[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Stop Searching People's A***holes for Drugs

[authfriend]

The guy has filed a federal lawsuit suiing the police and the hospital for 
violation of his 4th Amendment rights and is also suing the doctors for 
malpractice. The whole story has gone viral, and a second one like it has now 
turned up. The first guy is likely to get a fat settlement; what they did to 
him is way beyond the pale. 
 

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

 It seems that David Eckert has to pay the costs of the anal probes he endured! 
Can he claim the money back on Obamacare?
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 David Eckert failed to make a complete stop when he pulled out of a Walmart 
store. A police officer then asked David to get out of his car and claimed he 
saw Eckert "clenching his buttocks" which supposedly was a sign that Eckert had 
drugs in his anal cavity.  

 Eckert’s abdominal area was X-rayed; no narcotics were found. Doctors then 
performed an examination of Eckert’s anus with their fingers; no narcotics were 
found. Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert’s anus with their fingers; no 
narcotics were found. Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema. 
Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert 
watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found. Doctors 
penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to 
defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors 
searched his stool. No narcotics were found. Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus 
to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of 
doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No 
narcotics were found. Doctors then X-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were 
found. Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a 
colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert’s anus, 
rectum, colon, and large intestines. No narcotics were found.
http://tinyurl.com/k86d9dv http://tinyurl.com/k86d9dv


 

[FairfieldLife] RE: Stop Searching People's A***holes for Drugs

[s3raphita]

It seems that David Eckert has to pay the costs of the anal probes he endured! 
Can he claim the money back on Obamacare?
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 David Eckert failed to make a complete stop when he pulled out of a Walmart 
store. A police officer then asked David to get out of his car and claimed he 
saw Eckert "clenching his buttocks" which supposedly was a sign that Eckert had 
drugs in his anal cavity.  

 Eckert’s abdominal area was X-rayed; no narcotics were found. Doctors then 
performed an examination of Eckert’s anus with their fingers; no narcotics were 
found. Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert’s anus with their fingers; no 
narcotics were found. Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema. 
Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert 
watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found. Doctors 
penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to 
defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors 
searched his stool. No narcotics were found. Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus 
to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of 
doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No 
narcotics were found. Doctors then X-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were 
found. Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a 
colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert’s anus, 
rectum, colon, and large intestines. No narcotics were found.
http://tinyurl.com/k86d9dv http://tinyurl.com/k86d9dv


 

[FairfieldLife] Stop Searching People's A***holes for Drugs

[s3raphita]

David Eckert failed to make a complete stop when he pulled out of a Walmart 
store. A police officer then asked David to get out of his car and claimed he 
saw Eckert "clenching his buttocks" which supposedly was a sign that Eckert had 
drugs in his anal cavity.  

 Eckert’s abdominal area was X-rayed; no narcotics were found. Doctors then 
performed an examination of Eckert’s anus with their fingers; no narcotics were 
found. Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert’s anus with their fingers; no 
narcotics were found. Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema. 
Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert 
watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found. Doctors 
penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to 
defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors 
searched his stool. No narcotics were found. Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus 
to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of 
doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No 
narcotics were found. Doctors then X-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were 
found. Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a 
colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert’s anus, 
rectum, colon, and large intestines. No narcotics were found.
http://tinyurl.com/k86d9dv http://tinyurl.com/k86d9dv

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: ▶ Fairfield - YouTube

[emilymaenot]

Werner Elmker (who produced the video) is a Danish concert pianist who performs 
classical and original music.  Anyone recognize the music?  Perhaps the track 
for this video is one of his original pieces.  The juxtaposition gives one an 
odd experience though - kind of like being transported to the *Stepford Wives* 
neighborhood.   
 

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

 Agree on the music, positively creepy. 
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 nice video but a strange choice of music - it sounded like something you would 
hear in a STephen King movie right before the monsters pop out from behind the 
little kids running around
 
 On Fri, 11/8/13, Rick Archer mailto:rick@...> wrote:
 
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] ▶ Fairfield - YouTube
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
fairfieldc...@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldc...@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Friday, November 8, 2013, 4:42 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMB9OgMDpKc&feature=youtu.be 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMB9OgMDpKc&feature=youtu.be 
 

[FairfieldLife] RE: ▶ Fairfield - YouTube

[awoelflebater]

Agree on the music, positively creepy. 
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 nice video but a strange choice of music - it sounded like something you would 
hear in a STephen King movie right before the monsters pop out from behind the 
little kids running around
 
 On Fri, 11/8/13, Rick Archer mailto:rick@...> wrote:
 
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] ▶ Fairfield - YouTube
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
fairfieldc...@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldc...@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Friday, November 8, 2013, 4:42 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMB9OgMDpKc&feature=youtu.be 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMB9OgMDpKc&feature=youtu.be 
 

[FairfieldLife] RE: Vastu Housing

[dhamiltony2k5]

Son, if that picture was a late afternoon heading towards sunset shade I'd say 
those folks were rectifying their unfortunate south entries. We are told their 
lives will change for the better now.  What is your feeling about that?  Would 
you put more money in to meditating or vastu?
 
 -Buck   
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 This is NOT my idea of vastu housing. 

 



 

[FairfieldLife] Post Count Sat 09-Nov-13 00:15:04 UTC

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): 11/02/13 00:00:00
End Date (UTC): 11/09/13 00:00:00
553 messages as of (UTC) 11/08/13 23:19:44

 77 authfriend
 62 Bhairitu 
 50 s3raphita
 46 Share Long 
 36 awoelflebater
 35 TurquoiseB 
 32 Richard J. Williams 
 26 dhamiltony2k5
 25 wgm4u 
 23 emptybill
 20 jr_esq
 18 sharelong60
 17 emilymaenot
 17 doctordumbass
 14 Michael Jackson 
 12 Richard Williams 
  5 yifuxero
  5 anartaxius
  5 Rick Archer 
  5 Dick Mays 
  5 Ann Woelfle Bater 
  4 feste37 
  4 Duveyoung 
  3 cardemaister
  3 Mike Dixon 
  2 j_alexander_stanley
  1 mjackson74
  1 bhairitu 
Posters: 28
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com 

RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Surrogates in India

[jr_esq]

 That probably cost them about $100,000 since it was done here in the US.
 

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

 A rich friend did that with their second child because the wife had a hard 
time carrying the first one.  They used a US surrogate though.
 
 On 11/08/2013 11:56 AM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... wrote:
 
   They're apparently becoming a thriving business in the country, and have 
become the solution for infertile couples in the US and elsewhere in the world.
 
 
 One wonders about the ethics regarding this practice.
 
 
 
http://gma.yahoo.com/infertile-americans-india-gestational-surrogates-111533378--abc-news-health.html
 
http://gma.yahoo.com/infertile-americans-india-gestational-surrogates-111533378--abc-news-health.html
 
 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] Lemon Bar Time?

[Bhairitu]

  
  
Embedded image test:



  

Re: [FairfieldLife] ▶ Fairfield - YouTube

[Bhairitu]

Yeah, I kept expecting zombies or UFOs to show up.  Fairfield looks more 
like a town you'd find in New England than in the Midwest.


On 11/08/2013 01:10 PM, Michael Jackson wrote:


nice video but a strange choice of music - it sounded like something 
you would hear in a STephen King movie right before the monsters pop 
out from behind the little kids running around


On Fri, 11/8/13, Rick Archer  wrote:

Subject: [FairfieldLife] ▶ Fairfield - YouTube
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fairfieldc...@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, November 8, 2013, 4:42 PM



























http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMB9OgMDpKc&feature=youtu.be

Re: [FairfieldLife] Let's see if this works

[Bhairitu]

  
  
Your prairie dog picture isn't really
  embedded as part of the post because it is a link to the picture
  on your site.  My picture is embedded in the post as code. 
  Usually with Thunderbird and HTML is enabled there is a button
  that says "Show Remote Content" but with Empty's post the other
  day it showed a picture without that button being clicked.  I
  checked the email source and it was encoded in the post (or
  email).  The method is called "Base64" and it is the picture data
  encoded as ASCII text which the browser or email client will turn
  back into a picture.  This is so no binary attachment needs to be
  included.  You can look up the technique on the web.  I had to
  implement it recently for a client who wanted to send out emails
  with images embedded.
  
  These techniques didn't used to work with Yahoo Groups so they are
  opening things up a bit but perhaps sorting out how to make it
  work which may be why it sometimes does and sometimes doesn't. 
  I'm crossing my fingers but they appear to have Yahoo News with
  the Neo interface keeping the selected location (they got all
  kinds of complaints about that).
  
  On 11/08/2013 02:09 PM, Richard Williams wrote:


   
  
  

  Prairie dog herbivore - genus Cynomys.
  
  
  


  
  
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Bhairitu 
wrote:

   Three big pigs:



  

  
  

  
  
  
  


  

[FairfieldLife] Vastu Housing

[Richard Williams]

This is NOT my idea of vastu housing.

[image: Inline image 1]

Re: [FairfieldLife] Let's see if this works

[Bhairitu]

There seems to be no rhyme nor reason why some YouTube links work and 
others don't.  Your NBA videos worked but not the Slow Blues.  I was 
thinking that maybe some of the folks linked via Share but I haven't 
explored that option yet on YouTube (which is always changing their 
interface).  And according to the header Rick posted the Fairfield video 
which displays in the email from Outlook.  Maybe they spin the YouTube 
gerbil and if it lands on the right number your video gets displayed.


Edg's post of the Chopra video was redisplayed in my reply which came 
from Thunderbird.


Like Willy would say: Go Figure.

On 11/08/2013 12:47 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:


*FWIW, so far I've posted links to two YouTube videos via the FFL Web 
site. All I did was post the URLs. The first one appeared /with the 
video itself/ so you could play it on the Web site. I thought that was 
pretty neat, possibly the one improvement over the Classic interface. 
The next one I posted a couple days later, and all that appeared was 
the link. I didn't do anything different, so I have no idea why one 
post included the video and the other didn't.*


*
*

*A few days ago a couple people posted YouTube links that appeared 
with three identical viewable videos per link.*


*
*

*Neo is like a box of chocolates--you never know what you're going to 
get.*


*
*

*
*

**



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

On 11/07/2013 07:12 PM, Bhairitu wrote:

Three big pigs:




Interesting, this worked with email but not on the web site. 
However when I click on the message with the Neo interface it

wanted me to log in (it didn't do this with other folks embedded
images).  When I logged in I got the old web interface.  Looking
at the old site the Rich Text editor says you can use HTML
including embedded images but they need the width and height
variables in the HTML for the image to be displayed so I'll add
that to my converter.

The repeat of the other email was a Yahoo burp because I first
posted it before 3 PM but it didn't show up so I posted it again
later.  Enjoy the video.  I hope to figure out how to trick a link
to embed the video as some do show that way like the Chopra interview.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Let's see if this works

[Richard Williams]

Prairie dog herbivore - genus Cynomys.

[image: Inline image 1]


On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Bhairitu  wrote:

>  Three big pigs:
>
>
>
<>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Surrogates in India

[Bhairitu]

A rich friend did that with their second child because the wife had a 
hard time carrying the first one.  They used a US surrogate though.


On 11/08/2013 11:56 AM, jr_...@yahoo.com wrote:


They're apparently becoming a thriving business in the country, and 
have become the solution for infertile couples in the US and elsewhere 
in the world.



One wonders about the ethics regarding this practice.

http://gma.yahoo.com/infertile-americans-india-gestational-surrogates-111533378--abc-news-health.html

Re: [FairfieldLife] ▶ Fairfield - YouTube

[Michael Jackson]

nice video but a strange choice of music - it sounded like something you would 
hear in a STephen King movie right before the monsters pop out from behind the 
little kids running around

On Fri, 11/8/13, Rick Archer  wrote:

 Subject: [FairfieldLife] ▶ Fairfield - YouTube
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fairfieldc...@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Friday, November 8, 2013, 4:42 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
   
   
   
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMB9OgMDpKc&feature=youtu.be
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Let's see if this works

[authfriend]

FWIW, so far I've posted links to two YouTube videos via the FFL Web site. All 
I did was post the URLs. The first one appeared with the video itself so you 
could play it on the Web site. I thought that was pretty neat, possibly the one 
improvement over the Classic interface. The next one I posted a couple days 
later, and all that appeared was the link. I didn't do anything different, so I 
have no idea why one post included the video and the other didn't.
 

 A few days ago a couple people posted YouTube links that appeared with three 
identical viewable videos per link.
 

 Neo is like a box of chocolates--you never know what you're going to get.
 

 

  
 

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

 On 11/07/2013 07:12 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
 
 Three big pigs:
 
 
 
 
 Interesting, this worked with email but not on the web site.  However when I 
click on the message with the Neo interface it wanted me to log in (it didn't 
do this with other folks embedded images).  When I logged in I got the old web 
interface.  Looking at the old site the Rich Text editor says you can use HTML 
including embedded images but they need the width and height variables in the 
HTML for the image to be displayed so I'll add that to my converter.
 
 The repeat of the other email was a Yahoo burp because I first posted it 
before 3 PM but it didn't show up so I posted it again later.  Enjoy the video. 
 I hope to figure out how to trick a link to embed the video as some do show 
that way like the Chopra interview.
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Let's see if this works

[Bhairitu]

  
  
On 11/07/2013 07:12 PM, Bhairitu wrote:


  
  Three big pigs:
  
  
  


Interesting, this worked with email but not on the web site. 
However when I click on the message with the Neo interface it wanted
me to log in (it didn't do this with other folks embedded images). 
When I logged in I got the old web interface.  Looking at the old
site the Rich Text editor says you can use HTML including embedded
images but they need the width and height variables in the HTML for
the image to be displayed so I'll add that to my converter.

The repeat of the other email was a Yahoo burp because I first
posted it before 3 PM but it didn't show up so I posted it again
later.  Enjoy the video.  I hope to figure out how to trick a link
to embed the video as some do show that way like the Chopra
interview.

  

[FairfieldLife] Surrogates in India

[jr_esq]

They're apparently becoming a thriving business in the country, and have become 
the solution for infertile couples in the US and elsewhere in the world. 
 

 One wonders about the ethics regarding this practice.
 

 
http://gma.yahoo.com/infertile-americans-india-gestational-surrogates-111533378--abc-news-health.html
 
http://gma.yahoo.com/infertile-americans-india-gestational-surrogates-111533378--abc-news-health.html

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendental Meditation Revolutionary Mission:

[Richard J. Williams]

You are not even making any sense - the Bodhisattva vow is the vow taken 
by Mahayana Buddhists to "attain complete enlightenment for the sake of 
all sentient beings", not to forsake enlightenment until everyone else 
is enlightened. How do you get things so mixed up? Go figure.


Bodhisattva vow:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva_vow

On 11/8/2013 5:28 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote:
>
> just hard-wired into the con artists who claim to be able to do it.

I am less harsh than you are, Michael, in that I suspect
a lot of people who have such laudable goals "mean well,"
at least at the beginning.

What I think is "hard-wired" into the human psyche is
ego, and hubris, and that's what I think is at the root of
such goals, noble as they may seem.

Take the so-called "Bodhisattva Vow." Essentially, it is
declaring to oneself and to the world one's intention to
not allow oneself to become enlightened oneself until
all sentient beings are enlightened. Sounds good on
the surface, but step back for a moment and consider
the HUBRIS of such a statement.

To make it, you have to believe 1) that you have the
*ability* to help bring all beings to enlightenment
(can't get more hubristic than that), 2) that it is your
*right* to modify these sentient beings life in accord
with how you think they should be, and 3) that the
universe actually gives a shit what you believe or
what you "vow."

Maharishi's quote below is in the same ballpark IMO.
What gives him the *right* to define what "fully-
developed citizens" are. Are they "people who meditate?"
Do they include the toadies in the organization he
founded who can only do what they're told, *whatever*
they're told (like smuggling money across international
borders)?

IMO, one should always be wary of overly lofty goals.
They are often trotted out for their "Wow factor," and
to *distract* people from the here-and-now daily
activities of those who profess them.

As one spiritual teacher used to say, "Listen to what
people say, but watch what they DO." After he gave
this dictum to his students as a "rule of thumb," he
was probably more surprised than anyone else when
they started leaving in droves, after realizing that he
failed to "walk his own talk."

> 
> On Fri, 11/8/13, anartaxius@... anartaxius@... wrote:
>
> So far, on the mat and counted out. This is
> pretty much the goal of every organisation that wants to
> better the world. Interesting that the dire situation at
> hand never seems to get resolved. I suspect most religions
> began with such laudable goals in mind. Could it be that
> this inability to fulfill such a goal is hard-wired into the
> universe?
>
> ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
> dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
>
>"We will count ourselves
> successful only when the problems of today's world are
> substantially
> reduced and eventually eliminated and the educational
> institutions of
> every country are capable of producing fully developed
> citizens."
>
> -Maharishi, from the
> founding catalog of Maharishi International University,
> 1974
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[Share Long]

Seraphita my understanding of the TMSP, especially yogic flying, is that their 
purpose is to develop mind body coordination. I think such integration is very 
healthy spiritually, mentally, emotionally and physically. I'm aware of what 
some spiritual teachers think of sidhis in general. But in my experience, Being 
itself is running the show and one simply has to flow down the river without 
fighting it. I admit I find it hard to explain. I often suggest that people 
come and visit FF and see for themselves.   





On Friday, November 8, 2013 11:15 AM, "s3raph...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  
"Maharishi explained that the invisibility technique wouldn't work because it 
could be used for bad purposes.":

That's the Catch-22.  Only ordinary folks would want the super powers but are 
excluded by their ordinariness; only advanced saints could develop the super 
powers but by then they wouldn't be interested. 

[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[s3raphita]

"Maharishi explained that the invisibility technique wouldn't work because it 
could be used for bad purposes.":
 

 That's the Catch-22.  Only ordinary folks would want the super powers but are 
excluded by their ordinariness; only advanced saints could develop the super 
powers but by then they wouldn't be interested. 
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Translation issues

[Bhairitu]

Looking at the menus at some Chinese restaurants around here can be a 
hoot  too. :-D


On 11/08/2013 12:36 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


The online Infocenter for the product I've been working on
just went off for translation into 10 languages. Next, we'll
be bombarded by requests from the translators for us to
explain to them exactly what we may have meant by the
English we used, so they can translate it properly.

Good thing. One of the target languages is Chinese, and
I'd hate to see what the translators would come up with
on their own:

http://deadstate.org/look-these-28-chinese-mistranslated-signs-will-make-you-laugh-and-cry/ 

[FairfieldLife] RE: ▶ Fairfield - YouTube

[s3raphita]

I see you're infested with grey squirrels. They were introduced to Britain by 
the Victorians and have spread across the country largely displacing the native 
and cuter red squirrel.
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMB9OgMDpKc&feature=youtu.be 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMB9OgMDpKc&feature=youtu.be 


 

[FairfieldLife] ▶ Fairfield - YouTube

[Rick Archer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMB9OgMDpKc

&feature=youtu.be 

Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[Share Long]

Seraphita, I've never seen anyone disappear (-:
BUT, I've heard stories of people seeing people disappear. So that the only 
thing visible was just the blanket that had been on their knees. I heard that 
Maharishi explained that the invisibility technique wouldn't work because it 
could still be used for not life supporting purposes.
Definitely intuition develops. Strength comes in handy in day to day life.
AND, one day when I was doing my TMSP alone, I suddenly felt as though my body 
had dissolved into the wall it was leaning against. That was a very long time 
ago!





On Friday, November 8, 2013 10:36 AM, Share Long  wrote:
 
  
Seraphita, I'm like most of the long term sidhas in FF, just a person bumbling 
along as best as we can, enjoying a lot, ranting and raving occasionally. 
living deep. 
Back in those days the sidhas and yogic flying were taught in 2 week blocks. So 
I took the sidhis in summer 1977 but didn't do the flying block til Sept 1978. 





On Friday, November 8, 2013 10:14 AM, "s3raph...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  
Re "I still think this is true after 38-and-a-half years of TM; 36 years of 
TMSP; and 35 years of YF.": 

You must be a living saint by now . . . 

Does YF = Yogic Flying and so is it distinguished from TMSP = TM/Sidhi Program, 
suggesting that it's a more advanced sidhi? 

I've got back pain at the moment so Perfect Health sounds more appealing.
(I'll pass on Immortality though - I can only take so many re-runs of Baywatch.)

Surely only prisoners want to Walk through Walls? And Colossal Strength is for 
bullies.

Invisibility and ESP sound the coolest powers. Anyone on the program ever 
demonstrate their prowess in those two fields? 




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


Xeno, I lived on MUM campus for 14 years either as a graduate student or as a 
staff member. I never felt pressured to feel devoted to Maharishi though I 
spontaneously felt devoted to the knowledge he taught. Nor did I ever get from 
Maharishi the idea that the path of devotion is the superior one. In fact he 
was quite clear that the final stroke of enlightenment involves a discernment 
of the intellect. For me, one of the key ideas from Maharishi is that TM is the 
system of self development that transcends itself. When I first heard it what I 
grokked is this: TM will liberate me, even from itself. I still think this is 
true after 38 and a half years of TM. 36 years of TMSP and 35 years of YF. Dare 
I say go figure?





On Friday, November 8, 2013 8:53 AM, "anartaxius@..."  wrote:
 
  
What you say is true of regular meditators and learning TM for the most part, 
but if working in the movement, devotion seems to be considered above all the 
other conceivable ways you could image what a spiritual path would be. 
Maharishi promoted this idea, because, I think, of his own experience with 
Brahmananda Saraswati. Within the movement there is a kind of unspoken peer 
pressure that the path of devotion, and in particular, devotion to Maharishi's 
stated ideals, is the one you ought to be pursuing. Further some sort of 
adulation of Maharishi himself seemed to be part of that influence, whether or 
not Maharishi himself ever directly said such (he tended to imply that devotion 
was the superior path without saying 'you should be devoted to me'). There is a 
lot of hidden and unvocalised (and also vocalised) compulsions in 
organisations, and particularly spiritual organisations, or any organisations 
that have a 'mission', that there is a right way to go
 about it and think, and a wrong way to go about it and think. I was speaking 
about those more closely allied with the TMO than regular meditators, and many 
here probably have the sense of what I was writing about.


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


Re"I found the emphasis on devotion to the guru in the TM movement always 
disconcerting":

What emphasis? Maharishi was never a guru - he was a teacher of meditation.  
"The guru-shishya tradition is the transmission of teachings from a guru to a 
disciple. In this relationship, subtle and advanced knowledge is conveyed and 
received through the student's respect, commitment, devotion and obedience."

That sounds nothing like the usual experience of learning TM in which one is 
given a mantra and left to get on with it on one's own. No devotion or 
obedience was ever expected.

 


---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:


authfriend wrote:

'My parents sent me to Sunday School at a nearby nondenominational Christian 
church a couple of times when I was around 10 or so, feeling they should at 
least give me some exposure to religion. I didn't like it, and they didn't make 
me go again. I had a brief flirtation with Unitarianism in my teens, but it 
didn't last. Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship 
context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple 
of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the

[FairfieldLife] Deepak Chopra: New Interview on Buddha at the Gas Pump - 11/08/2013

[Rick Archer]

 


blog updates from


Buddha at the Gas Pump


   
If you are not doing so already, please consider donating a minimum of $1 or $2 
per month to help offset basic monthly expenses associated with hosting, 
MailChimp, etc. Of course, larger donations for other expenses are very much 
appreciated and needed. Donate button on http://batgap.com 

 . 


published 11/08/2013


200. Deepak Chopra 

 

Nov 07, 2013 06:59 am | Rick

Deepak Chopra, MD, serves as the Founder and Chairman of the Board for The 
Chopra Foundation. As a global leader and pioneer in the field of mind-body 
medicine, Deepak Chopra transforms the way the world views physical, mental, 
emotional, spiritual, … Continue reading  

 →

The post 200. Deepak Chopra 

  appeared first on Buddha at the Gas Pump 

 .

comments 

  | read more 

 

 





 

   
Elsewhere

*  

 Visit My Blog

*  

 Share This with a friend

*  

 Follow me on Twitter

*  

 RSS feed

   



Regular announcement of new interviews posted at http://batgap.com.

Buddha at the Gas Pump

1108 South B Street

Fairfield, Iowa 52556


Add us to your address book 

 

Copyright (C) 2013 Buddha at the Gas Pump All rights reserved.

 

 

  

 

Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[Share Long]

Seraphita, I'm like most of the long term sidhas in FF, just a person bumbling 
along as best as we can, enjoying a lot, ranting and raving occasionally. 
living deep. 
Back in those days the sidhas and yogic flying were taught in 2 week blocks. So 
I took the sidhis in summer 1977 but didn't do the flying block til Sept 1978. 





On Friday, November 8, 2013 10:14 AM, "s3raph...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  
Re "I still think this is true after 38-and-a-half years of TM; 36 years of 
TMSP; and 35 years of YF.": 

You must be a living saint by now . . . 

Does YF = Yogic Flying and so is it distinguished from TMSP = TM/Sidhi Program, 
suggesting that it's a more advanced sidhi? 

I've got back pain at the moment so Perfect Health sounds more appealing.
(I'll pass on Immortality though - I can only take so many re-runs of Baywatch.)

Surely only prisoners want to Walk through Walls? And Colossal Strength is for 
bullies.

Invisibility and ESP sound the coolest powers. Anyone on the program ever 
demonstrate their prowess in those two fields? 




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


Xeno, I lived on MUM campus for 14 years either as a graduate student or as a 
staff member. I never felt pressured to feel devoted to Maharishi though I 
spontaneously felt devoted to the knowledge he taught. Nor did I ever get from 
Maharishi the idea that the path of devotion is the superior one. In fact he 
was quite clear that the final stroke of enlightenment involves a discernment 
of the intellect. For me, one of the key ideas from Maharishi is that TM is the 
system of self development that transcends itself. When I first heard it what I 
grokked is this: TM will liberate me, even from itself. I still think this is 
true after 38 and a half years of TM. 36 years of TMSP and 35 years of YF. Dare 
I say go figure?





On Friday, November 8, 2013 8:53 AM, "anartaxius@..."  wrote:
 
  
What you say is true of regular meditators and learning TM for the most part, 
but if working in the movement, devotion seems to be considered above all the 
other conceivable ways you could image what a spiritual path would be. 
Maharishi promoted this idea, because, I think, of his own experience with 
Brahmananda Saraswati. Within the movement there is a kind of unspoken peer 
pressure that the path of devotion, and in particular, devotion to Maharishi's 
stated ideals, is the one you ought to be pursuing. Further some sort of 
adulation of Maharishi himself seemed to be part of that influence, whether or 
not Maharishi himself ever directly said such (he tended to imply that devotion 
was the superior path without saying 'you should be devoted to me'). There is a 
lot of hidden and unvocalised (and also vocalised) compulsions in 
organisations, and particularly spiritual organisations, or any organisations 
that have a 'mission', that there is a right way to go
 about it and think, and a wrong way to go about it and think. I was speaking 
about those more closely allied with the TMO than regular meditators, and many 
here probably have the sense of what I was writing about.


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


Re"I found the emphasis on devotion to the guru in the TM movement always 
disconcerting":

What emphasis? Maharishi was never a guru - he was a teacher of meditation.  
"The guru-shishya tradition is the transmission of teachings from a guru to a 
disciple. In this relationship, subtle and advanced knowledge is conveyed and 
received through the student's respect, commitment, devotion and obedience."

That sounds nothing like the usual experience of learning TM in which one is 
given a mantra and left to get on with it on one's own. No devotion or 
obedience was ever expected.

 


---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:


authfriend wrote:

'My parents sent me to Sunday School at a nearby nondenominational Christian 
church a couple of times when I was around 10 or so, feeling they should at 
least give me some exposure to religion. I didn't like it, and they didn't make 
me go again. I had a brief flirtation with Unitarianism in my teens, but it 
didn't last. Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship 
context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple 
of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the 
Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified 
Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can 
go.'

My exposure to religion was rather slight, and by high school I was essentially 
agnostic although at times early influences would kick in on the emotional 
level. What you said here is pretty much what is available to agnostics, 
atheists, and non-theistic religions or philosophies (such as Zen Buddhism; 
Tao). One pretty much has to bypass that conception of a personal level of 
'creation' (assuming there really is creation). It is possible other conceptual 
states mig

RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Rare Picture of Vivian Leigh

[authfriend]

You already posted this, and I responded.
 

 Bhairitu wrote:
 
> No, you are taking the argument out of context to fit your mistake.  You just 
> can't stand to be wrong.
 

 One more time: You've "forgotten" who made the mistake. Here it is again, in 
red:
 "Marshy" was the way a number of teachers pronounced it back in the 1970s and 
they did not intend any disrespect.  They thought it was the proper 
pronunciation because they heard Indians say it that way.

 








Remember now? You didn't read what I'd written with any attention and assumed, 
incorrectly, that I had been claiming the pronunciation was disrespectful. The 
rest of this exchange has been about your trying to cover up that error.
 

RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[s3raphita]

Re "I still think this is true after 38-and-a-half years of TM; 36 years of 
TMSP; and 35 years of YF.": 
 

 You must be a living saint by now . . . 
 

 Does YF = Yogic Flying and so is it distinguished from TMSP = TM/Sidhi 
Program, suggesting that it's a more advanced sidhi? 
 

 I've got back pain at the moment so Perfect Health sounds more appealing.
 (I'll pass on Immortality though - I can only take so many re-runs of 
Baywatch.)
 

 Surely only prisoners want to Walk through Walls? And Colossal Strength is for 
bullies.
 

 Invisibility and ESP sound the coolest powers. Anyone on the program ever 
demonstrate their prowess in those two fields? 
 

 

 

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

 Xeno, I lived on MUM campus for 14 years either as a graduate student or as a 
staff member. I never felt pressured to feel devoted to Maharishi though I 
spontaneously felt devoted to the knowledge he taught. Nor did I ever get from 
Maharishi the idea that the path of devotion is the superior one. In fact he 
was quite clear that the final stroke of enlightenment involves a discernment 
of the intellect. For me, one of the key ideas from Maharishi is that TM is the 
system of self development that transcends itself. When I first heard it what I 
grokked is this: TM will liberate me, even from itself. I still think this is 
true after 38 and a half years of TM. 36 years of TMSP and 35 years of YF. Dare 
I say go figure?
 

 
 
 On Friday, November 8, 2013 8:53 AM, "anartaxius@..."  wrote:
 
   What you say is true of regular meditators and learning TM for the most 
part, but if working in the movement, devotion seems to be considered above all 
the other conceivable ways you could image what a spiritual path would be. 
Maharishi promoted this idea, because, I think, of his own experience with 
Brahmananda Saraswati. Within the movement there is a kind of unspoken peer 
pressure that the path of devotion, and in particular, devotion to Maharishi's 
stated ideals, is the one you ought to be pursuing. Further some sort of 
adulation of Maharishi himself seemed to be part of that influence, whether or 
not Maharishi himself ever directly said such (he tended to imply that devotion 
was the superior path without saying 'you should be devoted to me'). There is a 
lot of hidden and unvocalised (and also vocalised) compulsions in 
organisations, and particularly spiritual organisations, or any organisations 
that have a 'mission', that there is a right way to go about it and think, and 
a wrong way to go about it and think. I was speaking about those more closely 
allied with the TMO than regular meditators, and many here probably have the 
sense of what I was writing about.
 

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

 Re "I found the emphasis on devotion to the guru in the TM movement always 
disconcerting":
 

 What emphasis? Maharishi was never a guru - he was a teacher of meditation.  
"The guru-shishya tradition is the transmission of teachings from a guru to a 
disciple. In this relationship, subtle and advanced knowledge is conveyed and 
received through the student's respect, commitment, devotion and obedience."
 

 That sounds nothing like the usual experience of learning TM in which one is 
given a mantra and left to get on with it on one's own. No devotion or 
obedience was ever expected.
 

  
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 authfriend wrote:
 

 'My parents sent me to Sunday School at a nearby nondenominational Christian 
church a couple of times when I was around 10 or so, feeling they should at 
least give me some exposure to religion. I didn't like it, and they didn't make 
me go again. I had a brief flirtation with Unitarianism in my teens, but it 
didn't last. Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship 
context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple 
of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the 
Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified 
Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can 
go.'
 

 My exposure to religion was rather slight, and by high school I was 
essentially agnostic although at times early influences would kick in on the 
emotional level. What you said here is pretty much what is available to 
agnostics, atheists, and non-theistic religions or philosophies (such as Zen 
Buddhism; Tao). One pretty much has to bypass that conception of a personal 
level of 'creation' (assuming there really is creation). It is possible other 
conceptual states might take the place of the personal god concept. What I 
found as time went on was I would make the attempt not to visualise the goal, I 
would easily try to deflect the tendency to give it a form. This worked for me. 
But a lot of people have trouble without some kind of concrete image in the 
mind, I find it interesting that TM takes the mind away from concrete im

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[dhamiltony2k5]

 Xenophaneros , your comment here is absolutely fair observation to a reality 
in the culture of the Transcendental Meditation movement. Certainly as anyone 
gets closer to the middle of TM administration a judgment of devotion is part 
of a calculation in cultural fealty test. Certainly the people Bevan keeps 
around him, people who were let in around Maharishi, and people who are let in 
currently around Nader Ram now are there by the vetted felt sense of having 
passed fealty to Maharishi and the teaching. It's a type of a defining esprit 
de corps. Of course a long consequent is an isolation of that echelon of the 
movement from everyone else. It was interesting to see the broad assemblage in 
a lecture amphitheater last week full of veteran meditators of the old 
movement. Most all of them have never had tea with the Prime Minister of the 
Global Country of World Peace let alone Bevan coming down and being seen 
showing up for coffee at a public place like Paradiso Cafe in the morning where 
the larger meditating community flows through getting coffee or even in the 
Dome meditating with the group anymore. The show-of- hands of veteran 
meditators was something else to regard that seems even surprised Bevan how 
many people are here still from the beginning days. Of course at his level in 
the bunker he would not know except for some of the fawned ones that get in to 
that level.  That is a fair observation about the group.
 -Buck
  
 
 

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

 What you say is true of regular meditators and learning TM for the most part, 
but if working in the movement, devotion seems to be considered above all the 
other conceivable ways you could image what a spiritual path would be. 
Maharishi promoted this idea, because, I think, of his own experience with 
Brahmananda Saraswati. Within the movement there is a kind of unspoken peer 
pressure that the path of devotion, and in particular, devotion to Maharishi's 
stated ideals, is the one you ought to be pursuing. Further some sort of 
adulation of Maharishi himself seemed to be part of that influence, whether or 
not Maharishi himself ever directly said such (he tended to imply that devotion 
was the superior path without saying 'you should be devoted to me'). There is a 
lot of hidden and unvocalised (and also vocalised) compulsions in 
organisations, and particularly spiritual organisations, or any organisations 
that have a 'mission', that there is a right way to go about it and think, and 
a wrong way to go about it and think. I was speaking about those more closely 
allied with the TMO than regular meditators, and many here probably have the 
sense of what I was writing about.
 

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

 Re "I found the emphasis on devotion to the guru in the TM movement always 
disconcerting":
 

 What emphasis? Maharishi was never a guru - he was a teacher of meditation.  
"The guru-shishya tradition is the transmission of teachings from a guru to a 
disciple. In this relationship, subtle and advanced knowledge is conveyed and 
received through the student's respect, commitment, devotion and obedience."
 

 That sounds nothing like the usual experience of learning TM in which one is 
given a mantra and left to get on with it on one's own. No devotion or 
obedience was ever expected.
 

  
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 authfriend wrote:
 

 'My parents sent me to Sunday School at a nearby nondenominational Christian 
church a couple of times when I was around 10 or so, feeling they should at 
least give me some exposure to religion. I didn't like it, and they didn't make 
me go again. I had a brief flirtation with Unitarianism in my teens, but it 
didn't last. Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship 
context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple 
of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the 
Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified 
Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can 
go.'
 

 My exposure to religion was rather slight, and by high school I was 
essentially agnostic although at times early influences would kick in on the 
emotional level. What you said here is pretty much what is available to 
agnostics, atheists, and non-theistic religions or philosophies (such as Zen 
Buddhism; Tao). One pretty much has to bypass that conception of a personal 
level of 'creation' (assuming there really is creation). It is possible other 
conceptual states might take the place of the personal god concept. What I 
found as time went on was I would make the attempt not to visualise the goal, I 
would easily try to deflect the tendency to give it a form. This worked for me. 
But a lot of people have trouble without some kind of concrete image in the 
mind, I find it interesting that TM takes the mind away from concrete imaging, 
y

[FairfieldLife] RE: Re: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[authfriend]

Barry wrote:
 > Since no one else seems to be willing to deal with this, I will. :-)

 > The answer, of course, is "Is the Pope Catholic?" *Of course*
> there were mass pujas and "celebrations" performed to the
> various Hindu gods and goddesses in these locations.
 

 Which "Hindu gods and goddesses" were these, other than
 those mentioned in the puja? Give us a for-instance.
 

[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[s3raphita]

Since no one else seems to be willing to deal with this, I will. :
 

 Thanks - sounds intriguing. I wish someone had taken candid-camera footage for 
the rest of us to enjoy. 
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
wrote:
 >
 > On the topic of religious rituals - and to take this thread even
 further away from Mani - were there ever any group ceremonies (puja)
 performed at the various HQs where Maharishi established himself in
 Switzerland and Holland?
 >
 > And did those attending training courses as TM teachers ever have
 communal puja chanting or anything else suggesting a cult? Maybe the
 sacrifice of a maiden on a stone slab?
 >
 > Or did it never deviate from individual and group TM/Sidhi practice
 and SCI lectures?
 
 Since no one else seems to be willing to deal with this, I will. :-)
 The answer, of course, is "Is the Pope Catholic?" *Of course*
 there were mass pujas and "celebrations" performed to the
 various Hindu gods and goddesses in these locations. The
 general public probably never knew much about them, not
 being allowed on the premises, but they definitely took place,
 and undoubtedly do to this day. Many people suspected,
 because the people on the courses rarely came into town
 and when they did, they were as spaced out as zombies.
 In St. Moritz, on my last long TM course, the townspeople
 referred to the folks up in the hotel on top of the mountain,
 possibly taking a cue from the Beatles, as the "fools on
 the hill." :-)
 
 To deal with other of your recent questions, there was always
 a "public teaching" and a "private" or "real" teaching w.r.t.
 the TMO and Maharishi. For the public (and for those TMers
 who never ventured any further into the org) it was "20
 minutes twice a day and no belief or lifestyle changes." But
 for those who went on to become TM teachers, it was very,
 very different. Much of the teaching centered around oft-
 repeated stories extolling the benefits of and necessity of
 devotion to one's "master." MMY would tell the story of
 Trotakacharya over and over, as if that exemplified what
 a spiritual seeker's life and relationship to one's teacher
 "should" be like, and in practice he pretty much demanded
 to be treated as if he were the "master" in question. Refuse
 to do something he had "commanded" you to do (for
 example, Deepak Chopra, preferring to have a life and
 a medical practice not directly linked to the TMO) and
 you were "outa there" faster than shit through a goose.
 Those held up as "role models" were the ones with near-
 absolute and unquestioning devotion to and obeisance
 to Maharishi.
 
 As for the name itself, the question is not so much "How
 is it pronounced?" but "Was the name deserved?" Even
 according to Maharishi's version, people started calling
 him that, and he allowed them to. Bottom line, however,
 is that the "title" was neither conferred on him by any
 legitimate lineage, or deserved. Heck, he wasn't even a
 "yogi."
 
 If you were one of those lucky TMers who avoided the
 TM organization and just meditated, you probably missed
 a lot of the drama that people on this forum talk about,
 and that the cult apologists -- many of whom never
 became teachers themselves and never did more than
 "dip their toe" in the TMO as it really was -- try to excuse.
 For anyone who became a TM teacher, it was *very much*
 about lifestyle changes, and obeisance to one's "master."
 And there was simply *no question* that Maharishi both
 allowed this to happen, and encouraged it.
 

[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[s3raphita]

People should have taken a leaf out of John Lennon's book - respectful but not 
in awe of Maharishi. When Lennon first arrived at the Rishikesh "ashram" during 
an awkward silence Lennon walked across the room and patted Maharishi on the 
head, saying, "There's a good little guru" which broke the ice.
 

 Can't imagine any of the suits ever doing that.
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 What you say is true of regular meditators and learning TM for the most part, 
but if working in the movement, devotion seems to be considered above all the 
other conceivable ways you could image what a spiritual path would be. 
Maharishi promoted this idea, because, I think, of his own experience with 
Brahmananda Saraswati. Within the movement there is a kind of unspoken peer 
pressure that the path of devotion, and in particular, devotion to Maharishi's 
stated ideals, is the one you ought to be pursuing. Further some sort of 
adulation of Maharishi himself seemed to be part of that influence, whether or 
not Maharishi himself ever directly said such (he tended to imply that devotion 
was the superior path without saying 'you should be devoted to me'). There is a 
lot of hidden and unvocalised (and also vocalised) compulsions in 
organisations, and particularly spiritual organisations, or any organisations 
that have a 'mission', that there is a right way to go about it and think, and 
a wrong way to go about it and think. I was speaking about those more closely 
allied with the TMO than regular meditators, and many here probably have the 
sense of what I was writing about.
 

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

 Re "I found the emphasis on devotion to the guru in the TM movement always 
disconcerting":
 

 What emphasis? Maharishi was never a guru - he was a teacher of meditation.  
"The guru-shishya tradition is the transmission of teachings from a guru to a 
disciple. In this relationship, subtle and advanced knowledge is conveyed and 
received through the student's respect, commitment, devotion and obedience."
 

 That sounds nothing like the usual experience of learning TM in which one is 
given a mantra and left to get on with it on one's own. No devotion or 
obedience was ever expected.
 

  
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 authfriend wrote:
 

 'My parents sent me to Sunday School at a nearby nondenominational Christian 
church a couple of times when I was around 10 or so, feeling they should at 
least give me some exposure to religion. I didn't like it, and they didn't make 
me go again. I had a brief flirtation with Unitarianism in my teens, but it 
didn't last. Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship 
context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple 
of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the 
Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified 
Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can 
go.'
 

 My exposure to religion was rather slight, and by high school I was 
essentially agnostic although at times early influences would kick in on the 
emotional level. What you said here is pretty much what is available to 
agnostics, atheists, and non-theistic religions or philosophies (such as Zen 
Buddhism; Tao). One pretty much has to bypass that conception of a personal 
level of 'creation' (assuming there really is creation). It is possible other 
conceptual states might take the place of the personal god concept. What I 
found as time went on was I would make the attempt not to visualise the goal, I 
would easily try to deflect the tendency to give it a form. This worked for me. 
But a lot of people have trouble without some kind of concrete image in the 
mind, I find it interesting that TM takes the mind away from concrete imaging, 
yet when people come out of the meditation, it does not seem to register that 
that experience of formlessness has something to do with what one experiences 
through the senses. Ultimately that empty blank is what is experienced as being 
all the forms.
 

 The Bhagavad-Gita says that those bent on the unmanifest may have a tough time 
of it - a few translations follow, Chapter 12 Verse 5:
 

 'For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of 
the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that 
discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.'
 

 'Those whose minds are attached to the unmanifest aspect have much greater 
tribulations, because devoid of any perceptible form and attributes, success is 
achieved with great difficulty due to the beings identifying with the body.'
 

 'There is greater trouble for those whose minds are attached to the 
unmanifest. For, the path of the unmanifest is difficult to attain by the 
embodied.'
 

 As a kind of space case, perhaps I was attracted to a less concrete view of 
the universe. For exampl

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[Share Long]

Xeno, I lived on MUM campus for 14 years either as a graduate student or as a 
staff member. I never felt pressured to feel devoted to Maharishi though I 
spontaneously felt devoted to the knowledge he taught. Nor did I ever get from 
Maharishi the idea that the path of devotion is the superior one. In fact he 
was quite clear that the final stroke of enlightenment involves a discernment 
of the intellect. For me, one of the key ideas from Maharishi is that TM is the 
system of self development that transcends itself. When I first heard it what I 
grokked is this: TM will liberate me, even from itself. I still think this is 
true after 38 and a half years of TM. 36 years of TMSP and 35 years of YF. Dare 
I say go figure?





On Friday, November 8, 2013 8:53 AM, "anartax...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  
What you say is true of regular meditators and learning TM for the most part, 
but if working in the movement, devotion seems to be considered above all the 
other conceivable ways you could image what a spiritual path would be. 
Maharishi promoted this idea, because, I think, of his own experience with 
Brahmananda Saraswati. Within the movement there is a kind of unspoken peer 
pressure that the path of devotion, and in particular, devotion to Maharishi's 
stated ideals, is the one you ought to be pursuing. Further some sort of 
adulation of Maharishi himself seemed to be part of that influence, whether or 
not Maharishi himself ever directly said such (he tended to imply that devotion 
was the superior path without saying 'you should be devoted to me'). There is a 
lot of hidden and unvocalised (and also vocalised) compulsions in 
organisations, and particularly spiritual organisations, or any organisations 
that have a 'mission', that there is a right way to go
 about it and think, and a wrong way to go about it and think. I was speaking 
about those more closely allied with the TMO than regular meditators, and many 
here probably have the sense of what I was writing about.


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


Re"I found the emphasis on devotion to the guru in the TM movement always 
disconcerting":

What emphasis? Maharishi was never a guru - he was a teacher of meditation.  
"The guru-shishya tradition is the transmission of teachings from a guru to a 
disciple. In this relationship, subtle and advanced knowledge is conveyed and 
received through the student's respect, commitment, devotion and obedience."

That sounds nothing like the usual experience of learning TM in which one is 
given a mantra and left to get on with it on one's own. No devotion or 
obedience was ever expected.

 


---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:


authfriend wrote:

'My parents sent me to Sunday School at a nearby nondenominational Christian 
church a couple of times when I was around 10 or so, feeling they should at 
least give me some exposure to religion. I didn't like it, and they didn't make 
me go again. I had a brief flirtation with Unitarianism in my teens, but it 
didn't last. Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship 
context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple 
of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the 
Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified 
Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can 
go.'

My exposure to religion was rather slight, and by high school I was essentially 
agnostic although at times early influences would kick in on the emotional 
level. What you said here is pretty much what is available to agnostics, 
atheists, and non-theistic religions or philosophies (such as Zen Buddhism; 
Tao). One pretty much has to bypass that conception of a personal level of 
'creation' (assuming there really is creation). It is possible other conceptual 
states might take the place of the personal god concept. What I found as time 
went on was I would make the attempt not to visualise the goal, I would easily 
try to deflect the tendency to give it a form. This worked for me. But a lot of 
people have trouble without some kind of concrete image in the mind, I find it 
interesting that TM takes the mind away from concrete imaging, yet when people 
come out of the meditation, it does not seem to register that that experience 
of formlessness has something to do
 with what one experiences through the senses. Ultimately that empty blank is 
what is experienced as being all the forms.

The Bhagavad-Gita says that those bent on the unmanifest may have a tough time 
of it - a few translations follow, Chapter 12 Verse 5:

'For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of 
the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that 
discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.'

'Those whose minds are attached to the unmanifest aspect have much greater 
tribulations, because devoid of any percepti

[FairfieldLife] RE: Re: Transcendental Meditation Revolutionary Mission:

[authfriend]

Barry wrote:

 (snip)
 > Take the so-called "Bodhisattva Vow." Essentially, it is
> declaring to oneself and to the world one's intention to
> not allow oneself to become enlightened oneself until
> all sentient beings are enlightened. Sounds good on
> the surface, but step back for a moment and consider
> the HUBRIS of such a statement.
 >
> To make it, you have to believe 1) that you have the
> *ability* to help bring all beings to enlightenment
> (can't get more hubristic than that), 2) that it is your
> *right* to modify these sentient beings life in accord
> with how you think they should be, and 3) that the
> universe actually gives a shit what you believe or
> what you "vow."
 

 I wonder what percentage of people who take the
 Bodhisattva Vow actually believe any of this,
 consciously or subconsciously (especially 2, if
 "how you think they should be" refers to anything
 but Nirvana)..
 

 It's also interesting that the person who wrote the
 paragraph has been very insistent here that 
 preoccupation with one's own enlightenment to
 the exclusion of caring about others is also the
 height of egoism.
 

 You just can't win, I guess. Postponing your
 enlightenment for the sake of others is nothing
 but ego; pursuing your enlightenment without
 concern for others is nothing but ego.
 

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[anartaxius]

What you say is true of regular meditators and learning TM for the most part, 
but if working in the movement, devotion seems to be considered above all the 
other conceivable ways you could image what a spiritual path would be. 
Maharishi promoted this idea, because, I think, of his own experience with 
Brahmananda Saraswati. Within the movement there is a kind of unspoken peer 
pressure that the path of devotion, and in particular, devotion to Maharishi's 
stated ideals, is the one you ought to be pursuing. Further some sort of 
adulation of Maharishi himself seemed to be part of that influence, whether or 
not Maharishi himself ever directly said such (he tended to imply that devotion 
was the superior path without saying 'you should be devoted to me'). There is a 
lot of hidden and unvocalised (and also vocalised) compulsions in 
organisations, and particularly spiritual organisations, or any organisations 
that have a 'mission', that there is a right way to go about it and think, and 
a wrong way to go about it and think. I was speaking about those more closely 
allied with the TMO than regular meditators, and many here probably have the 
sense of what I was writing about.
 

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

 Re "I found the emphasis on devotion to the guru in the TM movement always 
disconcerting":
 

 What emphasis? Maharishi was never a guru - he was a teacher of meditation.  
"The guru-shishya tradition is the transmission of teachings from a guru to a 
disciple. In this relationship, subtle and advanced knowledge is conveyed and 
received through the student's respect, commitment, devotion and obedience."
 

 That sounds nothing like the usual experience of learning TM in which one is 
given a mantra and left to get on with it on one's own. No devotion or 
obedience was ever expected.
 

  
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 authfriend wrote:
 

 'My parents sent me to Sunday School at a nearby nondenominational Christian 
church a couple of times when I was around 10 or so, feeling they should at 
least give me some exposure to religion. I didn't like it, and they didn't make 
me go again. I had a brief flirtation with Unitarianism in my teens, but it 
didn't last. Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship 
context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple 
of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the 
Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified 
Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can 
go.'
 

 My exposure to religion was rather slight, and by high school I was 
essentially agnostic although at times early influences would kick in on the 
emotional level. What you said here is pretty much what is available to 
agnostics, atheists, and non-theistic religions or philosophies (such as Zen 
Buddhism; Tao). One pretty much has to bypass that conception of a personal 
level of 'creation' (assuming there really is creation). It is possible other 
conceptual states might take the place of the personal god concept. What I 
found as time went on was I would make the attempt not to visualise the goal, I 
would easily try to deflect the tendency to give it a form. This worked for me. 
But a lot of people have trouble without some kind of concrete image in the 
mind, I find it interesting that TM takes the mind away from concrete imaging, 
yet when people come out of the meditation, it does not seem to register that 
that experience of formlessness has something to do with what one experiences 
through the senses. Ultimately that empty blank is what is experienced as being 
all the forms.
 

 The Bhagavad-Gita says that those bent on the unmanifest may have a tough time 
of it - a few translations follow, Chapter 12 Verse 5:
 

 'For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of 
the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that 
discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.'
 

 'Those whose minds are attached to the unmanifest aspect have much greater 
tribulations, because devoid of any perceptible form and attributes, success is 
achieved with great difficulty due to the beings identifying with the body.'
 

 'There is greater trouble for those whose minds are attached to the 
unmanifest. For, the path of the unmanifest is difficult to attain by the 
embodied.'
 

 As a kind of space case, perhaps I was attracted to a less concrete view of 
the universe. For example, without wanting to be a Buddhist, I was attracted to 
its Zen lineage because of the lack of conceptualisation and emphasis on direct 
experience. I found the emphasis on devotion to the guru in the TM movement 
always disconcerting as it did not seem to have any relevance to my so-called 
path. Others, of course, found devotion quite amenable to them, if it was 
natural; but faking devotion because

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[sharelong60]

Xeno, I actually think there's a seesaw connection between devotion and what 
turq calls ego. I don't think either is a matter of all or nothing. At any 
given moment, I'm some percentage of each. And actually the conundrum is that 
it's only ego that's concerned about how egoic we are! Tricky. IMHO (-:
 In my experience the best I can do is focus on and go towards what I love or 
like and let ego spontaneously fall away in the process. Life has a way of 
taking care of ego schmego! And I agree with whichever poster said that we can 
be devoted towards anything or anyone. But since we're embodied being, forms 
seem to be a good choice for the nonce.

 

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

 authfriend wrote:
 

 'My parents sent me to Sunday School at a nearby nondenominational Christian 
church a couple of times when I was around 10 or so, feeling they should at 
least give me some exposure to religion. I didn't like it, and they didn't make 
me go again. I had a brief flirtation with Unitarianism in my teens, but it 
didn't last. Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship 
context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple 
of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the 
Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified 
Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can 
go.'
 

 My exposure to religion was rather slight, and by high school I was 
essentially agnostic although at times early influences would kick in on the 
emotional level. What you said here is pretty much what is available to 
agnostics, atheists, and non-theistic religions or philosophies (such as Zen 
Buddhism; Tao). One pretty much has to bypass that conception of a personal 
level of 'creation' (assuming there really is creation). It is possible other 
conceptual states might take the place of the personal god concept. What I 
found as time went on was I would make the attempt not to visualise the goal, I 
would easily try to deflect the tendency to give it a form. This worked for me. 
But a lot of people have trouble without some kind of concrete image in the 
mind, I find it interesting that TM takes the mind away from concrete imaging, 
yet when people come out of the meditation, it does not seem to register that 
that experience of formlessness has something to do with what one experiences 
through the senses. Ultimately that empty blank is what is experienced as being 
all the forms.
 

 The Bhagavad-Gita says that those bent on the unmanifest may have a tough time 
of it - a few translations follow, Chapter 12 Verse 5:
 

 'For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of 
the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that 
discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.'
 

 'Those whose minds are attached to the unmanifest aspect have much greater 
tribulations, because devoid of any perceptible form and attributes, success is 
achieved with great difficulty due to the beings identifying with the body.'
 

 'There is greater trouble for those whose minds are attached to the 
unmanifest. For, the path of the unmanifest is difficult to attain by the 
embodied.'
 

 As a kind of space case, perhaps I was attracted to a less concrete view of 
the universe. For example, without wanting to be a Buddhist, I was attracted to 
its Zen lineage because of the lack of conceptualisation and emphasis on direct 
experience. I found the emphasis on devotion to the guru in the TM movement 
always disconcerting as it did not seem to have any relevance to my so-called 
path. Others, of course, found devotion quite amenable to them, if it was 
natural; but faking devotion because one sees others doing it that way probably 
would be a disaster. I have seen people in the movement live and on tape 
seemingly straining to appear devoted when it seemed (as it appeared to me) 
they were just doing it out of peer pressure. Devotion is a property of what 
you like the most, whatever is most likable to you, that is your devotion, what 
you pursue, and that pursuit continues until it is fulfilled, or completely 
thwarted.
 

  
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Translation issues

[Share Long]

Do Not Disturb, Tiny Grass Is Dreaming made me think of Stranger In A Strange 
Land and walking on the happy grass. Posting Fun, You Are the Best...





On Friday, November 8, 2013 2:37 AM, TurquoiseB  wrote:
 
  
The online Infocenter for the product I've been working on 
just went off for translation into 10 languages. Next, we'll
be bombarded by requests from the translators for us to
explain to them exactly what we may have meant by the
English we used, so they can translate it properly. 

Good thing. One of the target languages is Chinese, and 
I'd hate to see what the translators would come up with
on their own:

http://deadstate.org/look-these-28-chinese-mistranslated-signs-will-make-you-laugh-and-cry/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Much Ado About Nothing

[Share Long]

turq, here's a fun interview with Nathan about his experience with Joss and 
gang.

http://www.vulture.com/2012/09/fillion-on-joss-whedons-shakespeare-brunches.html




On Friday, November 8, 2013 12:15 AM, TurquoiseB  wrote:
 
  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>
> You won't believe this but I watched the movie yesterday! Really! Maybe there 
> is something in the idea of synchronicity. I was going to recommend it to FFL 
> also - under the title "Shakespeare without Tears". The tricky choice with 
> the Bard's plays is always whether you show them in period costume or go for 
> a modern setting and somehow have to make allowances for the archaic speech. 
> Much Ado simply ignored the dilemma and played it straight. One of the best 
> film adaptations of Shakespeare I've ever seen. I've never heard of Amy 
> Acker, before but she was fantastic. Actually all the cast were good but she 
> was outstanding. 


Amy has worked with Joss many times in the past, starting with a long stint as 
Illyria / Winifred 'Fred' Burkle on "Angel," then with a major role as Dr. 
Claire Saunders / Whiskey in "Dollhouse." Along the way she's had long, 
repeating roles on "Alias" and a meaty role in Joss' "The Cabin in the Woods." 
Currently she's landed a plum role on Johnathan Nolan's "Person Of Interest," 
as the charmingly beautiful psychopath Root, who thinks she is talking to God 
and, in fact, is, because the all-knowing, all-seeing God talks back to her. 


> ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@ wrote: 
> 
>  It's been available at Redbox for a few weeks but I was vested in a 31 days 
> of horror fest so haven't gotten to it yet. 
> 
>  On 11/07/2013 02:07 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: 
> 
> 
>  No, this is not a cafe rap about Fairfield Life and its daily squabbles. 
> It's a review of a film that I have been dying to see, but have been unable 
> to because it won't be officially released either in France or in the 
> Netherlands until January. But the pirateverse hath come to the rescue -- I 
> scored a 1080p version, and just finished watching it. 
> 
>  To fully appreciate the film, it really helps to know a little about the 
> making of the film. It was produced, directed, shot, and scored by Joss 
> Whedon, while "on leave" from the filming of "The Avengers" during a 
> contractually-forced two week hiatus. Some guys, especially if they were in 
> the middle of making the film that would go on to become the highest-grossing 
> film in history, would kick back and relax during those two weeks. 
> 
>  Joss made a movie instead. He paid for it himself, recruited former actors 
> he'd worked with before to appear in it, and shot it all in 12 days. In his 
> house. 
> 
>  This last bit is important, because Joss first conceived of the idea in that 
> house (designed by his wife) years earlier when they were hosting Shakespeare 
> readings at the house. He shoots using hand-held cameras and found lighting 
> -- "Our lighting package rose in the east and set in the west." And while 
> making the movie itself was Joss' way of having fun, one aspect of the 
> production he described as "terrifying." He wrote the music, along the way 
> scoring two of the songs that Shakespeare wrote for the play. The songs were 
> recorded by Joss' brother Jed and his wife Maurissa Tancharoen, while Joss' 
> wife kinda ran both the production and the household as her house was invaded 
> by a host of actors and film crew for two weeks. So it was a real "family 
> affair." 
> 
>  That said, the play's afoot...let us proceed. 
> 
>  Suffice it to say that this is a film adaptation by Joss Whedon, so there 
> has to be a *twist*, some way of seeing the Bard's words anew, as no one else 
> has ever seen them before. Joss manages all of this with one scene, shown in 
> silence before the credits. I can say no more (insert "Zip it!" sketch here 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32C0eKRQVt8), except to say that this one 
> scene *completely* transforms Shakespeare's play into something infinitely 
> more understandable in our era, and renders the interplay between Beatrice 
> (Amy Acker) and Benedick (Alexis Denisof) more believable in a more sexually 
> liberated era. 
> 
>  I am a *serious* fan of Amy Acker, and she doth not disappoint in this 
> retelling of the Bard's tale. Nathan Fillion is charming in a short cameo as 
> Dogberry, one of the most inept cops in playwriting history. The other cast 
> (many of them faces, if not names, you'll know from Joss' other works) are 
> equally up to their task of Having Fun. 
> 
>  I really liked "Much Ado About Nothing," and recommend it highly to 1) 
> Shakespeare fans -- you'll never see a more creative adaptation of the  
> Bard's work, 2) Joss Whedon fans -- your love for the man will only be 
> increased by your knowledge of what the place he lives in looks like, and 3) 
> lovers of great comedy -- this play is considered one of Shakespeare's best 
> comedies -- produced lovingly

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendental Meditation Revolutionary Mission:

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> just hard-wired into the con artists who claim to be able to do it.

I am less harsh than you are, Michael, in that I suspect
a lot of people who have such laudable goals "mean well,"
at least at the beginning.

What I think is "hard-wired" into the human psyche is
ego, and hubris, and that's what I think is at the root of
such goals, noble as they may seem.

Take the so-called "Bodhisattva Vow." Essentially, it is
declaring to oneself and to the world one's intention to
not allow oneself to become enlightened oneself until
all sentient beings are enlightened. Sounds good on
the surface, but step back for a moment and consider
the HUBRIS of such a statement.

To make it, you have to believe 1) that you have the
*ability* to help bring all beings to enlightenment
(can't get more hubristic than that), 2) that it is your
*right* to modify these sentient beings life in accord
with how you think they should be, and 3) that the
universe actually gives a shit what you believe or
what you "vow."

Maharishi's quote below is in the same ballpark IMO.
What gives him the *right* to define what "fully-
developed citizens" are. Are they "people who meditate?"
Do they include the toadies in the organization he
founded who can only do what they're told, *whatever*
they're told (like smuggling money across international
borders)?

IMO, one should always be wary of overly lofty goals.
They are often trotted out for their "Wow factor," and
to *distract* people from the here-and-now daily
activities of those who profess them.

As one spiritual teacher used to say, "Listen to what
people say, but watch what they DO." After he gave
this dictum to his students as a "rule of thumb," he
was probably more surprised than anyone else when
they started leaving in droves, after realizing that he
failed to "walk his own talk."

> 
> On Fri, 11/8/13, anartaxius@... anartaxius@... wrote:
>
>So far, on the mat and counted out. This is
>  pretty much the goal of every organisation that wants to
>  better the world. Interesting that the dire situation at
>  hand never seems to get resolved. I suspect most religions
>  began with such laudable goals in mind. Could it be that
>  this inability to fulfill such a goal is hard-wired into the
>  universe?
>
>  ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
>  dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
>
>"We will count ourselves
>  successful only when the problems of today's world are
>  substantially
>  reduced and eventually eliminated and the educational
>  institutions of
>  every country are capable of producing fully developed
>  citizens."
>
>  -Maharishi, from the
>  founding catalog of Maharishi International University,
>  1974
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Transcendental Meditation Revolutionary Mission:

[Michael Jackson]

just hard-wired into the con artists who claim to be able to do it.

On Fri, 11/8/13, anartax...@yahoo.com  wrote:

 Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Transcendental Meditation Revolutionary Mission:
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Friday, November 8, 2013, 3:02 AM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
   
   
   So far, on the mat and counted out. This is
 pretty much the goal of every organisation that wants to
 better the world. Interesting that the dire situation at
 hand never seems to get resolved. I suspect most religions
 began with such laudable goals in mind. Could it be that
 this inability to fulfill such a goal is hard-wired into the
 universe? 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
  wrote:
 
 “We will count ourselves
 successful only when the problems of today's world are
 substantially
 reduced and eventually eliminated and the educational
 institutions of
 every country are capable of producing fully developed
 citizens.”  
 
 -Maharishi, from the
 founding catalog of Maharishi International University,
 1974
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] Ford and Hitler

[cardemaister]

At the Nuremberg Trials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials, Baldur 
von Schirach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldur_von_Schirach mentioned that 
The International Jew made a deep impression on him and his friends in their 
youth and influenced them in becoming antisemitic. He said: "... we saw in 
Henry Ford the representative of success, also the exponent of a progressive 
social policy. In the poverty-stricken and wretched Germany of the time, youth 
looked toward America, and apart from the great benefactor, Herbert Hoover 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover, it was Henry Ford who to us 
represented America."[2] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew#cite_note-2 In 1922, The New 
York Times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times reported that Adolf 
Hitler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's office contained a large 
picture of Ford.[3] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew#cite_note-Ryback-3 A 
well-thumbed copy of the International Jew was found in his library.[3] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew#cite_note-Ryback-3 
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew

[FairfieldLife] Translation issues

[TurquoiseB]

The online Infocenter for the product I've been working on
just went off for translation into 10 languages. Next, we'll
be bombarded by requests from the translators for us to
explain to them exactly what we may have meant by the
English we used, so they can translate it properly.

Good thing. One of the target languages is Chinese, and
I'd hate to see what the translators would come up with
on their own:

http://deadstate.org/look-these-28-chinese-mistranslated-signs-will-make\
-you-laugh-and-cry/

[FairfieldLife] Re: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>
> On the topic of religious rituals - and to take this thread even
further away from Mani - were there ever any group ceremonies (puja)
performed at the various HQs where Maharishi established himself in
Switzerland and Holland?
>
>  And did those attending training courses as TM teachers ever have
communal puja chanting or anything else suggesting a cult? Maybe the
sacrifice of a maiden on a stone slab?
>
>  Or did it never deviate from individual and group TM/Sidhi practice
and SCI lectures?

Since no one else seems to be willing to deal with this, I will. :-)
The answer, of course, is "Is the Pope Catholic?" *Of course*
there were mass pujas and "celebrations" performed to the
various Hindu gods and goddesses in these locations. The
general public probably never knew much about them, not
being allowed on the premises, but they definitely took place,
and undoubtedly do to this day. Many people suspected,
because the people on the courses rarely came into town
and when they did, they were as spaced out as zombies.
In St. Moritz, on my last long TM course, the townspeople
referred to the folks up in the hotel on top of the mountain,
possibly taking a cue from the Beatles, as the "fools on
the hill."  :-)

To deal with other of your recent questions, there was always
a "public teaching" and a "private" or "real" teaching w.r.t.
the TMO and Maharishi. For the public (and for those TMers
who never ventured any further into the org) it was "20
minutes twice a day and no belief or lifestyle changes." But
for those who went on to become TM teachers, it was very,
very different. Much of the teaching centered around oft-
repeated stories extolling the benefits of and necessity of
devotion to one's "master." MMY would tell the story of
Trotakacharya over and over, as if that exemplified what
a spiritual seeker's life and relationship to one's teacher
"should" be like, and in practice he pretty much demanded
to be treated as if he were the "master" in question. Refuse
to do something he had "commanded" you to do (for
example, Deepak Chopra, preferring to have a life and
a medical practice not directly linked to the TMO) and
you were "outa there" faster than shit through a goose.
Those held up as "role models" were the ones with near-
absolute and unquestioning devotion to and obeisance
to Maharishi.

As for the name itself, the question is not so much "How
is it pronounced?" but "Was the name deserved?" Even
according to Maharishi's version, people started calling
him that, and he allowed them to. Bottom line, however,
is that the "title" was neither conferred on him by any
legitimate lineage, or deserved. Heck, he wasn't even a
"yogi."

If you were one of those lucky TMers who avoided the
TM organization and just meditated, you probably missed
a lot of the drama that people on this forum talk about,
and that the cult apologists -- many of whom never
became teachers themselves and never did more than
"dip their toe" in the TMO as it really was -- try to excuse.
For anyone who became a TM teacher, it was *very much*
about lifestyle changes, and obeisance to one's "master."
And there was simply *no question* that Maharishi both
allowed this to happen, and encouraged it.