[FairfieldLife] Three "om's" and NHL?

[cardemaister]

Why shall Vancouver win this season's final game of NHL?

Simply "because" they have three Swedes (Brothers
Sedin and Mikael Samuelsson [quite a "Jewish" name,
doncha think! - God is with him!]), Boston seemingly none.

Namely, "om" is quite a frequent word in Swedish:
at least a conjunction (if), an adverb (again) and
a preposition (about, etc.)!

[FairfieldLife] Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice

[turquoiseb]

This morning's cafe rap is purely informative. In it 
I'll springboard off of one of my favorite quotes of 
recent years and how I think it's relevant to two
vastly different forms of spiritual teaching, and why
I prefer one of them over the other. (Note that I use
the word "prefer." This is NOT the same as saying that
one of these approaches is "better" than the other,
merely that someone might prefer one over the other,
depending on their predilection in life.) The quote is:

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and
practice. But in practice, there is."

Most spiritual traditions -- including, of course, TM
-- teach on the basis of presenting a theory about
some experience or ability or state of consciousness
*to those who have never experienced it*. This method 
of teaching is necessary because the teacher has no way
to give the student the experience he's talking about
in "real time," here and now. The experience or ability
or SOC is always something "promised," something that 
the student will experience "someday," or Real Soon Now. 
But never Right Now.

For example, Maharishi would give talk after talk after 
talk to his students about CC, GC, and UC, knowing that 
the people in the audience had never experienced these 
states, and thus just had to take his word for it that 
1) they were as he described them, 2) that he knew what
he was talking about, and 3) that what they "felt like" 
subjectively was what he said they felt like. Same with 
the siddhis. He talked *about* them, but could neither 
demonstrate them nor give his students the ability to 
witness them, at least as they have been traditionally
described. That is, no one has ever actually levitated,
or turned invisible, or seen anyone who can. It's all
theory, around which a set of dogmas and "knowledge" 
has been constructed to convince the students that they 
"know" all about these SOCs or siddhis and that they
"understand" them.

There is another way of teaching.

It is possible, for teachers who are capable of such 
things, to talk about states of consciousness while
"putting on" the SOC in question and then radiating or
"broadcasting" it so powerfully that the students can
"put it on" and "wear" it themselves as they listen to 
the talk.

If the talk is about CC, the teacher is able to 
temporarily "boost" the students' SOC from wherever it
was before the talk/demo started *into* the state of CC.
The students get to subjectively experience the SOC being
talked about. Same with GC or UC. Same with more finite
or granular states of attention, such as the variant of
waking state from which one can see auras or other subtle
phenomena, or "see the future," or "read minds." As the
teacher is describing these states, the student is able
to actually DO the things the teacher is talking about.

With siddhis, if the teacher is capable of performing
them, it is not as common for the student to be able to
perform them, too. If the teacher, for example, is demon-
strating the siddhi of levitation, and giving his talk
about that phenomenon while hovering in mid-air exactly
the way a brick doesn't, it is not likely that the student
will lift up off their chair and join the teacher in mid-
air. What *does* happen when witnessing the siddhis being
performed, however, is that the student gets to feel the
"energy field" produced by those siddhis being performed.
That energy field (in my experience) "explains" the 
nature of the siddhi far better than any amount of talk
"about" the siddhi.

So those are the two main approaches to spiritual teaching,
as I see them, and as I have experienced them in my life. 
I prefer the second, because of the quote I posted at the
start of this rap. Being able to "put on and wear" a SOC
is "practice," not dry theory. It is also IMO far more 
effective at presenting that SOC or ability than merely 
talking about the theory of it. And sitting in the energy 
field of a siddhi as it is being performed IMO conveys 
*far* more information about the siddhi than just hearing 
about it. Practice vs. theory.

So that's the theory. :-) In practice, it is not all that
easy to find teachers who can teach the second way I talk
about above. I have encountered only a handful in my life.
But the experience of working with them and having been
exposed to the model of "shared practice" vs. dry theory
was IMO valuable, and has spoiled me rotten. I would never
be interested in studying with any teacher who was only
capable of teaching using the first method. 

Some, on the other hand, might not only be happy with the 
theoretical approach to spiritual teaching, they might 
actually prefer it, the way that some prefer reading or 
hearing about other people's spiritual experiences to
having their own. Different strokes for different folks.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> There is another way of teaching.
> 
> It is possible, for teachers who are capable of such 
> things, to talk about states of consciousness while
> "putting on" the SOC in question and then radiating or
> "broadcasting" it so powerfully that the students can
> "put it on" and "wear" it themselves as they listen to 
> the talk.

Continuing this rap because the subject is still fresh
in my mind as the result of reconnecting with a couple
of old friends who share my experience with the "Practice
method" and being able to discuss it with them...

My opinion is that the "Practice" method described above
is possibly more interesting (for those who have run into a
teacher who can do it, and whose predilections groove with
that approach) than the "Theory" method in two respects. 
First, the "hands on," "get to wear the SOC as it's being
described" approach is IMO more effective at presenting the
distinctions *between* different SOCs. Second, IMO it has
the benefit of loosening the students' attachment to any
particular SOC, and to believing that any of them are 
"higher" or "better" or "more Real" than the others.

My fondest memories of the "Practice" approach are when one
of the teachers I worked with would "broadcast" to us not
just one SOC, but many, and in a short period of time. This
was a very real experience of Tantra, the juxtaposition of
opposites. For example, the teacher might start the talk/
demo by describing the nature of the world around us as seen
from waking state. Naturally, we would all be in that state
as he talked, and so the teacher's descriptions of the world
and How It Worked were obvious to us; all we had to do was
look around and see that his descriptions of the world 
matched our subjective experience of it, from this 
particular SOC.

But then he'd "flip" us, and broadcast another state, say CC.
And everything would change. One's first impression, sitting
there in a completely different SOC, was that the world had
a completely different "look and feel" than it had only a few
seconds ago. Then the teacher would start to describe the
world and How It Worked from this second SOC, and again these
descriptions now matched our subjective experience. Whereas --
and this is the important point -- the descriptions we'd been
given just a few seconds ago did not. They were no longer 
"true" or valid from this new SOC.

And then he'd "flip" us again. Say, into UC. And again, every-
thing would change. And then the teacher would describe the
mechanics of how the world worked from this SOC, and again it
would match our subjective experience of Unity. And then the
teacher would finish up the talk/demo by flipping us back and
forth between these different states of consciousness, at times
as quickly as he could snap his fingers. With every "flip," we
got to *experience* the "look and feel" of the world when seen
through this SOC and how it worked, so the distinctions between
the different states became very clear. It was in a very real 
sense a "hands on demo" of Maharishi's "Knowledge is different 
in different states of consciousness."

As a result of having had this experience, I would reword MMY's
statement as "Reality is different in different states of con-
sciousness." When you've been "flipped" like this, several times
a week, for years, you don't really have the same relationship
to the word "Reality" that some have. In fact, you stop capital-
izing the word in your mind, because it's been made clear to you
that there is no such thing as Reality, only constantly-changing
realities, none "better" or "higher" than the other, only
different.

This, in my opinion, was more valuable to me as a student of 
self discovery than the experience -- as neat as it was -- of
getting to "put on and wear" all of these different states of
consciousness. The process of being "flipped" through many 
of them, in rapid succession, with the nature of the world and
How It Worked changing with each "flip," left me with no way
to glom onto any of them as "Reality." I no longer even believe
in the *concept* of one "highest" Reality. There are just dif-
ferent subjective states of consciousness or awareness, in
each of which the world and How It Works (and thus the nature
of reality) is different. Not "better," not "higher," just
different. 

This is why I have been able to RELAX about my own spiritual 
path, and not feel that I needed to seek any particular SOC. 
I've been there, done that with many of them. And I enjoyed
them all. But none struck me -- either when I was "wearing" 
them as the result of whatever it was that the teacher did 
to "broadcast" them to me, or later, when I re-accessed 
these states of consciousness on my own -- as any "ultimate" 
or "highest" SOC that I should consider a "goal" or a valued
"destination" along the spiritual path. For me, the spiritual 
journey is all about walking the path and enjoying the walk, 
not "arriving" so

[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

Nice idea. I have never encountered this, although I have encountered one 
teacher that could in the space of a few days get a fair number of persons to 
experience a shift in SOC, if only temporary, but it was not like a broadcast. 
If you have encountered such teachers of the second kind, do they have names? 
And what are the mechanics behind the ability to broadcast an SOC? I am asking 
this because your description makes it sound like a radio broadcast - a mental 
projection or something like that? It makes me think of something like in old 
science fiction movies (say 1940) where the doctor says "If I can just get to 
the laboratory I can create a ray which will change his SOC."

With the material you presented here, it seems like you could have just made 
this up. It is a great story idea, but how could someone find out that what you 
say here is real? The attack of Ray Gun Bob Swami, Five States of Consciousness 
Seminar for just $49.95 - One Day Only at... Do you have names, dates, 
locations? Who are these teachers? One of my favorite teachers was named 
Mentor. But he was just a character in a science fiction story, but he (or it) 
had the power to change a person's SOC.

Remember, walking the path is fine. We all do this. But the idea is for the 
path to go away, and before it does, it is not all groovy and enjoyable, some 
really difficult experiences can arise.

Some day "maybe" we can "discuss" your "extensive" use of quote "marks."

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > There is another way of teaching.
> > 
> > It is possible, for teachers who are capable of such 
> > things, to talk about states of consciousness while
> > "putting on" the SOC in question and then radiating or
> > "broadcasting" it so powerfully that the students can
> > "put it on" and "wear" it themselves as they listen to 
> > the talk.
> 
> Continuing this rap because the subject is still fresh
> in my mind as the result of reconnecting with a couple
> of old friends who share my experience with the "Practice
> method" and being able to discuss it with them...
> 
> My opinion is that the "Practice" method described above
> is possibly more interesting (for those who have run into a
> teacher who can do it, and whose predilections groove with
> that approach) than the "Theory" method in two respects. 
> First, the "hands on," "get to wear the SOC as it's being
> described" approach is IMO more effective at presenting the
> distinctions *between* different SOCs. Second, IMO it has
> the benefit of loosening the students' attachment to any
> particular SOC, and to believing that any of them are 
> "higher" or "better" or "more Real" than the others.
> 
> My fondest memories of the "Practice" approach are when one
> of the teachers I worked with would "broadcast" to us not
> just one SOC, but many, and in a short period of time. This
> was a very real experience of Tantra, the juxtaposition of
> opposites. For example, the teacher might start the talk/
> demo by describing the nature of the world around us as seen
> from waking state. Naturally, we would all be in that state
> as he talked, and so the teacher's descriptions of the world
> and How It Worked were obvious to us; all we had to do was
> look around and see that his descriptions of the world 
> matched our subjective experience of it, from this 
> particular SOC.
> 
> But then he'd "flip" us, and broadcast another state, say CC.
> And everything would change. One's first impression, sitting
> there in a completely different SOC, was that the world had
> a completely different "look and feel" than it had only a few
> seconds ago. Then the teacher would start to describe the
> world and How It Worked from this second SOC, and again these
> descriptions now matched our subjective experience. Whereas --
> and this is the important point -- the descriptions we'd been
> given just a few seconds ago did not. They were no longer 
> "true" or valid from this new SOC.
> 
> And then he'd "flip" us again. Say, into UC. And again, every-
> thing would change. And then the teacher would describe the
> mechanics of how the world worked from this SOC, and again it
> would match our subjective experience of Unity. And then the
> teacher would finish up the talk/demo by flipping us back and
> forth between these different states of consciousness, at times
> as quickly as he could snap his fingers. With every "flip," we
> got to *experience* the "look and feel" of the world when seen
> through this SOC and how it worked, so the distinctions between
> the different states became very clear. It was in a very real 
> sense a "hands on demo" of Maharishi's "Knowledge is different 
> in different states of consciousness."
> 
> As a result of having had this experience, I would reword MMY's
> statement as "Reality is different in different states of con-
> sciousness." When you've been "flipped" lik

[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> Nice idea. I have never encountered this, although I have 
> encountered one teacher that could in the space of a few 
> days get a fair number of persons to experience a shift 
> in SOC, if only temporary, but it was not like a broadcast. 
> If you have encountered such teachers of the second kind, 
> do they have names? 

Yes, but they would do you no good. Two of the four
I've met are now dead, and the other two I have heard
went back to Bhutan, and are no longer working with
non-Bhutanese or non-Tibetan students. They gave work-
ing with Westerners a shot on teaching tours and
(from what I am told) now prefer to work only with
people who can make a longer-term commitment. They
didn't like the "drop in" approach.

> And what are the mechanics behind the ability to broadcast 
> an SOC? 

I have no earthly idea. I report only on my subjective
experience of working with these teachers.

> I am asking this because your description makes it sound like 
> a radio broadcast - a mental projection or something like that? 

Something like that. Or, as I have suggested in the 
past about "darshan," being able to put on a SOC so
powerfully that others in the audience could be in
the same room and somehow "recognize" in the teacher's
SOC the counterpart of a "matching" SOC that was within
them, just not realized yet, and as a result "access" it.
That's a more "non-doing" theory, but this is pure spec-
ulation on my part. I have no idea how it was done, only 
*that* it was done.

> It makes me think of something like in old science fiction 
> movies (say 1940) where the doctor says "If I can just get to 
> the laboratory I can create a ray which will change his SOC."

It sounds completely "science fictiony," until you have
experienced it. Having done so does not make it in the
least more understandable or less fantastic; but you've
had the subjective experience. 

> With the material you presented here, it seems like you could 
> have just made this up. 

I could have, but I didn't. On the other hand, if it pleases
you to consider it fiction, that is your right and I won't
spend even the tiniest bit of effort trying to convince you
otherwise. I don't understand it myself; I just experienced it.
And clearly I'm not attempting to "sell" it to anyone, because
as far as I know there is nothing to sell any more. You may
treat what I wrote however you want. I wrote it because I ran
into some old friends and we got to talking about this form
of teaching (which we all have experienced), and that was 
fresh in my mind. I wrote what I wrote (as I often do) in an
attempt to clarify *for myself* some of the discussions we
had and the thoughts still rattling around in my head as a 
result.

> It is a great story idea, but how could someone find out that 
> what you say here is real? 

Even worse, if you experienced it yourself, how could you 
convince *yourself* that it was real, much less anyone else?  :-)

That's the position I'm in. 

> Remember, walking the path is fine. We all do this. But the 
> idea is for the path to go away...

According to whom? Not according to me. For me, the path
is just for the walking, without any fixed destination or
goal. 

> ...and before it does, it is not all groovy and enjoyable, 
> some really difficult experiences can arise.

Speak for yourself. Attempts to speak for everyone don't
usually impress me very much.  :-)

> Some day "maybe" we can "discuss" your "extensive" use of 
> quote "marks."

Or not. I care as little about what you think of my writing
style as I do what you think of its content. Really.

But thanks for responding in a civil manner. That is not
always the case on this forum. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> >
> > And what are the mechanics behind the ability to broadcast 
> > an SOC? 
> 
> I have no earthly idea. I report only on my subjective
> experience of working with these teachers.
> 
> > I am asking this because your description makes it sound like 
> > a radio broadcast - a mental projection or something like that? 
> 
> Something like that. Or, as I have suggested in the 
> past about "darshan," being able to put on a SOC so
> powerfully that others in the audience could be in
> the same room and somehow "recognize" in the teacher's
> SOC the counterpart of a "matching" SOC that was within
> them, just not realized yet, and as a result "access" it.
> That's a more "non-doing" theory, but this is pure spec-
> ulation on my part. I have no idea how it was done, only 
> *that* it was done.

One facet of this that most intrigues me, because it
is such a "game changer" compared to almost all other
descriptions of different states of consciousness, is
that these folks had the ability to "put on" a state
of consciousness *at will*. 

Think about that. The model most of us have been
presented with along the spiritual path is that SOCs
are "achieved" or "realized," but then you're kinda
stuck with them. You "get to" CC, but you can't then
put on the consciousness of normal waking state if
you want to, say, for teaching purposes. Similarly,
if you "get to" UC, you can't then "backtrack" during
a talk on GC and temporarily "wear" that state of
consciousness in order to model it or demo it for
your students. 

These guys could. They could change states of conscious-
ness more quickly than you can change clothes. They 
weren't "stuck in" *any* of them. I find that not only
fascinating, but far more impressive than the traditional
model of unidirectional, linear progression through the
different states of consciousness.

At least one of them spoke about this. In his opinion,
all of these states of consciousness were *congruent*,
meaning that they were simultaneously present at all
times. You merely accessed the state you wanted. There
was no "achieving" or "realization" needed, merely the
decision to select from a "menu of available options."

Clearly, these guys all believed in free will. :-)

Please bear in mind that none of these people believed
in the "seven states of consciousness" as presented by
Maharishi. I'm using WC, CC, GC and UC here because that
is how most on this forum think. The teachers I'm talking
about would consider that model a gross oversimplification. 
Most were Buddhist, and believed more in its "ten thousand 
states of mind" (which is a euphemism for "lots and lots 
of them, possibly an infinite number of them" not a number
per se). 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> This morning's cafe rap is purely informative. In it 
> I'll springboard off of one of my favorite quotes of 
> recent years and how I think it's relevant to two
> vastly different forms of spiritual teaching, and why
> I prefer one of them over the other. (Note that I use
> the word "prefer." This is NOT the same as saying that
> one of these approaches is "better" than the other,
> merely that someone might prefer one over the other,
> depending on their predilection in life.)

However, Barry will do his damndest not only to make
his preferred approach *sound* better than the other,
he will also attempt to portray himself as "better"
for preferring that approach and to demean those whose
"predilection in life" is the other approach (i.e.,
TMers, of course). Note in particular his final
paragraph below:

> Some, on the other hand, might not only be happy with the 
> theoretical approach to spiritual teaching, they might 
> actually prefer it, the way that some prefer reading or 
> hearing about other people's spiritual experiences to
> having their own. Different strokes for different folks.

IOW, his disclaimer above is nothing more than lip
service. He does not have the slightest intention
of describing the approaches in such a way as to
suggest MMY's approach was as good as the one Barry
"prefers."

Regulars here, BTW, will be aware that Barry has
delivered this particular rap many, many times, yet
he presents it as if it were new and fresh.

> The quote is:
> 
> "In theory, there is no difference between theory and
> practice. But in practice, there is."
> 
> Most spiritual traditions -- including, of course, TM
> -- teach on the basis of presenting a theory about
> some experience or ability or state of consciousness
> *to those who have never experienced it*. This method 
> of teaching is necessary because the teacher has no way
> to give the student the experience he's talking about
> in "real time," here and now. The experience or ability
> or SOC is always something "promised," something that 
> the student will experience "someday," or Real Soon Now. 
> But never Right Now.
> 
> For example, Maharishi would give talk after talk after 
> talk to his students about CC, GC, and UC, knowing that 
> the people in the audience had never experienced these 
> states, and thus just had to take his word for it that 
> 1) they were as he described them, 2) that he knew what
> he was talking about, and 3) that what they "felt like" 
> subjectively was what he said they felt like. Same with 
> the siddhis. He talked *about* them, but could neither 
> demonstrate them nor give his students the ability to 
> witness them, at least as they have been traditionally
> described. That is, no one has ever actually levitated,
> or turned invisible, or seen anyone who can. It's all
> theory, around which a set of dogmas and "knowledge" 
> has been constructed to convince the students that they 
> "know" all about these SOCs or siddhis and that they
> "understand" them.
> 
> There is another way of teaching.
> 
> It is possible, for teachers who are capable of such 
> things, to talk about states of consciousness while
> "putting on" the SOC in question and then radiating or
> "broadcasting" it so powerfully that the students can
> "put it on" and "wear" it themselves as they listen to 
> the talk.
> 
> If the talk is about CC, the teacher is able to 
> temporarily "boost" the students' SOC from wherever it
> was before the talk/demo started *into* the state of CC.
> The students get to subjectively experience the SOC being
> talked about. Same with GC or UC. Same with more finite
> or granular states of attention, such as the variant of
> waking state from which one can see auras or other subtle
> phenomena, or "see the future," or "read minds." As the
> teacher is describing these states, the student is able
> to actually DO the things the teacher is talking about.
> 
> With siddhis, if the teacher is capable of performing
> them, it is not as common for the student to be able to
> perform them, too. If the teacher, for example, is demon-
> strating the siddhi of levitation, and giving his talk
> about that phenomenon while hovering in mid-air exactly
> the way a brick doesn't, it is not likely that the student
> will lift up off their chair and join the teacher in mid-
> air. What *does* happen when witnessing the siddhis being
> performed, however, is that the student gets to feel the
> "energy field" produced by those siddhis being performed.
> That energy field (in my experience) "explains" the 
> nature of the siddhi far better than any amount of talk
> "about" the siddhi.
> 
> So those are the two main approaches to spiritual teaching,
> as I see them, and as I have experienced them in my life. 
> I prefer the second, because of the quote I posted at the
> start of this rap. Being able to "put on and wear" a SOC
> is "practice," not dry theory. It is 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice

[authfriend]

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

> It was in a very real 
> sense a "hands on demo" of Maharishi's "Knowledge is different 
> in different states of consciousness."
> 
> As a result of having had this experience, I would reword MMY's
> statement as "Reality is different in different states of con-
> sciousness."

Well, actually, MMY said it both ways, depending on the
context. In his teaching the two were equivalent.

> When you've been "flipped" like this, several times
> a week, for years, you don't really have the same relationship
> to the word "Reality" that some have. In fact, you stop capital-
> izing the word in your mind, because it's been made clear to you
> that there is no such thing as Reality, only constantly-changing
> realities, none "better" or "higher" than the other, only
> different.

Well, actually, there is such a thing as Reality, that
Reality being that there are many different, constantly
changing realities.

One way or another, you're ultimately stuck with a single
Reality. ;-)

[FairfieldLife] 16-Lesson Course MVO Agriculture

[merlin]

 
 
MERU, Holland
30 June to 5 July 2011 
Taught by Dr. Peter Swan 

This is a course for those who love Maharishi’s knowledge—it extends the 
knowledge of the Self deep into the field of agriculture and the environment, 
showing that every aspect of the environment is actually the same in structure 
and function as the Self of everyone.
Maharishi explained agriculture as ‘agree-culture’—‘agreeing with the culturing 
intelligence of nature’. With this Maharishi reconnected all the parts of the 
knowledge of agriculture with their source in consciousness, the Self, and with 
the internal dynamics of the Self, the Veda. This revives the full value of 
agriculture and brings the possibility of agriculture that is completely 
nourishing, completely sustainable—the farmer is the ‘father of the nation’ 
that is invincible
 
SEE MORE >>>
 
http://www.maharishichannel.in/econtact_mailing/MAILING_OUT/MAHARISHI_VEDIC_ORGANIC_ANNOUNCEMENT/2011_05_17_MVO_course_announcement.html
 
 
~  JAI   GURU   DEV  
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice

[Bhairitu]

On 06/14/2011 01:21 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> This morning's cafe rap is purely informative. In it
> I'll springboard off of one of my favorite quotes of
> recent years and how I think it's relevant to two
> vastly different forms of spiritual teaching, and why
> I prefer one of them over the other. (Note that I use
> the word "prefer." This is NOT the same as saying that
> one of these approaches is "better" than the other,
> merely that someone might prefer one over the other,
> depending on their predilection in life.) The quote is:
>
> "In theory, there is no difference between theory and
> practice. But in practice, there is."
>
> Most spiritual traditions -- including, of course, TM
> -- teach on the basis of presenting a theory about
> some experience or ability or state of consciousness
> *to those who have never experienced it*. This method
> of teaching is necessary because the teacher has no way
> to give the student the experience he's talking about
> in "real time," here and now. The experience or ability
> or SOC is always something "promised," something that
> the student will experience "someday," or Real Soon Now.
> But never Right Now.
>
> For example, Maharishi would give talk after talk after
> talk to his students about CC, GC, and UC, knowing that
> the people in the audience had never experienced these
> states, and thus just had to take his word for it that
> 1) they were as he described them, 2) that he knew what
> he was talking about, and 3) that what they "felt like"
> subjectively was what he said they felt like. Same with
> the siddhis. He talked *about* them, but could neither
> demonstrate them nor give his students the ability to
> witness them, at least as they have been traditionally
> described. That is, no one has ever actually levitated,
> or turned invisible, or seen anyone who can. It's all
> theory, around which a set of dogmas and "knowledge"
> has been constructed to convince the students that they
> "know" all about these SOCs or siddhis and that they
> "understand" them.
>
> There is another way of teaching.
>
> It is possible, for teachers who are capable of such
> things, to talk about states of consciousness while
> "putting on" the SOC in question and then radiating or
> "broadcasting" it so powerfully that the students can
> "put it on" and "wear" it themselves as they listen to
> the talk.
>
> If the talk is about CC, the teacher is able to
> temporarily "boost" the students' SOC from wherever it
> was before the talk/demo started *into* the state of CC.
> The students get to subjectively experience the SOC being
> talked about. Same with GC or UC. Same with more finite
> or granular states of attention, such as the variant of
> waking state from which one can see auras or other subtle
> phenomena, or "see the future," or "read minds." As the
> teacher is describing these states, the student is able
> to actually DO the things the teacher is talking about.
>
> With siddhis, if the teacher is capable of performing
> them, it is not as common for the student to be able to
> perform them, too. If the teacher, for example, is demon-
> strating the siddhi of levitation, and giving his talk
> about that phenomenon while hovering in mid-air exactly
> the way a brick doesn't, it is not likely that the student
> will lift up off their chair and join the teacher in mid-
> air. What *does* happen when witnessing the siddhis being
> performed, however, is that the student gets to feel the
> "energy field" produced by those siddhis being performed.
> That energy field (in my experience) "explains" the
> nature of the siddhi far better than any amount of talk
> "about" the siddhi.
>
> So those are the two main approaches to spiritual teaching,
> as I see them, and as I have experienced them in my life.
> I prefer the second, because of the quote I posted at the
> start of this rap. Being able to "put on and wear" a SOC
> is "practice," not dry theory. It is also IMO far more
> effective at presenting that SOC or ability than merely
> talking about the theory of it. And sitting in the energy
> field of a siddhi as it is being performed IMO conveys
> *far* more information about the siddhi than just hearing
> about it. Practice vs. theory.
>
> So that's the theory. :-) In practice, it is not all that
> easy to find teachers who can teach the second way I talk
> about above. I have encountered only a handful in my life.
> But the experience of working with them and having been
> exposed to the model of "shared practice" vs. dry theory
> was IMO valuable, and has spoiled me rotten. I would never
> be interested in studying with any teacher who was only
> capable of teaching using the first method.
>
> Some, on the other hand, might not only be happy with the
> theoretical approach to spiritual teaching, they might
> actually prefer it, the way that some prefer reading or
> hearing about other people's spiritual experiences to
> having their own. Different strokes for differen

Re: [FairfieldLife] Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 14, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Bhairitu wrote:

> Most spiritual teachers do have the ability to do number two

Taken by itself, that is easily the sentence of the week.

Sal

RE: [FairfieldLife] Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Sal Sunshine
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 4:15 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory
vs. Practice

 

  

On Jun 14, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Bhairitu wrote:

> Most spiritual teachers do have the ability to do number two

Taken by itself, that is easily the sentence of the week.

Sal

I can think of a few who appear to have trouble in that department.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice

[Bhairitu]

On 06/14/2011 02:20 PM, Rick Archer wrote:
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Sal Sunshine
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 4:15 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory
> vs. Practice
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 14, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
>
>> Most spiritual teachers do have the ability to do number two
> Taken by itself, that is easily the sentence of the week.
>
> Sal
>
> I can think of a few who appear to have trouble in that department.

I figured some folks would have fun with that. :-D

[FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was Re:Two...questions from Turq]

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
[...]
> It isn't unfair if the guy literally did what I was writing about. Maharishi 
> actually did bang groupies.  There is nothing cheap about mentioning it.  It 
> was cheap that he did it.

Everything that I have heard says it is still a "he said, she said" situation.

Did someone film the ole dude in action, or did he admit to it at some point?

Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was Re:Two...questions from Turq]

[sparaig]

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

My own take on all of this is that virtually everyone likes to find someone who 
takes responsibility for them, whether its a boss, The President, The Guru, 
Mom, The Military, or whatever.

I have no idea if MMY was enlightened in any sense of the word, but let us 
pretend that he was in a different state of consciousness where he could 
perform any and all siddhis whenever he wanted, and saw the universe as it 
really is (pure consciousness) from top to bottom.

Does that make him perfect? WHy or why not? Does that make him immune to all 
the stresses and strains  and temptations of being Da Man in a large 
international organization? Why or why not?

It has been more than 3 years since he died. It has been more than 2 decades 
since you stopped dealing with his organization.

And yet you and many others on this forum are still debating things about him. 
Is this healthy, do you think? Why or why not?


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: TM as a first step, then....

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> http://makinbits.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/drug-pusher.jpg
>

TM as a gateway drug to...?


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: AVG and samaadhi?

[sparaig]

If you practice samadhi rather than do something like TM, where all states are 
held to be of equal importance/unimportance, then yes, I'd say that samadhi 
would be just another bit of bondage.

L

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> 
> Seems like, according to aSTaavakragiitaa, practising 
> samaadhi is a form/indication/stuff of bondage:
> 
> niHsa.ngo niShkriyo.asi tvaM svaprakAsho nira.njanaH |
> ***ayameva hi te bandhaH samAdhimanutiShThati*** || 1\-15||
> 
> (The final verb above, anutiSThati, should, according to a DN-text with 
> translation, prolly be 'anutiSThasi', i.e. the second person
> singular form, instead of the 3rd person [Sanskrit: 1st person,
> ending -ti.])
> 
> We gather the structure of the second hemistich, or whatever,
> goes like this:
> 
> ayam eva hi te bandhaH: samAdhim anutiShThasi || 1\-15||
> 
> ayam (this) eva hi (indeed) [is] te (your)
>  bandhaH (bondage): samAdhim (acc/obj. sing: samaadhi/yoga[*]) 
> anutiShThasi (you practise)  || 1\-15||
> 
> * yogaH samaadhiH (from Vyaasa's comment on YS I 1)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice

[sparaig]

IMplicit in MMY's theory of 7 states of consciousness is the fact that there's 
no end-point to growth, and therefore there's no such thing as "the" 7th state.

For that matter, even within CC, there's room for growth since there are plenty 
of TMers who have been tested in physiological studies who claim to be having 
episodes of pure consciousness 24/7 for years and decades at a time, which is 
one definition of CC, but none report non-stop transcending during TM, which is 
another definition of CC.

L.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
[...]
> Please bear in mind that none of these people believed
> in the "seven states of consciousness" as presented by
> Maharishi. I'm using WC, CC, GC and UC here because that
> is how most on this forum think. The teachers I'm talking
> about would consider that model a gross oversimplification. 
> Most were Buddhist, and believed more in its "ten thousand 
> states of mind" (which is a euphemism for "lots and lots 
> of them, possibly an infinite number of them" not a number
> per se).
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Codependent Obsession, or How to end the Barry-Judy feud

[curtisdeltablues]

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

> My contention is that the reason for this is that Curtis is *allowing*
> the feud to resurface, and even *enabling* it to do so by allowing
> himself to be sucked in to Judy's "gotta get Barry" obsession. My
> contention is that Curtis -- as much as I like him -- is allowing
> himself to be a codependent enabler.>

I think you got an important thing wrong here.  Although I don't want to get in 
the middle of the feud, I don't care if you guys keep it up.  I don't enjoy 
reading it because it is not a match for how I see you two.  It harshes my 
buzz.  But I am in control of what I read so I don't have to worry about what 
you guys write.

If I gave the impression that either of you should stop, that would be 
incorrect.  How you choose to relate to each other is none of my business. 

And talking to either of you here does not cause or allow or activate you guys 
to act the way you do towards each other, so I'm not accepting any co-dependent 
rap for your style of interaction.

I'll continue to interact with each of you in the way I choose ignoring how 
each of you uses posts to me to take swings at the other.  I am only interested 
in ones that are directed toward me which are thankfully very few these days.  




>
> "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it
> make the sound of Barry lying?"
> 
> Many on this forum have said that they are tired of the "Barry-Judy
> feud," and would like it to end. I contend that some of them are talking
> through their hats, and that *they* are one of the primary reasons it
> continues. In this post, I will propose a way that I think that *they*
> could help to end this "feud" forever, by simply refusing to participate
> in it.
> 
> I think that the koan above presents the case I'm going to make in this
> post. I think that the "Barry-Judy feud" to some extent exists primarily
> in the mind of the person who is obsessed with...uh...Barry. That
> obsession is never going to end. Judy continues to feel the need to post
> "corrective" or "deserved putdown" responses to anything I post, and
> does so even when I don't reply to them. As others have commented, she
> does the same thing *even when I am no longer on the forum*.
> 
> But that's just one sad, lonely, obsessive old woman, hardly a "feud."
> WHY do occasional "outbreaks" of the old "feud" back-and-forth mentality
> still "break out" on FFL from time to time, as they have in her recent
> discussions with Curtis?
> 
> My contention is that the reason for this is that Curtis is *allowing*
> the feud to resurface, and even *enabling* it to do so by allowing
> himself to be sucked in to Judy's "gotta get Barry" obsession. My
> contention is that Curtis -- as much as I like him -- is allowing
> himself to be a codependent enabler.
> 
> The game, as I see it, is this. Judy feels the need to keep dumping on
> Barry. *Forget* the WHY of this; it's simply obvious *that* she feels
> this need, and on the level of an obsessive compulsion. But in recent
> months she has become frustrated because she can't draw me into the
> one-on-one confrontation and extended argument with her that she wants.
> So what she *does* about this is to glom onto a discussion on some other
> topic altogether ("Does a tree falling in an empty forest make a
> sound?"), and then re-introduce the B-word ("Doesn't that remind you of
> how big a liar Barry is?"). She finds a way to insinuate "Barry, and all
> his sins" into conversations with the few posters still willing to have
> them with her, conversations that had nothing to do with Barry, *hoping
> that the other party will fall for it and give her a chance to dump on
> Barry even more*.
> 
> This is my honest opinion of what she does on a regular basis. She will
> in my opinion *keep doing this*. Nothing that any of you who *claim* to
> be tired of the "Barry-Judy feud" do will ever be able to stop this sad
> game.
> 
> What you *can* stop is your participation in the game.
> 
> If you really *are* tired of the "Barry-Judy feud," *stop being a
> codependent enabler of the feud by "piling on" to it and reactivating it
> every time she tries to get you to do so*. Just say No. Ignore the
> provocation, and the attempt to get you to re-launch a "pile on Barry"
> session, and turn the conversation back to its original subject. The
> solution to ending the supposed feud is as simple as that in my opinion,
> and here's why.
> 
> From my side, unilaterally, I will try to ignore the silly bitch, and
> her compulsive "gotta get Barry" posts. This will require no small
> amount of effort on my part, because she's *such* an easy target for
> satire and derision. However, to test the theory that some on this forum
> really *do* want this silly "feud" that she attempts to perpetuate to
> end, I will deny myself the pleasure of pointing out what a nutcase she
> is. :-)
> 
> From her side, I think we all know that she will cont

[FairfieldLife] Re: AVG and samaadhi?

[Robert]

Samadhi= Atma

Enligtenment= Soul Realization

Pure Being= Coexistence of two opposites= Purusha & Prakriti

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
>
> If you practice samadhi rather than do something like TM, where all states 
> are held to be of equal importance/unimportance, then yes, I'd say that 
> samadhi would be just another bit of bondage.
> 
> L
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Seems like, according to aSTaavakragiitaa, practising 
> > samaadhi is a form/indication/stuff of bondage:
> > 
> > niHsa.ngo niShkriyo.asi tvaM svaprakAsho nira.njanaH |
> > ***ayameva hi te bandhaH samAdhimanutiShThati*** || 1\-15||
> > 
> > (The final verb above, anutiSThati, should, according to a DN-text with 
> > translation, prolly be 'anutiSThasi', i.e. the second person
> > singular form, instead of the 3rd person [Sanskrit: 1st person,
> > ending -ti.])
> > 
> > We gather the structure of the second hemistich, or whatever,
> > goes like this:
> > 
> > ayam eva hi te bandhaH: samAdhim anutiShThasi || 1\-15||
> > 
> > ayam (this) eva hi (indeed) [is] te (your)
> >  bandhaH (bondage): samAdhim (acc/obj. sing: samaadhi/yoga[*]) 
> > anutiShThasi (you practise)  || 1\-15||
> > 
> > * yogaH samaadhiH (from Vyaasa's comment on YS I 1)
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was Re:Two...questions from Turq]

[curtisdeltablues]

If you read what "she said" you could determine the credibility yourself.  
Actual video evidence is rare is nay sex case for obvious reasons, so it is up 
to the jury to determine the credibility of the witness. Since Judith's account 
was backed up by an even more credible witness,for me the case is closed.  YMMV.



-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> [...]
> > It isn't unfair if the guy literally did what I was writing about. 
> > Maharishi actually did bang groupies.  There is nothing cheap about 
> > mentioning it.  It was cheap that he did it.
> 
> Everything that I have heard says it is still a "he said, she said" situation.
> 
> Did someone film the ole dude in action, or did he admit to it at some point?
> 
> Lawson
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
>
> IMplicit in MMY's theory of 7 states of consciousness is
> the fact that there's no end-point to growth, and therefore
> there's no such thing as "the" 7th state.

Plus which, as I've always understood it, the whole thing
is a continuum anyway. MMY's 7 states (at least from CC on)
are benchmarks along a line of continuous development.
You can put in as many benchmarks as you want (10,000 on up
to infinity if you get off on big numbers and think they
make your scheme "better" than one that uses only 7), but
the number doesn't change the nature of the continuum. Has
nothing to do with "believing in" a particular number of
benchmarks, except in terms of believing that number is more
useful for your teaching purposes.

Barry also writes:

> The model most of us have been presented with along
> the spiritual path is that SOCs are "achieved" or
> "realized," but then you're kinda stuck with them.
> You "get to" CC, but you can't then put on the
> consciousness of normal waking state if you want to,
> say, for teaching purposes. Similarly, if you "get
> to" UC, you can't then "backtrack" during a talk on
> GC and temporarily "wear" that state of consciousness
> in order to model it or demo it for your students.

Sure you can. At every point along the continuum, the
level you've attained includes every previous level.
If you want to communicate successfully, you have to
address your students from whatever level they're at,
or you won't communicate successfully.



> For that matter, even within CC, there's room for growth since there are 
> plenty of TMers who have been tested in physiological studies who claim to be 
> having episodes of pure consciousness 24/7 for years and decades at a time, 
> which is one definition of CC, but none report non-stop transcending during 
> TM, which is another definition of CC.
> 
> L.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> [...]
> > Please bear in mind that none of these people believed
> > in the "seven states of consciousness" as presented by
> > Maharishi. I'm using WC, CC, GC and UC here because that
> > is how most on this forum think. The teachers I'm talking
> > about would consider that model a gross oversimplification. 
> > Most were Buddhist, and believed more in its "ten thousand 
> > states of mind" (which is a euphemism for "lots and lots 
> > of them, possibly an infinite number of them" not a number
> > per se).

[FairfieldLife] Re: TM as a first step, then....

[Yifu]

http://www.addictionsearch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=486

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
> >
> > http://makinbits.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/drug-pusher.jpg
> >
> 
> TM as a gateway drug to...?
> 
> 
> Lawson
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice

[WillyTex]

> > IMplicit in MMY's theory of 7 states of consciousness is
> > the fact that there's no end-point to growth, and therefore
> > there's no such thing as "the" 7th state...
> >
authfriend:
> Plus which, as I've always understood it, the whole thing
> is a continuum anyway...
>
This has been pointed out by MMY in his recording "Seven
States of Consciousness". Apparently Barry has never even
heard any of MMY's public recordings. 

But, on this and other newsgroups all we can really quote 
with accuracy are MMY published writings and recordings. 

We should make a rule that only these sources can be quoted 
in order to prove MMY's position on aspects of the TM program. 

If it's published we can assume that is the official statement, 
not what some TM Teacher "thinks" they heard thirty years ago. 

Barry obviously has a very poor memory, so at least with Barry,
almost anything he says could be a big mistake.

>From what I've heard, there are supposed to be no TMO tapes 
in the possession of individual TM Teachers - all belong
to the TMO, unless somebody took a cassette tape recorder in
to a lecture by MMY and recorded it on their own.

Apparently I am the only respondent on this forum that owns
copies of MMY's records, tapes, and books. Is that right?

And, it seems that there are zero TM Teachers on FFL that are 
still in good standing with the TMO - all the others got kicked 
out of the TMO for one reason or another, just like Barry got 
kicked out. Correct me if I am mistaken about this.

[FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was Re:Two...questions from Turq]

[WillyTex]

curtisdeltablues:
> If you read what "she said" you could determine the 
> credibility yourself...
> 
Do you have any evidence that MMY actually had sexual
intercourse with Judith, other than what Judith said? 

In her book, Judith has no real evidence that she got 
anything except a sari or two and a handwritten note 
from MMY. 

It's a cheap shot to say he "banged groupies", when 
only one groupie says so in a cheap, 219 page paperback 
book.

> > > It isn't unfair if the guy literally did what I 
> > > was writing about. Maharishi actually did bang 
> > > groupies.  There is nothing cheap about mentioning 
> > > it.  It was cheap that he did it.
> > 

[FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was Re:Two...questions from Turq]

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> If you read what "she said" you could determine the credibility yourself.  
> Actual video evidence is rare is nay sex case for obvious reasons, so it is 
> up to the jury to determine the credibility of the witness. Since Judith's 
> account was backed up by an even more credible witness,for me the case is 
> closed.  YMMV.


Someone was in the room with them?

Kinky.


Lawson

RE: [FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was Re:Two...questions from Turq]

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of sparaig
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 7:00 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was
Re:Two...questions from Turq]

 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "curtisdeltablues"
 wrote:
>
> If you read what "she said" you could determine the credibility yourself.
Actual video evidence is rare is nay sex case for obvious reasons, so it is
up to the jury to determine the credibility of the witness. Since Judith's
account was backed up by an even more credible witness,for me the case is
closed. YMMV.

Someone was in the room with them?

 

Have you read the book Lawson? Those who haven't done so sound pretty
foolish when trying to dismiss its credibility. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice

[WillyTex]

> > There is another way of teaching...
> >
> Bhairitu:
> If some folks didn't experience maybe they hit him on 
> a bad day or their nervous system was just too coarse 
> to experience it...
>
Well, I suppose that MMY had that certain something,
in order influence Barry to stay in the TMO for ten 
or thirteen years. We all know there's no money in it -
I mean who would want to spend ten years being a pauper
working for the TMO? 

It's even more amazing that Barry is STILL talking
about MMY after all these years. MMY must have made
one hell of an impression on Barry! Go figure.

What was it, exactly, that made folks like Barry try to
sell the snake-oil for so long? Was it Barry's ego, or 
did he really think he could change the world? 

In Barry's case, he seems to have really sucked as a 
teacher, based on what he has written on two newsgroups, 
so he's kind of hard to figure out. 

It may be that the real teacher here is Curtis, who 
despite what he writes, is really a spiritual teacher,
and a true believer, from probably before he even
started TM practice. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice

[emptybill]

You're talking stupid conjecture again Willy.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
>
>
> > > IMplicit in MMY's theory of 7 states of consciousness is
> > > the fact that there's no end-point to growth, and therefore
> > > there's no such thing as "the" 7th state...
> > >
> authfriend:
> > Plus which, as I've always understood it, the whole thing
> > is a continuum anyway...
> >
> This has been pointed out by MMY in his recording "Seven
> States of Consciousness". Apparently Barry has never even
> heard any of MMY's public recordings.
>
> But, on this and other newsgroups all we can really quote
> with accuracy are MMY published writings and recordings.
>
> We should make a rule that only these sources can be quoted
> in order to prove MMY's position on aspects of the TM program.
>
> If it's published we can assume that is the official statement,
> not what some TM Teacher "thinks" they heard thirty years ago.
>
> Barry obviously has a very poor memory, so at least with Barry,
> almost anything he says could be a big mistake.
>
> From what I've heard, there are supposed to be no TMO tapes
> in the possession of individual TM Teachers - all belong
> to the TMO, unless somebody took a cassette tape recorder in
> to a lecture by MMY and recorded it on their own.
>
> Apparently I am the only respondent on this forum that owns
> copies of MMY's records, tapes, and books. Is that right?
>
> And, it seems that there are zero TM Teachers on FFL that are
> still in good standing with the TMO - all the others got kicked
> out of the TMO for one reason or another, just like Barry got
> kicked out. Correct me if I am mistaken about this.
>

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Jun 11 00:00:00 2011
End Date (UTC): Sat Jun 18 00:00:00 2011
263 messages as of (UTC) Wed Jun 15 00:10:22 2011

47 authfriend 
24 turquoiseb 
16 nablusoss1008 
13 Rick Archer 
12 sparaig 
12 curtisdeltablues 
12 Yifu 
11 raunchydog 
11 cardemaister 
11 WillyTex 
11 Bhairitu 
10 seventhray1 
10 Robert 
 9 merudanda 
 9 Ravi Yogi 
 6 Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
 5 whynotnow7 
 5 John 
 4 wayback71 
 4 Sal Sunshine 
 3 Dick Mays 
 3 Alex Stanley 
 3 "do.rflex" 
 2 feste37 
 2 emptybill 
 2 Duveyoung 
 1 pranamoocher 
 1 merlin 
 1 gita 
 1 Vaj 
 1 Tom Pall 
 1 PaliGap 

Posters: 32
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] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was Re:Two...questions from Turq]

[WillyTex]

> > If you read what "she said" you could determine 
> > the credibility yourself...
> >
Lawson:
> Someone was in the room with them?
> 
Yes, apparently there was a skin-boy in the living room
and Jemimah Pittman waiting outside the front door. But,
we have not heard from them have we? 

I just don't see how a gal with ankle bells on could
sneak across the yard in the dead of night and climb
on top of MMY without making a sound. 

I mean, if it was good sex, wouldn't at least one of 
them shout out when they climaxed? What good is sex if 
you can't shout, moan, or squeal a few times? 

I just can't seem to imagine a little short guy like 
MMY getting on top of a big gal like that. I mean if 
she had bucked, she would have thrown MMY across the 
room!

Not to mention that a gal would have to be a freak
to want to fuck a midget on an antelope skin under
a framed photo of Guru Dev. That's just outrageous
and sick, right?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice

[WillyTex]

emptybill:
> You're talking stupid conjecture again Willy.
> 
Well, so nobody made any claims about listening to any 
of MMY public recordings, I assumed nobody had ever heard 
them. It's just interesting that of all the informants 
making claims here, that none of them own a copy of his 
records, tapes, or books, or would admit it. I can make
up stuff all day that I claim MMY said at 433 in 1963!

Can't we assume that all of MMY's published sayings and
lectures were vetted by MMY himself BEFORE being made
public? Are the informants here suggesting that there 
was some 'secret' sayings they heard from the lips of 
MMY in a private meeting, but others did not? I don't
think so.

> > This has been pointed out by MMY in his recording "Seven
> > States of Consciousness". Apparently Barry has never even
> > heard any of MMY's public recordings.
> >
> > But, on this and other newsgroups all we can really quote
> > with accuracy are MMY published writings and recordings.
> >
> > We should make a rule that only these sources can be quoted
> > in order to prove MMY's position on aspects of the TM program.
> >
> > If it's published we can assume that is the official statement,
> > not what some TM Teacher "thinks" they heard thirty years ago.
> >
> > Barry obviously has a very poor memory, so at least with Barry,
> > almost anything he says could be a big mistake.
> >
> > From what I've heard, there are supposed to be no TMO tapes
> > in the possession of individual TM Teachers - all belong
> > to the TMO, unless somebody took a cassette tape recorder in
> > to a lecture by MMY and recorded it on their own.
> >
> > Apparently I am the only respondent on this forum that owns
> > copies of MMY's records, tapes, and books. Is that right?
> >
> > And, it seems that there are zero TM Teachers on FFL that are
> > still in good standing with the TMO - all the others got kicked
> > out of the TMO for one reason or another, just like Barry got
> > kicked out. Correct me if I am mistaken about this.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was Re:Two...questions from Turq]

[Yifu]

http://www.toyotarecall.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/smokinggun.png

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> curtisdeltablues:
> > If you read what "she said" you could determine the 
> > credibility yourself...
> > 
> Do you have any evidence that MMY actually had sexual
> intercourse with Judith, other than what Judith said? 
> 
> In her book, Judith has no real evidence that she got 
> anything except a sari or two and a handwritten note 
> from MMY. 
> 
> It's a cheap shot to say he "banged groupies", when 
> only one groupie says so in a cheap, 219 page paperback 
> book.
> 
> > > > It isn't unfair if the guy literally did what I 
> > > > was writing about. Maharishi actually did bang 
> > > > groupies.  There is nothing cheap about mentioning 
> > > > it.  It was cheap that he did it.
> > >
>

[FairfieldLife] Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[do.rflex]

Excerpt transcribed from an interview Radhanath Swami gave to Rick
Archer -


Rick Archer: I exchanged a Facebook chat with someone the other day who
had had what she called a 'non-dual' realization. If you're kind of in
tune with the current atmosphere around, there are a lot of teachers
espousing non-duality and non-dual realizations and I hear very little
talk of God among them.


But in any case this girl said that, you know what, there was no sense
of personal self and all is one, but there was no bliss. And she said,
well is that all enlightenment is. It's hyped up to be this great
blissful thing and I'm hardly even interested now. It didn't have the
allure that I expected it to have.

I suggested to her that perhaps that little glimpse she had had was not
necessarily the full blossoming of what enlightenment or realization or
awakening can be and that she should keep persevering as there's more to
it.

I just want to throw in one more point and I want you to respond, and
that is that interviewing lots and lots of people, a new one every week,
I encounter a great number of people who don't say much or speak much of
God. They almost seem to think of God as a human concept, and yet they
have a sort of a realization, a non-dual realization of some sort. And
I'm always kind of needling them a bit to suggest that perhaps there's
further progress yet to undergo and that the whole thing will become
richer, fuller and more with a Divine quality to it as time goes on.

Very often they say, no, no, I don't see how there can possibly be any
further progress. So it's a pity in a way. It seems like, to me anyway,
it's only half the package and there's more to be known.

Radhanath Swami: (chuckles) You're expert, Rick, at extracting deeper
and deeper understanding. To be honest with you, I had the same dilemma
on my journey and I have written about in my book 'The Journey Home'
that I met people that I saw such incredible character of compassion ans
self-control and enlightenment.


And some of them were talking about the Absolute being a very
all-pervading impersonal experience and others, a very intimate loving
personal experience. And I loved my teachers in both of these schools,
and the many variations among these schools.

I was only 19 or 20 years old at the time and I was really seeking. And
I couldn't just accept superficial answers some people gave me when I
questioned. "Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual –
is the Absolute personal, is the Absolute impersonal?"


And sometimes I would get very vague answers. And sometimes I would get
very conflicting, combatting answers against the apparent opposing side.
And I was really looking to understand. And on the path of Bhakti I
found what I felt to be the synthesis of the two, and it's based on the
Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads, the holy scriptures and a whole line
of great saintly people who teach this principle. And I'll share with
you a little piece of it.

Rick: Please.

Radhanath Swami: There's a beautiful verse in the Vedas (recites verse
in Sanskrit then explains it as follows): There's one Absolute Truth we
can call God, we can call Nirvana, but there's one Absolute Truth. And
according to the Vedas, this one Absolute Truth eternally,
simultaneously has three features: Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagawan.


Brahman is the all-pervading formless, impersonal Absolute, which is...
the realization of that Brahman is to merge with that one Absolute.


Paramatma is that one Supreme same Absolute who is situated within the
heart of every living being, giving guidance, giving intuition when we
actually connect to it. And Patanjali and many yogis really tried to
connect to that Paramatma, that Absolute within the heart who can give
power, who can give wisdom, who can give everything.

And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with persnoal form.

Rick: The Personal aspect of God.

Radhanath Swami: Yeah, the Personal aspect of God – just like the
sun and the sunshine. The sunshine is like Brahman. It's all-pervading,
it's everywhere, it's light. And the sun is simultaneously existing with
the sunlight and the sun has form. So God simultaneously exists, but God
is infinite.

When we say that form limits God, to say that God has no form is also a
limit of God. So the Bhakti scriptures teach that the form of the Lord,
or Bhagawan is eternal, full of knowledge and full of bliss.

It's not material. It's not conceivable. Like I have eyes, and because
my eyes can only see a certain distance, my eyes are limited. So some
will say for God to be unlimited he has to have no eyes. The Bhakti
scriptures say that God has eyes but God's eyes can see all things at
all times everywhere. Now we may say, how is that possiblebut the Bhakti
scriptures say that the Absolute is beyong the limits of what we
consider possible otherwise what's the use of Him being the Absolute?

So, for those who seek this mukti, or this eternal freedom from all
suffering, from a

[FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was Re:Two...questions from Turq]

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of sparaig
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 7:00 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was
> Re:Two...questions from Turq]
> 
>  
> 
>   
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> >
> > If you read what "she said" you could determine the credibility yourself.
> Actual video evidence is rare is nay sex case for obvious reasons, so it is
> up to the jury to determine the credibility of the witness. Since Judith's
> account was backed up by an even more credible witness,for me the case is
> closed. YMMV.
> 
> Someone was in the room with them?
> 
>  
> 
> Have you read the book Lawson? Those who haven't done so sound pretty
> foolish when trying to dismiss its credibility.
>

Unless someone was in the room or took pictures, there's no way of settling it 
for sure.

Lawson

[FairfieldLife] 'Solar Minimus'

[Robert]

http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-slower-solar-activity-solar-cycle.html

RE: [FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was Re:Two...questions from Turq]

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of sparaig
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 8:41 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was
Re:Two...questions from Turq]

 

 > Have you read the book Lawson? Those who haven't done so sound pretty
> foolish when trying to dismiss its credibility.
>

Unless someone was in the room or took pictures, there's no way of settling
it for sure.

 

You didn't answer the question. Have you read the book?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[Yifu]

Don't let yourself be conned by these Krishna Bhaktis. Krishna is not the 
"Supreme Personality of Godhead". There is no such Personality, and the burden 
of proof apart from merely quoting Scriptures is on the claimants. Anybody 
however, is free to set up a dualist, loving relationship with one of these 
"gods"; whomever She/He may be.
http://www.utilitarianism.com/gautama-buddha.jpg



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Excerpt transcribed from an interview Radhanath Swami gave to Rick
> Archer -
> 
> 
> Rick Archer: I exchanged a Facebook chat with someone the other day who
> had had what she called a 'non-dual' realization. If you're kind of in
> tune with the current atmosphere around, there are a lot of teachers
> espousing non-duality and non-dual realizations and I hear very little
> talk of God among them.
> 
> 
> But in any case this girl said that, you know what, there was no sense
> of personal self and all is one, but there was no bliss. And she said,
> well is that all enlightenment is. It's hyped up to be this great
> blissful thing and I'm hardly even interested now. It didn't have the
> allure that I expected it to have.
> 
> I suggested to her that perhaps that little glimpse she had had was not
> necessarily the full blossoming of what enlightenment or realization or
> awakening can be and that she should keep persevering as there's more to
> it.
> 
> I just want to throw in one more point and I want you to respond, and
> that is that interviewing lots and lots of people, a new one every week,
> I encounter a great number of people who don't say much or speak much of
> God. They almost seem to think of God as a human concept, and yet they
> have a sort of a realization, a non-dual realization of some sort. And
> I'm always kind of needling them a bit to suggest that perhaps there's
> further progress yet to undergo and that the whole thing will become
> richer, fuller and more with a Divine quality to it as time goes on.
> 
> Very often they say, no, no, I don't see how there can possibly be any
> further progress. So it's a pity in a way. It seems like, to me anyway,
> it's only half the package and there's more to be known.
> 
> Radhanath Swami: (chuckles) You're expert, Rick, at extracting deeper
> and deeper understanding. To be honest with you, I had the same dilemma
> on my journey and I have written about in my book 'The Journey Home'
> that I met people that I saw such incredible character of compassion ans
> self-control and enlightenment.
> 
> 
> And some of them were talking about the Absolute being a very
> all-pervading impersonal experience and others, a very intimate loving
> personal experience. And I loved my teachers in both of these schools,
> and the many variations among these schools.
> 
> I was only 19 or 20 years old at the time and I was really seeking. And
> I couldn't just accept superficial answers some people gave me when I
> questioned. "Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual –
> is the Absolute personal, is the Absolute impersonal?"
> 
> 
> And sometimes I would get very vague answers. And sometimes I would get
> very conflicting, combatting answers against the apparent opposing side.
> And I was really looking to understand. And on the path of Bhakti I
> found what I felt to be the synthesis of the two, and it's based on the
> Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads, the holy scriptures and a whole line
> of great saintly people who teach this principle. And I'll share with
> you a little piece of it.
> 
> Rick: Please.
> 
> Radhanath Swami: There's a beautiful verse in the Vedas (recites verse
> in Sanskrit then explains it as follows): There's one Absolute Truth we
> can call God, we can call Nirvana, but there's one Absolute Truth. And
> according to the Vedas, this one Absolute Truth eternally,
> simultaneously has three features: Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagawan.
> 
> 
> Brahman is the all-pervading formless, impersonal Absolute, which is...
> the realization of that Brahman is to merge with that one Absolute.
> 
> 
> Paramatma is that one Supreme same Absolute who is situated within the
> heart of every living being, giving guidance, giving intuition when we
> actually connect to it. And Patanjali and many yogis really tried to
> connect to that Paramatma, that Absolute within the heart who can give
> power, who can give wisdom, who can give everything.
> 
> And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with persnoal form.
> 
> Rick: The Personal aspect of God.
> 
> Radhanath Swami: Yeah, the Personal aspect of God – just like the
> sun and the sunshine. The sunshine is like Brahman. It's all-pervading,
> it's everywhere, it's light. And the sun is simultaneously existing with
> the sunlight and the sun has form. So God simultaneously exists, but God
> is infinite.
> 
> When we say that form limits God, to say that God has no form is also a
> limit of God. So the Bhakti scriptures teach that the form of the Lo

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> Don't let yourself be conned by these Krishna Bhaktis. Krishna is not the 
> "Supreme Personality of Godhead". 


Nowhere in the interview was that claimed.


>
There is no such Personality, and the burden of proof apart from merely quoting 
Scriptures is on the claimants. 
>

So where's the proof of YOUR claim, Yufi?


>
Anybody however, is free to set up a dualist, loving relationship with one of 
these "gods"; whomever She/He may be.
> http://www.utilitarianism.com/gautama-buddha.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > Excerpt transcribed from an interview Radhanath Swami gave to Rick
> > Archer -
> > 
> > 
> > Rick Archer: I exchanged a Facebook chat with someone the other day who
> > had had what she called a 'non-dual' realization. If you're kind of in
> > tune with the current atmosphere around, there are a lot of teachers
> > espousing non-duality and non-dual realizations and I hear very little
> > talk of God among them.
> > 
> > 
> > But in any case this girl said that, you know what, there was no sense
> > of personal self and all is one, but there was no bliss. And she said,
> > well is that all enlightenment is. It's hyped up to be this great
> > blissful thing and I'm hardly even interested now. It didn't have the
> > allure that I expected it to have.
> > 
> > I suggested to her that perhaps that little glimpse she had had was not
> > necessarily the full blossoming of what enlightenment or realization or
> > awakening can be and that she should keep persevering as there's more to
> > it.
> > 
> > I just want to throw in one more point and I want you to respond, and
> > that is that interviewing lots and lots of people, a new one every week,
> > I encounter a great number of people who don't say much or speak much of
> > God. They almost seem to think of God as a human concept, and yet they
> > have a sort of a realization, a non-dual realization of some sort. And
> > I'm always kind of needling them a bit to suggest that perhaps there's
> > further progress yet to undergo and that the whole thing will become
> > richer, fuller and more with a Divine quality to it as time goes on.
> > 
> > Very often they say, no, no, I don't see how there can possibly be any
> > further progress. So it's a pity in a way. It seems like, to me anyway,
> > it's only half the package and there's more to be known.
> > 
> > Radhanath Swami: (chuckles) You're expert, Rick, at extracting deeper
> > and deeper understanding. To be honest with you, I had the same dilemma
> > on my journey and I have written about in my book 'The Journey Home'
> > that I met people that I saw such incredible character of compassion ans
> > self-control and enlightenment.
> > 
> > 
> > And some of them were talking about the Absolute being a very
> > all-pervading impersonal experience and others, a very intimate loving
> > personal experience. And I loved my teachers in both of these schools,
> > and the many variations among these schools.
> > 
> > I was only 19 or 20 years old at the time and I was really seeking. And
> > I couldn't just accept superficial answers some people gave me when I
> > questioned. "Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual –
> > is the Absolute personal, is the Absolute impersonal?"
> > 
> > 
> > And sometimes I would get very vague answers. And sometimes I would get
> > very conflicting, combatting answers against the apparent opposing side.
> > And I was really looking to understand. And on the path of Bhakti I
> > found what I felt to be the synthesis of the two, and it's based on the
> > Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads, the holy scriptures and a whole line
> > of great saintly people who teach this principle. And I'll share with
> > you a little piece of it.
> > 
> > Rick: Please.
> > 
> > Radhanath Swami: There's a beautiful verse in the Vedas (recites verse
> > in Sanskrit then explains it as follows): There's one Absolute Truth we
> > can call God, we can call Nirvana, but there's one Absolute Truth. And
> > according to the Vedas, this one Absolute Truth eternally,
> > simultaneously has three features: Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagawan.
> > 
> > 
> > Brahman is the all-pervading formless, impersonal Absolute, which is...
> > the realization of that Brahman is to merge with that one Absolute.
> > 
> > 
> > Paramatma is that one Supreme same Absolute who is situated within the
> > heart of every living being, giving guidance, giving intuition when we
> > actually connect to it. And Patanjali and many yogis really tried to
> > connect to that Paramatma, that Absolute within the heart who can give
> > power, who can give wisdom, who can give everything.
> > 
> > And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with persnoal form.
> > 
> > Rick: The Personal aspect of God.
> > 
> > Radhanath Swami: Yeah, the Personal aspect of God – just like the
> > sun and the sunshine. The sunshine i

[FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was Re:Two...questions from Turq]

[seventhray1]

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

> Not to mention that a gal would have to be a freak
> to want to fuck a midget on an antelope skin under
> a framed photo of Guru Dev. That's just outrageous
> and sick, right?
>
You're panting Willy.  Slow down.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[Yifu]

Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various stripes - the Hare 
Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow below...etc) claims Krishna is the 
"Supreme Personality of Godhead", apart from Scriptures, what's the evidence? 
The Guru below appears to be more "liberal" than the Fundie Bhakti's since he's 
saying there's a certain legitimacy in accepting the impersonal Absolute in 
terms of Realization, along with Bhakti. Fine...even Ramana Maharshi was a 
devotee of Shiva and Ramakrishna was a devotee of Kali.
...
However, under the cover of Absoluteness, he appears to be sneaking in a form 
of  "Godhead" Personality worship; even though he's provided no evidence that 
Krishna is superior to YHVH or the Scientology God Xenu. Again, there's no 
evidence that one or the other of these "gods" is the "Supreme Personality of 
Godhead".
...
The Guru below is a Wolf in Sheep's clothing - trying to sneak in Hare Krishna 
Fundamentalism in to the field under the cover of Brahman Realization. It's a 
Trojan Horse. Don't fall for it.
...
Either there is a "Supreme Personality of the Godhead" or there is not. But 
should any Entity make such a claim, I would spit in His face. Goddesses such 
as Kali and Durga are sugar and spice. The male "gods": Krishna, YHVH, 
Ram,...appear to be self-worshipping abusers high on testosterone rather than 
Soma.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
> >
> > Don't let yourself be conned by these Krishna Bhaktis. Krishna is not the 
> > "Supreme Personality of Godhead". 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the interview was that claimed.
> 
> 
> >
> There is no such Personality, and the burden of proof apart from merely 
> quoting Scriptures is on the claimants. 
> >
> 
> So where's the proof of YOUR claim, Yufi?
> 
> 
> >
> Anybody however, is free to set up a dualist, loving relationship with one of 
> these "gods"; whomever She/He may be.
> > http://www.utilitarianism.com/gautama-buddha.jpg
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Excerpt transcribed from an interview Radhanath Swami gave to Rick
> > > Archer -
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Rick Archer: I exchanged a Facebook chat with someone the other day who
> > > had had what she called a 'non-dual' realization. If you're kind of in
> > > tune with the current atmosphere around, there are a lot of teachers
> > > espousing non-duality and non-dual realizations and I hear very little
> > > talk of God among them.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > But in any case this girl said that, you know what, there was no sense
> > > of personal self and all is one, but there was no bliss. And she said,
> > > well is that all enlightenment is. It's hyped up to be this great
> > > blissful thing and I'm hardly even interested now. It didn't have the
> > > allure that I expected it to have.
> > > 
> > > I suggested to her that perhaps that little glimpse she had had was not
> > > necessarily the full blossoming of what enlightenment or realization or
> > > awakening can be and that she should keep persevering as there's more to
> > > it.
> > > 
> > > I just want to throw in one more point and I want you to respond, and
> > > that is that interviewing lots and lots of people, a new one every week,
> > > I encounter a great number of people who don't say much or speak much of
> > > God. They almost seem to think of God as a human concept, and yet they
> > > have a sort of a realization, a non-dual realization of some sort. And
> > > I'm always kind of needling them a bit to suggest that perhaps there's
> > > further progress yet to undergo and that the whole thing will become
> > > richer, fuller and more with a Divine quality to it as time goes on.
> > > 
> > > Very often they say, no, no, I don't see how there can possibly be any
> > > further progress. So it's a pity in a way. It seems like, to me anyway,
> > > it's only half the package and there's more to be known.
> > > 
> > > Radhanath Swami: (chuckles) You're expert, Rick, at extracting deeper
> > > and deeper understanding. To be honest with you, I had the same dilemma
> > > on my journey and I have written about in my book 'The Journey Home'
> > > that I met people that I saw such incredible character of compassion ans
> > > self-control and enlightenment.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > And some of them were talking about the Absolute being a very
> > > all-pervading impersonal experience and others, a very intimate loving
> > > personal experience. And I loved my teachers in both of these schools,
> > > and the many variations among these schools.
> > > 
> > > I was only 19 or 20 years old at the time and I was really seeking. And
> > > I couldn't just accept superficial answers some people gave me when I
> > > questioned. "Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual –
> > > is the Absolute personal, is the Absolute impersonal?"
> > > 
> > > 
> > > And sometimes I would get

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[emptybill]

Radhanath Swami holds a position on the ISKCON GBC – the governing
board of the Hari K's.

While what he opines is somewhat less doctrinaire than other members, in
truth he can still only spout ISKCON`s brand of Gaudiya theology.



His responses are comparable to someone at a high level in the TMO –
in other words corporate-speak.

This is one reason he iterates claims from the Gaudiya interpretation of
Shrimad Bhagavatam, since this is the only "real" veda for their
movement.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> Don't let yourself be conned by these Krishna Bhaktis. Krishna is not
the "Supreme Personality of Godhead". There is no such Personality, and
the burden of proof apart from merely quoting Scriptures is on the
claimants. Anybody however, is free to set up a dualist, loving
relationship with one of these "gods"; whomever She/He may be.
> http://www.utilitarianism.com/gautama-buddha.jpg
>
>

[FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was Re:Two...questions from Turq]

[Yifu]

http://zebrarug.com/shopping/images/a_xisdeer01.jpg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
> 
> > Not to mention that a gal would have to be a freak
> > to want to fuck a midget on an antelope skin under
> > a framed photo of Guru Dev. That's just outrageous
> > and sick, right?
> >
> You're panting Willy.  Slow down.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various stripes - the 
> Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow below...etc) claims Krishna 
> is the "Supreme Personality of Godhead", apart from Scriptures, what's the 
> evidence? 


You're not paying attention, Yifu and you clearly didn't read the post. He 
didn't claim that Krishna is the "Supreme Personality of Godhead". 

This is what he said:

"Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual – is the Absolute personal, 
is the Absolute impersonal?" And sometimes I would get very vague answers. And 
sometimes I would get very conflicting, combating answers against the apparent 
opposing side. And I was really looking to understand. 

"And on the path of Bhakti I found what I felt to be the synthesis of the two, 
and it's based on the Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads, the holy scriptures 
and a whole line of great saintly people who teach this principle. And I'll 
share with you a little piece of it.

"There's a beautiful verse in the Vedas (recites verse in Sanskrit then 
explains it as follows): There's one Absolute Truth we can call God, we can 
call Nirvana, but there's one Absolute Truth. 

And according to the Vedas, this one Absolute Truth eternally, simultaneously 
has three features: Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagawan.

"Brahman is the all-pervading formless, impersonal Absolute, which is... the 
realization of that Brahman is to merge with that one Absolute. 

"Paramatma is that one Supreme same Absolute who is situated within the heart 
of every living being, giving guidance, giving intuition when we actually 
connect to it. And Patanjali and many yogis really tried to connect to that 
Paramatma, that Absolute within the heart who can give power, who can give 
wisdom, who can give everything. 

And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal form."

-


>
The Guru below appears to be more "liberal" than the Fundie Bhakti's since he's 
saying there's a certain legitimacy in accepting the impersonal Absolute in 
terms of Realization, along with Bhakti. Fine...even Ramana Maharshi was a 
devotee of Shiva and Ramakrishna was a devotee of Kali.
> ...
> However, under the cover of Absoluteness, he appears to be sneaking in a form 
> of  "Godhead" Personality worship; even though he's provided no evidence that 
> Krishna is superior to YHVH or the Scientology God Xenu. Again, there's no 
> evidence that one or the other of these "gods" is the "Supreme Personality of 
> Godhead".
> ...
> The Guru below is a Wolf in Sheep's clothing - trying to sneak in Hare 
> Krishna Fundamentalism in to the field under the cover of Brahman 
> Realization. It's a Trojan Horse. Don't fall for it.
> ...
> Either there is a "Supreme Personality of the Godhead" or there is not. But 
> should any Entity make such a claim, I would spit in His face. Goddesses such 
> as Kali and Durga are sugar and spice. The male "gods": Krishna, YHVH, 
> Ram,...appear to be self-worshipping abusers high on testosterone rather than 
> Soma.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Don't let yourself be conned by these Krishna Bhaktis. Krishna is not the 
> > > "Supreme Personality of Godhead". 
> > 
> > 
> > Nowhere in the interview was that claimed.
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > There is no such Personality, and the burden of proof apart from merely 
> > quoting Scriptures is on the claimants. 
> > >
> > 
> > So where's the proof of YOUR claim, Yufi?
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > Anybody however, is free to set up a dualist, loving relationship with one 
> > of these "gods"; whomever She/He may be.
> > > http://www.utilitarianism.com/gautama-buddha.jpg
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Excerpt transcribed from an interview Radhanath Swami gave to Rick
> > > > Archer -
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Rick Archer: I exchanged a Facebook chat with someone the other day who
> > > > had had what she called a 'non-dual' realization. If you're kind of in
> > > > tune with the current atmosphere around, there are a lot of teachers
> > > > espousing non-duality and non-dual realizations and I hear very little
> > > > talk of God among them.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > But in any case this girl said that, you know what, there was no sense
> > > > of personal self and all is one, but there was no bliss. And she said,
> > > > well is that all enlightenment is. It's hyped up to be this great
> > > > blissful thing and I'm hardly even interested now. It didn't have the
> > > > allure that I expected it to have.
> > > > 
> > > > I suggested to her that perhaps that little glimpse she had had was not
> > > > necessarily the full blossoming of what enlightenment or realization or
> > > > awakening can be and that she should keep persevering as ther

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[Yifu]

Nope...I'm familiar with the tricks of these devious Krishna Bhaktis. They 
state outright (privately), that any tricks whatsoever are legitimate, as long 
as it results in somebody saying "Krishna". Take a look at what he's doing 
pursuant to the previous efforts of the Hare Krishna Guru.
...
The latter's pov was that Krishna was Superior to the impersonal Absolute, and 
that the impersonal Absolute was an "emanation" of Krishna. That message 
obviously will not be conducive toward converting the Impersonalists (i.e. 
non-dualists) such as Buddhists, Advaitins, Neo-Advaitins, and of course the 
whole fold of TMO and Maharishi-inspired Cosmology. We can broadly combine the 
various separate originations of non-dualism (mainly Buddhism and Saivite 
Hinduism); into what Wilber calls "The Great Tradition". Adi Da called this 
world-view "Advaitayana Buddhism".
...
Now getting back to the Guru below, let's zero-in on a single statement that 
calls his bluff, exposing his hairy butt, revealing the Wolf; and a phoney 
attempt to trick the Impersonalists into worshipping Krishna: It's
...
"And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal form"

That's it right there!. Let's go over this examining the key words. First, 
"Bhagavan". By this he really means "Krishna". It's obvious this deceiver is a 
Hare Krishna Vaishava Gaudiya Bhakti akin to the Hare Krisha Guruonly the 
latter was a white zebra with black stripes, and this Guru is black with white 
stripes. There both zebras.((but no offense to black or white...just the same 
old critter but differing stripes).
...
OK, as stated a million times, there's no evidence that (even if there were a 
"Bhagavan"), that Krishna is THE Bhagavan, as opposed to (say) YHVH.  Apart 
from Vaisnava Scriptures chiefly the Srimad Bhagavan, what's the evidence that 
Krishna is "Bhagavan"?
...
In order to pull the wool of your eyes, he's simply replaced "Supreme 
Personality of Godhead", with "Bhagavan", and tricked you even more.
...
Next, the sentence says "...which is the Absolute". Duuuhhheverything is 
the Absolute. A dirt clod = the Buddha. There is no Absolute "above" the 
Absolute. A dirt clod is equal in its Absoluteness to Krishna. Krishna is not 
"more" Absolute than dog crap. Dog = "God" backwards, same stuff.
...
Next to Last, he says..."...Absolute with Personal Form". Again, this is pure 
Hare Krishna bullshit, only he's cleverly eliminated saying "Supreme 
Personality of Godhead".  Everything is "Absolute with form", if it has form.  
But again, apart from Scriptures, no evidence, that Krishna is THE MAN.
...
Last, zeroing in on the final 2 words, "Personal Form", this is faith-based on 
Scriptural Authority. We are to believe Krishna's "Personal Form" (whatever the 
word they use - Viratarupa...) is somehow superior to the Christian Deity?, the 
Mormon God, or Xenu? Tom Cruise,...where are you
...
See what he's doing? He's eliminated "Supreme Personality of God", replacing 
that with "Bhagavan", and eliminating the Hare Krishna Guru's usage of 
"Absolute Body", or "Viratarupa", with essentially, an equally faith-based, 
totally Scriptural assertion: That Bhagavan (Krishna) is THE Personal God above 
other Gods, and that He's the Absolute in Personal form.
...
Adi Da claimed the same thing for himself: that he was the Transcendental Man, 
the Absolute in Personal form, blah, blah,...total rubbish. Any Personality 
whomever is obviously "The Absolute in Personal form". Even Hitler. So go 
figure.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
> >
> > Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various stripes - the 
> > Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow below...etc) claims 
> > Krishna is the "Supreme Personality of Godhead", apart from Scriptures, 
> > what's the evidence? 
> 
> 
> You're not paying attention, Yifu and you clearly didn't read the post. He 
> didn't claim that Krishna is the "Supreme Personality of Godhead". 
> 
> This is what he said:
> 
> "Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual – is the Absolute 
> personal, is the Absolute impersonal?" And sometimes I would get very vague 
> answers. And sometimes I would get very conflicting, combating answers 
> against the apparent opposing side. And I was really looking to understand. 
> 
> "And on the path of Bhakti I found what I felt to be the synthesis of the 
> two, and it's based on the Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads, the holy 
> scriptures and a whole line of great saintly people who teach this principle. 
> And I'll share with you a little piece of it.
> 
> "There's a beautiful verse in the Vedas (recites verse in Sanskrit then 
> explains it as follows): There's one Absolute Truth we can call God, we can 
> call Nirvana, but there's one Absolute Truth. 
> 
> And according to the Vedas, this one Absolute Truth eternally, simultaneously 
> has three features: Br

[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> On Jun 14, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
> 
> > Most spiritual teachers do have the ability to do number two
> 
> Taken by itself, that is easily the sentence of the week.

LOL.

[FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was Re:Two...questions from Turq]

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of sparaig
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 8:41 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was
> Re:Two...questions from Turq]
> 
>  
> 
>  > Have you read the book Lawson? Those who haven't done so sound pretty
> > foolish when trying to dismiss its credibility.
> >
> 
> Unless someone was in the room or took pictures, there's no way of settling
> it for sure.
> 
>  
> 
> You didn't answer the question. Have you read the book?
>

Nope. Nor have I dismissed its credibility.

L.

[FairfieldLife] Billionaire from my home town!

[cardemaister]

http://pojuzabludowicz.crazybillionaire.org/pojuzabludowicz.php

It's kinda strange that he's obviously adopted(?) that nickname
Poju [~paw-yuh], because in Finnish it means something like '(poor little) boy'!