[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: OK, serious question here to all those who have defended Maharishi as a saint and true holy man. How do you account for the stories that several of his former skin boys have told about his sexual escapades? Mark Landau, Billy Clayton, Nedd Wynn and others have told stories that are very similar as to what who and when. Do you think they are all lying and if so why? Or do you honestly think it is alright for a true holy man who always said he was a lifelong celibate to have sex repeatedly and lie about having done so? You won't get a serious answer from believers MJ, they are unable to square years of devotion to someone they assumed was living the life he claimed he was with the ugly truth that he was abusing his position of power by seducing credulous, starry-eyed girls. He knew better and pretended he was celibate because that is what is expected of the holy, for some reason this is equated with being enlightened, probably because it symbolises they live their lives in a state beyond the normal emotional drives of the rest of us. Most TB's will claim it's all lies or that he was helping them with their evolution or that it was between consenting adults (any teacher loses their job for sleeping with students) or he wasn't as enlightened as we thought - completely ignoring everything that has been said about him up to that point. Standard cognitive dissonance in fact. I'll tell you the truth though, because I care about that sort of thing.
[FairfieldLife] Basic Instinct, Serbian style
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NTZ_zzRQ-E
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: OK, serious question here to all those who have defended Maharishi as a saint and true holy man. How do you account for the stories that several of his former skin boys have told about his sexual escapades? Mark Landau, Billy Clayton, Nedd Wynn and others have told stories that are very similar as to what who and when. Do you think they are all lying and if so why? Or do you honestly think it is alright for a true holy man who always said he was a lifelong celibate to have sex repeatedly and lie about having done so? You won't get a serious answer from believers MJ, they are unable to square years of devotion to someone they assumed was living the life he claimed he was with the ugly truth that he was abusing his position of power by seducing credulous, starry-eyed girls. He knew better and pretended he was celibate because that is what is expected of the holy, for some reason this is equated with being enlightened, probably because it symbolises they live their lives in a state beyond the normal emotional drives of the rest of us. Most TB's will claim it's all lies or that he was helping them with their evolution or that it was between consenting adults (any teacher loses their job for sleeping with students) or he wasn't as enlightened as we thought - completely ignoring everything that has been said about him up to that point. Standard cognitive dissonance in fact. I'll tell you the truth though, because I care about that sort of thing. It's simple inertia. A body at rest (in fantasy) tends to stay at rest; a body in motion (helping to perpetuate the fantasy) tends to stay in motion. The people who cling to their fantasies about Maharishi do so because they cling to similar fantasies about them- selves. Such as, I could not *possibly* have been wrong about how I perceived him. I'm smarter and more intuitive than that. The problem is compounded in those who carefully stayed away from him and never met the man. They got to base their fantasies on what he wrote in books and said on videotapes, and carefully stayed far, far away so that they'd never have to encounter any reality that might contradict their fantasies. But at a more fundamental level, their fantasies still revolve around the one that he sold them. That is, that if they just keep doing what they were told to do, they themselves will become perfect, their every action in tune with the Laws Of Nature, their every desire fulfilled by them. If they admit into their awareness a glimmer of the reality that THIS WAS NOT TRUE FOR THE PERSON WHO SOLD THEM THE FANTASY, then they'll have to admit that it's likely not going to be true for them, either, and that they have spent their lives chasing a fantasy. Can't have that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: Yeah, he's still a holy man, just not as holy as most of us thought. The Bible tells us that all men fall short of the Glory of God. That means that all men have and will sin. Maharishi was a man, not God. The Bible also speaks of angels coming to earth and having sex with women. Veda Vyasa had sex with an unmarried woman in a boat while crossing a river, thus we have Shukadeva. Who is the ultimate Brahmachari, walking around naked, not having any sense of sensuality Maharishi belongs on a pedestal, just not as high as we might have thought. My thoughts are that M was a very high soul on a mission and upon taking birth as a man, he did things men do. My opinion too. I put him on a high pedestal for what he did and accomplished. In other areas he is just like a human being. And I credit him for inspiring me (and so many others) to live brahmacharya, and create an environment where this was easy. Well said, Mike. From: Michael Jackson To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 12:58 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Serious Question  OK, serious question here to all those who have defended Maharishi as a saint and true holy man. How do you account for the stories that several of his former skin boys have told about his sexual escapades? Mark Landau, Billy Clayton, Nedd Wynn and others have told stories that are very similar as to what who and when. Do you think they are all lying and if so why? Or do you honestly think it is alright for a true holy man who always said he was a lifelong celibate to have sex repeatedly and lie about having done so?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Anandamayi Ma on Oneness
This must be one of the most beautiful, mature and egoless description of UC: One no longer exists apart from Him. What would the Vedantists say..? `There is one one Brahman without a second.' Nevertheless, for some who have attained to this condition, the relationship between the Lord and His servant remains and is felt thus: He is the Whole and I am part of Him, and yet thee is only the one Self. If the Brahaman is described as the splendour of Krishna's body why should one object? Verily, everyone is identical, undivided. To realise this means to be immersed completely into the ocean of Oneness. http://sathyasaimemories.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/anandamayi-ma-on-oneness-children-of-light/ What Anandamayi makes reference to here is the philosophy of Ramanuja, who describes all the souls to be part of the body of God, or Chaitanya, who see Brahman only as the splendor of the personal god. This is in an outward seeming conflict to Kevala Advaita of Shankara, but only seemingly so, not in the unity consciousness of Anandamayi Ma. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: This is beautiful and perfect for me at this time in my life. Thank you. From: martin.quickman To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 9:07 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Anandamayi Ma on Oneness  Then comes a time when the Beloved does not leave one anymore; wherever one may go, http://sathyasaimemories.wordpress.com/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Yogah karmasu kaushalam
or Sani exalted in Libra means the old timers will win? yogastah kuru karmani Established in Being perform action. Yay Ravens! I grew up in Maryland suburbs of DC, John. From: John jr_...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 5:20 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Yogah karmasu kaushalam This means the 49ers will will the SB through skill in action. JGD.
[FairfieldLife] Re: FFL Yahoo Rich Text Editor
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley wrote: Yahoo has an Android app for mail, and on my iPad, if I go to Yahoo mail in a browser, it dishes up a mobile version. My guess is that Yahoo Groups just isn't a big priority for the struggling company. I wrote the a HTML directly in the source view of the Rich Text Editor, made sure it was valid HTML according to the DTD on the FFL pages. Earlier in the week I found I could not get images to display and there were some other quirks. This test page code was not stripped at all, Yahoo did not alter a single line, but there are a few format changes because of the CSS on the Yahoo pages, such as a green Heading 3 and some spacing shifts from default HTML rendering. The e-mail digests totally mangled it though, not preserving any spacing, and no images or providing the url of the images, so I suppose that has to be added as text so those who get this form of the posts could access and image. Since you approve images posted TO the forum by upload, is there a way you can control images included in posts that link to images on the Internet? Obviously you cannot preview them because they show up instantly once the post is sent as they do not pass through the Yahoo server, being linked from other locations on the web. I do not use a phone or tablet to compose messages, I use a desktop computer, or on occasion, a laptop. The only way I can control the content of posts is if the subscriber is on moderated status, which requires me to approve posts before they get sent to FFL. Otherwise, I can only delete a post from the website archives after it's been posted, which of course, has no effect on anyone who received the post via email.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
Thank you, Doc for what you say here which helps me find my own words about this topic. Thanks also to Mike and novashok. I'd add that I don't put the celibate way of life on a pedestal when it seems like the person is straining for spiritual goals to be something they are not. I more admire people settled in their own nature. My aspirations to celibacy have never lasted long and I'm grateful for that. And I've had some sexual experiences that were celestial. So there's not been much of a split between the sacred and the corporeal for me. Again, I'm grateful. Thinking about all this I realize that I never thought of Maharishi as a monk. Having grown up Catholic, to me monk meant someone who lived behind monastery walls praying and working all day long. So someone active in the world as Maharishi was, did not fit my idea of a monk anyway. And as a woman, I was sometimes aware of his sexual power. I guess that's what is called shakti. And I never heard him talk about sex though there were stories of Charlie Lutes talking about its being a drain on energy. Consequently I never felt lied to about all that. I'm very glad that Rajaram is a householder. It makes the TMO more human somehow, more of the world with all its joys and sorrows, more connected to life with all its light and dark. From: doctordumb...@rocketmail.com doctordumb...@rocketmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 12:54 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question Sure, it is fine with me, MJ. Given the range of human action we are each capable of, having sex with consenting adults is fine, regardless if he lied about it, or not. He owed me nothing regarding how he lived his life. I was simply interested in his knowledge and techniques and consider him a Maharishi in that regard. He never set himself up as anyone's personal Guru, and I did not ever see him that way, so it is a non-issue for me. Just because I followed his knowledge for many, many years, and continue to, I see him as a Divine resource, much more than some guy, who's life I am going to pour over, looking for inconsistencies. I am just not all that interested in his life. It was his, and continues to be, and I've got my own, anyway. I found one of the easiest ways to make myself depressed is to concern myself with things I cannot change, or that are none of my business. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: OK, serious question here to all those who have defended Maharishi as a saint and true holy man. How do you account for the stories that several of his former skin boys have told about his sexual escapades? Mark Landau, Billy Clayton, Nedd Wynn and others have told stories that are very similar as to what who and when. Do you think they are all lying and if so why? Or do you honestly think it is alright for a true holy man who always said he was a lifelong celibate to have sex repeatedly and lie about having done so?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: I'm very glad that Rajaram is a householder. Are you glad that he lied about it to pretty much everyone in the TM movement for many years, including his close friends like John Hagelin? It makes the TMO more human somehow, more of the world with all its joys and sorrows, more connected to life with all its light and dark. Yeah, you say this NOW, now that it's come out that he is married and has been for many years. But I wonder what excuses you make for him lying about it for so long, and to so many?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Thinking about all this I realize that I never thought of Maharishi as a monk. I finally have to give credit to my mother, who said, when I showed her a photo of Maharishi after I was just initiated, that he has sensual lips. I said he is a life long monk. She said, but he has sensual lips. I finally realize that she was right in many things.
[FairfieldLife] Ezourvedam
The Ezourvedam, used by Voltaire among others, as sourcebook for the most ancient of religions, was thereupon found to have been a fraud. Actually it was composed by a Christian the text shows him to have been a French Jesuit missionary, who did not necessarily know Sanskrit in order to convert Hindus to Christianity. http://benjamins.com/catalog/upssa.1
[FairfieldLife] Isha Masiha
Was Jesus predicted in the Bhavishya Purana? Probably not http://www.stephen-knapp.com/jesus_predicted_in_the_vedic_literature.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: I'm very glad that Rajaram is a householder. Are you glad that he lied about it to pretty much everyone in the TM movement for many years, including his close friends like John Hagelin? On what basis does the Turq claim Rajaram was lying, does he know anything about it ? No, he is pushing his own agenda PRETENDING he is in the know. But as usual he is caught lying.
[FairfieldLife] Jois: saMyama (dhaaraNaa, dhyaanam, samaadhiH) potentially dangerous!
The first four limbsyama, niyama, asana and pranayamaare considered external cleansing practices. According to Pattabhi Jois, defects in these external practices are correctable while defects in the internal cleansing practicespratyahara, dharana, dhyana and samadhiare not. Pattabhi Jois thought these internal defects to be potentially dangerous to the mind unless the correct Ashtanga Yoga method was followed.[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashtanga_Vinyasa_Yoga
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
Yeah, I am not hung up on sex being bad or any of that, regardless of what may or may not have been said about it by Maharishi. Seven billion people or whatever our population is currently, are pretty good evidence it is a mutually enjoyable activity. As far as what Maharishi said or did, I'd rather spend my time examining my own life, so that I can constantly improve it. Those like Barry, MJ, Salyavatin' and others who focus so much interest on how Maharishi may have screwed up, are imo, lost in the sauce, so to speak. The other dirty little secret is that Bee and MJ and Saliva's denigrating of Maharishi, has *absolutely nothing* to do with Maharishi!!-lol. These are more like grumpy old men looking for excuses to justify their inner discontent - nothing more. Some people, for some reason are clueless with regard to this type of projection. No capacity for self reflection, more like a knee-jerk reaction: They feel bad, and it must be Maharishi or something external that they must rail against to feel better. It is quite an immature reaction, and like I said, has nothing to do with the external target, and much more to do with their emotional discomfort. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Thank you, Doc for what you say here which helps me find my own words about this topic. Thanks also to Mike and novashok. I'd add that I don't put the celibate way of life on a pedestal when it seems like the person is straining for spiritual goals to be something they are not. I more admire people settled in their own nature. My aspirations to celibacy have never lasted long and I'm grateful for that. And I've had some sexual experiences that were celestial. So there's not been much of a split between the sacred and the corporeal for me. Again, I'm grateful. Thinking about all this I realize that I never thought of Maharishi as a monk. Having grown up Catholic, to me monk meant someone who lived behind monastery walls praying and working all day long. So someone active in the world as Maharishi was, did not fit my idea of a monk anyway. And as a woman, I was sometimes aware of his sexual power. I guess that's what is called shakti. And I never heard him talk about sex though there were stories of Charlie Lutes talking about its being a drain on energy. Consequently I never felt lied to about all that. I'm very glad that Rajaram is a householder. It makes the TMO more human somehow, more of the world with all its joys and sorrows, more connected to life with all its light and dark. From: doctordumbass@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 12:54 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question  Sure, it is fine with me, MJ. Given the range of human action we are each capable of, having sex with consenting adults is fine, regardless if he lied about it, or not. He owed me nothing regarding how he lived his life. I was simply interested in his knowledge and techniques and consider him a Maharishi in that regard. He never set himself up as anyone's personal Guru, and I did not ever see him that way, so it is a non-issue for me. Just because I followed his knowledge for many, many years, and continue to, I see him as a Divine resource, much more than some guy, who's life I am going to pour over, looking for inconsistencies. I am just not all that interested in his life. It was his, and continues to be, and I've got my own, anyway. I found one of the easiest ways to make myself depressed is to concern myself with things I cannot change, or that are none of my business. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: OK, serious question here to all those who have defended Maharishi as a saint and true holy man. How do you account for the stories that several of his former skin boys have told about his sexual escapades? Mark Landau, Billy Clayton, Nedd Wynn and others have told stories that are very similar as to what who and when. Do you think they are all lying and if so why? Or do you honestly think it is alright for a true holy man who always said he was a lifelong celibate to have sex repeatedly and lie about having done so?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
Goddamit Bee, you are the biggest LIAR here, much more than Raja Ram. Why not focus on your own fucked up values, *for once*, and leave the TMO punching bag alone? Say for 72 hours, three lousy days - then you can escape back into your dark fantasies, and avoid yourself. Deal?? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: I'm very glad that Rajaram is a householder. Are you glad that he lied about it to pretty much everyone in the TM movement for many years, including his close friends like John Hagelin? It makes the TMO more human somehow, more of the world with all its joys and sorrows, more connected to life with all its light and dark. Yeah, you say this NOW, now that it's come out that he is married and has been for many years. But I wonder what excuses you make for him lying about it for so long, and to so many?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
How do you account for the stories that several of his former skin boys have told about his sexual escapades? He knew better and pretended he was celibate because that is what is expected of the holy... turquoiseb: The people who cling to their fantasies about Maharishi do so because they cling to similar fantasies about them- selves That's funny - but MMY was *just another guy* and your *opinion* is suspect anyway, since you were the main recruitor for both MMY and Lenz for years. Both of you love money, women, fast cars, and violtent movies. LoL! Lenz began to break some of Chinmoy's very strict rules. He broke all of the rules and everyone knew it. He had numerous girlfriends. He loved violent movies like Apocalypse Now... The Ascent of a Guru: http://tinyurl.com/5flyvy
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
What would you do, Nabby? Barry's situation is a lot like the white sharecroppers in the South hating black people, *more* than the slave owners did, because despite their own wretched circumstances, they had a group they could look down on. Bee is unemployed, unmarried, drinks too much, and hasn't accomplished much spiritually. So what he does is bash anything and everything, to avoid facing himself. It is both obvious and straightforward, er, except to him - lol. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: I'm very glad that Rajaram is a householder. Are you glad that he lied about it to pretty much everyone in the TM movement for many years, including his close friends like John Hagelin? On what basis does the Turq claim Rajaram was lying, does he know anything about it ? No, he is pushing his own agenda PRETENDING he is in the know. But as usual he is caught lying.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Jois: saMyama (dhaaraNaa, dhyaanam, samaadhiH) potentially dangerous!
Very useful, Card, thank you. What is yama and niyama in this context? From: card cardemais...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 8:52 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Jois: saMyama (dhaaraNaa, dhyaanam, samaadhiH) potentially dangerous! The first four limbs—yama, niyama, asana and pranayama—are considered external cleansing practices. According to Pattabhi Jois, defects in these external practices are correctable while defects in the internal cleansing practices—pratyahara, dharana, dhyana and samadhi—are not. Pattabhi Jois thought these internal defects to be potentially dangerous to the mind unless the correct Ashtanga Yoga method was followed.[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashtanga_Vinyasa_Yoga
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
Michael Jackson: How do you account for the stories that several of his former skin boys have told about his sexual escapades? It is a well-known fact that MMY and his skin-boy followers used to screw around all the time. But, you didn't seem to get any. LoL! So, why the cover up and the falsehoods told by the skin-boys? It doesn't make any sense. Everyone knows that Ned Wynn is a liar. Go figure. It can only be concluded that Judith Bourque is purposely covering-up and suppressing information on behalf of her spiritual psychic guru, Conny Larsson. Has Judith ever met Satya Sai Baba? Probably not, but apparently she knows Conny very well - they are recruiters for the same cult, apparently, but now very disgruntled. 'Judith Bourque - Conny Larsson's Cover-Up Cult Disciple' Read more: Behind the Clown's Mask By Conny Larsson http://tinyurl.com/2wacxmk God's Little Clown By Conny Larsson http://tinyurl.com/2vh98o7 Robes of Silk Feet of Clay By Judith Bourque http://www.robesofsilkfeetofclay.com/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
I don't think he lied about it. I think he kept his private life private. Which is everyone's right IMHO. Even famous people in Hollywood and sports and politics have a right to a private life. Though the media would have us believe otherwise. And yes, famous people should be realistic about this particular consequence of their fame. But still, they have a right to try to have a private life. Even from their close friends if need be. If a friend is really close, they will understand one's choice in the matter. If not, then let the two of them work it out. Yes, privately, just between the two of them. I think when people are disappointed etc. about famous people and or people in positions of authority, it's my opinion that they are dealing with unresolved issues about their early caregivers and or from previous lives. As such I think it's an opportunity to grow beyond looking for someone or something superficially perfect in this world. I say superficially because at the deeper levels, it is perfect. In my experience. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 7:26 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: I'm very glad that Rajaram is a householder. Are you glad that he lied about it to pretty much everyone in the TM movement for many years, including his close friends like John Hagelin? It makes the TMO more human somehow, more of the world with all its joys and sorrows, more connected to life with all its light and dark. Yeah, you say this NOW, now that it's come out that he is married and has been for many years. But I wonder what excuses you make for him lying about it for so long, and to so many?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: I don't think he lied about it. I think he kept his private life private. Share, (not that it's important), but I have to disagree here. I think that Barry has a point. He was called a Purusha, and Purushas are celibate. So its not an issue of just keeping his private life private. It is deceptive. Also, Maharishi promoted the Purusha and Mother Divine lifestyle, it's not that this is something neutral, which is nobodies business. It's a life style promoted as especially evolutionary by the movement, which he is the head of. It's a bit different from normal celebrities, who are known for example for their ability as actors etc. Compare it to finding out that the pope is actually married, while all his priests have to live celebate. Which is everyone's right IMHO. Even famous people in Hollywood and sports and politics have a right to a private life. Though the media would have us believe otherwise. And yes, famous people should be realistic about this particular consequence of their fame. But still, they have a right to try to have a private life. Even from their close friends if need be. If a friend is really close, they will understand one's choice in the matter. If not, then let the two of them work it out. Yes, privately, just between the two of them. I think when people are disappointed etc. about famous people and or people in positions of authority, it's my opinion that they are dealing with unresolved issues about their early caregivers and or from previous lives. As such I think it's an opportunity to grow beyond looking for someone or something superficially perfect in this world. I say superficially because at the deeper levels, it is perfect. In my experience. From: turquoiseb To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 7:26 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: I'm very glad that Rajaram is a householder. Are you glad that he lied about it to pretty much everyone in the TM movement for many years, including his close friends like John Hagelin? It makes the TMO more human somehow, more of the world with all its joys and sorrows, more connected to life with all its light and dark. Yeah, you say this NOW, now that it's come out that he is married and has been for many years. But I wonder what excuses you make for him lying about it for so long, and to so many?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
I think when people are disappointed etc. about famous people and or people in positions of authority, it's my opinion that they are dealing with unresolved issues about their early caregivers... Brilliant - Yes, the nit picking wrt the current famous person is on par with the inability to deal with the power differential between a child and his/her early caregivers. It is very Tantric actually, this exploding bud of life in children, attempting to coexist with the more powerful caregiver, and surroundings, while continuing to grow unabated. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: I don't think he lied about it. I think he kept his private life private. Which is everyone's right IMHO. Even famous people in Hollywood and sports and politics have a right to a private life. Though the media would have us believe otherwise. And yes, famous people should be realistic about this particular consequence of their fame. But still, they have a right to try to have a private life. Even from their close friends if need be. If a friend is really close, they will understand one's choice in the matter. If not, then let the two of them work it out. Yes, privately, just between the two of them. I think when people are disappointed etc. about famous people and or people in positions of authority, it's my opinion that they are dealing with unresolved issues about their early caregivers and or from previous lives. As such I think it's an opportunity to grow beyond looking for someone or something superficially perfect in this world. I say superficially because at the deeper levels, it is perfect. In my experience. From: turquoiseb To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 7:26 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: I'm very glad that Rajaram is a householder. Are you glad that he lied about it to pretty much everyone in the TM movement for many years, including his close friends like John Hagelin? It makes the TMO more human somehow, more of the world with all its joys and sorrows, more connected to life with all its light and dark. Yeah, you say this NOW, now that it's come out that he is married and has been for many years. But I wonder what excuses you make for him lying about it for so long, and to so many?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
Salyavin, Michael, I'm genuinely curious to know whether you think this makes a lick of sense: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: (snip) The problem is compounded in those who carefully stayed away from him and never met the man. They got to base their fantasies on what he wrote in books and said on videotapes, and carefully stayed far, far away so that they'd never have to encounter any reality that might contradict their fantasies. Does *anybody* here think this makes a lick of sense? It's not the first time Barry's made this suggestion. So either *he* believes it, or he thinks others will.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
LOL. I guess my reminding people that King Tony lied about his non-bramacharya status and pretended to be celibate for years pushed a few buttons. Both Nabby and Jimbo are back in Kill the messenger while ignoring the issue mode again. :-) *It couldn't have been more obvious* that he was lying all those years before he came out as married with children. All you had to do is read the emails coming from other major leaders of the TMO such as Bevan and Hagelin to get how shocked they were. Add to that Tonyboy's *own* explanation of how Maharishi had told him to keep it secret (whether that is true or not), and it's very difficult to claim that he *wasn't* lying all those years. So what's up with that, all you people who consider him enlightened? Remember, there is an ISSUE here to be discussed, no matter how much the button-pushed TBs are trying to distract you from it by trying to divert the conversation to personalities and Kill the messenger. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: What would you do, Nabby? Barry's situation is a lot like the white sharecroppers in the South hating black people, *more* than the slave owners did, because despite their own wretched circumstances, they had a group they could look down on. Bee is unemployed, unmarried, drinks too much, and hasn't accomplished much spiritually. So what he does is bash anything and everything, to avoid facing himself. It is both obvious and straightforward, er, except to him - lol. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: I'm very glad that Rajaram is a householder. Are you glad that he lied about it to pretty much everyone in the TM movement for many years, including his close friends like John Hagelin? On what basis does the Turq claim Rajaram was lying, does he know anything about it ? No, he is pushing his own agenda PRETENDING he is in the know. But as usual he is caught lying.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
One last comment on this. M told us the story of how he left seclusion. He had been in Uttar Kashi and was sitting with a saint. He told the saint he had the thought to go to the south of India and the saint told him across the river is nothing but mud. In other words ,if he goes out into the world , he should expect to get muddy. From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 2:12 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question This is a good answer, Mike. I wouldn't want to have to define holy man or saint, so I wouldn't want to say what would disqualify him (or qualify him, for that matter) for being either. He wasn't a perfect human being, that's for sure. It's up to the individual to decide how much they want to hold his sins against him. --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: Yeah, he's still a holy man, just not as holy as most of us thought. The Bible tells us that all men fall short of the Glory of God. That means that all men have and will sin. Maharishi was a man, not God. The Bible also speaks of angels coming to earth and having sex with women. Veda Vyasa had sex with an unmarried woman in a boat while crossing a river, thus we have Shukadeva. Maharishi belongs on a pedestal, just not as high as we might have thought. My thoughts are that M was a very high soul on a mission and upon taking birth as a man, he did things men do. From: Michael Jackson To: mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com; Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 12:58 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Serious Question  OK, serious question here to all those who have defended Maharishi as a saint and true holy man. How do you account for the stories that several of his former skin boys have told about his sexual escapades? Mark Landau, Billy Clayton, Nedd Wynn and others have told stories that are very similar as to what who and when. Do you think they are all lying and if so why? Or do you honestly think it is alright for a true holy man who always said he was a lifelong celibate to have sex repeatedly and lie about having done so?
[FairfieldLife] Too-Much-Fun!
I'm so glad that this TMF group popped-up last week on the Buddhist site. I love reading the juicy chatter about even banal topics because it fun-colors us TM'ers as only 'Humans', after all...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: FFL Yahoo Rich Text Editor
On 02/03/2013 07:20 PM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley wrote: Yahoo has an Android app for mail, and on my iPad, if I go to Yahoo mail in a browser, it dishes up a mobile version. My guess is that Yahoo Groups just isn't a big priority for the struggling company. I wrote the a HTML directly in the source view of the Rich Text Editor, made sure it was valid HTML according to the DTD on the FFL pages. Earlier in the week I found I could not get images to display and there were some other quirks. This test page code was not stripped at all, Yahoo did not alter a single line, but there are a few format changes because of the CSS on the Yahoo pages, such as a green Heading 3 and some spacing shifts from default HTML rendering. The e-mail digests totally mangled it though, not preserving any spacing, and no images or providing the url of the images, so I suppose that has to be added as text so those who get this form of the posts could access and image. Since you approve images posted TO the forum by upload, is there a way you can control images included in posts that link to images on the Internet? Obviously you cannot preview them because they show up instantly once the post is sent as they do not pass through the Yahoo server, being linked from other locations on the web. I do not use a phone or tablet to compose messages, I use a desktop computer, or on occasion, a laptop. Last year experimenting with posting embedded and linked photos on FFL both by email and via the web site I found that Yahoo does indeed modify quite a bit depending on what and how you are trying to do with a photo. I seem to recall that in some cases via email on Thunderbird if I embedded the photo in HTML mode that Yahoo stripped the photo code but the coming back from FFL had the photo in the source though it wouldn't display it. Then we have the case that I noticed that Yahoo would swap out the email addresses on the post count for the profiles when displayed on the web site. You would see part of the email address but if you passed the mouse over the link my browser would display a long link that when clicked would take you to the profile of the user. The post count via email would just display the email address. IOW, a good reason not to display the email address since for our purposes the user name was enough. Of course remote photo links are often frowned on because back in the day you would be using someone else's bandwidth to display the photo. So many of us authoring web sites would put access scripts that would block it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The text editor designed for writing to TMers
Such a good idea actual program! Also a great way to handle writing to youngsters who still have a limited vocabulary... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: It's what you've always wanted, a text editor that dumbs what you're trying to say down to the max by restricting you to the 1,000 most common words in the English language (really ten hundred if I were writing this using the editor). http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2013/01/up-goer-five.html? To show how this would be useful when communicating to TMers who want to believe that if you dumb something down enough that they can understand it they actually understand it, here's the editor describing string theory... :-) Things are made of small bits. Some of the bits are made of even smaller bits. There are many different kinds of bits. Even light is made of very small bits flying very fast. If we look carefully at the smallest kinds of bits they look like little points. But we don't really know if this is true, because the bits are very small and it is hard to look at things that are so small. It turns out that we know how to make most things out of point-bits, but one thing is hard. We know everything falls down or actually everything always falls towards everything else. The force that does this is hard to make out of little point-bits if we try to do this we get too many little point-bits flying around. There is one way to fix it: we realize that the little bits are actually not points but long things! The long things are wrapped tight and it is hard to see them because they are so small and a very small wrapped long thing looks just like a point. But then the long things make fun things happen. The force that makes things fall comes out! Wow! And all kinds of other things too! In fact all the different kinds of bits that we see come from just one kind of wrapped long thing moving in different ways. This is great! One idea explains many different things and so we are happy. There are some little problems still but we are working hard and it is possible that everything around us in space, near by, all of it can be understood from one simple idea of wrapped long things.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question to navashok
Thanks, navashok, and just to dig deeper. I've been wondering why we are all so shook up and triggered when people in authority lie to us. I think it's connected to survival and fear of dying. Deep in the primitive brain is the program from childhood saying that if authority figures lie, then we cannot trust them to protect us from saber toothed tigers, etc. And I'm not saying that lying should be condoned. I think lying is wrong and that if a person does it and hurts someone else, then the liar should make amends as best as possible. But the fact is that people lie, even people in positions of authority. And it begins early in our life. When we're quite young, our parents tell us about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. I don't remember but I'm sure it's a shock when a child realizes that there is no Santa Claus. And that the parents were lying about it, something they told us not to do. That's the worse part maybe. We all have to come to peace about the lying of others, especially authority figures in whom we believed. Even if we were young children when we believed in them. Not for their sake or to let them off the hook or to prevent it from happening again. But for our own growth and happiness and good health. Does this make any sense? FWIW I was neither in the Dome nor around the TMO for approx 7 years which included the time of Maharishi's death and Rajaram's becoming the TMO leader. So I don't know who called him Purusha and lots of other details from that period. From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 9:56 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: I don't think he lied about it. I think he kept his private life private. Share, (not that it's important), but I have to disagree here. I think that Barry has a point. He was called a Purusha, and Purushas are celibate. So its not an issue of just keeping his private life private. It is deceptive. Also, Maharishi promoted the Purusha and Mother Divine lifestyle, it's not that this is something neutral, which is nobodies business. It's a life style promoted as especially evolutionary by the movement, which he is the head of. It's a bit different from normal celebrities, who are known for example for their ability as actors etc. Compare it to finding out that the pope is actually married, while all his priests have to live celebate. Which is everyone's right IMHO. Even famous people in Hollywood and sports and politics have a right to a private life. Though the media would have us believe otherwise. And yes, famous people should be realistic about this particular consequence of their fame. But still, they have a right to try to have a private life. Even from their close friends if need be. If a friend is really close, they will understand one's choice in the matter. If not, then let the two of them work it out. Yes, privately, just between the two of them. I think when people are disappointed etc. about famous people and or people in positions of authority, it's my opinion that they are dealing with unresolved issues about their early caregivers and or from previous lives. As such I think it's an opportunity to grow beyond looking for someone or something superficially perfect in this world. I say superficially because at the deeper levels, it is perfect. In my experience. From: turquoiseb To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 7:26 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: I'm very glad that Rajaram is a householder. Are you glad that he lied about it to pretty much everyone in the TM movement for many years, including his close friends like John Hagelin? It makes the TMO more human somehow, more of the world with all its joys and sorrows, more connected to life with all its light and dark. Yeah, you say this NOW, now that it's come out that he is married and has been for many years. But I wonder what excuses you make for him lying about it for so long, and to so many?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
Yes, there are people who do such things in life not connected to TM and it would apply to some that have done TM too From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 11:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question Salyavin, Michael, I'm genuinely curious to know whether you think this makes a lick of sense: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: (snip) The problem is compounded in those who carefully stayed away from him and never met the man. They got to base their fantasies on what he wrote in books and said on videotapes, and carefully stayed far, far away so that they'd never have to encounter any reality that might contradict their fantasies. Does *anybody* here think this makes a lick of sense? It's not the first time Barry's made this suggestion. So either *he* believes it, or he thinks others will.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
It is bizarre. Considering Bee hasn't been around Maharishi for decades, and then, only briefly. Who, exactly, is fantasizing?? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: Salyavin, Michael, I'm genuinely curious to know whether you think this makes a lick of sense: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: (snip) The problem is compounded in those who carefully stayed away from him and never met the man. They got to base their fantasies on what he wrote in books and said on videotapes, and carefully stayed far, far away so that they'd never have to encounter any reality that might contradict their fantasies. Does *anybody* here think this makes a lick of sense? It's not the first time Barry's made this suggestion. So either *he* believes it, or he thinks others will.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question to navashok
It makes sense to not be in a state of upset over the person who lied and what they lied about etc. But the way you and others approach it seems to be to say that now that you have made your peace about M's lying you don't care that his successors are continuing the lying tradition to others. I can't go that far myself. I notice to my surprise that most of the people who responded to my question seem to believe that he did have sex and lied about it rather than the few ladies who came forward and the skin boys all being liars - that was one of the things I was wondering - if they lied, why would they do so? (Personally I think they are telling the truth but I wanted to know what others thought. From: Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question to navashok Thanks, navashok, and just to dig deeper. I've been wondering why we are all so shook up and triggered when people in authority lie to us. I think it's connected to survival and fear of dying. Deep in the primitive brain is the program from childhood saying that if authority figures lie, then we cannot trust them to protect us from saber toothed tigers, etc. And I'm not saying that lying should be condoned. I think lying is wrong and that if a person does it and hurts someone else, then the liar should make amends as best as possible. But the fact is that people lie, even people in positions of authority. And it begins early in our life. When we're quite young, our parents tell us about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. I don't remember but I'm sure it's a shock when a child realizes that there is no Santa Claus. And that the parents were lying about it, something they told us not to do. That's the worse part maybe. We all have to come to peace about the lying of others, especially authority figures in whom we believed. Even if we were young children when we believed in them. Not for their sake or to let them off the hook or to prevent it from happening again. But for our own growth and happiness and good health. Does this make any sense? FWIW I was neither in the Dome nor around the TMO for approx 7 years which included the time of Maharishi's death and Rajaram's becoming the TMO leader. So I don't know who called him Purusha and lots of other details from that period. From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 9:56 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: I don't think he lied about it. I think he kept his private life private. Share, (not that it's important), but I have to disagree here. I think that Barry has a point. He was called a Purusha, and Purushas are celibate. So its not an issue of just keeping his private life private. It is deceptive. Also, Maharishi promoted the Purusha and Mother Divine lifestyle, it's not that this is something neutral, which is nobodies business. It's a life style promoted as especially evolutionary by the movement, which he is the head of. It's a bit different from normal celebrities, who are known for example for their ability as actors etc. Compare it to finding out that the pope is actually married, while all his priests have to live celebate. Which is everyone's right IMHO. Even famous people in Hollywood and sports and politics have a right to a private life. Though the media would have us believe otherwise. And yes, famous people should be realistic about this particular consequence of their fame. But still, they have a right to try to have a private life. Even from their close friends if need be. If a friend is really close, they will understand one's choice in the matter. If not, then let the two of them work it out. Yes, privately, just between the two of them. I think when people are disappointed etc. about famous people and or people in positions of authority, it's my opinion that they are dealing with unresolved issues about their early caregivers and or from previous lives. As such I think it's an opportunity to grow beyond looking for someone or something superficially perfect in this world. I say superficially because at the deeper levels, it is perfect. In my experience. From: turquoiseb To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 7:26 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: I'm very glad that Rajaram is a householder. Are you glad that he lied about it to pretty much everyone in the TM movement for many years, including his close friends like John Hagelin? It makes the TMO
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question to navashok
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. MJ, you and Bee ain't exactly Woodward and Bernstein on this faux issue. Have a decaf, go for a jog, say hi to a pretty woman, relax. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: It makes sense to not be in a state of upset over the person who lied and what they lied about etc. But the way you and others approach it seems to be to say that now that you have made your peace about M's lying you don't care that his successors are continuing the lying tradition to others. I can't go that far myself. I notice to my surprise that most of the people who responded to my question seem to believe that he did have sex and lied about it rather than the few ladies who came forward and the skin boys all being liars - that was one of the things I was wondering - if they lied, why would they do so? (Personally I think they are telling the truth but I wanted to know what others thought. From: Share Long To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question to navashok  Thanks, navashok, and just to dig deeper. I've been wondering why we are all so shook up and triggered when people in authority lie to us. I think it's connected to survival and fear of dying. Deep in the primitive brain is the program from childhood saying that if authority figures lie, then we cannot trust them to protect us from saber toothed tigers, etc. And I'm not saying that lying should be condoned. I think lying is wrong and that if a person does it and hurts someone else, then the liar should make amends as best as possible. But the fact is that people lie, even people in positions of authority. And it begins early in our life. When we're quite young, our parents tell us about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. I don't remember but I'm sure it's a shock when a child realizes that there is no Santa Claus. And that the parents were lying about it, something they told us not to do. That's the worse part maybe. We all have to come to peace about the lying of others, especially authority figures in whom we believed. Even if we were young children when we believed in them. Not for their sake or to let them off the hook or to prevent it from happening again. But for our own growth and happiness and good health. Does this make any sense?     FWIW I was neither in the Dome nor around the TMO for approx 7 years which included the time of Maharishi's death and Rajaram's becoming the TMO leader. So I don't know who called him Purusha and lots of other details from that period. From: navashok To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 9:56 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: I don't think he lied about it.àI think he kept his private life private. Share, (not that it's important), but I have to disagree here. I think that Barry has a point. He was called a Purusha, and Purushas are celibate. So its not an issue of just keeping his private life private. It is deceptive. Also, Maharishi promoted the Purusha and Mother Divine lifestyle, it's not that this is something neutral, which is nobodies business. It's a life style promoted as especially evolutionary by the movement, which he is the head of. It's a bit different from normal celebrities, who are known for example for their ability as actors etc. Compare it to finding out that the pope is actually married, while all his priests have to live celebate. Which is everyone's right IMHO.àEven famous people in Hollywood and sports and politics have a right to a private life.àThough the media would have us believe otherwise.àAnd yes, famous people should be realistic about this particular consequence of their fame.àBut still, they have a right to try to have a private life.àEven from their close friends if need be.àIf a friend is really close, they will understand one's choice in the matter.àIf not, then let the two of them work it out.àYes, privately, just between the two of them. I think when people are disappointed etc. about famous people and or people in positions of authority, it's my opinion that they are dealing with unresolved issues about their early caregivers and or from previous lives.àAs such I think it's an opportunity to grow beyond looking for someone or something superficially perfect in this world.àI say superficially because at the deeper levels, it is perfect.àIn my experience. From: turquoiseb To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 7:26 AM Subject:
[FairfieldLife] Was Guru Dev a part of the Illuminati?
I'm quite amused at the post Stupor Bowl news stories this morning including the one that Beyonce flashing the Illuminati sign. Well in the picture of Brahmananda Saraswati used for puja he's flashing the Illuminati sign. Of course it's just the yoni mudra which is practiced in yoga and tantra (and BS was a tantric though these days the TMO likes to sweep that under the rug). And of course the blackout was a planned event by the Illuminati to get you all used to regular electrical blackouts like India has. :-D
Re: [FairfieldLife] Was Guru Dev a part of the Illuminati?
Guru Dev was a tantric?? From: Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 1:05 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Was Guru Dev a part of the Illuminati? I'm quite amused at the post Stupor Bowl news stories this morning including the one that Beyonce flashing the Illuminati sign. Well in the picture of Brahmananda Saraswati used for puja he's flashing the Illuminati sign. Of course it's just the yoni mudra which is practiced in yoga and tantra (and BS was a tantric though these days the TMO likes to sweep that under the rug). And of course the blackout was a planned event by the Illuminati to get you all used to regular electrical blackouts like India has. :-D
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question to Michael
What I said in second paragraph: And I'm not saying that lying should be condoned. I think lying is wrong and that if a person does it and hurts someone else, then the liar should make amends as best as possible. What I said in third paragraph: We all have to come to peace about the lying of others...Not for their sake or to let them off the hook or to prevent it from happening again. But for our own growth and happiness and good health. These are not expressions of not caring. That is your interpretation and a huge leap from being at peace. From: Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 11:53 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question to navashok It makes sense to not be in a state of upset over the person who lied and what they lied about etc. But the way you and others approach it seems to be to say that now that you have made your peace about M's lying you don't care that his successors are continuing the lying tradition to others. I can't go that far myself. I notice to my surprise that most of the people who responded to my question seem to believe that he did have sex and lied about it rather than the few ladies who came forward and the skin boys all being liars - that was one of the things I was wondering - if they lied, why would they do so? (Personally I think they are telling the truth but I wanted to know what others thought. From: Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question to navashok Thanks, navashok, and just to dig deeper. I've been wondering why we are all so shook up and triggered when people in authority lie to us. I think it's connected to survival and fear of dying. Deep in the primitive brain is the program from childhood saying that if authority figures lie, then we cannot trust them to protect us from saber toothed tigers, etc. And I'm not saying that lying should be condoned. I think lying is wrong and that if a person does it and hurts someone else, then the liar should make amends as best as possible. But the fact is that people lie, even people in positions of authority. And it begins early in our life. When we're quite young, our parents tell us about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. I don't remember but I'm sure it's a shock when a child realizes that there is no Santa Claus. And that the parents were lying about it, something they told us not to do. That's the worse part maybe. We all have to come to peace about the lying of others, especially authority figures in whom we believed. Even if we were young children when we believed in them. Not for their sake or to let them off the hook or to prevent it from happening again. But for our own growth and happiness and good health. Does this make any sense? FWIW I was neither in the Dome nor around the TMO for approx 7 years which included the time of Maharishi's death and Rajaram's becoming the TMO leader. So I don't know who called him Purusha and lots of other details from that period. From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 9:56 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: I don't think he lied about it. I think he kept his private life private. Share, (not that it's important), but I have to disagree here. I think that Barry has a point. He was called a Purusha, and Purushas are celibate. So its not an issue of just keeping his private life private. It is deceptive. Also, Maharishi promoted the Purusha and Mother Divine lifestyle, it's not that this is something neutral, which is nobodies business. It's a life style promoted as especially evolutionary by the movement, which he is the head of. It's a bit different from normal celebrities, who are known for example for their ability as actors etc. Compare it to finding out that the pope is actually married, while all his priests have to live celebate. Which is everyone's right IMHO. Even famous people in Hollywood and sports and politics have a right to a private life. Though the media would have us believe otherwise. And yes, famous people should be realistic about this particular consequence of their fame. But still, they have a right to try to have a private life. Even from their close friends if need be. If a friend is really close, they will understand one's choice in the matter. If not, then let the two of them work it out. Yes, privately, just between the two of them. I think when people are disappointed etc. about famous people and or people in positions
[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Guru Dev a part of the Illuminati?
Michael Jackson: Guru Dev was a tantric?? Not just another Tantric! All the Shankaracharyas agree that the Saraswati Dasanamis worship the Sri Vidya, a tantric sect. It is a fact that the Sri Yantra is ensconced on the mandir at Dwarka, Kanchi, and the Sringeri Mathas. It is also a fact that all the Adwaita Sannyasins claim that Adi Shankara established four mathas as seats of learning and for the worship of Sri Vidya. According to the Shankaracharya of Sringeri, the Adi Shankara placed the Sri Yantra, symbol of Tripura, with the TM mantras inscribed thereon, at each of the seats of learning - Dwarka, Puri, Sringeri, and at Jyotirmath. The bija mantras of TM are tantric mantras which came DIRECTLY from SBS and are related to Sri Vidya. From what I've read, the cult of Sri Vidya was derived from the nath siddhas, tantric alchemists of medieval India during the Gupta Era. Work cited: Auspicious Wisdon The texts and traditions of Srividya Sakta Tantrism in South India. by Douglas Renfrew Brooks SUNY 1992
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
I don't have anything to add to what you posted, Michael, just a suggestion. Whatever editor/email program/whatever you are using to write your posts seems to have smart (curly) quotes and semi-quotes turned on. The Yahoo system is obvously unable to process these, and turns them into the â and â characters you see below. Most such editors or programs have an option to turn off smart quotes, even Microstuft Word, if you are using that. You might consider using such an option, because your current setup makes your posts difficult to read. The  characters that show up from place to place are non-breaking spaces, and I don't know why they appear, unless either you or the editor in question is adding them manually; almost no one *tries* to create them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: My thanks to everyone who offered their answers. Since Mike D was the first to respond I will start there, but really I am using all the answers as a springboard to think and write about this:  So from what most of you seem to be saying, you feel he was enlightened in some way, but because his consciousness was housed in a human body, he was subject to flawed human behavior and yet he was still a holy man, or enlightened.  Or you may feel that he was holy and engaged in Divine activity by teaching meditation, yet not enlightened and therefore his human lies and deception were just part of his human life, sort of like the various Popes who have guided the Catholic church while doing things they officially denounced.  I began my question with the idea of Mâs sexual activity because it seems that those who have talked about it (the women and the skin boys) have come forth with some amount of detail, as opposed to some of the financial allegations which are a little lacking in detail (here I speak of things like suitcases across the border rather than the obvious soliciting funds for projects that never materialized that everyone could see) I agree with Navashok that it does make a difference that Maharishi preached celibacy to others and as head of a movement claimed to be so himself. Had he only practiced deception about his sexual activities, I could have turned a blind eye myself, but in addition to the sexual considerations, he did two things â one being that he seemed to take money under false pretenses, asking for funds for many, many projects that never or rarely ever materialized.  Second, he always claimed that everything he ever offered was far superior to anything everyone else offered. His meditation was superior, his advanced techniques were superior, he alone was able to revitalize ancient vedic knowledge - ayurveda, jyotish, yagas, vastu veda and all the adjunct programs and offerings that went with the main things he sold. He seemed to do this to keep his customers loyal to him, to keep the cash flowing and to feed his ego, that he alone could provide the best of the best. So with the sexual activity, Maharishi practiced deception on a grand scale (meaning that he lied for the better part of his adult life to nearly everyone he came into contact, as opposed to just a few times with a few people), he took money under false pretenses therefore committing fraud and seemed to have a large ego. Committing these sexual and financial acts he manipulated people also on a grand scale meaning he manipulated many people for many years, seemingly to feed his ego and achieve sexual and financial gains. This is behavior that most people would not tolerate in their friends, family, co-workers or strangers. As a society we certainly revile our politicians for doing the exact same things. I find it interesting in a cat-with-a-hairball kind of way that some of you can so easily give him a free pass for doing things you would never allow anyone else in your life to get away with. One more thing I want to mention, Mike said this: âThe Bible tells us that all men fall short of the Glory of God. That means that all men have and will sin.â This must mean that he was not enlightened. Maharishiâs own definition of enlightenment was:  â...in this state (of enlightenment) the mind has become transformed into bliss-consciousness, Being is permanently lived as separate from activity.  Then a man realizes that his Self is different from the mind which is engaged with thoughts and desires.   It is now his experience that the mind, which had been identified with desires, is mainly identified with the Self.  He experiences the desires of the mind as lying outside of himself, whereas he used to experience himself as completely involved with desires.  On the surface of the mind desires certainly continue, but deep within the mind they no longer exist, for the depths of the mind are transformed into the nature of the Self.  All the desires which were present in the mind have been thrown upward, as
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: The problem is compounded in those who carefully stayed away from him and never met the man. They got to base their fantasies on what he wrote in books and said on videotapes, and carefully stayed far, far away so that they'd never have to encounter any reality that might contradict their fantasies. What is reality and what is fantasy Barry? (Uh-oh). Is the reality the 'particular' (the hunch in the back of Richard III), or the 'universal' (the abstract, the teaching). Which is *more* real? Take me. I'm a Hendrix freak. So, just as one example, I absolutely love The Wind Cries Mary. It means a lot to me (and to a lot of others to be sure). http://youtu.be/zNps6k7oVG4 Now I discover that the occasion for the creation of this gem by the force-of-nature Voodoo Chile was in fact some badly prepared mashed potato: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21292762 If you're of a nominalist persuasion I think this would be a bit of a downer. Philosophical realists are not bothered. If you emphasize as *the* reality MMY the man (who ate, shat, copulated and all the rest), you are (perhaps uncritically) taking the former view. Perhaps ideas are more important than bags under the eyes? Perhaps Einstein's equations are more real than his hair style? (PS I read MMY's books *and* met the guy. I was not disappointed in the flesh as it happens).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Guru Dev a part of the Illuminati?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: I'm quite amused at the post Stupor Bowl news stories this morning including the one that Beyonce flashing the Illuminati sign. Well in the picture of Brahmananda Saraswati used for puja he's flashing the Illuminati sign. Of course it's just the yoni mudra which is practiced in yoga and tantra (and BS was a tantric though these days the TMO likes to sweep that under the rug). And of course the blackout was a planned event by the Illuminati to get you all used to regular electrical blackouts like India has. :-D I hear the scientologists had an advert during the break? That must have cost a fortune! Would love to have seen it, especially as I need a new guru after reading here that Marshy was so crap. Hubbard was squeaky clean, right?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Was Guru Dev a part of the Illuminati?
Tantra is about empowering mantras, yantras and rituals called tantras. We're you thinking it was about sex or black magic? On 02/04/2013 10:11 AM, Michael Jackson wrote: Guru Dev was a tantric?? From: Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 1:05 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Was Guru Dev a part of the Illuminati? I'm quite amused at the post Stupor Bowl news stories this morning including the one that Beyonce flashing the Illuminati sign. Well in the picture of Brahmananda Saraswati used for puja he's flashing the Illuminati sign. Of course it's just the yoni mudra which is practiced in yoga and tantra (and BS was a tantric though these days the TMO likes to sweep that under the rug). And of course the blackout was a planned event by the Illuminati to get you all used to regular electrical blackouts like India has. :-D
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: The problem is compounded in those who carefully stayed away from him and never met the man. They got to base their fantasies on what he wrote in books and said on videotapes, and carefully stayed far, far away so that they'd never have to encounter any reality that might contradict their fantasies. What is reality and what is fantasy Barry? (Uh-oh). Is the reality the 'particular' (the hunch in the back of Richard III), or the 'universal' (the abstract, the teaching). Which is *more* real? The whole *premise* of Maharishi's teachings -- or at least the way he acted them out -- is that the idea is more real. I dispute this. Take me. I'm a Hendrix freak. So, just as one example, I absolutely love The Wind Cries Mary. It means a lot to me (and to a lot of others to be sure). http://youtu.be/zNps6k7oVG4 Now I discover that the occasion for the creation of this gem by the force-of-nature Voodoo Chile was in fact some badly prepared mashed potato: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21292762 If you're of a nominalist persuasion I think this would be a bit of a downer. Philosophical realists are not bothered. I am not bothered. What does that make me? :-) If you emphasize as *the* reality MMY the man (who ate, shat, copulated and all the rest), you are (perhaps uncritically) taking the former view. Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. - Philip K. Dick Maharishi's promises have almost all gone away. The reality of his actions has not. Perhaps ideas are more important than bags under the eyes? Perhaps Einstein's equations are more real than his hair style? Einstein himself knew that his ideas were mere ideas. My grandfather worked with him, and heard him say this many times. He was too much of a scientist to ever confuse them with reality. (PS I read MMY's books *and* met the guy. I was not disappointed in the flesh as it happens). I wasn't disappointed *at the time*, merely underwhelmed. I never detected an ounce of shakti or personal power or whatever you might want to call it. In the years since I have been disappointed mainly by the people who still put him up on a pedestal to which he was never entitled. Different strokes for different folks.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Guru Dev a part of the Illuminati?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: Tantra is about empowering mantras, yantras and rituals called tantras. We're you thinking it was about sex or black magic? Tantra is also about a great deal *more* than the things you mentioned. Were you thinking that was all there was to it? :-) On 02/04/2013 10:11 AM, Michael Jackson wrote: Guru Dev was a tantric??
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Guru Dev a part of the Illuminati?
On 02/04/2013 11:29 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: Tantra is about empowering mantras, yantras and rituals called tantras. We're you thinking it was about sex or black magic? Tantra is also about a great deal *more* than the things you mentioned. Were you thinking that was all there was to it? :-) I don't know what Buddhist tantra claims but the definition I gave is standard for Hindu tantra or what I learned. I know some people paste some pretty broad definitions on it though they are not tantrics themselves (so how would they know). :-D BTW, I'm wondering if the Ravens fan hand sign just happens to be a yoni mudra (but they don't know it)? On 02/04/2013 10:11 AM, Michael Jackson wrote: Guru Dev was a tantric??
Re: [FairfieldLife] Was Guru Dev a part of the Illuminati?
No i don't really know much about tantra - I thought there was some difference between tantra masters and SBS, but I never knew what. From: Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 2:11 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Was Guru Dev a part of the Illuminati? Tantra is about empowering mantras, yantras and rituals called tantras. We're you thinking it was about sex or black magic? On 02/04/2013 10:11 AM, Michael Jackson wrote: Guru Dev was a tantric?? From: Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 1:05 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Was Guru Dev a part of the Illuminati? I'm quite amused at the post Stupor Bowl news stories this morning including the one that Beyonce flashing the Illuminati sign. Well in the picture of Brahmananda Saraswati used for puja he's flashing the Illuminati sign. Of course it's just the yoni mudra which is practiced in yoga and tantra (and BS was a tantric though these days the TMO likes to sweep that under the rug). And of course the blackout was a planned event by the Illuminati to get you all used to regular electrical blackouts like India has. :-D
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
thanks - I will try to fix it From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 1:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 I don't have anything to add to what you posted, Michael, just a suggestion. Whatever editor/email program/whatever you are using to write your posts seems to have smart (curly) quotes and semi-quotes turned on. The Yahoo system is obvously unable to process these, and turns them into the โ€� and โ€� characters you see below. Most such editors or programs have an option to turn off smart quotes, even Microstuft Word, if you are using that. You might consider using such an option, because your current setup makes your posts difficult to read. The ย characters that show up from place to place are non-breaking spaces, and I don't know why they appear, unless either you or the editor in question is adding them manually; almost no one *tries* to create them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: My thanks to everyone who offered their answers. Since Mike D was the first to respond I will start there, but really I am using all the answers as a springboard to think and write about this: ย So from what most of you seem to be saying, you feel he was enlightened in some way, but because his consciousness was housed in a human body, he was subject to flawed human behavior and yet he was still a holy man, or enlightened. ย Or you may feel that he was holy and engaged in Divine activity by teaching meditation, yet not enlightened and therefore his human lies and deception were just part of his human life, sort of like the various Popes who have guided the Catholic church while doing things they officially denounced. ย I began my question with the idea of Mโ€�s sexual activity because it seems that those who have talked about it (the women and the skin boys) have come forth with some amount of detail, as opposed to some of the financial allegations which are a little lacking in detail (here I speak of things like suitcases across the border rather than the obvious soliciting funds for projects that never materialized that everyone could see) I agree with Navashok that it does make a difference that Maharishi preached celibacy to others and as head of a movement claimed to be so himself. Had he only practiced deception about his sexual activities, I could have turned a blind eye myself, but in addition to the sexual considerations, he did two things โ€ one being that he seemed to take money under false pretenses, asking for funds for many, many projects that never or rarely ever materialized. ย Second, he always claimed that everything he ever offered was far superior to anything everyone else offered. His meditation was superior, his advanced techniques were superior, he alone was able to revitalize ancient vedic knowledge - ayurveda, jyotish, yagas, vastu veda and all the adjunct programs and offerings that went with the main things he sold. He seemed to do this to keep his customers loyal to him, to keep the cash flowing and to feed his ego, that he alone could provide the best of the best. So with the sexual activity, Maharishi practiced deception on a grand scale (meaning that he lied for the better part of his adult life to nearly everyone he came into contact, as opposed to just a few times with a few people), he took money under false pretenses therefore committing fraud and seemed to have a large ego. Committing these sexual and financial acts he manipulated people also on a grand scale meaning he manipulated many people for many years, seemingly to feed his ego and achieve sexual and financial gains. This is behavior that most people would not tolerate in their friends, family, co-workers or strangers. As a society we certainly revile our politicians for doing the exact same things. I find it interesting in a cat-with-a-hairball kind of way that some of you can so easily give him a free pass for doing things you would never allow anyone else in your life to get away with. One more thing I want to mention, Mike said this: โ€�The Bible tells usย that all men fall short of the Glory of God. That means that all men have and will sin.โ€� This must mean that he was not enlightened. Maharishiโ€�s own definition of enlightenment was: ย โ€�...in this state (of enlightenment) the mind has become transformed into bliss-consciousness, Being is permanently lived as separate from activity.ย ย Then a man realizes that his Self isย different from the mind which is engaged with thoughts and desires.ย ย ย It is now his experience that the mind, which had been identified with desires, is mainly identified with the Self.ย ย He experiences the desires of the mind as lying outside of himself, whereas he used to experience himself as completely involved with desires.ย ย On the surface
[FairfieldLife] Robots on the Rise?
They may take over some routine jobs performed by people. But human beings will create new jobs that are more satisfying to the human mind. These could include more jobs related to education, the arts, medicine, and health care to name a few. http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/robots-rise-job-risk-140532110.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Guru Dev a part of the Illuminati?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: On 02/04/2013 11:29 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: Tantra is about empowering mantras, yantras and rituals called tantras. We're you thinking it was about sex or black magic? Tantra is also about a great deal *more* than the things you mentioned. Were you thinking that was all there was to it? :-) I don't know what Buddhist tantra claims but the definition I gave is standard for Hindu tantra or what I learned. That's why I spoke up. Your definition of tantra does not speak for the whole study of tantra. For example, in many Buddhist forms of tantra, the mantras, yantras, and above all rituals you mentioned are viewed as baby steps, things you do in the beginning of your study while learning to trigger the inner forces of tantra. Once you have, these things are considered not necessary. I think of it similar to Dumbo's feather, in the old Disney movie. Dumbo believed (was told) that the feather he held in his trunk had magical powers, and was the reason he could fly. But in reality he could fly because of his big-assed ears. The feather was a placebo to trick him into doing what he had been capable of doing all along. I've seen tantra (including many of the phenomena you have mentioned here in the past) performed without mantras, without yantras, and without any kind of ritual. No pujas, no chanting, no mantras, nothing verbal at all, just magic. Go figure. I know some people paste some pretty broad definitions on it though they are not tantrics themselves (so how would they know). :-D I'm just saying that just as they shouldn't necessarily limit tantra to what they know about it, neither should you. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in *either* of our philosophies.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Guru Dev a part of the Illuminati?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: I'm quite amused at the post Stupor Bowl news stories this morning including the one that Beyonce flashing the Illuminati sign. Well in the picture of Brahmananda Saraswati used for puja he's flashing the Illuminati sign. Of course it's just the yoni mudra which is practiced in yoga and tantra (and BS was a tantric though these days the TMO likes to sweep that under the rug). And of course the blackout was a planned event by the Illuminati to get you all used to regular electrical blackouts like India has. :-D The Vaishnavites have a different definition of the Illuminati, who are supposed to be the nonbelievers and materialists of the world. By that definition, Guru Dev would not qualify.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Yogah karmasu kaushalam
Um, doesn't work that way, Share. They won, not because of the words, Old timers. hahaha Good possible theory, except that also the Raven is closely associated with a Crow, a black bird and that is Shani also. Caw, caw. Maybe the direction of west may have had something to do with the winner, coming from the west and Surya transiting Makara, haha, not because they are called old timers. hahahaha. :) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: or Sani exalted in Libra means the old timers will win? yogastah kuru karmani Established in Being perform action. Yay Ravens! I grew up in Maryland suburbs of DC, John. From: John To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 5:20 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Yogah karmasu kaushalam  This means the 49ers will will the SB through skill in action. JGD.
[FairfieldLife] Turq's Oscar Noms Reviews: Flight
In one line, Awesome performance by Denzel Washington, but in a gritty, real movie that may not be everyone's cuppa tea. Some of the best performances in movie history have been made by actors portraying alcoholics. Think Ray Milland's Oscar-winning performance in Lost Weekend, or Jeff Bridges in 8 Million Ways To Die, or Jane Fonda in The Morning After. This is one of those performances. Denzel just *rocks* in it, and in a year without Daniel Day Lewis's Lincoln in it, he would have walked away with the Oscar. That said, drunks are not all that pleasant to watch. In this film Denzel plays an alcoholic and cocaine abuser who just happens to be an airline pilot, and just happens to be *still* drunk and stoned when some- thing disastrous happens to the plane. *That* sobers his ass up quick, and he draws upon a lifetime of piloting skills to do something that no other pilot would have been able to do, and saves the plane from crashing altogether. However it *does* crash badly enough that four passengers and two crew members are killed, and Denzel winds up in the hospital along with other survivors, where of course one of the first things they do as a matter of course is take blood tests. Blood alcohol of 2.1 and traces of coke. Uh oh. The rest of the film is the fallout from this, and it's all well staged and well played, but...as I suggested...possibly not everyone's idea of a good time. The movie has excellent direction by Robert Zemeckis and excellent supporting performances by Don Cheadle and Bruce Greenwood and Kelly Reilly, but it's really Denzel's ball, and he done took it and run with it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Guru Dev a part of the Illuminati?
On 02/04/2013 11:57 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: On 02/04/2013 11:29 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: Tantra is about empowering mantras, yantras and rituals called tantras. We're you thinking it was about sex or black magic? Tantra is also about a great deal *more* than the things you mentioned. Were you thinking that was all there was to it? :-) I don't know what Buddhist tantra claims but the definition I gave is standard for Hindu tantra or what I learned. That's why I spoke up. Your definition of tantra does not speak for the whole study of tantra. For example, in many Buddhist forms of tantra, the mantras, yantras, and above all rituals you mentioned are viewed as baby steps, things you do in the beginning of your study while learning to trigger the inner forces of tantra. Once you have, these things are considered not necessary. I think of it similar to Dumbo's feather, in the old Disney movie. Dumbo believed (was told) that the feather he held in his trunk had magical powers, and was the reason he could fly. But in reality he could fly because of his big-assed ears. The feather was a placebo to trick him into doing what he had been capable of doing all along. I've seen tantra (including many of the phenomena you have mentioned here in the past) performed without mantras, without yantras, and without any kind of ritual. No pujas, no chanting, no mantras, nothing verbal at all, just magic. Go figure. I know some people paste some pretty broad definitions on it though they are not tantrics themselves (so how would they know). :-D I'm just saying that just as they shouldn't necessarily limit tantra to what they know about it, neither should you. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in *either* of our philosophies. I have to respectfully disagree because there are classic definitions of tantra. That's what I'm using. Otherwise watching movies could be considered tantra. :-D Tantra is not a spectator sport.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: LOL. I guess my reminding people that King Tony lied about his non-bramacharya status and pretended to be celibate for years pushed a few buttons. Both Nabby and Jimbo are back in Kill the messenger while ignoring the issue mode again. :-) No, I'm not. I don't really care what you think and it's been years since anything you said had any provocative effect. But I'm curious to know what you base your assumptions and I've come to the conclusion that your are far, very far into some fantasy, possible phsycosis regarding the TMO. *It couldn't have been more obvious* that he was lying all those years before he came out as married with children. All you had to do is read the emails coming from other major leaders of the TMO such as Bevan and Hagelin to get how shocked they were. I think we'd all LOVE to read about how shocked they were, and you can provide some evidence of this, no ? Thought so.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Guru Dev a part of the Illuminati?
On 02/04/2013 12:15 PM, John wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: I'm quite amused at the post Stupor Bowl news stories this morning including the one that Beyonce flashing the Illuminati sign. Well in the picture of Brahmananda Saraswati used for puja he's flashing the Illuminati sign. Of course it's just the yoni mudra which is practiced in yoga and tantra (and BS was a tantric though these days the TMO likes to sweep that under the rug). And of course the blackout was a planned event by the Illuminati to get you all used to regular electrical blackouts like India has. :-D The Vaishnavites have a different definition of the Illuminati, who are supposed to be the nonbelievers and materialists of the world. By that definition, Guru Dev would not qualify. Uh, it's a joke, John. There was much made in the news about Beyonce flashing that sign and I also heard that people saw folks in the crowd stand up and give that sign. Funny if they were Ravens fans and that is their salute. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/did-beyonce-flash-illuminati-sign-why-did-superdome-064347471--nfl.html However a yogi or tantric meditating while holding the hands in the form of the yoni mudra is not uncommon. Bet many folks here do that and don't even know it. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: It is bizarre. Considering Bee hasn't been around Maharishi for decades, and then, only briefly. Who, exactly, is fantasizing?? According to posters here the Turq was never around Maharishi in any way. Apparently he never even talked to Maharishi privately or had a private telephoneconversation with him.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Robots on the Rise?
On 02/04/2013 11:56 AM, John wrote: They may take over some routine jobs performed by people. But human beings will create new jobs that are more satisfying to the human mind. These could include more jobs related to education, the arts, medicine, and health care to name a few. http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/robots-rise-job-risk-140532110.html There are a lot of tedious jobs that would better done by machines. It is inhuman to ask people to perform such jobs but they do so out of desperation. Take clothing sweat shops for example. A lot of those clothes could be designed to be made by machines with much more quality control. Or assembling electronics as another example. We are at a point in the history of the world where people shouldn't need to work so much just to survive. It's the greedy money junkies who keep wage slavery alive. To hell with them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
Nabby, it doesn't mean Turq has not put together a thinking mind of the possibilities that are told? Just because someone is not around, does not make them less of a witness. Some people know how to put a jigsaw puzzle together and some just look at the pieces and the box picture and say, oh that is pretty. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: It is bizarre. Considering Bee hasn't been around Maharishi for decades, and then, only briefly. Who, exactly, is fantasizing?? According to posters here the Turq was never around Maharishi in any way. Apparently he never even talked to Maharishi privately or had a private telephoneconversation with him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
The turq is right. One can collect a whole lot more money, if we have been conditioned to give to what appears higher than ourselves. If it was a lie, it does not make the collection honest. The good lesson learned. :) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: LOL. I guess my reminding people that King Tony lied about his non-bramacharya status and pretended to be celibate for years pushed a few buttons. Both Nabby and Jimbo are back in Kill the messenger while ignoring the issue mode again. :-) *It couldn't have been more obvious* that he was lying all those years before he came out as married with children. All you had to do is read the emails coming from other major leaders of the TMO such as Bevan and Hagelin to get how shocked they were. Add to that Tonyboy's *own* explanation of how Maharishi had told him to keep it secret (whether that is true or not), and it's very difficult to claim that he *wasn't* lying all those years. So what's up with that, all you people who consider him enlightened? Remember, there is an ISSUE here to be discussed, no matter how much the button-pushed TBs are trying to distract you from it by trying to divert the conversation to personalities and Kill the messenger. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: What would you do, Nabby? Barry's situation is a lot like the white sharecroppers in the South hating black people, *more* than the slave owners did, because despite their own wretched circumstances, they had a group they could look down on. Bee is unemployed, unmarried, drinks too much, and hasn't accomplished much spiritually. So what he does is bash anything and everything, to avoid facing himself. It is both obvious and straightforward, er, except to him - lol. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: I'm very glad that Rajaram is a householder. Are you glad that he lied about it to pretty much everyone in the TM movement for many years, including his close friends like John Hagelin? On what basis does the Turq claim Rajaram was lying, does he know anything about it ? No, he is pushing his own agenda PRETENDING he is in the know. But as usual he is caught lying.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
that is a very insightful statement - thank you! From: obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 3:49 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question Nabby, it doesn't mean Turq has not put together a thinking mind of the possibilities that are told? Just because someone is not around, does not make them less of a witness. Some people know how to put a jigsaw puzzle together and some just look at the pieces and the box picture and say, oh that is pretty. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: It is bizarre. Considering Bee hasn't been around Maharishi for decades, and then, only briefly. Who, exactly, is fantasizing?? According to posters here the Turq was never around Maharishi in any way. Apparently he never even talked to Maharishi privately or had a private telephoneconversation with him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: Yeah, I am not hung up on sex being bad or any of that, regardless of what may or may not have been said about it by Maharishi. Seven billion people or whatever our population is currently, are pretty good evidence it is a mutually enjoyable activity. As far as what Maharishi said or did, I'd rather spend my time examining my own life, so that I can constantly improve it. Those like Barry, MJ, Salyavatin' and others who focus so much interest on how Maharishi may have screwed up, are imo, lost in the sauce, so to speak. The other dirty little secret is that Bee and MJ and Saliva's denigrating of Maharishi, has *absolutely nothing* to do with Maharishi!!-lol. These are more like grumpy old men looking for excuses to justify their inner discontent - nothing more. Some people, for some reason are clueless with regard to this type of projection. No capacity for self reflection, more like a knee-jerk reaction: They feel bad, and it must be Maharishi or something external that they must rail against to feel better. It is quite an immature reaction, and like I said, has nothing to do with the external target, and much more to do with their emotional discomfort. That's an interesting idea, one which you have brought forward before. Regarding MJ and Salvia's hate I'm sure you are correct, they seem to possess different levels of non-accomplishments and need someone ELSE to blame. Whereas the Turq and Vaj always seemed to have the Buddhist angle, as if the success of TMO in Buddhist countries was too much for them to handle and they've started some sort of religious vendetta. But you could be right, perhaps these two characters are also just clueless about themselves and utterly miserable. There certainly isn't a day here without the Turq trying his outmost to try to prove this :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: Goddamit Bee, you are the biggest LIAR here, much more than Raja Ram. Why not focus on your own fucked up values, *for once*, and leave the TMO punching bag alone? Say for 72 hours, three lousy days - then you can escape back into your dark fantasies, and avoid yourself. Deal?? How could you possible expect that from this fellow ? He would develop heavy withdraw symptoms and feel even more miserable than he usually does, possible begin drinking even more heavy than before :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Guru Dev a part of the Illuminati?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: On 02/04/2013 12:15 PM, John wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: I'm quite amused at the post Stupor Bowl news stories this morning including the one that Beyonce flashing the Illuminati sign. Well in the picture of Brahmananda Saraswati used for puja he's flashing the Illuminati sign. Of course it's just the yoni mudra which is practiced in yoga and tantra (and BS was a tantric though these days the TMO likes to sweep that under the rug). And of course the blackout was a planned event by the Illuminati to get you all used to regular electrical blackouts like India has. :-D The Vaishnavites have a different definition of the Illuminati, who are supposed to be the nonbelievers and materialists of the world. By that definition, Guru Dev would not qualify. Uh, it's a joke, John. There was much made in the news about Beyonce flashing that sign and I also heard that people saw folks in the crowd stand up and give that sign. Funny if they were Ravens fans and that is their salute. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/did-beyonce-flash-illuminati-sign-why-did-superdome-064347471--nfl.html However a yogi or tantric meditating while holding the hands in the form of the yoni mudra is not uncommon. Bet many folks here do that and don't even know it. ;-) Bhairitu, FWIW, Shak O'neil is a self-proclaimed member of the Free Masons. That's probably why a lot of hip hop artists are making all of these hand gestures. Whatever...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: What would you do, Nabby? Barry's situation is a lot like the white sharecroppers in the South hating black people, *more* than the slave owners did, because despite their own wretched circumstances, they had a group they could look down on. Bee is unemployed, unmarried, drinks too much, and hasn't accomplished much spiritually. So what he does is bash anything and everything, to avoid facing himself. It is both obvious and straightforward, er, except to him - lol. It's a sorry state to be in for sure. His writings (when he is not explaining how great B-films and crappy scandinavian TV series are which are kind of amusing to read since the fellov obviously lacks good taste) reminds me of cramps, in this case mental cramps. It sometimes comes with old age and will hopefully not happen to anyone I know.
[FairfieldLife] Just a Little Lovin'
For the piano players and musicians in the group. You might appreciate this arrangement of an old standard song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3LyemCaC8k
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: Yes, there are people who do such things in life Define such things in life. Whatever such things are, they'd have to be very close to the facts of the TM situation to apply to TMers as Barry has suggested. not connected to TM and it would apply to some that have done TM too Look, Michael, I know we can't expect anything from you but a knee-jerk defense of Barry, but just for the record: The first time Barry made this suggestion, it referred to me specifically, and I think it's safe to assume it still does in his mind, perhaps now including other FFL TMers who never had the chance to spend time with Maharishi. Where it fails on its face, quite definitively, is that if I and these other FFL TMers were bent on never encountering anything that could disturb our purported fantasies about Maharishi, FFL is the last place we would be inclined to hang out (in my case for 17 years, including my participation on alt.meditation.transcendental, which was also full of TM critics). If I were intent on preserving those purported fantasies, would I have pointed you to Judith Bourque's book, which you appear not to have known about, or the extensive discussions we've had about it here? And with regard to non-FFL TMers, the suggestion is just as silly. To have one's fantasies about Maharishi challenged firsthand, one would have to have been into TM when he was still accessible, either early on when he was conducting long rounding courses for meditators, or later when he was leading TTCs--but before he withdrew into his digs at Vlodrop--or one would have had to have been on his staff. To claim, as Barry does, that any TMer who was never in any of these situations has been deliberately avoiding them in order to preserve their Maharishi fantasies is obviously absurd. *Barry* knows this, but he also knows there are folks here like you who will fall for it because it confirms your preconceptions, and you don't have the imagination to see beyond them--or even a strong enough grasp of logic to see through his attempt to mislead you. From: authfriend To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 11:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question Salyavin, Michael, I'm genuinely curious to know whether you think this makes a lick of sense: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: (snip) The problem is compounded in those who carefully stayed away from him and never met the man. They got to base their fantasies on what he wrote in books and said on videotapes, and carefully stayed far, far away so that they'd never have to encounter any reality that might contradict their fantasies. Does *anybody* here think this makes a lick of sense? It's not the first time Barry's made this suggestion. So either *he* believes it, or he thinks others will.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: OK, serious question here to all those who have defended Maharishi as a saint and true holy man. How do you account for the stories that several of his former skin boys have told about his sexual escapades? Mark Landau, Billy Clayton, Nedd Wynn and others have told stories that are very similar as to what who and when. Do you think they are all lying and if so why? Or do you honestly think it is alright for a true holy man who always said he was a lifelong celibate to have sex repeatedly and lie about having done so? You won't get a serious answer from believers MJ, they are unable to square years of devotion to someone they assumed was living the life he claimed he was with the ugly truth that he was abusing his position of power by seducing credulous, starry-eyed girls. Name the believers on FFL, salyavin. Don't just hide behind the generic term. Like Michael, you're stuck in your preconceptions. As I did with Michael, I suggest you check out Judith Bourque's book, and then the extensive discussions about it that have taken place here. Look for the contributions to those discussions by those you think of as believers.
[FairfieldLife] *Very* effective infographic
A group called Periscopic has taken FBI crime statistics (the number of people killed by guns in the US in 2010) and mapped them against WHO lifespan statistics to show the number of years lived in orange, and the number of potential years not lived in gray. The chart is animated, starting in January with 0 gun deaths, but then the counter speeds up, and so to the bands of orange and gray. And then it goes on, and goes on, and you wonder when it's ever going to stop, and then you notice up in the right hand corner that you're only looking at the numbers through May. And then it goes on, and on, and on... http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2013/feb/04/us-gun-violence-deaths-years-lost-periscopic
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
I am aware of and have been aware of J. Borque's book since before beginning posting on FFL. I did not give it much credibility at first for several reasons. One is that even though I had already come to believe that M was unethical in his monetary dealings and in the way he treated people in general, I was not willing to believe he was not celibate. Usually with these guru sexcapades there will be one woman who comes forward, the guru or guru supporters will deny the allegations, then another woman will come forward, then another and another and another until the evidence seems undeniable as in the case of Swami Kriyananda (J. Donald Walters) In Maha's case - there were only one or two women who came forward -after having a brief e-mail conversation with Rick on the matter, I felt I needed to take another look at the allegations and then began to find material from the skin boys addressing the issue - it was there very consistent stories that convinced me that Marshy was indeed an unethical SOB. As to your last post, you asked if it made sense and to me it does, meaning that some people avoid looking because they don't want to find. This is essentially what Barry was saying - that people keep their distance because they don't want to hear and see the truth and that does happen and has happened within the TMO and those who do TM. From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 4:21 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: Yes, there are people who do such things in life Define such things in life. Whatever such things are, they'd have to be very close to the facts of the TM situation to apply to TMers as Barry has suggested. not connected to TM and it would apply to some that have done TM too Look, Michael, I know we can't expect anything from you but a knee-jerk defense of Barry, but just for the record: The first time Barry made this suggestion, it referred to me specifically, and I think it's safe to assume it still does in his mind, perhaps now including other FFL TMers who never had the chance to spend time with Maharishi. Where it fails on its face, quite definitively, is that if I and these other FFL TMers were bent on never encountering anything that could disturb our purported fantasies about Maharishi, FFL is the last place we would be inclined to hang out (in my case for 17 years, including my participation on alt.meditation.transcendental, which was also full of TM critics). If I were intent on preserving those purported fantasies, would I have pointed you to Judith Bourque's book, which you appear not to have known about, or the extensive discussions we've had about it here? And with regard to non-FFL TMers, the suggestion is just as silly. To have one's fantasies about Maharishi challenged firsthand, one would have to have been into TM when he was still accessible, either early on when he was conducting long rounding courses for meditators, or later when he was leading TTCs--but before he withdrew into his digs at Vlodrop--or one would have had to have been on his staff. To claim, as Barry does, that any TMer who was never in any of these situations has been deliberately avoiding them in order to preserve their Maharishi fantasies is obviously absurd. *Barry* knows this, but he also knows there are folks here like you who will fall for it because it confirms your preconceptions, and you don't have the imagination to see beyond them--or even a strong enough grasp of logic to see through his attempt to mislead you. From: authfriend To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 11:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question Salyavin, Michael, I'm genuinely curious to know whether you think this makes a lick of sense: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: (snip) The problem is compounded in those who carefully stayed away from him and never met the man. They got to base their fantasies on what he wrote in books and said on videotapes, and carefully stayed far, far away so that they'd never have to encounter any reality that might contradict their fantasies. Does *anybody* here think this makes a lick of sense? It's not the first time Barry's made this suggestion. So either *he* believes it, or he thinks others will.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: I am aware of and have been aware of J. Borque's book since before beginning posting on FFL. I did not give it much credibility at first for several reasons. One is that even though I had already come to believe that M was unethical in his monetary dealings and in the way he treated people in general, I was not willing to believe he was not celibate. Usually with these guru sexcapades there will be one woman who comes forward, the guru or guru supporters will deny the allegations, then another woman will come forward, then another and another and another until the evidence seems undeniable as in the case of Swami Kriyananda (J. Donald Walters) In Maha's case - there were only one or two women who came forward -after having a brief e-mail conversation with Rick on the matter, I felt I needed to take another look at the allegations and then began to find material from the skin boys addressing the issue - it was there very consistent stories that convinced me that Marshy was indeed an unethical SOB. Interesting that you would find the men gossiping about it privately among themselves more convincing than the woman who wrote and published a firsthand account of her affair with Maharishi. As to your last post, you asked if it made sense and to me it does, meaning that some people avoid looking because they don't want to find. This is essentially what Barry was saying - that people keep their distance because they don't want to hear and see the truth and that does happen and has happened within the TMO and those who do TM. As I explained to you, Barry was saying it about the TMers on FFL who had not spent time with Maharishi, including moi. You'll even give him a pass on *that*. Mind-boggling. From: authfriend To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 4:21 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: Yes, there are people who do such things in life Define such things in life. Whatever such things are, they'd have to be very close to the facts of the TM situation to apply to TMers as Barry has suggested. not connected to TM and it would apply to some that have done TM too Look, Michael, I know we can't expect anything from you but a knee-jerk defense of Barry, but just for the record: The first time Barry made this suggestion, it referred to me specifically, and I think it's safe to assume it still does in his mind, perhaps now including other FFL TMers who never had the chance to spend time with Maharishi. Where it fails on its face, quite definitively, is that if I and these other FFL TMers were bent on never encountering anything that could disturb our purported fantasies about Maharishi, FFL is the last place we would be inclined to hang out (in my case for 17 years, including my participation on alt.meditation.transcendental, which was also full of TM critics). If I were intent on preserving those purported fantasies, would I have pointed you to Judith Bourque's book, which you appear not to have known about, or the extensive discussions we've had about it here? And with regard to non-FFL TMers, the suggestion is just as silly. To have one's fantasies about Maharishi challenged firsthand, one would have to have been into TM when he was still accessible, either early on when he was conducting long rounding courses for meditators, or later when he was leading TTCs--but before he withdrew into his digs at Vlodrop--or one would have had to have been on his staff. To claim, as Barry does, that any TMer who was never in any of these situations has been deliberately avoiding them in order to preserve their Maharishi fantasies is obviously absurd. *Barry* knows this, but he also knows there are folks here like you who will fall for it because it confirms your preconceptions, and you don't have the imagination to see beyond them--or even a strong enough grasp of logic to see through his attempt to mislead you. From: authfriend To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 11:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question Salyavin, Michael, I'm genuinely curious to know whether you think this makes a lick of sense: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: (snip) The problem is compounded in those who carefully stayed away from him and never met the man. They got to base their fantasies on what he wrote in books and said on videotapes, and carefully stayed far, far away so that they'd never have to encounter any reality that might contradict their fantasies. Does *anybody* here think this makes a lick of sense? It's not the first time Barry's made this suggestion. So either *he* believes it, or he thinks others will.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
Ohbe, once you are a little older, you will see how Bee's ideas really don't up under any kind of scrutiny. Perhaps you will also disabuse yourself of the notion that assholes are anything other than assholes.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Nabby, it doesn't mean Turq has not put together a thinking mind of the possibilities that are told? Just because someone is not around, does not make them less of a witness. Some people know how to put a jigsaw puzzle together and some just look at the pieces and the box picture and say, oh that is pretty. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: It is bizarre. Considering Bee hasn't been around Maharishi for decades, and then, only briefly. Who, exactly, is fantasizing?? According to posters here the Turq was never around Maharishi in any way. Apparently he never even talked to Maharishi privately or had a private telephoneconversation with him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
Ohbe, once you are a little older, you will see how Bee's ideas really don't add up under any kind of scrutiny. Perhaps you will also disabuse yourself of the notion that assholes are anything other than assholes.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Nabby, it doesn't mean Turq has not put together a thinking mind of the possibilities that are told? Just because someone is not around, does not make them less of a witness. Some people know how to put a jigsaw puzzle together and some just look at the pieces and the box picture and say, oh that is pretty. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: It is bizarre. Considering Bee hasn't been around Maharishi for decades, and then, only briefly. Who, exactly, is fantasizing?? According to posters here the Turq was never around Maharishi in any way. Apparently he never even talked to Maharishi privately or had a private telephoneconversation with him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
You mean once I sit for seven more years on FFL? I don't defend his SOB attitude, or his orthodox view of women. I definitely think he attacked me a couple of times to say the least, on this board. The last I checked, he put me in the same category as Nabby, a share craft crop circle believer and I found that quite insulting. Then later, I have seen how Nabby actually means well by a statement he made concerning someone else's comment and realized he actually does think things through if presented to him in a balanced way. My judgement about Nabby has dropped to a smaller crop circle size, hahah, and I have to say the Turq can bring up some good points to consider. His delivery is not handsome most of the time, but if he wears the garter belt, it can appear he dresses in drag, regularly. The Turq does see women as little flowers and it is annoying to him, in my opinion when women become victims of what he wished he could have had the chance to stimulate, at least he defends for his personal desires? What would any man give to have women throw themselves, their flower parts at full blossom towards them? When men see other men use it for their camouflage advantage, someone like Turg knows how to point it out pretty well. Takes one to know one? :) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: Ohbe, once you are a little older, you will see how Bee's ideas really don't add up under any kind of scrutiny. Perhaps you will also disabuse yourself of the notion that assholes are anything other than assholes.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Nabby, it doesn't mean Turq has not put together a thinking mind of the possibilities that are told? Just because someone is not around, does not make them less of a witness. Some people know how to put a jigsaw puzzle together and some just look at the pieces and the box picture and say, oh that is pretty. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: It is bizarre. Considering Bee hasn't been around Maharishi for decades, and then, only briefly. Who, exactly, is fantasizing?? According to posters here the Turq was never around Maharishi in any way. Apparently he never even talked to Maharishi privately or had a private telephoneconversation with him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: You mean once I sit for seven more years on FFL? I don't defend his SOB attitude, or his orthodox view of women. I definitely think he attacked me a couple of times to say the least, on this board. The last I checked, he put me in the same category as Nabby, a share craft crop circle believer and I found that quite insulting. Then later, I have seen how Nabby actually means well by a statement he made concerning someone else's comment and realized he actually does think things through if presented to him in a balanced way. My judgement about Nabby has dropped to a smaller crop circle size, hahah, Small, big ? Doesn't matter, have your pick : https://www.facebook.com/pages/Crop-Circles-UFOs-Ancient-Mysteries-Scie\ ntific-Speculations/246667595346687?ref=tssk=wall Discuss this circle on our Facebook Crop Circles-UFO's-Ancient Mysteries-Scientific Speculations https://www.facebook.com/pages/Crop-Circles-UFOs-Ancient-Mysteries-Scie\ ntific-Speculations/246667595346687?ref=tssk=wall http://www.cccvault.co.uk/cccvideos/2010/trailer2010z.html CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST CROP CIRCLE CONNECTOR DVD http://www.cccvault.co.uk/cccvideos/2010/trailer2010z.html http://www.thecropcircleshop.com/ [https://www.paypal.com/en_GB/i/scr/pixel.gif] Make a donation to keep the web site alive http://www.thecropcircleshop.com/ http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/anasazi/conduct.html FOR VISITING THE CROP CIRCLES. Images Martin Sawyer Copyright 2012 http://www.cropcircleconnectorforum.com/ Images Lucy Pringle http://blog.lucypringle.co.uk/news/urgent-appeal-from-lucy-pringle/ Copyright 2012 Click above to join the Crop Circle Connector Membership http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2012/http:/www.cropcircleconnector.c\ om/anasazi/ml.html http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/interface2005.htm BACK http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/anasazi/post2004.html Mark Fussell Stuart Dike http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/anasazi/post2004.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
Exactly! :) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: You mean once I sit for seven more years on FFL? I don't defend his SOB attitude, or his orthodox view of women. I definitely think he attacked me a couple of times to say the least, on this board. The last I checked, he put me in the same category as Nabby, a share craft crop circle believer and I found that quite insulting. Then later, I have seen how Nabby actually means well by a statement he made concerning someone else's comment and realized he actually does think things through if presented to him in a balanced way. My judgement about Nabby has dropped to a smaller crop circle size, hahah, Small, big ? Doesn't matter, have your pick : ntific-Speculations/246667595346687?ref=tssk=wall Discuss this circle on our Facebook Crop Circles-UFO's-Ancient Mysteries-Scientific Speculations ntific-Speculations/246667595346687?ref=tssk=wall CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST CROP CIRCLE CONNECTOR DVD [https://www.paypal.com/en_GB/i/scr/pixel.gif] Make a donation to keep the web site alive FOR VISITING THE CROP CIRCLES. Images Martin Sawyer Copyright 2012 Images Lucy Pringle Copyright 2012 Click above to join the Crop Circle Connector Membership om/anasazi/ml.html BACK Mark Fussell Stuart Dike
[FairfieldLife] Post Count Tue 05-Feb-13 00:15:06 UTC
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): 02/02/13 00:00:00 End Date (UTC): 02/09/13 00:00:00 264 messages as of (UTC) 02/05/13 00:09:46 29 Michael Jackson 22 doctordumbass 20 turquoiseb 20 seventhray27 20 Share Long 19 nablusoss1008 17 Bhairitu 14 authfriend 13 obbajeeba 9 Ravi Chivukula 8 Richard J. Williams 8 John 8 Buck 7 card 7 Ann 6 salyavin808 6 navashok 4 srijau 4 merudanda 4 Alex Stanley 3 Xenophaneros Anartaxius 2 laughinggull108 2 feste37 2 david 2 Mike Dixon 1 wgm4u 1 seekliberation 1 merlin 1 martin.quickman 1 at_man_and_brahman 1 PaliGap 1 FairfieldLife 1 Dick Mays Posters: 33 Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times = Daylight Saving Time (Summer): US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM Standard Time (Winter): US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question to Michael
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: What I said in second paragraph: And I'm not saying that lying should be condoned. I think lying is wrong and that if a person does it and hurts someone else, then the liar should make amends as best as possible. What I said in third paragraph: We all have to come to peace about the lying of others...Not for their sake or to let them off the hook or to prevent it from happening again. But for our own growth and happiness and good health. These are not expressions of not caring. That is your interpretation and a huge leap from being at peace. I've noticed that MJ does this quite a bit. He's got an agenda he's pretty attached to. I mean, there's an appearance of open mindedness, but I don't think it runs very deep. He often takes what you say and then twists it into something that better suits his view of the subject matter.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
Maharishi is not on this list. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: Yeah, he's still a holy man, just not as holy as most of us thought. The Bible tells us that all men fall short of the Glory of God. That means that all men have and will sin. Maharishi was a man, not God. The Bible also speaks of angels coming to earth and having sex with women. Veda Vyasa had sex with an unmarried woman in a boat while crossing a river, thus we have Shukadeva. Maharishi belongs on a pedestal, just not as high as we might have thought. My thoughts are that M was a very high soul on a mission and upon taking birth as a man, he did things men do. The idea that Maharishi is some kind of God certainly did not originate from himself. Asked by a german journalist in Vlodrop: Maharishi, who are you ? Maharishi answered: A normal human being. According to Benjamin Creme, Maharishi is a highly enlightened soul, but not an Avatar. http://www.share-berlin.de/list_of_initiates.htm#LinkM BTW; going through the list of Initiates you will find only a few Avatars living here lately: Ananda Mayi Ma, Gautama Buddha, Hercules, Hermes, Krishna, Ramakrishna, Ramana Maharshi, Shankara and Vivekananda.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question to Michael
what a joke - I think you were looking in the mirror From: seventhray27 steve.sun...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 7:24 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question to Michael --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: What I said in second paragraph: And I'm not saying that lying should be condoned. I think lying is wrong and that if a person does it and hurts someone else, then the liar should make amends as best as possible. What I said in third paragraph: We all have to come to peace about the lying of others...Not for their sake or to let them off the hook or to prevent it from happening again. But for our own growth and happiness and good health. These are not expressions of not caring. That is your interpretation and a huge leap from being at peace. I've noticed that MJ does this quite a bit. He's got an agenda he's pretty attached to. I mean, there's an appearance of open mindedness, but I don't think it runs very deep. He often takes what you say and then twists it into something that better suits his view of the subject matter.
[FairfieldLife] complete cancer cure with Maharishi Ayurveda
Ashtavaidya tradition is a unique ancient branch of Kerala Ayurveda. Ashtavaidyas use only purely traditional methods. Ashtavaidyan E T Divakaran Mooss is the chief physician of the Vaidyaraj Oushadha Sala of Ashtavaidyas. He is also the advisor to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's Maharishi Ayurvedic University, US. Cancer is completely curable through Ayurvedic treatment in the Ashtavaidya tradition. I have treated about 100 leukemia patients successfully, he says. The Ashtavaidya tradition assures complete cure if the patients start treatment early without any damaging modern therapies. http://health.india.com/diseases-conditions/can-cancer-be-cured-with-alternative-therapies/
[FairfieldLife] Krishna-16,000 illicit loves
married ladies: Krishna had also performed Rasa Lila or cosmic dances with 16,000 Gopis, making love to each of the women individually. Never any days these activities are treated as `porno' in Hindu society. But what is happening now , lovers are slapped in public like they have did something wrong,sitting close to each other. http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100922012304AAMMcyA Maharishi was too more busy with an important task, sorry to the other Ladies.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
curving back on myself I create again and again --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: You mean once I sit for seven more years on FFL? I don't defend his SOB attitude, or his orthodox view of women. I definitely think he attacked me a couple of times to say the least, on this board. The last I checked, he put me in the same category as Nabby, a share craft crop circle believer and I found that quite insulting. Then later, I have seen how Nabby actually means well by a statement he made concerning someone else's comment and realized he actually does think things through if presented to him in a balanced way. My judgement about Nabby has dropped to a smaller crop circle size, hahah, Small, big ? Doesn't matter, have your pick : ntific-Speculations/246667595346687?ref=tssk=wall Discuss this circle on our Facebook Crop Circles-UFO's-Ancient Mysteries-Scientific Speculations ntific-Speculations/246667595346687?ref=tssk=wall CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST CROP CIRCLE CONNECTOR DVD [https://www.paypal.com/en_GB/i/scr/pixel.gif] Make a donation to keep the web site alive FOR VISITING THE CROP CIRCLES. Images Martin Sawyer Copyright 2012 Images Lucy Pringle Copyright 2012 Click above to join the Crop Circle Connector Membership om/anasazi/ml.html BACK Mark Fussell Stuart Dike
[FairfieldLife] Christ's thousands of wives
http://abcnews.go.com/US/beyondbelief/consecrated-virgins-brides-christ-controversial-catholic-rite/story?id=14064832
[FairfieldLife] A photo to make Nabby even crazier than usual :-)
T'would seem that TM poster boy Russell Brand has made a new friend: [https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/270947_348719451\ 868295_1507708107_n.jpg] ... I don't like formality, so Russell Brand, who is also very informal, was a fitting person to introduce me; thank you! Birth takes place without formality, as does death. If I think of myself as a Buddhist monk or as a Tibetan, that sets up a sort of barrier between me and others. In fact, I am a human being like you, who wants happiness and doesn't want to face suffering and problems. I speak to you as just one of the 7 billion human beings in the world today. Physically, mentally and emotionally we're the same; and we have the same potential for good as well as for bad... ~ H.H. the Dalai Lama
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
Neither is George W. Bush, who saved the world by invading Afghanistan, and Iraq. Jimmy Buffet and his famous, Cheese burgers in Paradise, is not listened either. Ayn Rand, no. Her skin boy, Alan Greenspan, neither. Geez, what a list. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@... wrote: Maharishi is not on this list. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: Yeah, he's still a holy man, just not as holy as most of us thought. The Bible tells us that all men fall short of the Glory of God. That means that all men have and will sin. Maharishi was a man, not God. The Bible also speaks of angels coming to earth and having sex with women. Veda Vyasa had sex with an unmarried woman in a boat while crossing a river, thus we have Shukadeva. Maharishi belongs on a pedestal, just not as high as we might have thought. My thoughts are that M was a very high soul on a mission and upon taking birth as a man, he did things men do. The idea that Maharishi is some kind of God certainly did not originate from himself. Asked by a german journalist in Vlodrop: Maharishi, who are you ? Maharishi answered: A normal human being. According to Benjamin Creme, Maharishi is a highly enlightened soul, but not an Avatar. http://www.share-berlin.de/list_of_initiates.htm#LinkM BTW; going through the list of Initiates you will find only a few Avatars living here lately: Ananda Mayi Ma, Gautama Buddha, Hercules, Hermes, Krishna, Ramakrishna, Ramana Maharshi, Shankara and Vivekananda.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Christ's thousands of wives
I am waiting for my god damned christ to come back and it appears it ain't happening...wait in line, they say.. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@... wrote: http://abcnews.go.com/US/beyondbelief/consecrated-virgins-brides-christ-controversial-catholic-rite/story?id=14064832
[FairfieldLife] Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing
there are nothing when compared to Maharishi and what he has done.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A photo to make Nabby even crazier than usual :-)
If I had to have lived with Katy perry, I would be heading to the Dali Lama too. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: T'would seem that TM poster boy Russell Brand has made a new friend: [https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/270947_348719451\ 868295_1507708107_n.jpg] ... I don't like formality, so Russell Brand, who is also very informal, was a fitting person to introduce me; thank you! Birth takes place without formality, as does death. If I think of myself as a Buddhist monk or as a Tibetan, that sets up a sort of barrier between me and others. In fact, I am a human being like you, who wants happiness and doesn't want to face suffering and problems. I speak to you as just one of the 7 billion human beings in the world today. Physically, mentally and emotionally we're the same; and we have the same potential for good as well as for bad... ~ H.H. the Dalai Lama
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rama,Krishna, Buddha are nothing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUiTQvT0W_0 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@... wrote: there are nothing when compared to Maharishi and what he has done.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A photo to make Nabby even crazier than usual :-)
...and when he is done with the Dali, Brand can come and cry on my breast for a few, but I might have to duct tape his mouth temporarily. : ) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: T'would seem that TM poster boy Russell Brand has made a new friend: [https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/270947_348719451\ 868295_1507708107_n.jpg] ... I don't like formality, so Russell Brand, who is also very informal, was a fitting person to introduce me; thank you! Birth takes place without formality, as does death. If I think of myself as a Buddhist monk or as a Tibetan, that sets up a sort of barrier between me and others. In fact, I am a human being like you, who wants happiness and doesn't want to face suffering and problems. I speak to you as just one of the 7 billion human beings in the world today. Physically, mentally and emotionally we're the same; and we have the same potential for good as well as for bad... ~ H.H. the Dalai Lama
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
Is the reality the 'particular' (the hunch in the back of Richard III), or the 'universal' (the abstract, the teaching). Which is *more* real? turquoiseb: The whole *premise* of Maharishi's teachings -- or at least the way he acted them out -- is that the idea is more real. I dispute this. Apparently you don't realize that the free-will point of view is an idealist POV, so the idea that you're an idealist is undisputed. LoL!
Re: [FairfieldLife] A photo to make Nabby even crazier than usual :-)
I'm sure nabby in his TM arrogance believes that Brand was there to convert the the Big Buddha Llama to TM, that His Holiness (and he deserves the title far more than faker Marshy ever did!) will tell all Buddhists world wide to learn TM and forget Buddhist practice - I am feeling particularly ornery tonight so I thought I would just be ornery. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 7:54 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] A photo to make Nabby even crazier than usual :-) T'would seem that TM poster boy Russell Brand has made a new friend: ... I don't like formality, so Russell Brand, who is also very informal, was a fitting person to introduce me; thank you! Birth takes place without formality, as does death. If I think of myself as a Buddhist monk or as a Tibetan, that sets up a sort of barrier between me and others. In fact, I am a human being like you, who wants happiness and doesn't want to face suffering and problems. I speak to you as just one of the 7 billion human beings in the world today. Physically, mentally and emotionally we're the same; and we have the same potential for good as well as for bad... ~ H.H. the Dalai Lama
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams wrote: Is the reality the 'particular' (the hunch in the back of Richard III), or the 'universal' (the abstract, the teaching). Which is *more* real? turquoiseb: The whole *premise* of Maharishi's teachings -- or at least the way he acted them out -- is that the idea is more real. I dispute this. Apparently you don't realize that the free-will point of view is an idealist POV, so the idea that you're an idealist is undisputed. LoL! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx5TZiReKtE
[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Guru Dev a part of the Illuminati?
Bhairitu: ...in the picture of Brahmananda Saraswati used for puja he's flashing the Illuminati sign. Of course it's just the yoni mudra There are several photos of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati posing with Gyan Mudra, a mudra that is common to many yogis in the line of the South Indian tantrics. I've never seen SBS pose using the Yoni Mudra, which is not to say that SBS didn't use it. Yoni Mudra: http://healing.about.com/od/east/ig/Mudra-Gallery/Yoni.htm
Re: [FairfieldLife] Rama, Buddha are nothing
Don't compare me with the other idiots !!! On Feb 4, 2013, at 5:01 PM, sri...@ymail.com no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: there are nothing when compared to Maharishi and what he has done.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Guru Dev a part of the Illuminati?
I'm just saying that just as they shouldn't necessarily limit tantra to what they know about it, neither should you Bharitu: I have to respectfully disagree because there are classic definitions of tantra... Something tells me you two are not practicing tantrics. A sure sign that someone is not practicing tantra is that they deny the sexual origins and goals of tantra. LoL! Everyone knows that tantra yoga began as a sex cult in Gupta Age India; tantrics sought to fuse the male and female aspects of the cosmos into a blissful state of consciousness. There's no life without sex and the combination of male and female is the path to the non-dual experience. The rites of Tantric cults, while often steeped in symbolism, could also include group and individual sex. One text advised devotees to revere the female sex organ and enjoy vigorous intercourse. Candidates for worship included actresses and prostitutes, as well as the sisters of practitioners. Work cited: 'Yoga and Sex Scandals: No Surprise Here' By William J. Broad Posted on February 27, 2012 http://tinyurl.com/ct59amc
[FairfieldLife] A Kabbalistic Prayer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EdL_TLbHsg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Guru Dev a part of the Illuminati?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams wrote: I'm just saying that just as they shouldn't necessarily limit tantra to what they know about it, neither should you Bharitu: I have to respectfully disagree because there are classic definitions of tantra... Something tells me you two are not practicing tantrics. A sure sign that someone is not practicing tantra is that they deny the sexual origins and goals of tantra. LoL! Everyone knows that tantra yoga began as a sex cult in Gupta Age India; tantrics sought to fuse the male and female aspects of the cosmos into a blissful state of consciousness. There's no life without sex and the combination of male and female is the path to the non-dual experience. The rites of Tantric cults, while often steeped in symbolism, could also include group and individual sex. One text advised devotees to revere the female sex organ and enjoy vigorous intercourse. Candidates for worship included actresses and prostitutes, as well as the sisters of practitioners. Work cited: 'Yoga and Sex Scandals: No Surprise Here' By William J. Broad Posted on February 27, 2012 http://tinyurl.com/ct59amc As if I am going to pretend talking about tantic activity is not arousing. lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala Mom mom mom mom mom dad dad dad dad dad. lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalaala. Rahu and Ketu changed signs and where the fuck is my sex
Re: [FairfieldLife] Serious Question, Part 2
Michael, I'm not convinced M was completely enlightened. There might have been a little more than just Leshavidya there. M once said even angels come to earth and take human birth to get enlightened. Who is to say how many births it takes to *nail it down*. M also said enlightenment is very delicate and hard to stabilize in it's beginning stages. Does that mean the first years or decades or does that mean the first several thousand life times of having the higher states of consciousness? M was notorious for *simplifying* things. Note what he said in the Gita when interpreting what Krishna meant by *only after many life times of this practice does one come to Me*. Oh, life times refer to transcending. It's the duty of a master to inspire the student, not discourage him. M also said in Hotel Somoa when asked about *lies* from the enlightened, consider them pearls of wisdom. Anyway, M was operating in Kali yuga and under it's influence and tried his best. I have no doubt he was influenced by our culture, especially when it comes to marketing and salesmanship. How can he be a man, when he doesn't smoke, the same cigarette as me! I think the guy just waded a little too much into the mud. He would have been a lot better- off staying on the other side of the river in Uttar Kashi. The question is, would we have? From: Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 10:26 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Serious Question, Part 2 My thanks to everyone who offered their answers. Since Mike D was the first to respond I will start there, but really I am using all the answers as a springboard to think and write about this: So from what most of you seem to be saying, you feel he was enlightened in some way, but because his consciousness was housed in a human body, he was subject to flawed human behavior and yet he was still a holy man, or enlightened. Or you may feel that he was holy and engaged in Divine activity by teaching meditation, yet not enlightened and therefore his human lies and deception were just part of his human life, sort of like the various Popes who have guided the Catholic church while doing things they officially denounced. I began my question with the idea of M’s sexual activity because it seems that those who have talked about it (the women and the skin boys) have come forth with some amount of detail, as opposed to some of the financial allegations which are a little lacking in detail (here I speak of things like suitcases across the border rather than the obvious soliciting funds for projects that never materialized that everyone could see) I agree with Navashok that it does make a difference that Maharishi preached celibacy to others and as head of a movement claimed to be so himself. Had he only practiced deception about his sexual activities, I could have turned a blind eye myself, but in addition to the sexual considerations, he did two things – one being that he seemed to take money under false pretenses, asking for funds for many, many projects that never or rarely ever materialized. Second, he always claimed that everything he ever offered was far superior to anything everyone else offered. His meditation was superior, his advanced techniques were superior, he alone was able to revitalize ancient vedic knowledge - ayurveda, jyotish, yagas, vastu veda and all the adjunct programs and offerings that went with the main things he sold. He seemed to do this to keep his customers loyal to him, to keep the cash flowing and to feed his ego, that he alone could provide the best of the best. So with the sexual activity, Maharishi practiced deception on a grand scale (meaning that he lied for the better part of his adult life to nearly everyone he came into contact, as opposed to just a few times with a few people), he took money under false pretenses therefore committing fraud and seemed to have a large ego. Committing these sexual and financial acts he manipulated people also on a grand scale meaning he manipulated many people for many years, seemingly to feed his ego and achieve sexual and financial gains. This is behavior that most people would not tolerate in their friends, family, co-workers or strangers. As a society we certainly revile our politicians for doing the exact same things. I find it interesting in a cat-with-a-hairball kind of way that some of you can so easily give him a free pass for doing things you would never allow anyone else in your life to get away with. One more thing I want to mention, Mike said this: “The Bible tells us that all men fall short of the Glory of God. That means that all men have and will sin.” This must mean that he was not enlightened. Maharishi’s own definition of enlightenment was: “...in this state (of enlightenment) the mind has become transformed into bliss-consciousness,
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Guru Dev a part of the Illuminati?
I have heard that the sexual aspects of tantra were for those who were not ready for or too impatient to go to the heart of the tantra practices, so the tantra masters would give them the sex stuff to do till the students got serious about their practice and give up the sex and go into the deeper aspects of tantra - true or not true? From: Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 8:59 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Guru Dev a part of the Illuminati? I'm just saying that just as they shouldn't necessarily limit tantra to what they know about it, neither should you Bharitu: I have to respectfully disagree because there are classic definitions of tantra... Something tells me you two are not practicing tantrics. A sure sign that someone is not practicing tantra is that they deny the sexual origins and goals of tantra. LoL! Everyone knows that tantra yoga began as a sex cult in Gupta Age India; tantrics sought to fuse the male and female aspects of the cosmos into a blissful state of consciousness. There's no life without sex and the combination of male and female is the path to the non-dual experience. The rites of Tantric cults, while often steeped in symbolism, could also include group and individual sex. One text advised devotees to revere the female sex organ and enjoy vigorous intercourse. Candidates for worship included actresses and prostitutes, as well as the sisters of practitioners. Work cited: 'Yoga and Sex Scandals: No Surprise Here' By William J. Broad Posted on February 27, 2012 http://tinyurl.com/ct59amc
