub, a place for mature individuals - > >>> if you think it's a zoo and it's bothering you so much, may be you > >>> should rethink. Oh forgive me, obviously not, because of your lies day > >>> in and day out that you use to denounce spirituality and harass real > >>> seekers. You obviously have a lot invested in this zoo, may be you have > >>> opened a circus elsewhere? Is that all you have left now to defend your > >>> lies by making it into "its all an opinion lie"? What an interesting > >>> strategy to mask your deception and lies by masquerading it as an > >>> opinion - I'm amazed yet quite amused. > >> Nah, it's the Funny Farm Lounge or did you just think it was a pub where > >> the waitresses dressed up like nurses? And just what did you think was > >> in that little cup you're drinking? > >> > > I'm always sippin' my divine vodka that I found hidden in the cellar of my > > divine mother. > > > > I'm not supposed to reveal this but I'm too drunk so here you go - don't > > get deceived by the mantras and meditation techniques that the Gurus give, > > those are all toys to entertain the intellectuals. All Gurus have a secret > > cellar which is loaded with divine vodka. The goal of a seeker is to trick > > the Guru and break into this cellar to get the hidden stash of this divine > > vodka, and then as they say - the world is in your pocket. > > Shhh... the true believers will think you are talking about the "divine > soma." And no you cannot get me to reveal where my stash of "divine > Cabernet" is. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
On 05/26/2011 10:23 AM, Ravi Yogi wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: >> On 05/26/2011 09:07 AM, Ravi Yogi wrote: >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: Funny stuff, Tart. I particularly liked "Are they all ex postal employees?" because the most rational and restrained person on the forum these days *is* an ex US Postal Service employee. :-) We never hear from lurkers. Duh. That's why they're called lurkers. But what must they THINK of this zoo? I mean, we're all used to it. Whether we're still part of the TM organization or not, if we were at one point (as opposed to those here who never were, and just gazed at it from the periphery, never got involved, and lived on their fantasies of what it was like), we have seen this kinda crazy so long and so often that we've almost come to ignore it as "normal." It isn't. It's crazy. People arguing who's right and who's wrong about stuff that can never be proven either, because it's all just opinion. People spending well over half of their posts each week trying to "get" the people they don't like. And that's leaving out the couple of people who claim to be fuckin' ENLIGHTENED, ferchrissakes, and then get their buttons pushed so easily that they spend dozens of posts acting out pre-adolescent revenge fantasies. Place is a fuckin' ZOO. >>> This is not a Zoo, this is the FFL Pub, a place for mature individuals - >>> if you think it's a zoo and it's bothering you so much, may be you >>> should rethink. Oh forgive me, obviously not, because of your lies day >>> in and day out that you use to denounce spirituality and harass real >>> seekers. You obviously have a lot invested in this zoo, may be you have >>> opened a circus elsewhere? Is that all you have left now to defend your >>> lies by making it into "its all an opinion lie"? What an interesting >>> strategy to mask your deception and lies by masquerading it as an >>> opinion - I'm amazed yet quite amused. >> Nah, it's the Funny Farm Lounge or did you just think it was a pub where >> the waitresses dressed up like nurses? And just what did you think was >> in that little cup you're drinking? >> > I'm always sippin' my divine vodka that I found hidden in the cellar of my > divine mother. > > I'm not supposed to reveal this but I'm too drunk so here you go - don't get > deceived by the mantras and meditation techniques that the Gurus give, those > are all toys to entertain the intellectuals. All Gurus have a secret cellar > which is loaded with divine vodka. The goal of a seeker is to trick the Guru > and break into this cellar to get the hidden stash of this divine vodka, and > then as they say - the world is in your pocket. Shhh... the true believers will think you are talking about the "divine soma." And no you cannot get me to reveal where my stash of "divine Cabernet" is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
I just enjoy tossing your insults right back at 'cha, Bozotronic Barry. I guess you enjoy being insulted. Karma's a bitch. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" wrote: > > > > In reality there is no truth. > > > > There is no truth in reality. > > There is no reality that can be true. > > There is only opinion. > > > > All opinions are equal in value. > > You are a troll. Vaj is a troll. > > > > You support each other in trollness. > > > > You opinions don't matter here. > > > > Your opinions don't matter at all. > > > > No one here really cares what you think. > > > > > > > > Welcome to the reality of FFL. > > > > The "reality of FFL" is that since the beginning of > this posting week, five posters (Judy, Jim, Willytex, > Nabby, and Ravi) have made 62 posts either insulting > me, trying to "refute" something I said, or otherwise > putting me down. > > What part of that fits into "No one here really > cares what you think?" > > Seems to me that these people -- two of whom claim > to be enlightened -- care VERY MUCH what I think, > enough to spend this much time replying to it. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Following is an interesting post to SeriousSeekers.com > > > > > > > > > > "Fellow Graceful, Light Filled Seekers, > > > > > > > > > > I think I may have found IT -- the fastest evolutionary, > > > > > spiritual unfolding technique on the planet. As we all > > > > > know, awakening and spiritual unfoldment appears once > > > > > the soul has roasted, purified or unwound the densely > > > > > and deeply packed intertwined samskaras built up after > > > > > almost infinite births. And then theres the collective > > > > > karma stuff too. As we have all experienced, when this > > > > > stuff is roasted, it may pop like popcorn for a while: > > > > > very unstable, chaotic, random, not following any sense > > > > > of order or rationality, way overheated, etc. Or we can > > > > > think of it as unwinding of deep multi-dimensional knots. > > > > > When doing so, lots of mess all over the floor and the > > > > > knots unwind. > > > > > > > > > > The faster the evolutionary and spiritual unfoldment process, > > > > > the hotter, more random and irrational is the corn popping, > > > > > the messier and sloppy the floor becomes with all the > > > > > unwinding. ERGO, the fastest technique must also produce the > > > > > messiest, most heated, irrational, sloppy, unstable, chaotic > > > > > side effects. Well my friends, I have been lurking at a site > > > > > called FFL whose posters have a long history with TM. And I > > > > > have to say, I have never, ever, its not even close, seen a > > > > > group of seekers so messed up, twisted, overheated, irrational, > > > > > petty, sloppy and unstable as these guys. Even those who have > > > > > not practiced TM for decades -- they too are bat shit crazy. > > > > > Thus the effects of TM appear not only profoundly powerful, > > > > > but also long lasting. the heavy purifiction and its side > > > > > effects last long after the practice is stopped. > > > > > > > > > > It appears from the longevity of their postings, some 10 > > > > > years, some 20 years back to older forums. Sp it appears > > > > > that it may take 6-12 lifetimes of this incredibly distasteful, > > > > > in your face anger, hostility, random, chaotic, sloppy behavior > > > > > to roast all the samskaras and unwind all of the knots. But > > > > > certainly this HELL for a dozen lifetimes is worth the eternal > > > > > grace of full unfoldment. > > > > > > > > > > So I signed up. I am now practicing TM twice a day and ALREADY > > > > > the purification process has begun. So F* you your f*u*ing lame > > > > > assholes, join me on the awesome adventure -- it you are not > > > > > too fing SUUPID and dense to get my beautifully laid out points. > > > > > So STFU and lets finally get serious about full spiritual > > > > > unfoldment -- or simply continue with your decaying head up > > > > > your smelly ass. Your choice. > > > > > > > > Some reply comments to this post at SeriousSeekeers.com > > > > > > > > #1 "I checked out FFL as you suggested. Wow, I never knew what > > > > Ekhart Tolle meant by "pain body" until now. These folks are > > > > in serious internal pain. its almost too painful to watch." > > > > > > > > #2 "Are these people of 24/7 medical watch? I sure hope so. > > > > For their sakes and those that ma be around them. These are > > > > walking time bombs. Are they all ex postal employees?" > > > > > > > > #3 " I heard at the end of their intro course they are given > > > > syringes filled with Thorazin to ease the symptoms. Some get > > > > a 24 hour patch I hear -- they are
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Yogi" wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Yogi" raviyogi@ wrote: > > > > > > Turq, I don't know why you continue lumping me with others. > > > You know how much I care for every message you write. I > > > always compliment your writing yet you continue to ignore > > > me, it leaves me really sad, hurt and miserable. > > > > Ravi, > > > > I shall "break form" and reply to this one, because > > it gives me the opportunity to rap about the occult > > theory behind why I ignore your silly ass. > > > > It's because of something I learned from a couple of > > spiritual teachers. When someone appears to be obses- > > sing on you, on an occult level it's because they're > > trying to suck your energy, in the form of attention. > > > > What to do about it? Cut them off at the pump. > > > > Ignore them, and watch what they do. If they hardly > > notice, they weren't really obsessed. If they keep > > trying to gain your attention, using whatever means > > they can think of, they were. If they *increase* > > their attempts to get you to focus your attention > > on them, they were *really* obsessed. > > > > Guess which category you fall into. > > > > Guess which category the people I lump you in with > > fall into. > > > > Get it? > > > > Buh-bye. > > > > Barry, I'm glad you decided to make me happy for at least one day. > Thanks for your kindness, > My divine mother is so kind and gracious and she has answered my > innocent prayers, wohoo...!!! > But I have always said here I am obsessed with you, this is no secret > !!! C'mon don't give that WOO-WOO nonsense of occult, energy, all that > spiritual teacher BS. Gawd, I thought you don't believe in all this > WOO-WOO astrology, ayurveda energy crapnow you are REALLY REALLY > behaving like my ex. > Hey wait a second, wait a secondwas that spiritual teacher > Rama?? That bastard, he kills himself but has cursed you for the > rest of your life. > Anyway I'm hoping for your continued response and participation to my > threads. > Swami Rama bailed on you but I won't, I promise. So don't dump all your pain, anger and frustration on me for what Rama did and don't stay mad for too long..and I'm just a friend, remember?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
To clarify, I met with the Supreme Court of Allahabad retired judge who handled Guru Dev's will (not a lawyer). And yes, he was alive and kicking and quite brilliant. And, oh yes, he remembered all the details quite clearly. This was in 1995. The point I was trying to make, and I will repeat myself, is that both he and members of the Shankaracaharya ashram had never heard of any poisoning. This is not opinion, this is fact. I take offense when Vaj repeatedly makes reference to something that never appears to have happened to make his opinion right. As I have also said, if he or anyone else has issues with MMY, thats fine with me. But if he is going to quote supposed events to make his point, then use real events, not something he made up. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > On May 26, 2011, at 7:32 AM, seventhray1 wrote: > > As I understand it Richard Nelson's sources were first hand sources who > acutally were in a position to know some of the details which were alleged to > have taken place. > > Is that anything like Christian groups who > go to Israel and speak with people there > who assure them that Mary was a virgin? > > Richard says he spoke directly with the lawyer who handled SBS's will, > > And SBS died over 50 years ago, right? > And the "lawyer who handled" his will is > still alive and kicking, eh? And still remembers > various details? Right. > > and traveled to some of various places at issue and spoke with people who > were contempories of SBS, and M. > > And of course all these contemporaries are > still alive as well. > > Vaj's sources seem 2 or 3 steps removed from the events they are commenting > on, and are never identified in any detail. Usually they are "a student of > so and so" > > That's called opinion~~why is that so > threatening? > Sal >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
Three guesses who this is: "I read your posts Jim", "I never read your posts Jim!!", "I read your posts Jim", "I never read your posts Jim!!", "I read your posts Jim", "I never read your posts Jim!!", "I read your posts Jim", "I never read your posts Jim!!", "I read your posts Jim", "I never read your posts Jim!!", "I read your posts Jim", "I never read your posts Jim!!", etc. Straighten out that wet mess of a mind Bozotronic Barry, and perhaps you can eventually respond rationally to me and/or be consistent on here. In the meantime, please enjoy another helping of turnips and foot fungus dude.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > > > On May 26, 2011, at 6:19 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > > > > > > > > Pile on? Vaj has simply been exposed as a liar. Not sure > > > > what standard you look for in evaluating statements. But > > > > Vaj made a series of assertions and all of them turned > > > > out to be false. > > > > > > Not true. What actually happened is that several > > > people have *declared* them false. Those people > > > have IMO exactly the same level of credibility as > > > Vaj -- namely none. No one has presented verifiable > > > facts yet. > > > > That's what it seems to me as well~~ > > if there were some posts made which > > in any way proved Vaj's assertions to > > be false, or even dealt with them on > > any kind of level other than pseudo- > > hysteria, I haven't seen them. > > Neither have I. Absolutely *nothing* has > been presented but hearsay and unverifiable > claims, by those (on both sides) who have > done nothing in the past to lend them such > claims any credibility. > > > Perhaps lurk could point them out? > > Especially since he seems so sure that > > Vaj has been "exposed as a liar." Where, > > exactly, did this occur lurk? I must > > have missed the posts. > > And you'll continue to miss them, because > based on past performance he won't answer > you. He (sadly) seems limited to emotional > overreaction drive-bys. > > > And this > > Richard Nelson seems more intent > > on coming across more as mentally > > unbalanced than in having any kind > > of rational discussion. > > Sadly, I have to agree. In his earlier drive-bys, > I gave him the benefit of a doubt as possibly > having something positive to contribute, because > of a sweet story about Jerry. I encouraged the > positivity and chided him for having to "balance" > it at the time with a gratuitous slam at Vaj. He > claimed to have gotten the point. However, he > has posted nothing since *but* slams at Vaj. I'm > starting to get the feeling that, like so many > on this forum, that is all he is capable of. > > Have you noticed that NONE of these supposed "TM > supporters" have posted anything positive about > TM and its supposed benefits in months? It's been > pretty much all negative, all the time. > > > > Did you even *notice* that feste did *exactly* > > > what he was accusing Vaj of? He just slung insults, > > > and presented not even a single supposed fact. > > > > > > > When asked to back up these assertions, the best he could > > > > come up with, was "he heard it from someone" > > > > > > Yup. The people piling on didn't even go that far. They > > > just claimed things *as if they were facts*, but without > > > anything that could enable anyone to determine whether > > > they were really facts or not. > > > > > > In other words, on one level what we seem to have here > > > is a pissing contest, in which both sides are saying, > > > "What I've heard is better than what you've heard." I > > > call it total bullshit, on all sides. > > > > > > As for the "piling on" thang that Sal brings up, it *would* > > > have been possible for Richard Nelson or others to just post > > > a few verifiable facts (y'know...stuff including dates and > > > contact information and where one could go to verify their > > > claims) and leave it at that. They did not. What they did > > > was to do *exactly* the same thing that Vaj did -- make a > > > bunch of unverifiable claims -- and then proceed to call > > > him names. > > > > Not only unverifiable claims, but almost hysterical > > ones at that. > > Certainly angry ones, and out-of-control emotionally. > Pretty interesting for people who claim to have been > practicing "the best" form of meditation on the planet, > and for decades. One of them -- the person who has > posted the most gratuitous insults in this pissing > contest actually claims to be enlightened. > > > Which isn't exactly what you'd call either a > > great advertisement for meditation or a ringing > > endorsement for their version of the "truth." > > Exactly. > > The point I have been making for years is that I > don't see how *any* lurker on this forum could come > away from the FFL experience having a po
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Yogi" raviyogi@ wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" wrote: > > > > > > > > In reality there is no truth. > > > > > > > > There is no truth in reality. > > > > There is no reality that can be true. > > > > There is only opinion. > > > > > > > > All opinions are equal in value. > > > > You are a troll. Vaj is a troll. > > > > > > > > You support each other in trollness. > > > > > > > > You opinions don't matter here. > > > > > > > > Your opinions don't matter at all. > > > > > > > > No one here really cares what you think. > > > > > > > > Welcome to the reality of FFL. > > > > > > > > > > The "reality of FFL" is that since the beginning of > > > this posting week, five posters (Judy, Jim, Willytex, > > > Nabby, and Ravi) have made 62 posts either insulting > > > me, trying to "refute" something I said, or otherwise > > > putting me down. > > > > > > What part of that fits into "No one here really > > > cares what you think?" > > > > > > Seems to me that these people -- two of whom claim > > > to be enlightened -- care VERY MUCH what I think, > > > enough to spend this much time replying to it. > > > > Turq, I don't know why you continue lumping me with others. > > You know how much I care for every message you write. I > > always compliment your writing yet you continue to ignore > > me, it leaves me really sad, hurt and miserable. > > Ravi, > > I shall "break form" and reply to this one, because > it gives me the opportunity to rap about the occult > theory behind why I ignore your silly ass. > > It's because of something I learned from a couple of > spiritual teachers. When someone appears to be obses- > sing on you, on an occult level it's because they're > trying to suck your energy, in the form of attention. > > What to do about it? Cut them off at the pump. > > Ignore them, and watch what they do. If they hardly > notice, they weren't really obsessed. If they keep > trying to gain your attention, using whatever means > they can think of, they were. If they *increase* > their attempts to get you to focus your attention > on them, they were *really* obsessed. > > Guess which category you fall into. > > Guess which category the people I lump you in with > fall into. > > Get it? > > Buh-bye. > Barry, I'm glad you decided to make me happy for at least one day. Thanks for your kindness, My divine mother is so kind and gracious and she has answered my innocent prayers, wohoo...!!! But I have always said here I am obsessed with you, this is no secret !!! C'mon don't give that WOO-WOO nonsense of occult, energy, all that spiritual teacher BS. Gawd, I thought you don't believe in all this WOO-WOO astrology, ayurveda energy crapnow you are REALLY REALLY behaving like my ex. Hey wait a second, wait a secondwas that spiritual teacher Rama?? That bastard, he kills himself but has cursed you for the rest of your life. Anyway I'm hoping for your continued response and participation to my threads.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Yogi" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" wrote: > > > > > > In reality there is no truth. > > > > > > There is no truth in reality. > > > There is no reality that can be true. > > > There is only opinion. > > > > > > All opinions are equal in value. > > > You are a troll. Vaj is a troll. > > > > > > You support each other in trollness. > > > > > > You opinions don't matter here. > > > > > > Your opinions don't matter at all. > > > > > > No one here really cares what you think. > > > > > > Welcome to the reality of FFL. > > > > > > > The "reality of FFL" is that since the beginning of > > this posting week, five posters (Judy, Jim, Willytex, > > Nabby, and Ravi) have made 62 posts either insulting > > me, trying to "refute" something I said, or otherwise > > putting me down. > > > > What part of that fits into "No one here really > > cares what you think?" > > > > Seems to me that these people -- two of whom claim > > to be enlightened -- care VERY MUCH what I think, > > enough to spend this much time replying to it. > > Turq, I don't know why you continue lumping me with others. > You know how much I care for every message you write. I > always compliment your writing yet you continue to ignore > me, it leaves me really sad, hurt and miserable. Ravi, I shall "break form" and reply to this one, because it gives me the opportunity to rap about the occult theory behind why I ignore your silly ass. It's because of something I learned from a couple of spiritual teachers. When someone appears to be obses- sing on you, on an occult level it's because they're trying to suck your energy, in the form of attention. What to do about it? Cut them off at the pump. Ignore them, and watch what they do. If they hardly notice, they weren't really obsessed. If they keep trying to gain your attention, using whatever means they can think of, they were. If they *increase* their attempts to get you to focus your attention on them, they were *really* obsessed. Guess which category you fall into. Guess which category the people I lump you in with fall into. Get it? Buh-bye.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
They have replied to you so they could respond to your previous postings. This encourages you but also gives the false impression that people really care about what you say. Those people your quote on FFL believe that your statements need countering but in the world of "no truth, no reality" what you say is merely your opinion. Your opinion on any given subject will change with time - eventually to the complete opposite. Given this constancy of complete change, your "mere opinion" will switch to certitude. You will then become the guru of "certitude of undeniable change". You may deny this but that will change too. After all this you will either die or become immortal. That would really be a change. This is my opinion but it will also change. In fact, you may already be immortal. But, of course, you may want to deny this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > On 05/26/2011 09:07 AM, Ravi Yogi wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > >> > >> Funny stuff, Tart. I particularly liked "Are they all > >> ex postal employees?" because the most rational and > >> restrained person on the forum these days *is* an ex > >> US Postal Service employee. :-) > >> > >> We never hear from lurkers. Duh. That's why they're > >> called lurkers. But what must they THINK of this zoo? > >> > >> I mean, we're all used to it. Whether we're still part > >> of the TM organization or not, if we were at one point > >> (as opposed to those here who never were, and just > >> gazed at it from the periphery, never got involved, > >> and lived on their fantasies of what it was like), we > >> have seen this kinda crazy so long and so often that > >> we've almost come to ignore it as "normal." > >> > >> It isn't. It's crazy. > >> > >> People arguing who's right and who's wrong about stuff > >> that can never be proven either, because it's all just > >> opinion. People spending well over half of their posts > >> each week trying to "get" the people they don't like. > >> And that's leaving out the couple of people who claim > >> to be fuckin' ENLIGHTENED, ferchrissakes, and then get > >> their buttons pushed so easily that they spend dozens > >> of posts acting out pre-adolescent revenge fantasies. > >> > >> Place is a fuckin' ZOO. > >> > > This is not a Zoo, this is the FFL Pub, a place for mature individuals - > > if you think it's a zoo and it's bothering you so much, may be you > > should rethink. Oh forgive me, obviously not, because of your lies day > > in and day out that you use to denounce spirituality and harass real > > seekers. You obviously have a lot invested in this zoo, may be you have > > opened a circus elsewhere? Is that all you have left now to defend your > > lies by making it into "its all an opinion lie"? What an interesting > > strategy to mask your deception and lies by masquerading it as an > > opinion - I'm amazed yet quite amused. > > Nah, it's the Funny Farm Lounge or did you just think it was a pub where > the waitresses dressed up like nurses? And just what did you think was > in that little cup you're drinking? > I'm always sippin' my divine vodka that I found hidden in the cellar of my divine mother. I'm not supposed to reveal this but I'm too drunk so here you go - don't get deceived by the mantras and meditation techniques that the Gurus give, those are all toys to entertain the intellectuals. All Gurus have a secret cellar which is loaded with divine vodka. The goal of a seeker is to trick the Guru and break into this cellar to get the hidden stash of this divine vodka, and then as they say - the world is in your pocket.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" wrote: > > > > In reality there is no truth. > > > > There is no truth in reality. > > There is no reality that can be true. > > There is only opinion. > > > > All opinions are equal in value. > > You are a troll. Vaj is a troll. > > > > You support each other in trollness. > > > > You opinions don't matter here. > > > > Your opinions don't matter at all. > > > > No one here really cares what you think. > > > > > > > > Welcome to the reality of FFL. > > > > The "reality of FFL" is that since the beginning of > this posting week, five posters (Judy, Jim, Willytex, > Nabby, and Ravi) have made 62 posts either insulting > me, trying to "refute" something I said, or otherwise > putting me down. > > What part of that fits into "No one here really > cares what you think?" > > Seems to me that these people -- two of whom claim > to be enlightened -- care VERY MUCH what I think, > enough to spend this much time replying to it. > Turq, I don't know why you continue lumping me with others. You know how much I care for every message you write. I always compliment your writing yet you continue to ignore me, it leaves me really sad, hurt and miserable. You are really behaving like my ex now..LOL.. Love, Ravi Yogi.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield Afterlife
On 05/25/2011 12:26 AM, Ravi Yogi wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: >> Inspired by David Eagleman's "Sum," I thought I'd spend some time >> pondering what the Afterlife will be like for each of us here at >> Fairfield Life. This is just for fun, and written off the top of my > head >> while sitting in a cafe, so I hope no one is offended by being either >> included or Left Behind. As to whether these visions are Heaven or > Hell, >> that's up to each person to decide for themselves. >> >> Rick Archer -- As prophesied by Nabby, Rick finds himself in a place >> full of flames and dark caverns and souls who during life were into > the >> most low-vibe pursuits imaginable, like enjoying sex and fun, and > well, >> life. As it turns out, all of the souls he sees around him are >> enlightened, because they took one look at the Afterlife Alternative > and >> decided that harps and halos and sitting around on clouds just wasn't >> their idea of how to spend eternity, so they came here instead. As a >> result there are an infinite number of people for him to interview for >> the BATGAP series, which has been picked up for syndication, making > him >> a major star. >> >> emptybill -- Finds himself in an Incredibly Well-Read Afterlife where >> literally everyone around him has not only read all the books he's > read, >> but knows them better than he does, so absolutely no one is impressed > by >> anything he says. Worst of all, someone named Vaj sits at the > right-hand >> side of the realm's deity and runs things, and he's terrified it's the >> same Vaj. >> >> curtisdeltablues -- Curtis' Afterlife is a basement blues club, where > he >> gets to perform onstage with all of the greats of the Delta Blues > every >> night. The audiences are both knowledgeable about the blues and >> appreciative, so his Donation Hat overfloweth. His guitar never goes > out >> of tune and he has been assigned a personal assistant to clean the > spit >> out of his harmonica at the end of every gig. On the relationship > front, >> he's got a three-way going on with Memphis Minnie and Bessie Smith, >> which is going pretty well except when they get jealous of his >> harmonica-spit girl. >> >> Ravi Yogi -- Has found an afterlife where almost everyone pays > attention >> to him, believes that he's enlightened, and hangs on his every word as >> if he were important and special. His ex-wife still thinks he's a >> low-vibe dork, though, so he's still miserable. >> > I appreciate your creative writing and humor and chuckled quite a bit, > but don't you ever make references to my beloved, I will be forced to > use my yogic powers to make sure your nightmare afterlife scenario of > total annihilation comes true. I'm not a effing pimp (egoist) like you > in a co-dependent relationship with the whore (intellect) - I'm the true > lover, I'll love my beloved till the rest of the eternity and my love > needs no reciprocation like you pimps. > turquoiseb (Barry Wright) -- Ravi Yogi, the original goon of the Divine > Mother finally finishes the job he started on FFL and using his yogic > powers annihilates Barry so he has no effing afterlife...LOL.. Would that be Maran, Uchattan or Ubanistan?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" wrote: > > In reality there is no truth. > > There is no truth in reality. > There is no reality that can be true. > There is only opinion. > > All opinions are equal in value. > You are a troll. Vaj is a troll. > > You support each other in trollness. > > You opinions don't matter here. > > Your opinions don't matter at all. > > No one here really cares what you think. > > > > Welcome to the reality of FFL. > The "reality of FFL" is that since the beginning of this posting week, five posters (Judy, Jim, Willytex, Nabby, and Ravi) have made 62 posts either insulting me, trying to "refute" something I said, or otherwise putting me down. What part of that fits into "No one here really cares what you think?" Seems to me that these people -- two of whom claim to be enlightened -- care VERY MUCH what I think, enough to spend this much time replying to it. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > > > > > Following is an interesting post to SeriousSeekers.com > > > > > > > > "Fellow Graceful, Light Filled Seekers, > > > > > > > > I think I may have found IT -- the fastest evolutionary, > > > > spiritual unfolding technique on the planet. As we all > > > > know, awakening and spiritual unfoldment appears once > > > > the soul has roasted, purified or unwound the densely > > > > and deeply packed intertwined samskaras built up after > > > > almost infinite births. And then theres the collective > > > > karma stuff too. As we have all experienced, when this > > > > stuff is roasted, it may pop like popcorn for a while: > > > > very unstable, chaotic, random, not following any sense > > > > of order or rationality, way overheated, etc. Or we can > > > > think of it as unwinding of deep multi-dimensional knots. > > > > When doing so, lots of mess all over the floor and the > > > > knots unwind. > > > > > > > > The faster the evolutionary and spiritual unfoldment process, > > > > the hotter, more random and irrational is the corn popping, > > > > the messier and sloppy the floor becomes with all the > > > > unwinding. ERGO, the fastest technique must also produce the > > > > messiest, most heated, irrational, sloppy, unstable, chaotic > > > > side effects. Well my friends, I have been lurking at a site > > > > called FFL whose posters have a long history with TM. And I > > > > have to say, I have never, ever, its not even close, seen a > > > > group of seekers so messed up, twisted, overheated, irrational, > > > > petty, sloppy and unstable as these guys. Even those who have > > > > not practiced TM for decades -- they too are bat shit crazy. > > > > Thus the effects of TM appear not only profoundly powerful, > > > > but also long lasting. the heavy purifiction and its side > > > > effects last long after the practice is stopped. > > > > > > > > It appears from the longevity of their postings, some 10 > > > > years, some 20 years back to older forums. Sp it appears > > > > that it may take 6-12 lifetimes of this incredibly distasteful, > > > > in your face anger, hostility, random, chaotic, sloppy behavior > > > > to roast all the samskaras and unwind all of the knots. But > > > > certainly this HELL for a dozen lifetimes is worth the eternal > > > > grace of full unfoldment. > > > > > > > > So I signed up. I am now practicing TM twice a day and ALREADY > > > > the purification process has begun. So F* you your f*u*ing lame > > > > assholes, join me on the awesome adventure -- it you are not > > > > too fing SUUPID and dense to get my beautifully laid out points. > > > > So STFU and lets finally get serious about full spiritual > > > > unfoldment -- or simply continue with your decaying head up > > > > your smelly ass. Your choice. > > > > > > Some reply comments to this post at SeriousSeekeers.com > > > > > > #1 "I checked out FFL as you suggested. Wow, I never knew what > > > Ekhart Tolle meant by "pain body" until now. These folks are > > > in serious internal pain. its almost too painful to watch." > > > > > > #2 "Are these people of 24/7 medical watch? I sure hope so. > > > For their sakes and those that ma be around them. These are > > > walking time bombs. Are they all ex postal employees?" > > > > > > #3 " I heard at the end of their intro course they are given > > > syringes filled with Thorazin to ease the symptoms. Some get > > > a 24 hour patch I hear -- they are so bonkers" > > > > > > #4 "Are these people functional at all? Who feeds and clothes > > > them? And takes them to the bathroom (jeez I don't even want > > > to begin to think about what their bathrooms must look an > > > smell like). maybe we should form a Seva project to help > > > these souls out a bit. Give them a little bit of joy and help > > > put a smile on their face. For some, its proba
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > > I am think of starting a skype interview site like Rick "Bat Shit Crazy" interviewing TMers and those of related paths. > > Q: "So from your bio, it looks like when you were younger you were pretty normal" > > A: "Yes, I was petty normal, a good student, was generally kind and considerate." > > Q: "When did you have this Shift in Consciousness, this Awakening, the Realization that you really are total asshole?" > > A: "Well I read lots of books and stuff, but it really happened when I started TM. There progress towards being an Unbounded asshole, unlimited obnoxiousness, maxiumum rudeness, all started almost within my first three day intro course." > > Q: "What is your current state" > > A: "I have cut though all of the darkness and limitations. I am not fully realized that I am a total asshole, everyone else is a total asshole, an the universe is one huge asshole." > > Q: "for those interested, do you have a web site" > > A: "Sure. Those interested can reach me at FFL" > > Q: "How will they know which asshole is you?" > > A: ... > > And tartie boy finally opens his heart and let's all his infantile pain out in one fell swoop. Sad considering that mere 72 hours back the whole existence looked full of fun, joy, love and wonder to tartie boy. What a pathetic contrast from all his enlightened talks, poems and short stories from a few days back. Proves my point he is just another pimp(egoistic) in co-dependent relationship with the whore (intellect). The joy, wonder, love and fun was all his intellectual fantasy, all he saw was perfection a few days back and lo and behold now all he sees is obnoxious assholes..OMG..LOL..what a piece of work my tartie..
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
On 05/26/2011 09:07 AM, Ravi Yogi wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: >> >> Funny stuff, Tart. I particularly liked "Are they all >> ex postal employees?" because the most rational and >> restrained person on the forum these days *is* an ex >> US Postal Service employee. :-) >> >> We never hear from lurkers. Duh. That's why they're >> called lurkers. But what must they THINK of this zoo? >> >> I mean, we're all used to it. Whether we're still part >> of the TM organization or not, if we were at one point >> (as opposed to those here who never were, and just >> gazed at it from the periphery, never got involved, >> and lived on their fantasies of what it was like), we >> have seen this kinda crazy so long and so often that >> we've almost come to ignore it as "normal." >> >> It isn't. It's crazy. >> >> People arguing who's right and who's wrong about stuff >> that can never be proven either, because it's all just >> opinion. People spending well over half of their posts >> each week trying to "get" the people they don't like. >> And that's leaving out the couple of people who claim >> to be fuckin' ENLIGHTENED, ferchrissakes, and then get >> their buttons pushed so easily that they spend dozens >> of posts acting out pre-adolescent revenge fantasies. >> >> Place is a fuckin' ZOO. >> > This is not a Zoo, this is the FFL Pub, a place for mature individuals - > if you think it's a zoo and it's bothering you so much, may be you > should rethink. Oh forgive me, obviously not, because of your lies day > in and day out that you use to denounce spirituality and harass real > seekers. You obviously have a lot invested in this zoo, may be you have > opened a circus elsewhere? Is that all you have left now to defend your > lies by making it into "its all an opinion lie"? What an interesting > strategy to mask your deception and lies by masquerading it as an > opinion - I'm amazed yet quite amused. Nah, it's the Funny Farm Lounge or did you just think it was a pub where the waitresses dressed up like nurses? And just what did you think was in that little cup you're drinking?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > You've been harping on this one for years lurk.. > it evidently got to you. So sure, go ahead > and bring up the claim and show me how > "wrong" I was. Sal, Sorry I'm not biting. It did not "get" to me. But I am not going to waste my time in a one way discussion, or a discussion where if things get too uncomfortable, the other party bails. So, "winning, duh", is not what I am looking for. > On May 26, 2011, at 10:25 AM, seventhray1 wrote: > > Sal, if you wish me to bring up an instance where you called me a gulliable fool, or idiot for believing something that you evidently did not care to believe, but which turned out to be 100% true, I will be glad to do so. In that instance you chose to absent yourself from further discussion once your position became untenable. > > It is fine to participate, But I feel that if you state opinions, you may sometimes be called to defend or clarify those opinions. And I happen to feel that it is a little lame to suddenly decide that one doesn't want to participate to that extent. Certainly there are exceptions. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
I'm going to channel my inner Judy now..a poor imitation of her but I will try.. Look how Turqster, the trickster spins his deception. Now he says it's all opinion, both Vaj and Richardson are stating opinions and he doesn't side with either of them when he clearly sides with the liar Vaj, one trick parrot, the proponent of the Vakragita. He converts both lies and truth into opinions and subtly portrays that neither is any better since it's all opinion. He keeps repeating he doesn't believe in ayurveda but he is quite animated. Hats off to the Turqster, the Trickster, the master of deception. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@ > > wrote: > > > > > > > > As I understand it Richard Nelson's sources were first hand > > > > sources who acutally were in a position to know some of the > > > > details which were alleged to have taken place. > > > > > > In other words, EXACTLY the same as Vaj's. His > > > opinion is based on (he says) what he heard from > > > a direct student of one of the parties involved. > > > > Are you aware of the pecking order of sources? There are > > primary sources, and then there are secondard sources. > > And none of EITHER has been cited in this pissing > contest. The only thing that has happened is that > someone has *claimed* to have heard something from > a "source." None of the actual sources have been > quoted, and no way of contacting them to get their > opinion first-hand has been provided. > > > I believe most of Richard's sources are primary sources. > > As Sal pointed out, that's fairly questionable. He > has not replied to how he met the "lawyer" he claims > handled SBS's will over fifty years ago, or named him. > He has similarly given no contact data for any of his > supposed sources. > > I honestly think that you "believe" what you want to > believe, and that's the end of it. There have been > neither primary nor secondary sources involved in > this discussion, only *claims* of what they might > have said by two people. I don't trust EITHER of > them. I won't believe what EITHER of them say until > they provide me with contact information so that I > can contact their supposed "source" myself and ask > them directly. > > And even THEN what have I got? Someone's OPINION. > Not fact. > > > Not the the case with Vaj. > > Dismiss this protocal if you wish. > > I'm dismissing you, for the reasons I state above. > > > > And yet you somehow give more credence to what > > > Richard says. Could it possibly be because...wait > > > for it...what Richard says (filtered through his > > > own obvious agenda) conforms to what you want to > > > believe (filtered through your own)? > > > > You always surprise me in this way. This is or has become > > one of your "stock in trade" accusations. > > I think it's also accurate. You don't even know the > difference between a source and a claim of a source, > as indicated above. And you want me to believe that > you don't have any *bias* in this? Puhlze. > > > But excuse me if I don't bite on it. You > > might want to "look in the mirror" on this one. > > I have stated my position on the bullshit being argued > about. I DON'T GIVE A SHIT. I think that Ayurveda > is and has always been a scam. Thus I don't care who > thought up some detail of the scam "first." > > > > THERE HAVE BEEN NO FACTS PRESENTED. By anyone, > > > on either side. All that's happened is a "My sources > > > are better than your sources" pissing contest. I'm > > > starting to wonder whether Jimbo is not the only > > > person here whose intellect has devolved to the > > > vegetable level. > > > > Ta Da! The insult! Medicore IMO as insults go. Look, if > > you wish to put all sources on the same level of credibility, > > i.e. an anonymous source as opposed to an identified source, > > feel free do so. > > If you wish to place a *claim* of a source on the same > level as an actual source, by all means do so. But don't > expect me to respect you when you do. > > I don't believe EITHER of them. Get it? Both Vaj and > Richard are FAR too emotional and riding the hobbyhorse > of agenda for me to take anything EITHER of them says > as valid just because they say it. > > You, on the other hand, do. And you think I'm the one > who doesn't understand? > > > But unfortunately, and I can guarantee this, should there be > > an issue that would affect you in a significant way, and where > > facts needed to be presented which would affect an outcome in > > which you had a stake, you would care very much. > > Still harping on the "primary vs. secondary source" > red herring? NO SOURCES HAVE BEEN PRESENTED. > There have only been *claims* of what "sources" made, > by two people who are both clearly overemotional about > the issue. I don't believe a
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > Funny stuff, Tart. I particularly liked "Are they all > ex postal employees?" because the most rational and > restrained person on the forum these days *is* an ex > US Postal Service employee. :-) > > We never hear from lurkers. Duh. That's why they're > called lurkers. But what must they THINK of this zoo? > > I mean, we're all used to it. Whether we're still part > of the TM organization or not, if we were at one point > (as opposed to those here who never were, and just > gazed at it from the periphery, never got involved, > and lived on their fantasies of what it was like), we > have seen this kinda crazy so long and so often that > we've almost come to ignore it as "normal." > > It isn't. It's crazy. > > People arguing who's right and who's wrong about stuff > that can never be proven either, because it's all just > opinion. People spending well over half of their posts > each week trying to "get" the people they don't like. > And that's leaving out the couple of people who claim > to be fuckin' ENLIGHTENED, ferchrissakes, and then get > their buttons pushed so easily that they spend dozens > of posts acting out pre-adolescent revenge fantasies. > > Place is a fuckin' ZOO. > This is not a Zoo, this is the FFL Pub, a place for mature individuals - if you think it's a zoo and it's bothering you so much, may be you should rethink. Oh forgive me, obviously not, because of your lies day in and day out that you use to denounce spirituality and harass real seekers. You obviously have a lot invested in this zoo, may be you have opened a circus elsewhere? Is that all you have left now to defend your lies by making it into "its all an opinion lie"? What an interesting strategy to mask your deception and lies by masquerading it as an opinion - I'm amazed yet quite amused.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
You've been harping on this one for years lurk.. it evidently got to you. So sure, go ahead and bring up the claim and show me how "wrong" I was. Sal On May 26, 2011, at 10:25 AM, seventhray1 wrote: Sal, if you wish me to bring up an instance where you called me a gulliable fool, or idiot for believing something that you evidently did not care to believe, but which turned out to be 100% true, I will be glad to do so. In that instance you chose to absent yourself from further discussion once your position became untenable. It is fine to participate, But I feel that if you state opinions, you may sometimes be called to defend or clarify those opinions. And I happen to feel that it is a little lame to suddenly decide that one doesn't want to participate to that extent. Certainly there are exceptions.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Following is an interesting post to SeriousSeekers.com > > > > "Fellow Graceful, Light Filled Seekers, > > > > I think I may have found IT -- the fastest evolutionary, spiritual unfolding technique on the planet. As we all know, awakening and spiritual unfoldment appears once the soul has roasted, purified or unwound the densely and deeply packed intertwined samskaras built up after almost infinite births. And then theres the collective karma stuff too. As we have all experienced, when this stuff is roasted, it may pop like popcorn for a while: very unstable, chaotic, random, not following any sense of order or rationality, way overheated, etc. Or we can think of it as unwinding of deep multi-dimensional knots. When doing so, lots of mess all over the floor and the knots unwind. > > > > The faster the evolutionary and spiritual unfoldment process, the hotter, more random and irrational is the corn popping, the messier and sloppy the floor becomes with all the unwinding. ERGO, the fastest technique must also produce the messiest, most heated, irrational, sloppy, unstable, chaotic side effects. Well my friends, I have been lurking at a site called FFL whose posters have a long history with TM. And I have to say, I have never, ever, its not even close, seen a group of seekers so messed up, twisted, overheated, irrational, petty, sloppy and unstable as these guys. Even those who have not practiced TM for decades -- they too are bat shit crazy. Thus the effects of TM appear not only profoundly powerful, but also long lasting. the heavy purifiction and its side effects last long after the practice is stopped. > > > > It appears from the longevity of their postings, some 10 years, some 20 years back to older forums. Sp it appears that it may take 6-12 lifetimes of this incredibly distasteful, in your face anger, hostility, random, chaotic, sloppy behavior to roast all the samskaras and unwind all of the knots. But certainly this HELL for a dozen lifetimes is worth the eternal grace of full unfoldment. > > > > So I signed up. I am now practicing TM twice a day and ALREADY the purification process has begun. So F* you your f*u*ing lame assholes, join me on the awesome adventure -- it you are not too fing SUUPID and dense to get my beautifully laid out points. So STFU and lets finally get serious about full spiritual unfoldment -- or simply continue with your decaying head up your smelly ass. Your choice. > > > > Some reply comments to this post at SeriousSeekeers.com > > #1 "I checked out FFL as you suggested. Wow, I never knew what Ekhart Tolle meant by "pain body" until now. These folks are in serious internal pain. its almost too painful to watch." > > #2 "Are these people of 24/7 medical watch? I sure hope so. For their sakes and those that ma be around them. These are walking time bombs. Are they all ex postal employees?" > > #3 " I heard at the end of their intro course they are given syringes filled with Thorazin to ease the symptoms. Some get a 24 hour patch I hear -- they are so bonkers" > > #4 "Are these people functional at all? Who feeds and clothes them? And takes them to the bathroom (jeez I don't even want to begin to think about what their bathrooms must look an smell like). maybe we should form a Seva project to help these souls out a bit. Give them a little bit of joy and help put a smile on their face. For some, its probably been decades." > Wow these comments are so drastic I'm not sure why you would even care to post it here. These comments are not from serious seekers but very ordinary seekers. A serious seeker is not concerned about the pain and imperfections of others, once a seeker is mature his own pain and imperfections are so clear that his only purpose is to then work on how he could be free. He feels like his wounds are now infected and that he is in dire need of a surgery to remove it as soon as possible. All his time is then spent in looking for a cure. And once this amazing transformation takes place he suddenly realizes that there is nothing wrong with the world !!! The world is perfect and any pain and suffering he saw in the world was merely his projection !! I thank the grace and love of my beloved Guru Ammachi for turning me into a serious seeker several years back and I hope the same for the seekers on SeriousSeeker.com.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
In reality there is no truth. There is no truth in reality. There is no reality that can be true. There is only opinion. All opinions are equal in value. You are a troll. Vaj is a troll. You support each other in trollness. You opinions don't matter here. Your opinions don't matter at all. No one here really cares what you think. Welcome to the reality of FFL. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > > > Following is an interesting post to SeriousSeekers.com > > > > > > "Fellow Graceful, Light Filled Seekers, > > > > > > I think I may have found IT -- the fastest evolutionary, > > > spiritual unfolding technique on the planet. As we all > > > know, awakening and spiritual unfoldment appears once > > > the soul has roasted, purified or unwound the densely > > > and deeply packed intertwined samskaras built up after > > > almost infinite births. And then theres the collective > > > karma stuff too. As we have all experienced, when this > > > stuff is roasted, it may pop like popcorn for a while: > > > very unstable, chaotic, random, not following any sense > > > of order or rationality, way overheated, etc. Or we can > > > think of it as unwinding of deep multi-dimensional knots. > > > When doing so, lots of mess all over the floor and the > > > knots unwind. > > > > > > The faster the evolutionary and spiritual unfoldment process, > > > the hotter, more random and irrational is the corn popping, > > > the messier and sloppy the floor becomes with all the > > > unwinding. ERGO, the fastest technique must also produce the > > > messiest, most heated, irrational, sloppy, unstable, chaotic > > > side effects. Well my friends, I have been lurking at a site > > > called FFL whose posters have a long history with TM. And I > > > have to say, I have never, ever, its not even close, seen a > > > group of seekers so messed up, twisted, overheated, irrational, > > > petty, sloppy and unstable as these guys. Even those who have > > > not practiced TM for decades -- they too are bat shit crazy. > > > Thus the effects of TM appear not only profoundly powerful, > > > but also long lasting. the heavy purifiction and its side > > > effects last long after the practice is stopped. > > > > > > It appears from the longevity of their postings, some 10 > > > years, some 20 years back to older forums. Sp it appears > > > that it may take 6-12 lifetimes of this incredibly distasteful, > > > in your face anger, hostility, random, chaotic, sloppy behavior > > > to roast all the samskaras and unwind all of the knots. But > > > certainly this HELL for a dozen lifetimes is worth the eternal > > > grace of full unfoldment. > > > > > > So I signed up. I am now practicing TM twice a day and ALREADY > > > the purification process has begun. So F* you your f*u*ing lame > > > assholes, join me on the awesome adventure -- it you are not > > > too fing SUUPID and dense to get my beautifully laid out points. > > > So STFU and lets finally get serious about full spiritual > > > unfoldment -- or simply continue with your decaying head up > > > your smelly ass. Your choice. > > > > Some reply comments to this post at SeriousSeekeers.com > > > > #1 "I checked out FFL as you suggested. Wow, I never knew what > > Ekhart Tolle meant by "pain body" until now. These folks are > > in serious internal pain. its almost too painful to watch." > > > > #2 "Are these people of 24/7 medical watch? I sure hope so. > > For their sakes and those that ma be around them. These are > > walking time bombs. Are they all ex postal employees?" > > > > #3 " I heard at the end of their intro course they are given > > syringes filled with Thorazin to ease the symptoms. Some get > > a 24 hour patch I hear -- they are so bonkers" > > > > #4 "Are these people functional at all? Who feeds and clothes > > them? And takes them to the bathroom (jeez I don't even want > > to begin to think about what their bathrooms must look an > > smell like). maybe we should form a Seva project to help > > these souls out a bit. Give them a little bit of joy and help > > put a smile on their face. For some, its probably been decades." > > Funny stuff, Tart. I particularly liked "Are they all > ex postal employees?" because the most rational and > restrained person on the forum these days *is* an ex > US Postal Service employee. :-) > > We never hear from lurkers. Duh. That's why they're > called lurkers. But what must they THINK of this zoo? > > I mean, we're all used to it. Whether we're still part > of the TM organization or not, if we were at one point > (as opposed to those here who never were, and just > gazed at it from the periphery, never got involved, > and lived on their fantasies of what it was like), we > have seen this kinda crazy so long and so often that > we've almost come to ignore it as "norm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Yogi" wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote: > > > > > Some reply comments to this post at SeriousSeekeers.com > > > > #1 "I checked out FFL as you suggested. Wow, I never knew what Ekhart > Tolle meant by "pain body" until now. These folks are in serious > internal pain. its almost too painful to watch." > > > > #2 "Are these people of 24/7 medical watch? I sure hope so. For their > sakes and those that ma be around them. These are walking time bombs. > Are they all ex postal employees?" > > > > #3 " I heard at the end of their intro course they are given syringes > filled with Thorazin to ease the symptoms. Some get a 24 hour patch I > hear -- they are so bonkers" > > > > #4 "Are these people functional at all? Who feeds and clothes them? > And takes them to the bathroom (jeez I don't even want to begin to think > about what their bathrooms must look an smell like). maybe we should > form a Seva project to help these souls out a bit. Give them a little > bit of joy and help put a smile on their face. For some, its probably > been decades." > > > > Wow these comments are so drastic I'm not sure why you would even care > to post it here. These comments are not from serious seekers but very > ordinary seekers.> > A serious seeker is not concerned about the pain and imperfections of > others, once a seeker is mature his own pain and imperfections are so > clear that his only purpose is to then work on how he could be free. He > feels like his wounds are now infected and that he is in dire need of a > surgery to remove it as soon as possible. All his time is then spent in > looking for a cure. And once this amazing transformation takes place he > suddenly realizes that there is nothing wrong with the world !!! The > world is perfect and any pain and suffering he saw in the world was > merely his projection !! I thank the grace and love of my beloved Guru > Ammachi for turning me into a serious seeker several years back and I > hope the same for the seekers on SeriousSeeker.com. > Also it's quite clear that the comments posted by tart are more appropriate for Ordinary Seeker.com, I have been there and done that. Ordinary seekers usually are newbie's to spirituality, they hear about these excellent values in spirituality, love, compassion and then the first thing they start doing is projecting it on to others. That world is a selfish place, their friends and family are selfish, or that certain other seekers need to be more loving and compassionate or that George Bush needs to be more loving. They don't realize that spiritual values are only meant to be for "Oneself" and that they don't apply to others or don't even apply at all. In fact true love and compassion is only possible only when oneself is free of all pain within, true love and compassion doesn't necessarily mean talking nicely and kindly as people like tartbrain project or they have nothing to do with following values like peace, compassion and non-violent by pseudo-spiritualist like Gandhi, MLK or Dolly Lama. True love and compassion means the right action, at the right place and at the right time. This is only possible when one is perfectly content, free of any pain and suffering inside, free of projecting perfection outside of oneself. This will look intricately difficult if one's own pain is unresolved or it will be like a child's play for one who is totally established in their inner self. Don't look to people like tart who project the values of peace, happiness and love unto others and fake values like non-violence and peace.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
On May 26, 2011, at 10:16 AM, seventhray1 wrote: Sal, It seems to me that our whole legal system is based on trying to arrive at the truth. It is, but this is just a discussion. So, whether it is a legal issue or a philosophical issue, I feel like I would like to arrive at what might be called the "truth". If someone is making accusations of murder, of thievery, or impropieties, then those are, in my mind serious accusations, and should be substantiated. The "murder" accusation I believe applies to some kind of mercy-killing as GD was in a lot of pain and asked for some strong medication, right? I don't know why someone would call that murder. Sounds to me like a provocation that you and others keep falling for. And I also find it interesting that he~~supposedly~~didn't ask for some AV concoction. And if someone else is able to demonstrate that this accusations may have serious flaws, then that also is of interest to me. Perhaps to you, they are not important. Again, the old gratuitous insult. Something that id becoming your specialty, lurk. But as always, have something come up in which you have a stake, then suddenly you are likely to become a strong advocate for wanting to arrive at the "truth" Yes, I choose my battles. Don't you? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > > > Following is an interesting post to SeriousSeekers.com > > > > > > "Fellow Graceful, Light Filled Seekers, > > > > > > I think I may have found IT -- the fastest evolutionary, > > > spiritual unfolding technique on the planet. As we all > > > know, awakening and spiritual unfoldment appears once > > > the soul has roasted, purified or unwound the densely > > > and deeply packed intertwined samskaras built up after > > > almost infinite births. And then theres the collective > > > karma stuff too. As we have all experienced, when this > > > stuff is roasted, it may pop like popcorn for a while: > > > very unstable, chaotic, random, not following any sense > > > of order or rationality, way overheated, etc. Or we can > > > think of it as unwinding of deep multi-dimensional knots. > > > When doing so, lots of mess all over the floor and the > > > knots unwind. > > > > > > The faster the evolutionary and spiritual unfoldment process, > > > the hotter, more random and irrational is the corn popping, > > > the messier and sloppy the floor becomes with all the > > > unwinding. ERGO, the fastest technique must also produce the > > > messiest, most heated, irrational, sloppy, unstable, chaotic > > > side effects. Well my friends, I have been lurking at a site > > > called FFL whose posters have a long history with TM. And I > > > have to say, I have never, ever, its not even close, seen a > > > group of seekers so messed up, twisted, overheated, irrational, > > > petty, sloppy and unstable as these guys. Even those who have > > > not practiced TM for decades -- they too are bat shit crazy. > > > Thus the effects of TM appear not only profoundly powerful, > > > but also long lasting. the heavy purifiction and its side > > > effects last long after the practice is stopped. > > > > > > It appears from the longevity of their postings, some 10 > > > years, some 20 years back to older forums. Sp it appears > > > that it may take 6-12 lifetimes of this incredibly distasteful, > > > in your face anger, hostility, random, chaotic, sloppy behavior > > > to roast all the samskaras and unwind all of the knots. But > > > certainly this HELL for a dozen lifetimes is worth the eternal > > > grace of full unfoldment. > > > > > > So I signed up. I am now practicing TM twice a day and ALREADY > > > the purification process has begun. So F* you your f*u*ing lame > > > assholes, join me on the awesome adventure -- it you are not > > > too fing SUUPID and dense to get my beautifully laid out points. > > > So STFU and lets finally get serious about full spiritual > > > unfoldment -- or simply continue with your decaying head up > > > your smelly ass. Your choice. > > > > Some reply comments to this post at SeriousSeekeers.com > > > > #1 "I checked out FFL as you suggested. Wow, I never knew what > > Ekhart Tolle meant by "pain body" until now. These folks are > > in serious internal pain. its almost too painful to watch." > > > > #2 "Are these people of 24/7 medical watch? I sure hope so. > > For their sakes and those that ma be around them. These are > > walking time bombs. Are they all ex postal employees?" > > > > #3 " I heard at the end of their intro course they are given > > syringes filled with Thorazin to ease the symptoms. Some get > > a 24 hour patch I hear -- they are so bonkers" > > > > #4 "Are these people functional at all? Who feeds and clothes > > them? And takes them to the bathroom (jeez I don't even want > > to begin to think about what their bathrooms must look an > > smell like). maybe we should form a Seva project to help > > these souls out a bit. Give them a little bit of joy and help > > put a smile on their face. For some, its probably been decades." > > Funny stuff, Tart. I particularly liked "Are they all > ex postal employees?" because the most rational and > restrained person on the forum these days *is* an ex > US Postal Service employee. :-) > > We never hear from lurkers. Duh. That's why they're > called lurkers. But what must they THINK of this zoo? > > I mean, we're all used to it. Whether we're still part > of the TM organization or not, if we were at one point > (as opposed to those here who never were, and just > gazed at it from the periphery, never got involved, > and lived on their fantasies of what it was like), we > have seen this kinda crazy so long and so often that > we've almost come to ignore it as "normal." > > It isn't. It's crazy. > > People arguing who's right and who's wrong about stuff > that can never be proven either, because it's all just > opinion. People spending well over half of their posts > each week trying to "get" the people they don't like. > And that's leaving out the couple of people who claim > to be fucki
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > On May 26, 2011, at 7:41 AM, seventhray1 wrote: > > Sal, I will be glad to do this. But I will have to do it this evening when I have some time and if someone doesn't do it before then. The question will then be, are YOU willing to look at the evidence in any kind of objective way, or simply dismiss it as just some subjective view point? > > I'll do my best to look. But of course > I may come to different conclusions. > I have made this effort in the past, and you have never bothered you reply when evidence was presented that was contrary to your views. When asked about it later, you have said your participation in this forum is only for light banter and relaxation, and you don't care to engage in any serious talk. So, I would rather not waste my time if you are not going to be genuine participant. > > Here is that post~~I don't see any offer on your part, lurk. Did I miss something? Sal, if you wish me to bring up an instance where you called me a gulliable fool, or idiot for believing something that you evidently did not care to believe, but which turned out to be 100% true, I will be glad to do so. In that instance you chose to absent yourself from further discussion once your position became untenable. It is fine to participate, But I feel that if you state opinions, you may sometimes be called to defend or clarify those opinions. And I happen to feel that it is a little lame to suddenly decide that one doesn't want to participate to that extent. Certainly there are exceptions. In MY opinion it is sometimes > On Mar 11, 2011, at 7:21 PM, seventhray1 wrote: > > >> That's what most or at least many find fascinating here, > >> Barry. Why this is so difficult for lurk to > >> grasp is beyond me. > > > > To use a phrase that's been used lately, maybe that's how you roll Sal. And maybe that's how Barry rolls. I guess I'll have to more closely examine what it is that bugs me about hearing the same story over and over again from a different angle. I mean the story starts off the same, but it always has the same finish. You evidently don't see inconsistency or hypocrisy in Barry's postings. I do. But quite honestly I don't see you running the tightest ship when it come to consistency or intellecual honesty. But as I said, maybe that's how you roll. > > lurk, I come on FFL for one reason~~I find it > relaxing to share opinions and stories about > something that was once a big part of most > of our lives. That's it. I really don't come on > to participate in fights or to put my posts > through some kind of litmus test each and > every time I write one. If someone finds > them interesting and wants to respond, > great. If not, I don't see what's so > difficult about ignoring posts you find > either boring or annoying or dishonest. Barry isn't > likely to change his MO, anymore than > you or I are. So haranguing him or > anyone else over why and wherefore seems > pointless. But, hey, maybe that's how > *you* roll. > Sal > I gotta go now. > > Ciao. > Sal >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@ > wrote: > > > > > > As I understand it Richard Nelson's sources were first hand > > > sources who acutally were in a position to know some of the > > > details which were alleged to have taken place. > > > > In other words, EXACTLY the same as Vaj's. His > > opinion is based on (he says) what he heard from > > a direct student of one of the parties involved. > > Are you aware of the pecking order of sources? There are > primary sources, and then there are secondard sources. And none of EITHER has been cited in this pissing contest. The only thing that has happened is that someone has *claimed* to have heard something from a "source." None of the actual sources have been quoted, and no way of contacting them to get their opinion first-hand has been provided. > I believe most of Richard's sources are primary sources. As Sal pointed out, that's fairly questionable. He has not replied to how he met the "lawyer" he claims handled SBS's will over fifty years ago, or named him. He has similarly given no contact data for any of his supposed sources. I honestly think that you "believe" what you want to believe, and that's the end of it. There have been neither primary nor secondary sources involved in this discussion, only *claims* of what they might have said by two people. I don't trust EITHER of them. I won't believe what EITHER of them say until they provide me with contact information so that I can contact their supposed "source" myself and ask them directly. And even THEN what have I got? Someone's OPINION. Not fact. > Not the the case with Vaj. > Dismiss this protocal if you wish. I'm dismissing you, for the reasons I state above. > > And yet you somehow give more credence to what > > Richard says. Could it possibly be because...wait > > for it...what Richard says (filtered through his > > own obvious agenda) conforms to what you want to > > believe (filtered through your own)? > > You always surprise me in this way. This is or has become > one of your "stock in trade" accusations. I think it's also accurate. You don't even know the difference between a source and a claim of a source, as indicated above. And you want me to believe that you don't have any *bias* in this? Puhlze. > But excuse me if I don't bite on it. You > might want to "look in the mirror" on this one. I have stated my position on the bullshit being argued about. I DON'T GIVE A SHIT. I think that Ayurveda is and has always been a scam. Thus I don't care who thought up some detail of the scam "first." > > THERE HAVE BEEN NO FACTS PRESENTED. By anyone, > > on either side. All that's happened is a "My sources > > are better than your sources" pissing contest. I'm > > starting to wonder whether Jimbo is not the only > > person here whose intellect has devolved to the > > vegetable level. > > Ta Da! The insult! Medicore IMO as insults go. Look, if > you wish to put all sources on the same level of credibility, > i.e. an anonymous source as opposed to an identified source, > feel free do so. If you wish to place a *claim* of a source on the same level as an actual source, by all means do so. But don't expect me to respect you when you do. I don't believe EITHER of them. Get it? Both Vaj and Richard are FAR too emotional and riding the hobbyhorse of agenda for me to take anything EITHER of them says as valid just because they say it. You, on the other hand, do. And you think I'm the one who doesn't understand? > But unfortunately, and I can guarantee this, should there be > an issue that would affect you in a significant way, and where > facts needed to be presented which would affect an outcome in > which you had a stake, you would care very much. Still harping on the "primary vs. secondary source" red herring? NO SOURCES HAVE BEEN PRESENTED. There have only been *claims* of what "sources" made, by two people who are both clearly overemotional about the issue. I don't believe a word either of them says. And I'm kinda curious as to why you do. > > I have no horse in this race (or dick in this pissing > > contest). I DON'T GIVE A SHIT. All of this Ayurveda > > bullshit happened long after I'd walked away from the > > TMO, and if I hadn't it would have caused me to walk > > away when it appeared. From my point of view it's as > > much "medicine" as an African shaman shaking a rattle > > at someone. So WHO FUCKING CARES who stole what > > meaningless "formula" from who? > > Has it ever occurred to you, that anyone who has to regularly > proclaim, this. Nay SCREAM it as often as you do, might just > not be so detached as they claim to be. No. I really don't give a shit. Ayurveda has never touched my life, and never will. I've never bought a single "remedy" and never will. I think it's a scam. Why would
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > > > Pile on? Vaj has simply been exposed as a liar. Not sure what standard > > you look for in evaluating statements. But Vaj made a series of > > assertions and all of them turned out to be false. When asked to back > > up these assertions, the best he could come up with, was "he heard it > > from someone" > > > > Both Vaj and the Turq are regular liars on this (and probably other TM-related forums). > > In their pissing-contest on who's best liar Vaj is slightly ahead. > Their personal issues are enormous, perhaps never treatable in this life. > > And they're both socalled "Buddhists". As the american's say: > Go figure. > Not only are both of them liars but they seem to have a total misunderstanding of the function of a Guru. They are the classic case of cultish worship gone sour. They are mature in years but very infantile in their spiritual growth. They came to spirituality expecting a special status in the outer world, they project their imperfections on to the Guru not realizing that perfection is not possible in the outside world. Their ego gets hurt and now they spend the rest of their lives in deceit, manipulation and harassment of real seekers who understand that perfection cannot be found outside of themselves, that spirituality is about trust and faith in the supreme consciousness and spirituality is nothing but letting go of expectation of happiness and perfection in the outside world and reveling in the inner contentment and in just being a witness to the outer dualities.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > On May 26, 2011, at 7:32 AM, seventhray1 wrote: > > As I understand it Richard Nelson's sources were first hand sources who acutally were in a position to know some of the details which were alleged to have taken place. > > Is that anything like Christian groups who > go to Israel and speak with people there > who assure them that Mary was a virgin? I don't think so. > Richard says he spoke directly with the lawyer who handled SBS's will, > > And SBS died over 50 years ago, right? > And the "lawyer who handled" his will is > still alive and kicking, eh? And still remembers > various details? Right. Perhaps he will provide some clarification. I think that would be in order. > and traveled to some of various places at issue and spoke with people who were contempories of SBS, and M. > > And of course all these contemporaries are > still alive as well. See above > Vaj's sources seem 2 or 3 steps removed from the events they are commenting on, and are never identified in any detail. Usually they are "a student of so and so" > > That's called opinion~~why is that so > threatening? Sal, It seems to me that our whole legal system is based on trying to arrive at the truth. So, whether it is a legal issue or a philosophical issue, I feel like I would like to arrive at what might be called the "truth". If someone is making accusations of murder, of thievery, or impropieties, then those are, in my mind serious accusations, and should be substantiated. And if someone else is able to demonstrate that this accusations may have serious flaws, then that also is of interest to me. Perhaps to you, they are not important. But as always, have something come up in which you have a stake, then suddenly you are likely to become a strong advocate for wanting to arrive at the "truth"
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
feste37: > Vaj reminds me of the wacko political right > who will say anything to put their Democratic > enemies in a bad light... > Compared to the left-wing radicals on FFL, Vaj seems to be pretty mainstream - he can't stand people who take up for the Islamic terrorists. Where I come from, silence usually indicates agreement. "Ed Schultz has been suspended from MSNBC for calling conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham a "right wing slut" on his syndicated radio show..." http://tinyurl.com/3cjp5nv
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > As I understand it Richard Nelson's sources were first hand > > sources who acutally were in a position to know some of the > > details which were alleged to have taken place. > > In other words, EXACTLY the same as Vaj's. His > opinion is based on (he says) what he heard from > a direct student of one of the parties involved. Are you aware of the pecking order of sources? There are primary sources, and then there are secondard sources. I believe most of Richard's sources are primary sources. Not the the case with Vaj. Dismiss this protocal if you wish. > And yet you somehow give more credence to what > Richard says. Could it possibly be because...wait > for it...what Richard says (filtered through his > own obvious agenda) conforms to what you want to > believe (filtered through your own)? You always surprise me in this way. This is or has become one of your "stock in trade" accusations. But excuse me if I don't bite on it. You might want to "look in the mirror" on this one. > THERE HAVE BEEN NO FACTS PRESENTED. By anyone, > on either side. All that's happened is a "My sources > are better than your sources" pissing contest. I'm > starting to wonder whether Jimbo is not the only > person here whose intellect has devolved to the > vegetable level. Ta Da! The insult! Medicore IMO as insults go. Look, if you wish to put all sources on the same level of credibility, i.e. an anonymous source as opposed to an identified source, feel free do so. But unfortunately, and I can guarantee this, should there be an issue that would affect you in a significant way, and where facts needed to be presented which would affect an outcome in which you had a stake, you would care very much. > I have no horse in this race (or dick in this pissing > contest). I DON'T GIVE A SHIT. All of this Ayurveda > bullshit happened long after I'd walked away from the > TMO, and if I hadn't it would have caused me to walk > away when it appeared. From my point of view it's as > much "medicine" as an African shaman shaking a rattle > at someone. So WHO FUCKING CARES who stole what > meaningless "formula" from who? Has it ever occurred to you, that anyone who has to regularly proclaim, this. Nay SCREAM it as often as you do, might just not be so detached as they claim to be. > The only reason I've chimed in is that people like > you, Ray, who I used to respect, have managed to cause > me to doubt the wisdom of doing so. Doubt is sometimes a good thing. Right? > What I've been seeing is "like agenda gravitating to > like." Nothing more. People who already believe (or > want to believe) something tend to project credence > onto the person who agrees with them. And then they > declare that the person whose agenda they don't like > has been "proven wrong." And all the time not a single > fact has been presented, on either side. Richard Nelson gave accounts that seemed more credible. He identified them, gave places. Did not give names or dates as far as Iknow. He sources seemed more credible to me. If you wish too ascribe all sorts of TB motives to me for doing so, be my guest. All I can say again, is that should there a matter in which the outcome mattered to you, and which relied on the credibility of sources, then you may have a different attitude. > If this is what TM produces in the way of intellect, > I am not impressed. I doubt lurkers here are, either. Ah, "I am superior" flourish. Nicely done.
[FairfieldLife] Re: On Israel - A Proud Day for Obama
> > > Well, it looks like Obama wants to return > > > to the 1949 border lines. > > > > authfriend: > > No, it doesn't look like that at all. > > > yes, it looks like it - but the starting point > for Hamas is that Israel does not exist, so that > would make 1949 the starting point. > "The Gaza Strip continued to be occupied by Egypt. At first it administered the territory through the All-Palestine Government and then directly from 1959 until 1967, when Israel occupied it following the Six-Day War...Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip or Egypt were issued All-Palestine passports. Egypt did not offer the Palestinians citizenship..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip
[FairfieldLife] Re: On Israel - A Proud Day for Obama
> > Apparently President Obama's call for Israel to accept > > a peace agreement based on the 1967 armistice lines is > > not a new proposal - it's the same proposal presented > > by Bill Clinton in 2000. > > authfriend" > Again: NOBODY HAS SUGGESTED RETURNING TO THE 1967 BORDERS > AS A SOLUTION. Not Obama, not Clinton, NOBODY. > You are incorrect, and in fact it is Hamas that will use the 'return to the 1967 borders' as a precondition for further peace talks. President Obama has apparently taken the side of Hamas. But, I seriously doubt that Israel will swap East Jerusalem and the Western Wall in a swap for a few apartments built on the side of a hill! "Hamas is the determining factor in Palestinian decisions," Andrews said to TPM. "They have yet to renounce [Hamas'] acts of terror. They are the ones who think that a Palestinian state should start with a return to the 1967 lines, and I think the President ratified that position..." TPM: http://tinyurl.com/3c7pvbt "The Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, said on Saturday his government was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders..." Haaretz: http://tinyurl.com/37tx3yr "The conditions included Israel's retreating to its pre-1967 borders and releasing Palestinian prisoners..." YnetNews: http://tinyurl.com/3zyoxx8 > You keep leaving out the crucial phrase: "with mutually > agreed swaps." This has been U.S. policy for *decades*. > It means you *start* with the 1967 borders, and then > make adjustments to those borders, one after another-- > you give us this, we'll give you that--until both sides > are satisfied with the new borders. THAT will be the > solution. > > Whether you think that will work is *irrelevant* to the > issue of what the policy is and has been. > > Let's review: > > "The Prime Minister and the Secretary agreed on the > importance of continuing direct negotiations to achieve > our goals. The Secretary reiterated that 'the United > States believes that through good-faith negotiations, > the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends > the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an > independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, > with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish > state with secure and recognized borders that reflect > subsequent developments and meet Israeli security > requirements.'" > > --From the joint statement by Clinton and Netanyahu, > November 11, 2010, posted on the Web site of the Israel > Ministry of Foreign Affairs. > > From Obama's speech: > > "We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be > based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps." > Non sequitur: > IOW, when Dear Bibi claims Obama's speech represents a > change in U.S. policy that throws Israel under the bus, > he's lying. Not only is it *not* a change, *he himself > is on record as agreeing with it* on his own country's > foreign affairs Web site only a little over six months > ago. Now he's trying to throw a monkey wrench in the > bus's engine by pretending there's anything new about > Obama's policy. And U.S. right-wingers--like you--are > going along with Bibi's lie in an attempt to make Obama > look unfriendly to Israel. > > It's despicable. Not to mention dangerous. As Feste just > said about the "wacko right," they'll "say anything to put > their Democratic enemies in a bad lightEvidence? No > need to bother with it. Just get the smear out there and > watch it do its work. This kind of stuff says more about > the accusers than it does about the accused." > > And it's not just that they have no need to bother with > evidence; they have no need to take account of *contrary > evidence*. They just pretend it doesn't exist. > > Shameful. Disgraceful. Inexcusable. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
Well if yet more unverifiable claims~~ie opinions~~ are what constitutes "a very strong case" in *your* opinion, feste...I sure hope I never have you on my side of the defense table, so to speak. Sal On May 26, 2011, at 7:50 AM, feste37 wrote: Have you even read the posts by Richard you quote here? He presents a very strong case against all the accusations made by Vaj. Read it. All you do is try to smear him as "unstable," which is plainly not the case. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > Here are Richard's "facts," Jim, or at least > all the ones I've seen lately~~perhaps you could post > the ones I've missed: > > "Hi, Richard here. Since this was originally written to me, I thought I > would chime in. > I will take responsibility for adding my negative comments about Vaj where > they were not necessary. After all, the post was about Jerry Jarvis and not > a response to Vaj. So therefore, as I said earlier, it may have been > inappropriate > I was confused and angry about the fact that no one here seemed to challenge > Vaj on his "facts" for so long, that I felt compelled to say something and > may have over reacted. > But, be clear... I am not a movement true believer and did not make my > comments to defend Maharishi or the movement. I just wanted the facts to be > brought out and let the chips fall where they may." > > "Vaj, > You ignorant slut, > > What is wrong with you? And why do make this shit up? Its complete lies. > > Don't you know that Dr. Raju was MMY's personal physician for years and has > been the head physician at a Maharishi ayurveda hospital in Delhi for many > years? If your story had any truth in it, Dr. Raju would not be working at a > Maharishi Ayurveda facility which uses the "stolen" formulas. He would have > nothing to do with the TM movement or its branches because he would feel that > MMY was a thief. But yet, there he is. > Have you ever met Dr. Raju? Been to his hospital? Of course you haven't. > Because if you had, you would know that as soon as you walk in the door, > there is a huge picture of MMY and in Dr. Raju's office, same thing. If Dr. > Raju thought MMY was a thief I don't think he would be sitting there with > MMY's picture and greeting you with "Jai Guru Dev". > > As usual, you just make these things up, and quote them as if they are facts. > Then when confronted on your statements, you run away like a little girl and > never respond when criticized. > > Vaj, you are a liar and have serious issues. Why do you have so much hate > inside you?" > > "Vaj, > You coward! As usual, no response when someone points out your lies! > You love to pontificate your supposed "knowledge", but you just make it up. > Come on, lets debate or discuss the facts. Don't just run away like the > coward you are. > > You know nothing of Balaraj or Raju's relationship with Maharishi. > And yet you assume you know that Maharishi "stole" the formulas > > The same way you "know" that Maharishi poisoned Guru Dev, which I have > already pointed out previously is a lie. > > Again I ask... why do you have so much hate in your heart that you have to > try to hurt MMY's reputation any way you can. > > I have no problem if you have an opinion about who MMY was and what he has > done. But why must you constantly make your opinion into supposed "facts"? > > So one more time... Whats wrong with you? " > > "Oh Yeah, that's right.. you have such a conscience! You lie, make shit up > and have the nerve to say you have a conscience! > > And again for the record. MMY was NEVER a prime suspect in the supposed > poisoning of Guru Dev. As I previously pointed out, I have been in Allahabad > many times and interviewed the judge who handled Guru Dev';s will and many > others associated with Shankaracharya ashram. None of them knew anything > about this supposed poisoning, so how could MMY have been a prime suspect? > You haven';t been there but speak as if you have been STOP MAKING SHIT UP!! > Have you opinion, fine. But again I am wondering, why you must lie to prove > that your point of view is the correct one? > You must have been really hurt by someone as a child." > > I mean, with evidence and clear thinking like that, it's no wonder > Vaj has no response! All this because Vaj wrote a few dozen > words expressing his opinion on something MMY supposedly > did~~stole medicines or formulas or whatever from > Balraj M. That's called "opinion" guys, no matter > how someone might express it. Jim and lurk, you feste and > the others in the anti-Vaj camp definitely need a new spokesperson. > Or not, your choice. But egging on someone like Richard > who is clearly unstable isn't nice. > > Sal > > On May 26, 2011, at 6:29 AM, whynotnow7 wrote: > > Comparing the facts of richardnelson108, based on actual events he witnessed > with Vaj's imaginings, and you call them equivalent? You recently said I
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > Following is an interesting post to SeriousSeekers.com > > > > "Fellow Graceful, Light Filled Seekers, > > > > I think I may have found IT -- the fastest evolutionary, > > spiritual unfolding technique on the planet. As we all > > know, awakening and spiritual unfoldment appears once > > the soul has roasted, purified or unwound the densely > > and deeply packed intertwined samskaras built up after > > almost infinite births. And then theres the collective > > karma stuff too. As we have all experienced, when this > > stuff is roasted, it may pop like popcorn for a while: > > very unstable, chaotic, random, not following any sense > > of order or rationality, way overheated, etc. Or we can > > think of it as unwinding of deep multi-dimensional knots. > > When doing so, lots of mess all over the floor and the > > knots unwind. > > > > The faster the evolutionary and spiritual unfoldment process, > > the hotter, more random and irrational is the corn popping, > > the messier and sloppy the floor becomes with all the > > unwinding. ERGO, the fastest technique must also produce the > > messiest, most heated, irrational, sloppy, unstable, chaotic > > side effects. Well my friends, I have been lurking at a site > > called FFL whose posters have a long history with TM. And I > > have to say, I have never, ever, its not even close, seen a > > group of seekers so messed up, twisted, overheated, irrational, > > petty, sloppy and unstable as these guys. Even those who have > > not practiced TM for decades -- they too are bat shit crazy. > > Thus the effects of TM appear not only profoundly powerful, > > but also long lasting. the heavy purifiction and its side > > effects last long after the practice is stopped. > > > > It appears from the longevity of their postings, some 10 > > years, some 20 years back to older forums. Sp it appears > > that it may take 6-12 lifetimes of this incredibly distasteful, > > in your face anger, hostility, random, chaotic, sloppy behavior > > to roast all the samskaras and unwind all of the knots. But > > certainly this HELL for a dozen lifetimes is worth the eternal > > grace of full unfoldment. > > > > So I signed up. I am now practicing TM twice a day and ALREADY > > the purification process has begun. So F* you your f*u*ing lame > > assholes, join me on the awesome adventure -- it you are not > > too fing SUUPID and dense to get my beautifully laid out points. > > So STFU and lets finally get serious about full spiritual > > unfoldment -- or simply continue with your decaying head up > > your smelly ass. Your choice. > > Some reply comments to this post at SeriousSeekeers.com > > #1 "I checked out FFL as you suggested. Wow, I never knew what > Ekhart Tolle meant by "pain body" until now. These folks are > in serious internal pain. its almost too painful to watch." > > #2 "Are these people of 24/7 medical watch? I sure hope so. > For their sakes and those that ma be around them. These are > walking time bombs. Are they all ex postal employees?" > > #3 " I heard at the end of their intro course they are given > syringes filled with Thorazin to ease the symptoms. Some get > a 24 hour patch I hear -- they are so bonkers" > > #4 "Are these people functional at all? Who feeds and clothes > them? And takes them to the bathroom (jeez I don't even want > to begin to think about what their bathrooms must look an > smell like). maybe we should form a Seva project to help > these souls out a bit. Give them a little bit of joy and help > put a smile on their face. For some, its probably been decades." Funny stuff, Tart. I particularly liked "Are they all ex postal employees?" because the most rational and restrained person on the forum these days *is* an ex US Postal Service employee. :-) We never hear from lurkers. Duh. That's why they're called lurkers. But what must they THINK of this zoo? I mean, we're all used to it. Whether we're still part of the TM organization or not, if we were at one point (as opposed to those here who never were, and just gazed at it from the periphery, never got involved, and lived on their fantasies of what it was like), we have seen this kinda crazy so long and so often that we've almost come to ignore it as "normal." It isn't. It's crazy. People arguing who's right and who's wrong about stuff that can never be proven either, because it's all just opinion. People spending well over half of their posts each week trying to "get" the people they don't like. And that's leaving out the couple of people who claim to be fuckin' ENLIGHTENED, ferchrissakes, and then get their buttons pushed so easily that they spend dozens of posts acting out pre-adolescent revenge fantasies. Place is a fuckin' ZOO.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > >If this is what TM produces in the way of intellect, > I am not impressed. I doubt lurkers here are, either. > .. > > > Not only unverifiable claims, but almost hysterical > > > ones at that. > > > > Certainly angry ones, and out-of-control emotionally. > > Pretty interesting for people who claim to have been > > practicing "the best" form of meditation on the planet, > > and for decades. One of them -- the person who has > > posted the most gratuitous insults in this pissing > > contest actually claims to be enlightened. > > > The point I have been making for years is that I > > don't see how *any* lurker on this forum could come > > away from the FFL experience having a positive view > > of TM and what it produces. Clearly, based on the > > "TM supporters" here, it produces people who are so > > thin-skinned and attached to their own beliefs that > > they have to spend the majority of their posts, week > > after week after week, insulting people who have > > committed the heinous sin of...wait for it...believing > > something different than they do. > > > > I'm sorry, but this seems to indicate to me that > > TM creates people who are *more* attached than any- > > one you could meet on the street, and *less* in control > > of their emotions. In the case of the person who claims > > that he's enlightened, I'm starting to believe that I > > was aiming far too high up the evolutionary ladder by > > comparing his intellect and thinking abilities to a > > turnip. Based on his recent posts I'm thinking more > > along the lines of athlete's foot fungus. :-) > > > > > Following is an interesting post to SeriousSeekers.com > > "Fellow Graceful, Light Filled Seekers, > > I think I may have found IT -- the fastest evolutionary, spiritual unfolding > technique on the planet. As we all know, awakening and spiritual unfoldment > appears once the soul has roasted, purified or unwound the densely and deeply > packed intertwined samskaras built up after almost infinite births. And then > theres the collective karma stuff too. As we have all experienced, when this > stuff is roasted, it may pop like popcorn for a while: very unstable, > chaotic, random, not following any sense of order or rationality, way > overheated, etc. Or we can think of it as unwinding of deep multi-dimensional > knots. When doing so, lots of mess all over the floor and the knots unwind. > > The faster the evolutionary and spiritual unfoldment process, the hotter, > more random and irrational is the corn popping, the messier and sloppy the > floor becomes with all the unwinding. ERGO, the fastest technique must also > produce the messiest, most heated, irrational, sloppy, unstable, chaotic side > effects. Well my friends, I have been lurking at a site called FFL whose > posters have a long history with TM. And I have to say, I have never, ever, > its not even close, seen a group of seekers so messed up, twisted, > overheated, irrational, petty, sloppy and unstable as these guys. Even those > who have not practiced TM for decades -- they too are bat shit crazy. Thus > the effects of TM appear not only profoundly powerful, but also long lasting. > the heavy purifiction and its side effects last long after the practice is > stopped. > > It appears from the longevity of their postings, some 10 years, some 20 years > back to older forums. Sp it appears that it may take 6-12 lifetimes of this > incredibly distasteful, in your face anger, hostility, random, chaotic, > sloppy behavior to roast all the samskaras and unwind all of the knots. But > certainly this HELL for a dozen lifetimes is worth the eternal grace of full > unfoldment. > > So I signed up. I am now practicing TM twice a day and ALREADY the > purification process has begun. So F* you your f*u*ing lame assholes, join me > on the awesome adventure -- it you are not too fing SUUPID and dense to get > my beautifully laid out points. So STFU and lets finally get serious about > full spiritual unfoldment -- or simply continue with your decaying head up > your smelly ass. Your choice. > Some reply comments to this post at SeriousSeekeers.com #1 "I checked out FFL as you suggested. Wow, I never knew what Ekhart Tolle meant by "pain body" until now. These folks are in serious internal pain. its almost too painful to watch." #2 "Are these people of 24/7 medical watch? I sure hope so. For their sakes and those that ma be around them. These are walking time bombs. Are they all ex postal employees?" #3 " I heard at the end of their intro course they are given syringes filled with Thorazin to ease the symptoms. Some get a 24 hour patch I hear -- they are so bonkers" #4 "Are these people functional at all? Who feeds and clothes them? And takes them to the bathroom (jeez I don't even want to begin to think a
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi and Satyanand: Comments on Enlightenment Afterlife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: If the drop becomes the ocean, the drop is no more as a drop, it is completely recycled and uniformly distributed in the ocean, if we take the analogy a bit further. The specific individuality of the drop is gone. Try and reassemble it again. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shanti2218411" wrote: IMHO, their never is a"drop"separate from the ocean(SELF). The "drop" never has an actual existence. It is only the result of the eternal SELF's creation of apparent boundaries/forms i.e.individual beings. The SELF who is writing all the posts on this forum is the same SELF that exists after the apparent beings who wrote these posts are no longer manifest. All that happens with enlightenment is that the SELF stops identifying ITSELF with boundaries and has re-cognized ITSELF as unbounded/infinite. It seems very unlikely that this recognition would mean that the SELF would stop the creative process of manifestation which I suspect is also eternal. IOW we are much much more that the skin encapsulated ego we take are SELF to be. In Zen they say" if you die before you die then you don't die when you die""shanti2218411" then wrote in a further post:I guess what I want to say is that from my point of view in enlightenment the question of what happens to the body(subtle/gross) becomes irrelevant b/c the SELF no longer experiences itself as being bounded i.e having a body. OTOH, after enlightenment, the SELF continues to have an experience of apparent boundaries (the physical body and the world etc) while no longer identifying with them or experiencing them as fundamentally real. I think Maharishi's statement" when your mind becomes THE MIND then your body is EVERY BODY" may be related to the question of what happens to the subtle bodies after physical death in enlightenment. My guess is that SELF is never devoid of the experience of boundaries since(IMO) the ultimate nature of REALITY is both pure unbounded awareness and the apparent objects of that awareness. I also think that this is a very deep question to which I doubt there is an answer which will be intellectually satisfying. This is because language is insufficient to describe non-verbal experience. The intellect cannot get a handle on it. Analogies such as the drop of water in the ocean give the mind something to hang onto, but because analogies have limitations and eventually break down, they do not take us all the way. We know that water flows, and can break into small pieces. So creating an analogy of a small piece of water disappearing into a much larger piece of water (an ocean) creates a picture in the mind, a thought. This analogy can become more complex with understandings from science. Water consists of molecules (H2O), and if a small conglomeration of this substance is placed in a much larger conglomeration of this substance, the molecules eventually disperse more or less evenly throughout the larger conglomeration (entropy). Because of quantum indeterminacy the past history of original configuration can never be reconstructed. The drop of water as a drop is forever dead. But this is just a picture in the mind, not what one can experience. If you have the experience, you do not need the picture unless you desire to convey the nature of the experience to someone else. Another way of describing it is as you said, the self, as opposed to Self, is a fiction, never having been. A phantom idea of what one thought one is, passes away with enlightenment. But this is really dualist language too. We have 'self' versus 'Self;' MMY would say something like point value versus unboundedness. The dichotomy of 'self' versus 'Self' is also a fiction because it manufactures a sense of at least two 'things' in the mind. If the 'self' is a fiction, then its opposite value must be a fiction since one cannot have opposition to something that has no existence. If the point value was a mistaken idea, then unboundedness experienced as an idea in relation to the point is also thus suspect. The actual experience requires neither of these ideas; they are blown away. So as you said, 'I also think that this is a very deep question to which I doubt there is an answer which will be intellectually satisfying.' But here too, we have dualistic language. We have a 'deep' question. In the various traditions we have 'there is nothing new under the sun,' and 'it is before you always, and you do not see it,' and 'if you would only get rid of your opinions, it would be revealed,' so we might say that the answer to this 'deep' question is really 'shallow,' it is right there under our noses all the time, and we blunder about trying to discover it by mounting a gigantic quest. You quoted from Zen saying 'if you die before you die then you don't die when you die.' This quote interestingly also has its analogue in the Christian Bible, where Paul says 'When you clothe the mortal with the immortal, then death, whe
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: >If this is what TM produces in the way of intellect, I am not impressed. I doubt lurkers here are, either. .. > > Not only unverifiable claims, but almost hysterical > > ones at that. > > Certainly angry ones, and out-of-control emotionally. > Pretty interesting for people who claim to have been > practicing "the best" form of meditation on the planet, > and for decades. One of them -- the person who has > posted the most gratuitous insults in this pissing > contest actually claims to be enlightened. > The point I have been making for years is that I > don't see how *any* lurker on this forum could come > away from the FFL experience having a positive view > of TM and what it produces. Clearly, based on the > "TM supporters" here, it produces people who are so > thin-skinned and attached to their own beliefs that > they have to spend the majority of their posts, week > after week after week, insulting people who have > committed the heinous sin of...wait for it...believing > something different than they do. > > I'm sorry, but this seems to indicate to me that > TM creates people who are *more* attached than any- > one you could meet on the street, and *less* in control > of their emotions. In the case of the person who claims > that he's enlightened, I'm starting to believe that I > was aiming far too high up the evolutionary ladder by > comparing his intellect and thinking abilities to a > turnip. Based on his recent posts I'm thinking more > along the lines of athlete's foot fungus. :-) > Following is an interesting post to SeriousSeekers.com "Fellow Graceful, Light Filled Seekers, I think I may have found IT -- the fastest evolutionary, spiritual unfolding technique on the planet. As we all know, awakening and spiritual unfoldment appears once the soul has roasted, purified or unwound the densely and deeply packed intertwined samskaras built up after almost infinite births. And then theres the collective karma stuff too. As we have all experienced, when this stuff is roasted, it may pop like popcorn for a while: very unstable, chaotic, random, not following any sense of order or rationality, way overheated, etc. Or we can think of it as unwinding of deep multi-dimensional knots. When doing so, lots of mess all over the floor and the knots unwind. The faster the evolutionary and spiritual unfoldment process, the hotter, more random and irrational is the corn popping, the messier and sloppy the floor becomes with all the unwinding. ERGO, the fastest technique must also produce the messiest, most heated, irrational, sloppy, unstable, chaotic side effects. Well my friends, I have been lurking at a site called FFL whose posters have a long history with TM. And I have to say, I have never, ever, its not even close, seen a group of seekers so messed up, twisted, overheated, irrational, petty, sloppy and unstable as these guys. Even those who have not practiced TM for decades -- they too are bat shit crazy. Thus the effects of TM appear not only profoundly powerful, but also long lasting. the heavy purifiction and its side effects last long after the practice is stopped. It appears from the longevity of their postings, some 10 years, some 20 years back to older forums. Sp it appears that it may take 6-12 lifetimes of this incredibly distasteful, in your face anger, hostility, random, chaotic, sloppy behavior to roast all the samskaras and unwind all of the knots. But certainly this HELL for a dozen lifetimes is worth the eternal grace of full unfoldment. So I signed up. I am now practicing TM twice a day and ALREADY the purification process has begun. So F* you your f*u*ing lame assholes, join me on the awesome adventure -- it you are not too fing SUUPID and dense to get my beautifully laid out points. So STFU and lets finally get serious about full spiritual unfoldment -- or simply continue with your decaying head up your smelly ass. Your choice.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
On May 26, 2011, at 7:41 AM, seventhray1 wrote: Sal, I will be glad to do this. But I will have to do it this evening when I have some time and if someone doesn't do it before then. The question will then be, are YOU willing to look at the evidence in any kind of objective way, or simply dismiss it as just some subjective view point? I'll do my best to look. But of course I may come to different conclusions. I have made this effort in the past, and you have never bothered you reply when evidence was presented that was contrary to your views. When asked about it later, you have said your participation in this forum is only for light banter and relaxation, and you don't care to engage in any serious talk. So, I would rather not waste my time if you are not going to be genuine participant. Here is that post~~I don't see any offer on your part, lurk. Did I miss something? On Mar 11, 2011, at 7:21 PM, seventhray1 wrote: >> That's what most or at least many find fascinating here, >> Barry. Why this is so difficult for lurk to >> grasp is beyond me. > > To use a phrase that's been used lately, maybe that's how you roll Sal. And > maybe that's how Barry rolls. I guess I'll have to more closely examine what > it is that bugs me about hearing the same story over and over again from a > different angle. I mean the story starts off the same, but it always has the > same finish. You evidently don't see inconsistency or hypocrisy in Barry's > postings. I do. But quite honestly I don't see you running the tightest > ship when it come to consistency or intellecual honesty. But as I said, > maybe that's how you roll. lurk, I come on FFL for one reason~~I find it relaxing to share opinions and stories about something that was once a big part of most of our lives. That's it. I really don't come on to participate in fights or to put my posts through some kind of litmus test each and every time I write one. If someone finds them interesting and wants to respond, great. If not, I don't see what's so difficult about ignoring posts you find either boring or annoying or dishonest. Barry isn't likely to change his MO, anymore than you or I are. So haranguing him or anyone else over why and wherefore seems pointless. But, hey, maybe that's how *you* roll. Sal I gotta go now. Ciao. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
On May 26, 2011, at 7:32 AM, seventhray1 wrote: As I understand it Richard Nelson's sources were first hand sources who acutally were in a position to know some of the details which were alleged to have taken place. Is that anything like Christian groups who go to Israel and speak with people there who assure them that Mary was a virgin? Richard says he spoke directly with the lawyer who handled SBS's will, And SBS died over 50 years ago, right? And the "lawyer who handled" his will is still alive and kicking, eh? And still remembers various details? Right. and traveled to some of various places at issue and spoke with people who were contempories of SBS, and M. And of course all these contemporaries are still alive as well. Vaj's sources seem 2 or 3 steps removed from the events they are commenting on, and are never identified in any detail. Usually they are "a student of so and so" That's called opinion~~why is that so threatening? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > > As I understand it Richard Nelson's sources were first hand > sources who acutally were in a position to know some of the > details which were alleged to have taken place. In other words, EXACTLY the same as Vaj's. His opinion is based on (he says) what he heard from a direct student of one of the parties involved. And yet you somehow give more credence to what Richard says. Could it possibly be because...wait for it...what Richard says (filtered through his own obvious agenda) conforms to what you want to believe (filtered through your own)? THERE HAVE BEEN NO FACTS PRESENTED. By anyone, on either side. All that's happened is a "My sources are better than your sources" pissing contest. I'm starting to wonder whether Jimbo is not the only person here whose intellect has devolved to the vegetable level. I have no horse in this race (or dick in this pissing contest). I DON'T GIVE A SHIT. All of this Ayurveda bullshit happened long after I'd walked away from the TMO, and if I hadn't it would have caused me to walk away when it appeared. From my point of view it's as much "medicine" as an African shaman shaking a rattle at someone. So WHO FUCKING CARES who stole what meaningless "formula" from who? The only reason I've chimed in is that people like you, Ray, who I used to respect, have managed to cause me to doubt the wisdom of doing so. What I've been seeing is "like agenda gravitating to like." Nothing more. People who already believe (or want to believe) something tend to project credence onto the person who agrees with them. And then they declare that the person whose agenda they don't like has been "proven wrong." And all the time not a single fact has been presented, on either side. If this is what TM produces in the way of intellect, I am not impressed. I doubt lurkers here are, either.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
Have you even read the posts by Richard you quote here? He presents a very strong case against all the accusations made by Vaj. Read it. All you do is try to smear him as "unstable," which is plainly not the case. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > Here are Richard's "facts," Jim, or at least > all the ones I've seen lately~~perhaps you could post > the ones I've missed: > > "Hi, Richard here. Since this was originally written to me, I thought I > would chime in. > I will take responsibility for adding my negative comments about Vaj where > they were not necessary. After all, the post was about Jerry Jarvis and not > a response to Vaj. So therefore, as I said earlier, it may have been > inappropriate > I was confused and angry about the fact that no one here seemed to challenge > Vaj on his "facts" for so long, that I felt compelled to say something and > may have over reacted. > But, be clear... I am not a movement true believer and did not make my > comments to defend Maharishi or the movement. I just wanted the facts to be > brought out and let the chips fall where they may." > > "Vaj, > You ignorant slut, > > What is wrong with you? And why do make this shit up? Its complete lies. > > Don't you know that Dr. Raju was MMY's personal physician for years and has > been the head physician at a Maharishi ayurveda hospital in Delhi for many > years? If your story had any truth in it, Dr. Raju would not be working at a > Maharishi Ayurveda facility which uses the "stolen" formulas. He would have > nothing to do with the TM movement or its branches because he would feel that > MMY was a thief. But yet, there he is. > Have you ever met Dr. Raju? Been to his hospital? Of course you haven't. > Because if you had, you would know that as soon as you walk in the door, > there is a huge picture of MMY and in Dr. Raju's office, same thing. If Dr. > Raju thought MMY was a thief I don't think he would be sitting there with > MMY's picture and greeting you with "Jai Guru Dev". > > As usual, you just make these things up, and quote them as if they are facts. > Then when confronted on your statements, you run away like a little girl and > never respond when criticized. > > Vaj, you are a liar and have serious issues. Why do you have so much hate > inside you?" > > "Vaj, > You coward! As usual, no response when someone points out your lies! > You love to pontificate your supposed "knowledge", but you just make it up. > Come on, lets debate or discuss the facts. Don't just run away like the > coward you are. > > You know nothing of Balaraj or Raju's relationship with Maharishi. > And yet you assume you know that Maharishi "stole" the formulas > > The same way you "know" that Maharishi poisoned Guru Dev, which I have > already pointed out previously is a lie. > > Again I ask... why do you have so much hate in your heart that you have to > try to hurt MMY's reputation any way you can. > > I have no problem if you have an opinion about who MMY was and what he has > done. But why must you constantly make your opinion into supposed "facts"? > > So one more time... Whats wrong with you? " > > "Oh Yeah, that's right.. you have such a conscience! You lie, make shit up > and have the nerve to say you have a conscience! > > And again for the record. MMY was NEVER a prime suspect in the supposed > poisoning of Guru Dev. As I previously pointed out, I have been in Allahabad > many times and interviewed the judge who handled Guru Dev';s will and many > others associated with Shankaracharya ashram. None of them knew anything > about this supposed poisoning, so how could MMY have been a prime suspect? > You haven';t been there but speak as if you have been STOP MAKING SHIT UP!! > Have you opinion, fine. But again I am wondering, why you must lie to prove > that your point of view is the correct one? > You must have been really hurt by someone as a child." > > I mean, with evidence and clear thinking like that, it's no wonder > Vaj has no response! All this because Vaj wrote a few dozen > words expressing his opinion on something MMY supposedly > did~~stole medicines or formulas or whatever from > Balraj M. That's called "opinion" guys, no matter > how someone might express it. Jim and lurk, you feste and > the others in the anti-Vaj camp definitely need a new spokesperson. > Or not, your choice. But egging on someone like Richard > who is clearly unstable isn't nice. > > Sal > > On May 26, 2011, at 6:29 AM, whynotnow7 wrote: > > Comparing the facts of richardnelson108, based on actual events he witnessed > with Vaj's imaginings, and you call them equivalent? You recently said I had > the intellectual depth of a turnip. I'm sorry but I cannot even grant you > that much mental capacity. Your shriveled heart and blinding ego have created > in you a spiritual moron. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > On May 26, 2011, at 6:19 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > > > > > > Pile on? Vaj has simply been exposed as a liar. Not sure > > > what standard you look for in evaluating statements. But > > > Vaj made a series of assertions and all of them turned > > > out to be false. > > > > Not true. What actually happened is that several > > people have *declared* them false. Those people > > have IMO exactly the same level of credibility as > > Vaj -- namely none. No one has presented verifiable > > facts yet. > > That's what it seems to me as well~~ > if there were some posts made which > in any way proved Vaj's assertions to > be false, or even dealt with them on > any kind of level other than pseudo- > hysteria, I haven't seen them. Neither have I. Absolutely *nothing* has been presented but hearsay and unverifiable claims, by those (on both sides) who have done nothing in the past to lend them such claims any credibility. > Perhaps lurk could point them out? > Especially since he seems so sure that > Vaj has been "exposed as a liar." Where, > exactly, did this occur lurk? I must > have missed the posts. And you'll continue to miss them, because based on past performance he won't answer you. He (sadly) seems limited to emotional overreaction drive-bys. > And this > Richard Nelson seems more intent > on coming across more as mentally > unbalanced than in having any kind > of rational discussion. Sadly, I have to agree. In his earlier drive-bys, I gave him the benefit of a doubt as possibly having something positive to contribute, because of a sweet story about Jerry. I encouraged the positivity and chided him for having to "balance" it at the time with a gratuitous slam at Vaj. He claimed to have gotten the point. However, he has posted nothing since *but* slams at Vaj. I'm starting to get the feeling that, like so many on this forum, that is all he is capable of. Have you noticed that NONE of these supposed "TM supporters" have posted anything positive about TM and its supposed benefits in months? It's been pretty much all negative, all the time. > > Did you even *notice* that feste did *exactly* > > what he was accusing Vaj of? He just slung insults, > > and presented not even a single supposed fact. > > > > > When asked to back up these assertions, the best he could > > > come up with, was "he heard it from someone" > > > > Yup. The people piling on didn't even go that far. They > > just claimed things *as if they were facts*, but without > > anything that could enable anyone to determine whether > > they were really facts or not. > > > > In other words, on one level what we seem to have here > > is a pissing contest, in which both sides are saying, > > "What I've heard is better than what you've heard." I > > call it total bullshit, on all sides. > > > > As for the "piling on" thang that Sal brings up, it *would* > > have been possible for Richard Nelson or others to just post > > a few verifiable facts (y'know...stuff including dates and > > contact information and where one could go to verify their > > claims) and leave it at that. They did not. What they did > > was to do *exactly* the same thing that Vaj did -- make a > > bunch of unverifiable claims -- and then proceed to call > > him names. > > Not only unverifiable claims, but almost hysterical > ones at that. Certainly angry ones, and out-of-control emotionally. Pretty interesting for people who claim to have been practicing "the best" form of meditation on the planet, and for decades. One of them -- the person who has posted the most gratuitous insults in this pissing contest actually claims to be enlightened. > Which isn't exactly what you'd call either a > great advertisement for meditation or a ringing > endorsement for their version of the "truth." Exactly. The point I have been making for years is that I don't see how *any* lurker on this forum could come away from the FFL experience having a positive view of TM and what it produces. Clearly, based on the "TM supporters" here, it produces people who are so thin-skinned and attached to their own beliefs that they have to spend the majority of their posts, week after week after week, insulting people who have committed the heinous sin of...wait for it...believing something different than they do. I'm sorry, but this seems to indicate to me that TM creates people who are *more* attached than any- one you could meet on the street, and *less* in control of their emotions. In the case of the person who claims that he's enlightened, I'm starting to believe that I was aiming far too high up the evolutionary ladder by comparing his intellect and thinking abilities to a turnip. Based on his recent posts I'm thinking more along the lines of athlete's foot fungus. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Brahm...er...s!
http://www.tm.org/blog/people/brahms/ Brahms "In tune with the Infinite" by CRAIG PEARSON, PH.D. on MAY 10, 2011 Johannes Brahms 18331897 Germany In his early teens, to support his family, Brahms earned money playing in dance halls and inns around the docks in Hamburg the same area and the kinds of places where the Beatles would develop their performing skills just over a century later. When Brahms was 20 he met the renowned violinist Joseph Joachim, who recognized his gifts and introduced him to the composer Robert Schumann.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
Sal, I will be glad to do this. But I will have to do it this evening when I have some time and if someone doesn't do it before then. The question will then be, are YOU willing to look at the evidence in any kind of objective way, or simply dismiss it as just some subjective view point? I have made this effort in the past, and you have never bothered you reply when evidence was presented that was contrary to your views. When asked about it later, you have said your participation in this forum is only for light banter and relaxation, and you don't care to engage in any serious talk. So, I would rather not waste my time if you are not going to be genuine participant. I gotta go now. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > That's what it seems to me as well~~ > if there were some posts made which > in any way proved Vaj's assertions to > be false, or even dealt with them on > any kind of level other than pseudo- > hysteria, I haven't seen them. Perhaps > lurk could point them out? Especially > since he seems so sure that Vaj has > been "exposed as a liar." Where, > exactly, did this occur lurk? I must > have missed the posts. And this > Richard Nelson seems more intent > on coming across more as mentally > unbalanced than in having any kind > of rational discussion. > > > > Did you even *notice* that feste did *exactly* > > what he was accusing Vaj of? He just slung insults, > > and presented not even a single supposed fact. > > > >> When asked to back up these assertions, the best he could > >> come up with, was "he heard it from someone" > > > > Yup. The people piling on didn't even go that far. They > > just claimed things *as if they were facts*, but without > > anything that could enable anyone to determine whether > > they were really facts or not. > > > > In other words, on one level what we seem to have here > > is a pissing contest, in which both sides are saying, > > "What I've heard is better than what you've heard." I > > call it total bullshit, on all sides. > > > > As for the "piling on" thang that Sal brings up, it *would* > > have been possible for Richard Nelson or others to just post > > a few verifiable facts (y'know...stuff including dates and > > contact information and where one could go to verify their > > claims) and leave it at that. They did not. What they did > > was to do *exactly* the same thing that Vaj did -- make a > > bunch of unverifiable claims -- and then proceed to call > > him names. > > Not only unverifiable claims, but almost hysterical ones at > that. Which isn't exactly what you'd call either a > great advertisement for meditation or a ringing > endorsement for their version of the "truth." > Sal >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
As I understand it Richard Nelson's sources were first hand sources who acutally were in a position to know some of the details which were alleged to have taken place. Richard says he spoke directly with the lawyer who handled SBS's will, and traveled to some of various places at issue and spoke with people who were contempories of SBS, and M. Vaj's sources seem 2 or 3 steps removed from the events they are commenting on, and are never identified in any detail. Usually they are "a student of so and so" And then there is what appears to be the total misrepresenation of the the Ayur Ved relationship and details with Dr. Raju, and the other guy (I don't have time to go back and look up the exact name) I mean there is first hand evidence even from people on this forum (whynot for one I believe) that contradicts many of the things Vaj said in this regard. Vaj has been asked to back up some of his assertaions, and as of now, he seems to have declined that offer. All he said was, he "heard this directly from a student of Dr.___" --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > Pile on? Vaj has simply been exposed as a liar. Not sure > > what standard you look for in evaluating statements. But > > Vaj made a series of assertions and all of them turned > > out to be false. > > Not true. What actually happened is that several > people have *declared* them false. Those people > have IMO exactly the same level of credibility as > Vaj -- namely none. No one has presented verifiable > facts yet. > > Did you even *notice* that feste did *exactly* > what he was accusing Vaj of? He just slung insults, > and presented not even a single supposed fact. > > > When asked to back up these assertions, the best he could > > come up with, was "he heard it from someone" > > Yup. The people piling on didn't even go that far. They > just claimed things *as if they were facts*, but without > anything that could enable anyone to determine whether > they were really facts or not. > > In other words, on one level what we seem to have here > is a pissing contest, in which both sides are saying, > "What I've heard is better than what you've heard." I > call it total bullshit, on all sides. > > As for the "piling on" thang that Sal brings up, it *would* > have been possible for Richard Nelson or others to just post > a few verifiable facts (y'know...stuff including dates and > contact information and where one could go to verify their > claims) and leave it at that. They did not. What they did > was to do *exactly* the same thing that Vaj did -- make a > bunch of unverifiable claims -- and then proceed to call > him names. > > So what it looks like from my side is 1) a pissing contest > in which no one is presenting any facts, only hearsay, and > 2) a situation in which the supposed TM supporters got their > attachment buttons pushed so big-time that they've gone bat- > shit crazy trying to call Vaj names and claim he has no > credibility. > > Well...surprise. They don't have any, either. > > Everybody's just making claims. One side is also going bat- > shit crazy trying to hurl insults. Since no one in this > pissing contest has the least bit of credibility, I'm > going to go with the "side" hurling the least number of > personal insults as the "winner." And as always, that's > *not* the "TM supporters." > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > > wrote: > > > > > > A pile-on just wouldn't be the same without > > > a drive-by from feste. > > > > > > Sal > > > > > > On May 25, 2011, at 2:42 PM, feste37 wrote: > > > > > > Vaj reminds me of the wacko political right who will say > > > anything to put their Democratic enemies in a bad light. > > > For example, the claims in the 1990s that Bill Clinton was > > > involved in drug-running and that Vince Foster, the Clinton > > > aide, was murdered. Same thing against Obama. They will > > > say anything at all. Evidence? No need to bother with it. > > > Just get the smear out there and watch it do its work. > > > This kind of stuff says more about the accusers than it > > > does about the accused. You can no more have a rational > > > conversation with Vaj about MMY than you can with Rush > > > Limbaugh and his ilk about Obama. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardnelson108" > > richardnelson108@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On May 25, 2011, at 1:20 PM, richardnelson108 wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> And yet you assume you know that Maharishi "stole" the formulas > > > >> > > > >> I heard it directly from one of Balraj's students. > > > >> > > > >> I guess one of the problems with the open, innocent hearts of > > healers > > > >> like Balraj is that mountebanks like Mahesh love to use them and > > toss > > > >> them away, like used toys. > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>> The s
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
Wow - what a double standard, Sal! Barry puts out over two thousand pages of insults on this forum per year. Vaj less so, but still an impressive number. Richardnelson108 writes a few paragraphs and you are up in arms? Hypocrite. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > Here are Richard's "facts," Jim, or at least > all the ones I've seen lately~~perhaps you could post > the ones I've missed: > > "Hi, Richard here. Since this was originally written to me, I thought I > would chime in. > I will take responsibility for adding my negative comments about Vaj where > they were not necessary. After all, the post was about Jerry Jarvis and not > a response to Vaj. So therefore, as I said earlier, it may have been > inappropriate > I was confused and angry about the fact that no one here seemed to challenge > Vaj on his "facts" for so long, that I felt compelled to say something and > may have over reacted. > But, be clear... I am not a movement true believer and did not make my > comments to defend Maharishi or the movement. I just wanted the facts to be > brought out and let the chips fall where they may." > > "Vaj, > You ignorant slut, > > What is wrong with you? And why do make this shit up? Its complete lies. > > Don't you know that Dr. Raju was MMY's personal physician for years and has > been the head physician at a Maharishi ayurveda hospital in Delhi for many > years? If your story had any truth in it, Dr. Raju would not be working at a > Maharishi Ayurveda facility which uses the "stolen" formulas. He would have > nothing to do with the TM movement or its branches because he would feel that > MMY was a thief. But yet, there he is. > Have you ever met Dr. Raju? Been to his hospital? Of course you haven't. > Because if you had, you would know that as soon as you walk in the door, > there is a huge picture of MMY and in Dr. Raju's office, same thing. If Dr. > Raju thought MMY was a thief I don't think he would be sitting there with > MMY's picture and greeting you with "Jai Guru Dev". > > As usual, you just make these things up, and quote them as if they are facts. > Then when confronted on your statements, you run away like a little girl and > never respond when criticized. > > Vaj, you are a liar and have serious issues. Why do you have so much hate > inside you?" > > "Vaj, > You coward! As usual, no response when someone points out your lies! > You love to pontificate your supposed "knowledge", but you just make it up. > Come on, lets debate or discuss the facts. Don't just run away like the > coward you are. > > You know nothing of Balaraj or Raju's relationship with Maharishi. > And yet you assume you know that Maharishi "stole" the formulas > > The same way you "know" that Maharishi poisoned Guru Dev, which I have > already pointed out previously is a lie. > > Again I ask... why do you have so much hate in your heart that you have to > try to hurt MMY's reputation any way you can. > > I have no problem if you have an opinion about who MMY was and what he has > done. But why must you constantly make your opinion into supposed "facts"? > > So one more time... Whats wrong with you? " > > "Oh Yeah, that's right.. you have such a conscience! You lie, make shit up > and have the nerve to say you have a conscience! > > And again for the record. MMY was NEVER a prime suspect in the supposed > poisoning of Guru Dev. As I previously pointed out, I have been in Allahabad > many times and interviewed the judge who handled Guru Dev';s will and many > others associated with Shankaracharya ashram. None of them knew anything > about this supposed poisoning, so how could MMY have been a prime suspect? > You haven';t been there but speak as if you have been STOP MAKING SHIT UP!! > Have you opinion, fine. But again I am wondering, why you must lie to prove > that your point of view is the correct one? > You must have been really hurt by someone as a child." > > I mean, with evidence and clear thinking like that, it's no wonder > Vaj has no response! All this because Vaj wrote a few dozen > words expressing his opinion on something MMY supposedly > did~~stole medicines or formulas or whatever from > Balraj M. That's called "opinion" guys, no matter > how someone might express it. Jim and lurk, you feste and > the others in the anti-Vaj camp definitely need a new spokesperson. > Or not, your choice. But egging on someone like Richard > who is clearly unstable isn't nice. > > Sal > > On May 26, 2011, at 6:29 AM, whynotnow7 wrote: > > Comparing the facts of richardnelson108, based on actual events he witnessed > with Vaj's imaginings, and you call them equivalent? You recently said I had > the intellectual depth of a turnip. I'm sorry but I cannot even grant you > that much mental capacity. Your shriveled heart and blinding ego have created > in you a spiritual moron. >
[FairfieldLife] Kathryn Bigelow to make movie about killing of Osama bin La
And I thought it is over- let this cup pass from me;... All the sets for the film conveniently designed for adaptation to an upcoming video game?Does it comes after a computer game add-on for popular first-person shooter Counter Strike that was shared on the internet this month to allow video gamers to recreate the attack on Bin Laden's compound? Hurt Locker director Kathryn Bigelow to make movie about killing of Osama bin Laden From: AFP May 25, 2011 1:22PM http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/hurt-locker-director-kathryn-b\ igelow-to-make-movie-about-killing-of-osama-bin-laden/story-e6frg8pf-122\ 6062657723 http://tinyurl.com/3jfxho8 It is understood King Arthur and Star Wars actor Joel Edgerton is negotiating to play one of the SEALs, but no rumours have yet surfaced as to who will play Bin Laden. This will never end...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
"Not only unverifiable claims, but almost hysterical ones at that." C'mon kiddies. I have been on this list for about 5 years. During that time Vaj *(Steve F.) has slandered Maharishi continuously with not a shred of evidence, presenting everything he says as above reproach. He has also slung plenty of insults as has Bozotronic Barry. So people have put up with this immature crap for five years, calling Vaj on his obvious falsehoods. Now we have richardnelson108, who has traveled to India and spoken to many of those who figure prominently in Vaj's fantasies and found out conclusively, and to no one's surprise, that Vaj IS in fact full of shit. No Question. You and Barry, having taking a hostile view of Maharishi and the TMO all of these years now jump in, in the face of credible and contradictory evidence, bitching and moaning about the treatment Vaj is receiving. Boo f*cking Hoo. You are like little children protecting the schoolyard bully. It is almost unbelievable to see so-called adults act this way. This is NOT all about you. Grow the fuck up. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > On May 26, 2011, at 6:19 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > >> > >> Pile on? Vaj has simply been exposed as a liar. Not sure > >> what standard you look for in evaluating statements. But > >> Vaj made a series of assertions and all of them turned > >> out to be false. > > > > Not true. What actually happened is that several > > people have *declared* them false. Those people > > have IMO exactly the same level of credibility as > > Vaj -- namely none. No one has presented verifiable > > facts yet. > > That's what it seems to me as well~~ > if there were some posts made which > in any way proved Vaj's assertions to > be false, or even dealt with them on > any kind of level other than pseudo- > hysteria, I haven't seen them. Perhaps > lurk could point them out? Especially > since he seems so sure that Vaj has > been "exposed as a liar." Where, > exactly, did this occur lurk? I must > have missed the posts. And this > Richard Nelson seems more intent > on coming across more as mentally > unbalanced than in having any kind > of rational discussion. > > > > Did you even *notice* that feste did *exactly* > > what he was accusing Vaj of? He just slung insults, > > and presented not even a single supposed fact. > > > >> When asked to back up these assertions, the best he could > >> come up with, was "he heard it from someone" > > > > Yup. The people piling on didn't even go that far. They > > just claimed things *as if they were facts*, but without > > anything that could enable anyone to determine whether > > they were really facts or not. > > > > In other words, on one level what we seem to have here > > is a pissing contest, in which both sides are saying, > > "What I've heard is better than what you've heard." I > > call it total bullshit, on all sides. > > > > As for the "piling on" thang that Sal brings up, it *would* > > have been possible for Richard Nelson or others to just post > > a few verifiable facts (y'know...stuff including dates and > > contact information and where one could go to verify their > > claims) and leave it at that. They did not. What they did > > was to do *exactly* the same thing that Vaj did -- make a > > bunch of unverifiable claims -- and then proceed to call > > him names. > > Not only unverifiable claims, but almost hysterical ones at > that. Which isn't exactly what you'd call either a > great advertisement for meditation or a ringing > endorsement for their version of the "truth." > Sal >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
Here are Richard's "facts," Jim, or at least all the ones I've seen lately~~perhaps you could post the ones I've missed: "Hi, Richard here. Since this was originally written to me, I thought I would chime in. I will take responsibility for adding my negative comments about Vaj where they were not necessary. After all, the post was about Jerry Jarvis and not a response to Vaj. So therefore, as I said earlier, it may have been inappropriate I was confused and angry about the fact that no one here seemed to challenge Vaj on his "facts" for so long, that I felt compelled to say something and may have over reacted. But, be clear... I am not a movement true believer and did not make my comments to defend Maharishi or the movement. I just wanted the facts to be brought out and let the chips fall where they may." "Vaj, You ignorant slut, What is wrong with you? And why do make this shit up? Its complete lies. Don't you know that Dr. Raju was MMY's personal physician for years and has been the head physician at a Maharishi ayurveda hospital in Delhi for many years? If your story had any truth in it, Dr. Raju would not be working at a Maharishi Ayurveda facility which uses the "stolen" formulas. He would have nothing to do with the TM movement or its branches because he would feel that MMY was a thief. But yet, there he is. Have you ever met Dr. Raju? Been to his hospital? Of course you haven't. Because if you had, you would know that as soon as you walk in the door, there is a huge picture of MMY and in Dr. Raju's office, same thing. If Dr. Raju thought MMY was a thief I don't think he would be sitting there with MMY's picture and greeting you with "Jai Guru Dev". As usual, you just make these things up, and quote them as if they are facts. Then when confronted on your statements, you run away like a little girl and never respond when criticized. Vaj, you are a liar and have serious issues. Why do you have so much hate inside you?" "Vaj, You coward! As usual, no response when someone points out your lies! You love to pontificate your supposed "knowledge", but you just make it up. Come on, lets debate or discuss the facts. Don't just run away like the coward you are. You know nothing of Balaraj or Raju's relationship with Maharishi. And yet you assume you know that Maharishi "stole" the formulas The same way you "know" that Maharishi poisoned Guru Dev, which I have already pointed out previously is a lie. Again I ask... why do you have so much hate in your heart that you have to try to hurt MMY's reputation any way you can. I have no problem if you have an opinion about who MMY was and what he has done. But why must you constantly make your opinion into supposed "facts"? So one more time... Whats wrong with you? " "Oh Yeah, that's right.. you have such a conscience! You lie, make shit up and have the nerve to say you have a conscience! And again for the record. MMY was NEVER a prime suspect in the supposed poisoning of Guru Dev. As I previously pointed out, I have been in Allahabad many times and interviewed the judge who handled Guru Dev';s will and many others associated with Shankaracharya ashram. None of them knew anything about this supposed poisoning, so how could MMY have been a prime suspect? You haven';t been there but speak as if you have been STOP MAKING SHIT UP!! Have you opinion, fine. But again I am wondering, why you must lie to prove that your point of view is the correct one? You must have been really hurt by someone as a child." I mean, with evidence and clear thinking like that, it's no wonder Vaj has no response! All this because Vaj wrote a few dozen words expressing his opinion on something MMY supposedly did~~stole medicines or formulas or whatever from Balraj M. That's called "opinion" guys, no matter how someone might express it. Jim and lurk, you feste and the others in the anti-Vaj camp definitely need a new spokesperson. Or not, your choice. But egging on someone like Richard who is clearly unstable isn't nice. Sal On May 26, 2011, at 6:29 AM, whynotnow7 wrote: Comparing the facts of richardnelson108, based on actual events he witnessed with Vaj's imaginings, and you call them equivalent? You recently said I had the intellectual depth of a turnip. I'm sorry but I cannot even grant you that much mental capacity. Your shriveled heart and blinding ego have created in you a spiritual moron.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
On May 26, 2011, at 6:19 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: >> >> Pile on? Vaj has simply been exposed as a liar. Not sure >> what standard you look for in evaluating statements. But >> Vaj made a series of assertions and all of them turned >> out to be false. > > Not true. What actually happened is that several > people have *declared* them false. Those people > have IMO exactly the same level of credibility as > Vaj -- namely none. No one has presented verifiable > facts yet. That's what it seems to me as well~~ if there were some posts made which in any way proved Vaj's assertions to be false, or even dealt with them on any kind of level other than pseudo- hysteria, I haven't seen them. Perhaps lurk could point them out? Especially since he seems so sure that Vaj has been "exposed as a liar." Where, exactly, did this occur lurk? I must have missed the posts. And this Richard Nelson seems more intent on coming across more as mentally unbalanced than in having any kind of rational discussion. > Did you even *notice* that feste did *exactly* > what he was accusing Vaj of? He just slung insults, > and presented not even a single supposed fact. > >> When asked to back up these assertions, the best he could >> come up with, was "he heard it from someone" > > Yup. The people piling on didn't even go that far. They > just claimed things *as if they were facts*, but without > anything that could enable anyone to determine whether > they were really facts or not. > > In other words, on one level what we seem to have here > is a pissing contest, in which both sides are saying, > "What I've heard is better than what you've heard." I > call it total bullshit, on all sides. > > As for the "piling on" thang that Sal brings up, it *would* > have been possible for Richard Nelson or others to just post > a few verifiable facts (y'know...stuff including dates and > contact information and where one could go to verify their > claims) and leave it at that. They did not. What they did > was to do *exactly* the same thing that Vaj did -- make a > bunch of unverifiable claims -- and then proceed to call > him names. Not only unverifiable claims, but almost hysterical ones at that. Which isn't exactly what you'd call either a great advertisement for meditation or a ringing endorsement for their version of the "truth." Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > > > Pile on? Vaj has simply been exposed as a liar. Not sure what standard > you look for in evaluating statements. But Vaj made a series of > assertions and all of them turned out to be false. When asked to back > up these assertions, the best he could come up with, was "he heard it > from someone" Both Vaj and the Turq are regular liars on this (and probably other TM-related forums). In their pissing-contest on who's best liar Vaj is slightly ahead. Their personal issues are enormous, perhaps never treatable in this life. And they're both socalled "Buddhists". As the american's say: Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi and Satyanand: Comments on Enlightenment Afterlife
I guess what I want to say is that from my point of view in enlightenment the question of what happens to the body(subtle/gross) becomes irrelevant b/c the SELF no longer experiences itself as being bounded i.e having a body.OTOH,after enlightenment, the SELF continues to have an experience of apparent boundaries( the physical body and the world etc)while no longer identifying with them or experiencing them as fundamentally real. I think Maharishi's statement" when your mind becomes THE MIND then your body is EVERY BODY" may be related to the question of what happens to the subtle bodies after physical death in enlightenment.My guess is that SELF is never devoid of the experience of boundaries since(IMO) the ultimate nature of REALITY is both pure unbounded awareness and the apparent objects of that awareness I also think that this is a very deep question to which I doubt there is an answer which will be intellectually satisfying . --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > Right, that's what the string addresses: the apparent boundaries/forms, > individual beings. It's obvious only the Self exists on the level of the > Self; but the Self is only able to write with apparent organs of actions. The > string addressed the organs of action, not the eternality of the Self. That's > obvious, isn't it? > ... > Concerning your statement "All that happens with E. is that the Self stops > idenitfying Itself with boundaries..."...Again, everybody knows this, or > should. What is addressed is the apparent container, the bodies, in > themselves, relatively and conventionally speaking, not the eternality of the > Self: do the subtle bodies continue or not? > ... > The Zen death you mention is the death of ontological attachment on the level > of the Self, not the continued existence of apparent containers, the bodies. > You're conflating two different questions. > ... > In any event, Shankara provides us with an answer in his Commentaries on the > Brahma Sutras. Refer to post #277826. However, I don't pay a lot of attention > to "authorities" unless there's some corroborating evidence. > Thx. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shanti2218411" wrote: > > > > IMHO, their never is a"drop"separate from the ocean(SELF). > > The"drop " never has an actual existence.It is only the result of > > the eternal SELF's creation of apparent boundaries/forms i.e.individual > > beings.The SELF who is writing all the posts on this forum is the same SELF > > that exists after the apparent beings who wrote these posts are no longer > > manifest.All that happens with enlightenment is that the SELF stops > > identifying ITSELF with boundaries and has re-cognized ITSELF as > > unbounded/infinite. > > It seems very unlikely that this recognition would mean that the SELF would > > stop the creative process of manifestation which I suspect is also > > eternal.IOW we are much much more that the skin encapsulated > > ego we take are SELF to be. > > > > In Zen they say" if you die before you die then you don't die when you die" > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > wrote: > > > > > > What we need here on this forum is a post from someone who has died and > > > not lived to tell about it. > > > > > > If the drop becomes the ocean, the drop is no more as a drop, it is > > > completely recycled and uniformly distributed in the ocean, if we take > > > the analogy a bit further. The specific individuality of the drop is > > > gone. Try and reassemble it again. > > > > > > If you want to be immortal and retain individuality as a function of time > > > and space, I suggest endless life as a cockroach. Fear of death leads to > > > endless speculation. Life and death are pairs of opposites, one cannot > > > exist without the other, one is the negation of the other; they do not > > > exist simultaneously in the same place. The desire to have death be life > > > is misplaced. Leave them behind. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > > > > > > > let's go back to square one. > > > > > > > > MMY/Jarvis, and the TMO party line is non-existence; notwithstanding a > > > > few quotes here and there that one might come up with. > > > > ... > > > > The Guru Dev, Satyanand model does encompass the possibility of subtle > > > > existences after physical death among the Enlightened. For example, > > > > Guru Dev appeared to me twice, once in 1986 as a BBB in the dream > > > > state, conveying some interesting messages that must remain secret for > > > > now. > > > > ... > > > > The Guru Dev model of existence therefore differs from that of MMY, > > > > apart from the nondual orientation, in many respects; foremost > > > > regarding the value of devotion to the "Gods" (various Personal > > > > embodiments of the forces of nature). > > > > ... > > > > Now as to "why" MMY departed from man
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
Comparing the facts of richardnelson108, based on actual events he witnessed with Vaj's imaginings, and you call them equivalent? You recently said I had the intellectual depth of a turnip. I'm sorry but I cannot even grant you that much mental capacity. Your shriveled heart and blinding ego have created in you a spiritual moron. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > > > > Pile on? Vaj has simply been exposed as a liar. Not sure > > what standard you look for in evaluating statements. But > > Vaj made a series of assertions and all of them turned > > out to be false. > > Not true. What actually happened is that several > people have *declared* them false. Those people > have IMO exactly the same level of credibility as > Vaj -- namely none. No one has presented verifiable > facts yet. > > Did you even *notice* that feste did *exactly* > what he was accusing Vaj of? He just slung insults, > and presented not even a single supposed fact. > > > When asked to back up these assertions, the best he could > > come up with, was "he heard it from someone" > > Yup. The people piling on didn't even go that far. They > just claimed things *as if they were facts*, but without > anything that could enable anyone to determine whether > they were really facts or not. > > In other words, on one level what we seem to have here > is a pissing contest, in which both sides are saying, > "What I've heard is better than what you've heard." I > call it total bullshit, on all sides. > > As for the "piling on" thang that Sal brings up, it *would* > have been possible for Richard Nelson or others to just post > a few verifiable facts (y'know...stuff including dates and > contact information and where one could go to verify their > claims) and leave it at that. They did not. What they did > was to do *exactly* the same thing that Vaj did -- make a > bunch of unverifiable claims -- and then proceed to call > him names. > > So what it looks like from my side is 1) a pissing contest > in which no one is presenting any facts, only hearsay, and > 2) a situation in which the supposed TM supporters got their > attachment buttons pushed so big-time that they've gone bat- > shit crazy trying to call Vaj names and claim he has no > credibility. > > Well...surprise. They don't have any, either. > > Everybody's just making claims. One side is also going bat- > shit crazy trying to hurl insults. Since no one in this > pissing contest has the least bit of credibility, I'm > going to go with the "side" hurling the least number of > personal insults as the "winner." And as always, that's > *not* the "TM supporters." > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > > wrote: > > > > > > A pile-on just wouldn't be the same without > > > a drive-by from feste. > > > > > > Sal > > > > > > On May 25, 2011, at 2:42 PM, feste37 wrote: > > > > > > Vaj reminds me of the wacko political right who will say > > > anything to put their Democratic enemies in a bad light. > > > For example, the claims in the 1990s that Bill Clinton was > > > involved in drug-running and that Vince Foster, the Clinton > > > aide, was murdered. Same thing against Obama. They will > > > say anything at all. Evidence? No need to bother with it. > > > Just get the smear out there and watch it do its work. > > > This kind of stuff says more about the accusers than it > > > does about the accused. You can no more have a rational > > > conversation with Vaj about MMY than you can with Rush > > > Limbaugh and his ilk about Obama. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardnelson108" > > richardnelson108@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On May 25, 2011, at 1:20 PM, richardnelson108 wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> And yet you assume you know that Maharishi "stole" the formulas > > > >> > > > >> I heard it directly from one of Balraj's students. > > > >> > > > >> I guess one of the problems with the open, innocent hearts of > > healers > > > >> like Balraj is that mountebanks like Mahesh love to use them and > > toss > > > >> them away, like used toys. > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>> The same way you "know" that Maharishi poisoned Guru Dev, which I > > > >>> have already pointed out previously is a lie. > > > >> > > > >> Actually I said he was a leading suspect. > > > >> > > > >> It really speaks more to his character; how people saw him. I mean > > if > > > >> he was the sattvic, white silk-clad, benevolent saint some might > > > >> imagine, would he have ever been a suspect at all? > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>> Again I ask... why do you have so much hate in your heart that you > > > >>> have to try to hurt MMY's reputation any way you can. > > > >>> > > > >>> I have no problem if you have an opinion about who MMY was and > > what > > > >>> h
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > > Pile on? Vaj has simply been exposed as a liar. Not sure > what standard you look for in evaluating statements. But > Vaj made a series of assertions and all of them turned > out to be false. Not true. What actually happened is that several people have *declared* them false. Those people have IMO exactly the same level of credibility as Vaj -- namely none. No one has presented verifiable facts yet. Did you even *notice* that feste did *exactly* what he was accusing Vaj of? He just slung insults, and presented not even a single supposed fact. > When asked to back up these assertions, the best he could > come up with, was "he heard it from someone" Yup. The people piling on didn't even go that far. They just claimed things *as if they were facts*, but without anything that could enable anyone to determine whether they were really facts or not. In other words, on one level what we seem to have here is a pissing contest, in which both sides are saying, "What I've heard is better than what you've heard." I call it total bullshit, on all sides. As for the "piling on" thang that Sal brings up, it *would* have been possible for Richard Nelson or others to just post a few verifiable facts (y'know...stuff including dates and contact information and where one could go to verify their claims) and leave it at that. They did not. What they did was to do *exactly* the same thing that Vaj did -- make a bunch of unverifiable claims -- and then proceed to call him names. So what it looks like from my side is 1) a pissing contest in which no one is presenting any facts, only hearsay, and 2) a situation in which the supposed TM supporters got their attachment buttons pushed so big-time that they've gone bat- shit crazy trying to call Vaj names and claim he has no credibility. Well...surprise. They don't have any, either. Everybody's just making claims. One side is also going bat- shit crazy trying to hurl insults. Since no one in this pissing contest has the least bit of credibility, I'm going to go with the "side" hurling the least number of personal insults as the "winner." And as always, that's *not* the "TM supporters." > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > wrote: > > > > A pile-on just wouldn't be the same without > > a drive-by from feste. > > > > Sal > > > > On May 25, 2011, at 2:42 PM, feste37 wrote: > > > > Vaj reminds me of the wacko political right who will say > > anything to put their Democratic enemies in a bad light. > > For example, the claims in the 1990s that Bill Clinton was > > involved in drug-running and that Vince Foster, the Clinton > > aide, was murdered. Same thing against Obama. They will > > say anything at all. Evidence? No need to bother with it. > > Just get the smear out there and watch it do its work. > > This kind of stuff says more about the accusers than it > > does about the accused. You can no more have a rational > > conversation with Vaj about MMY than you can with Rush > > Limbaugh and his ilk about Obama. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardnelson108" > richardnelson108@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> On May 25, 2011, at 1:20 PM, richardnelson108 wrote: > > >> > > >>> And yet you assume you know that Maharishi "stole" the formulas > > >> > > >> I heard it directly from one of Balraj's students. > > >> > > >> I guess one of the problems with the open, innocent hearts of > healers > > >> like Balraj is that mountebanks like Mahesh love to use them and > toss > > >> them away, like used toys. > > >> > > >>> > > >>> The same way you "know" that Maharishi poisoned Guru Dev, which I > > >>> have already pointed out previously is a lie. > > >> > > >> Actually I said he was a leading suspect. > > >> > > >> It really speaks more to his character; how people saw him. I mean > if > > >> he was the sattvic, white silk-clad, benevolent saint some might > > >> imagine, would he have ever been a suspect at all? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> > > >>> Again I ask... why do you have so much hate in your heart that you > > >>> have to try to hurt MMY's reputation any way you can. > > >>> > > >>> I have no problem if you have an opinion about who MMY was and > what > > >>> he has done. But why must you constantly make your opinion into > > >>> supposed "facts"? > > >>> > > >>> So one more time... Whats wrong with you? > > >> > > >> Being born with a conscience has it drawbacks. > > >> > > > Oh Yeah, that's right.. you have such a conscience! You lie, make > shit up and have the nerve to say you have a conscience! > > > > > > And again for the record. MMY was NEVER a prime suspect in the > supposed poisoning of Guru Dev. As I previously pointed out, I have been > in Allahabad many times and interviewed the judge who handled Guru > Dev';s will and many others associated with Shankaracharya ashram.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
Pile on? Vaj has simply been exposed as a liar. Not sure what standard you look for in evaluating statements. But Vaj made a series of assertions and all of them turned out to be false. When asked to back up these assertions, the best he could come up with, was "he heard it from someone" --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > A pile-on just wouldn't be the same without > a drive-by from feste. > > Sal > > On May 25, 2011, at 2:42 PM, feste37 wrote: > > Vaj reminds me of the wacko political right who will say anything to put their Democratic enemies in a bad light. For example, the claims in the 1990s that Bill Clinton was involved in drug-running and that Vince Foster, the Clinton aide, was murdered. Same thing against Obama. They will say anything at all. Evidence? No need to bother with it. Just get the smear out there and watch it do its work. This kind of stuff says more about the accusers than it does about the accused. You can no more have a rational conversation with Vaj about MMY than you can with Rush Limbaugh and his ilk about Obama. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardnelson108" richardnelson108@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > >> > >> > >> On May 25, 2011, at 1:20 PM, richardnelson108 wrote: > >> > >>> And yet you assume you know that Maharishi "stole" the formulas > >> > >> I heard it directly from one of Balraj's students. > >> > >> I guess one of the problems with the open, innocent hearts of healers > >> like Balraj is that mountebanks like Mahesh love to use them and toss > >> them away, like used toys. > >> > >>> > >>> The same way you "know" that Maharishi poisoned Guru Dev, which I > >>> have already pointed out previously is a lie. > >> > >> Actually I said he was a leading suspect. > >> > >> It really speaks more to his character; how people saw him. I mean if > >> he was the sattvic, white silk-clad, benevolent saint some might > >> imagine, would he have ever been a suspect at all? > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Again I ask... why do you have so much hate in your heart that you > >>> have to try to hurt MMY's reputation any way you can. > >>> > >>> I have no problem if you have an opinion about who MMY was and what > >>> he has done. But why must you constantly make your opinion into > >>> supposed "facts"? > >>> > >>> So one more time... Whats wrong with you? > >> > >> Being born with a conscience has it drawbacks. > >> > > Oh Yeah, that's right.. you have such a conscience! You lie, make shit up and have the nerve to say you have a conscience! > > > > And again for the record. MMY was NEVER a prime suspect in the supposed poisoning of Guru Dev. As I previously pointed out, I have been in Allahabad many times and interviewed the judge who handled Guru Dev';s will and many others associated with Shankaracharya ashram. None of them knew anything about this supposed poisoning, so how could MMY have been a prime suspect? You haven';t been there but speak as if you have been STOP MAKING SHIT UP!! > > Have you opinion, fine. But again I am wondering, why you must lie to prove that your point of view is the correct one? > > You must have been really hurt by someone as a child. > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Norman changed his mind?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > > > http://normanrosenthal.com/blog/why-i-changed-my-mind-and-wrote-transcendence-healing-and-transformation-through-transcendental-meditation.html > > "Actually, it was for me a rediscovery, since I had first learned TM back in > South Africa about 40 years ago, but was neglectful in my practice so, > unsurprisingly, derived little benefit from it just like that treadmill I > bought several years ago did me little good when I used it mostly as a > clothes rack. > For(e)word by "Oprah's MD": http://normanrosenthal.com/forward-by-mehmet-oz-page-2.html
