[FairfieldLife] Re: Fight against the FDA's ridiculous supplement regulation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > On 07/18/2011 08:19 AM, metoostill wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > >> > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "metoostill" > >> wrote: > >>> More to the point many inner circle re-certified TM teachers living in > >> FF and out of town have recently suffered devastating lead poisoning > >> from visits to the much praised Raju's clinic in India where they were > >> treated to ayur-vedic pills and potions. There have been enough > >> extremely serious cases in FF that the University of Iowa has offered to > >> test free for heavy metals anyone who brings a sample of herbs from > >> india to protect the public health. Does anyone else know more of the > >> details? > >> I don't doubt what you are saying, but can you name one? > > I am an old timer and several of my old time best friends who still > > maintain the TMO code of silence and work in "the company" are involved, > > but I heard this also from my kids who are old MSAE grads. I just looked > > on FF Life to get any detail I didn't have. Apparently Raju is horrified > > and afraid he'll loose his American meal ticket (with good reason), and has > > tracked the problem to one of his pill and herb suppliers. Lead poisoning > > that caused serious symptoms that drove several to the hospital after home > > in IA, where lead was pinpointed as the problem, in blood concentration > > that pins the dial when measured, and then tested for and discovered in > > mega amounts in the Raju ayur-vedic "medicines". Yes the FDA can be > > obstructive but yes the FDA plays a valuable role at other times. This > > might have been one where their involvement would have been to our benefit. > > Go back and read my original post. I *said* that supplement > manufacturers would like some regulations. That would have insured > against such tainted goods. The problem is not the FDA but the greedy > pharmaceutical companies wanting the supplement market for themselves. > It is important to understand the term "pull the ladder up" regulation. > This is how big companies unfairly eliminate competition. And big > pharma has given us things like Vioxx. Big pharma has killed more > people than tainted ayurvedic products ever have. > You make a fair point and perhaps I strayed off your intended topic. Stream of consciousness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fight against the FDA's ridiculous supplement regulation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "metoostill" > wrote: > > More to the point many inner circle re-certified TM teachers living in > FF and out of town have recently suffered devastating lead poisoning > from visits to the much praised Raju's clinic in India where they were > treated to ayur-vedic pills and potions. There have been enough > extremely serious cases in FF that the University of Iowa has offered to > test free for heavy metals anyone who brings a sample of herbs from > india to protect the public health. Does anyone else know more of the > details? > > > I don't doubt what you are saying, but can you name one? I am an old timer and several of my old time best friends who still maintain the TMO code of silence and work in "the company" are involved, but I heard this also from my kids who are old MSAE grads. I just looked on FF Life to get any detail I didn't have. Apparently Raju is horrified and afraid he'll loose his American meal ticket (with good reason), and has tracked the problem to one of his pill and herb suppliers. Lead poisoning that caused serious symptoms that drove several to the hospital after home in IA, where lead was pinpointed as the problem, in blood concentration that pins the dial when measured, and then tested for and discovered in mega amounts in the Raju ayur-vedic "medicines". Yes the FDA can be obstructive but yes the FDA plays a valuable role at other times. This might have been one where their involvement would have been to our benefit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fight against the FDA's ridiculous supplement regulation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Bhairitu wrote: > > > The FDA wants to outlaws supplements formulated after 1994. I guess > > that means that ancient ayurvedic formulas will be exempt but don't > > count on it... > > > > > Always blame big pharma instead of the ineffectiveness of... More to the point many inner circle re-certified TM teachers living in FF and out of town have recently suffered devastating lead poisoning from visits to the much praised Raju's clinic in India where they were treated to ayur-vedic pills and potions. There have been enough extremely serious cases in FF that the University of Iowa has offered to test free for heavy metals anyone who brings a sample of herbs from india to protect the public health. Does anyone else know more of the details?
[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM Q&A: Still repeating same lies about TM mantras
> The topic of dark yogis will come up here in the near future, as a major > academic work has just been published, and many of us off list are reading it > with great interest. Name of the academic work please?
[FairfieldLife] Cult apologists (was Re: Paul Haggis vs. the Church of Scientology)
> > > > I see it differently. My understanding from all the years within the TMO > > was that TM was supposed to be the best way, but certainly not the only way > > to immortality, enlightenment etc. MMY said TM was the fastest way, but > > other ways could get you there eventually. Also, the TM ideas derived from > > a long tradition of HIndu and Vedic ideas. While the TMO liked to take > > credit for much of this, they also nevertheless were proud to talk about > > the ancient ideas on which TM products and services (astrology, Ayurveda) > > were based. > > > > I read the New Yorker article today- there are some similarities to TM'er > > experiences in Haggi's fine descriptions of what it is like to step away > > from and then look back at the group you once were enmeshed in. The other > > parallel with TM was the idea of removing stresses with a technique - in > > Scientology this is what they call auditing I think. But Scientology sounds > > like a harsher, crazier world than anything within TM. The shunning that > > they tell people to do towards people who drop out is way beyond the TMO > > actions. The article gives examples of people who are no longer allowed to > > have any contact with parents or children or grandchildren if they leave > > the fold!! > > > > L Ron seemed to have come up with some sort of model of how to get your > > emotional life together or improved. It might have some effect, or else > > just be generated by the individual desire to have found The Way, The > > Truth, at last. Despite their talk of spirituality in Scientology, I got a > > feeling from the article that it was really more centered on learning > > communication skills and getting rid of bad behavior patterns. TM is > > ultimately focused on Enlightenment - and one thing many have wished for is > > more focus on behavior. Glad I never got sucked into the Scientology > > nightmare. > > > > > The slight difference between TM and Scientology is that one was started > > > by a very creative science fiction writer and the other by a BBB from a > > > long tradition of BBB masters. Now the TMO, that's a different story. > > > Whenever human groups form that cult dynamic to varying degrees can > > > always arise. > > > Clearly we will all find different parts of greater or lesser interest or relevance, but this is another snippet from the Scientology article that struck, for me, a familiar cord, referring back to three days checking meetings, and to experience forms after Panchakarma at the Raj, and to the Vedic America Course experience meetings: In Scientology, he always felt a subtle pressure to impress his auditor and then write up a glowing success story. Now, he said, "I'm not fooling myself that I'm a better man than I am." Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright#ixzz1DWoZXoTE
[FairfieldLife] Cult apologists (was Re: Paul Haggis vs. the Church of Scientology)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > FYI, one technique to *identify* a cult apologist > > I learned from "Columbo" on TV. You just mention > > the term and see who replies angrily. > > > > Duh. The cult apologists who think you were talking > > about them personally. Works every time. > > That's because, in Barry's ethical system (I use the > term loosely), there's never a need to defend another > person who's being unfairly attacked. Therefore, > anyone who objects to a criticism *must* be guilty > of the misbehavior themselves. > I am addressing my post to none of you in particular because my attention span is too short to learn which FF Life regular is which in this very personal back and forth that seems to me to take up too much of the conversation. From FF life's mission statement: "Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers...We often discuss the trials and tribulations of the TM Movement, which may not interest some..." etc etc. So, back to where this post started, something of interest to seekers, and relating to the main common denominator of the group (TM), yes the New Yorker article was all over TMO turf. As one of you mentions, very different, in that I have heard of no physical abuse, but then quite similar in for instance the fact that Scientology shares the conceit central to MMY's SCI and to Hinduism in general: church members believe that Scientology holds the key to salvation: "Only by going through Scientology will you reach spiritual immortality. You can go from life to life to life without being cognizant of what is going on. If you don't go through Scientology, you're condemned to dying over and over again in ignorance and darkness, never knowing your true nature as a spirit. Nobody who is a believer wants to lose that." Miscavige, Hawkins says, "holds the power of eternal life and death over you." Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright#ixzz1DUZEhRlx
[FairfieldLife] Re: About Advanced Techniques fertilizers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > On Jan 5, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Marcio wrote: > > > wow very good Vaj thank you so much ... :) :) :) :) > > If you mean true in that they were at one time given by the TMO, yes. > > But they are not the mantras of the devatas which are more traditionally > given. > Mere trivia IMO but fascinating none the less, regarding krim, the TM mantra for people initiated at 30 years old: "The first term of Kali's famous 21 syllable mantra is made up of k-r-i-m, the first three letters of which are known as "lust" (kama), "fire" (vahni), and "sexual desire" ( rati)." From page 89 of Kali's Child, a fascinating if not controversial book by Jeffrey Kripal based on his doctoral thesis on the life of Ramakrishna, Vivekanada's master.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Course Fees -- The Gold Standard
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote: > > > > > > The justification for charging would be that if a fee is > > > charged, more resources can be brought to bear to bring the > > > teaching / thing to more... > > > > TurquoiseB: > > And why would one want that? > > > "The more you give, the more people we can help." - Frederick Lenz > > The Code Cult of the CPU Guru: > http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/Rama/wired > Synchronicity flash: the Kris Kane mentioned in the Wired article as a Zen Master Rama apologist trying to fend off the Wired editor writing the article, is Gonga, the fellow who was in Fairfield last week giving a few public talks on "Secrets of the Siddhas"; who is also Tom Royer, an old 1970's era TM teacher. Whatever the Secrets of the Siddhas may be, Zen Master Rama's secrets were not on the table for inspection by Wired, or at the talks, nor were any of Gonga's secrets. The "secret" bit is quite the recurring theme in the guru scene. FYI "upanishad" means "secret". IMO one of the endemic flaws in the culture.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN > May 1!
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > When I bought into Maharishi's deal I was 16 years old. I was recruited > right in my own private high school, with the adults asleep at the wheel. So > given the naivete of youth, I have nothing to be ashamed of. And in the big > picture of my recreational options at the time I am grateful for the > clean-cut version Maharishi offered me, despite the snake oil promises. He > fulfilled some needs for me at that stage of my life and I am grateful. So > you are mischaracterizing my position in what you are calling my complaint. > > Maharishi IMO is wrong about human consciousness. And so is Jerry. They are > preaching an old way of thinking that is the equivalent of taking a fairy > tale seriously and literally. They are inflating the nature of the mental > changes meditation brings into a claim that it allows you to understand the > ultimate reality of life. This ridiculously inflated claim is bogus. > > So it isn't a question of being "wiser" than anyone to notice this. Most of > the people in the world (with the exception of a tiny, tiny, diminishing > group) have come to the same conclusion about Maharishi. The term wisdom > should have a higher bar than recognizing a Hindu Televangelist just as > someone shouldn't be praised for rejecting a guy like Benny Hinn. It isn't > that deep or that subtle. Curtis: IMO one of the better and more self reflective posts I have seen here, thanks for that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stampede in an Indian Temple
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > On Mar 7, 2010, at 10:35 PM, metoostill wrote: > > > As to what Vaishnavas believe, yes Vishnu features large, as you > > pointed out yourself, proposing meaning, as I had. Vishnu features > > so large that they are in fact dualists and not, like adherents of > > advaita, non-dualists. > > Shankara was probably the most famous Vaishnava. > > In the TM puja, invoking Shankara's lineage, we start with Vishnu and > Narayana. > Vaj, to say Shankara was the most famous Vaishnava is sort of like saying Jesus was the most famous Jew. While true, it doesn't add to an understanding of either Christianity or Judaism, and nor does mixing Shankara with Vaishnavism, MMY's grab bag of Hindu beliefs and techniques and his TM puja aside. I assume you know that cold, and just like being cantankerous, no real harm there I suppose, jump in whenever you like. Worship of Vishnu became widespread about 700 years after Shankara died, although Vaishnavas are certain to respond to that like MMY would to the thought that TM is less than timelessly ancient. I assume you also know that Shankara is credited with lots of famous verses, hymns, and commentaries, and that it is widely assumed that he wrote some but not all of that corpus. Like a one hit wonder rock band who then had a long career based on that one great song, and whose personnel the record company who owns the rights to the name often replaced with other less talented musicians to keep the music playing, the Shankara who wrote the introduction to and commentary on the first 4 verses of the Brahma Sutras (Shankara's greatest hit) in all likelihood wrote some but not all of the other work attributed to him. Most questionable are works that take a position in contra to the ones in the works that made him famous. WIthout passing judgement on the merit of the other work or its authenticity, it is enough to say that the work that is startling for its lucid summary of the notions of advaita is the one that occasions his name carrying the kind of implied endorsement that is sought when his name is invoked. Like in the TM puja, as you point out, or that picture of the "masters of the holy tradition" that MMY had painted with Shankara and some other famous and respected figures all circling above his head in a line leading down to him. As Willy points out, both ISKCON and Wiki can give a good primer, but for myself I think that getting your hands on Shankara's introduction to and commentary on the first 4 sutras of the Brahma Sutras is the best way to go to the source, and really a great read. His views on yoga, on ritual, and on revelation as opposed to yogic perception as a valid means of gaining knowledge are both surprising after all those years of SCI, and "awesome", although it should be said, not nearly as awesome as what you see when you wake up every morning.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stampede in an Indian Temple
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > Wow, I wonder if anyone is really going to read what is written below. > > Well other than to stop reading once one sees "Vaishnavas believe " > since some will realize Vaishnavas are not a monolithic belief system, but a > number of different belief systems centered around Vishnu, the ones who don't > know that will think "wow, that's interesting." The others will think "wow, > what a bunch of BS." > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "metoostill" wrote: > > > Thanks Ruth, it is an interesting quote, and contains a lot of > > > illuminating material. Not, for the avoidance of doubt, for the purpose > > > of criticizing what MMY has said, nor what you have said, and thanks > > > again Ruth for the quote, but only to talk about what it is that he is > > > saying, the opening sentence is ""Fortunate are they who live in Union > > > with God...". Vaishnavas consider that there is no such thing, and that > > > to propose there is constitutes astounding ego and hubris. Christians of > > > course would quite agree with Vaishnavas on that point. Vaishnavas > > > understand there to be not one eternal truth in Unity, but 3 things that > > > are eternal - the Godhead, who is NOT attribute less, but who is blue and > > > plays a flute (that is one place where they part ways with their > > > Christian brothers); individual souls, who are innumerable and without > > > beginning or end, and therefore are both infinite and eternal in their > > > own right, separate from the godhead; and the creation, which is likewise > > > without beginning or end. I assume MMY knew all this and had it down cold > > > from childhood. MMY ends "finds...that the other standpoint is right at > > > its own level." Levels, unlike perspectives, imply a hierarchy not two > > > equally true perspectives, and there is little doubt that MMY meant to be > > > inclusive in a patronizing sort of a manner. His sectarian view, his > > > preferred system of Indian philosophy, holds that at a lower lever of > > > consciousness there is duality, and at a higher level of consciousness > > > there is unity. The Vaishnava viewpoint is that the goal of unity with > > > god is a false doctrine. For the avoidance of doubt I do not ascribe to > > > the Vaishnava view, so this is not meant to promote their view but only > > > to state it as best I can. > > > > > Dude, the 'bunch of BS' comment - way harsh. I'm not sure if you assume I consider myself a know it all - anything but, although I am also not a know nothing. To start a sentence XXX believe... is not in and of itself out of line, after all, words do have meanings. If you said 'Christians believe' and followed it with 'accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and savior secures eternal life' you would have 99% of them, albeit they believe a lot of other things too, and of course there are outliers who believe something different. As to what Vaishnavas believe, yes Vishnu features large, as you pointed out yourself, proposing meaning, as I had. Vishnu features so large that they are in fact dualists and not, like adherents of advaita, non-dualists. I'm not sure if you thought there was something offensive or derogatory in that, or that it was misleading in some way, or maybe that it is not the case? When I spent some time with some close friends of mine who are Vishnu devotees and came to understand the ramification of 'Duality' I was surprised and yes a bit chagrined. To be a non-dualist (advaita, SCI, etc) is to propose that you are, in the end, going to realize unity with god. Duality, two, me and God, non-duality, one, no difference between me and god. A simplification, yes, but there it is. And I had to think, its a lot to propose - non-duality - certainly makes the virtue of humility harder to achieve, recognize a feature of MMY or of the TMO TB community? Perhaps not an inevitable result of deciding to adopting the view, or to say it differently, 'the belief', in the tenet of non-duality, that there is only one, and to adopt the belief in its most salient tenet, that god and myself are one. But maybe, I thought, because I do try not to be a know it all, I thought maybe non duality is not as unassailable a tenet as I have always taken it to be. It was one of those blessed "well, now that I think about it, what do I know" moments.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stampede in an Indian Temple
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "metoostill" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "metoostill" wrote: > > > > > > > > (It's Judy, not Ruth.) > Sorry, Judy. > Thanks, very civil tone on your part, I aspire to that ideal. > Understood. I haven't a clue which view is right, if > either; and like you with the Vaishnavite view, I'm just > trying to state what it seems to me MMY is saying, not > advocate for it (except to whatever extent he's promoting > tolerance of different views). Yes haven't a clue, me neither. > For those who preach tolerance of differing views, it's > almost impossible not to get caught up in intolerance > *for intolerant points of view*. I suspect that was the > needle MMY was trying to thread here by bumping the > controversy upstairs, as it were, and claiming it > vanishes at the top. I'm not so confident that it was his intention to find common ground, but so be it. One cannot imagine MMY any more than most other gurus or religious leaders starting a sentence "I might be wrong and often am but what I think is...", or starting to express himself saying "This is what I think, but what do you think?" He saw himself and his thoughts, ideas and speech like he saw Vedic scripture and his SCI, knowledge that was perfect and complete. If he was right then he was also right to be intolerant and exclusive. If he was wrong then it was a tragic but common evangelist's error. Tragic but common. Well its one or the other and it is what it is. Here its hard to finish that I haven't a clue, as there are some clues hanging out there in plain view. Not, for the avoidance of doubt, moralizing to you or anyone else, I have no reason to think there is any of that you might disagree with. Just getting my thoughts down on paper on a saturday morning.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stampede in an Indian Temple
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "metoostill" wrote: > > > > > As to repudiated Vedanta, Prakashanand has commented > > > of his time as SBS's attendant that SBS was, while > > > Shankaracharya, still seeking enlightenment, and that > > > the ideal goal is not jivanmukti but, as you say, > > > "inconceivable oneness and difference'... and the > > > relation of...Radha and Krishna" and as pointedly, > > > eternity in Vrindavan with Krisn, perhaps a sort of > > > Christian sounding goal? > > > > > > Of more interesting to me when I first came to know of > > > the differences in the systems was not the merit of > > > either view, but the fact that such disagreement exists > > > "between the wise." Ah, but I was so much older then. > > > I'm younger than that now. > > > > FWIW, MMY addresses the difference in his Gita > > commentary (on 6:32): > > > > "Fortunate are they who live in Union with God > > Whether they play with God or hold Him as one with > > their own Being is a point to be settled between > > them and God. > > > > "They live as devotees of God or they become > > united, become one with their Beloved--it is a > > matter between them. Let it be decided on that > > level of Union. One view need not exclude the > > other. It is a sin against God to raise > > differences over the principle of Union. Let the > > followers of both schools of thought aspire to > > achieve their respective goals and then find in > > that consciousness that the other standpoint is > > also right at its own level." > > > > > > "Sin against God" is pretty strong language for > > Maharishi. > > > At least from my experience there never was a more liberal person than > Maharishi who, as I saw it on a daily basis, lived inclusion every moment of > His life. That's impossible to "understand" as such, but nevertheless it was > my experience. That's how I interperet the quote. There was only this > principle that mattered at the end of the day; Love. > > Beautiful, thanks for posting this ! > As to inclusive, we can toss that adjective around as it sounds very flattering, but MMY's TM group seems to have settled into what Christian fundamentalist groups would term "Militant Fundamentalism 2nd degree of separation." On this topic, Wiki on [Christian] "fundamentalism": "Moderate Fundamentalists choose not to participate in events with groups who don't hold to [their] essential doctrines. This is 1st degree separation. A more extreme group of people who call themselves Fundamentalists, the Militant Fundamentalists, will not participate in events with other groups who, (though they have correct doctrine [analogously who practice TM]) participate in events with groups who do not hold to the essential doctrines [have gone to lectures by or about other gurus]. This is 2nd degree separation." Not allowed in the dome if you "have correct doctrine" but "participate in events with groups who do not hold to the essential doctrines". If you believe yourself to have a higher teaching and find it important to be extreme, exclusive, or self righteous, so be it, maybe you are right. Maybe. Maybe not. But fundamentalists as a general matter do not applaud themselves as inclusive, only right, and probably TMO TB's should not either.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stampede in an Indian Temple
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "metoostill" wrote: > > > As to repudiated Vedanta, Prakashanand has commented > > of his time as SBS's attendant that SBS was, while > > Shankaracharya, still seeking enlightenment, and that > > the ideal goal is not jivanmukti but, as you say, > > "inconceivable oneness and difference'... and the > > relation of...Radha and Krishna" and as pointedly, > > eternity in Vrindavan with Krisn, perhaps a sort of > > Christian sounding goal? > > > > Of more interesting to me when I first came to know of > > the differences in the systems was not the merit of > > either view, but the fact that such disagreement exists > > "between the wise." Ah, but I was so much older then. > > I'm younger than that now. > > FWIW, MMY addresses the difference in his Gita > commentary (on 6:32): > > "Fortunate are they who live in Union with God > Whether they play with God or hold Him as one with > their own Being is a point to be settled between > them and God. > > "They live as devotees of God or they become > united, become one with their Beloved--it is a > matter between them. Let it be decided on that > level of Union. One view need not exclude the > other. It is a sin against God to raise > differences over the principle of Union. Let the > followers of both schools of thought aspire to > achieve their respective goals and then find in > that consciousness that the other standpoint is > also right at its own level." > > > "Sin against God" is pretty strong language for > Maharishi. > Thanks Ruth, it is an interesting quote, and contains a lot of illuminating material. Not, for the avoidance of doubt, for the purpose of criticizing what MMY has said, nor what you have said, and thanks again Ruth for the quote, but only to talk about what it is that he is saying, the opening sentence is ""Fortunate are they who live in Union with God...". Vaishnavas consider that there is no such thing, and that to propose there is constitutes astounding ego and hubris. Christians of course would quite agree with Vaishnavas on that point. Vaishnavas understand there to be not one eternal truth in Unity, but 3 things that are eternal - the Godhead, who is NOT attribute less, but who is blue and plays a flute (that is one place where they part ways with their Christian brothers); individual souls, who are innumerable and without beginning or end, and therefore are both infinite and eternal in their own right, separate from the godhead; and the creation, which is likewise without beginning or end. I assume MMY knew all this and had it down cold from childhood. MMY ends "finds...that the other standpoint is right at its own level." Levels, unlike perspectives, imply a hierarchy not two equally true perspectives, and there is little doubt that MMY meant to be inclusive in a patronizing sort of a manner. His sectarian view, his preferred system of Indian philosophy, holds that at a lower lever of consciousness there is duality, and at a higher level of consciousness there is unity. The Vaishnava viewpoint is that the goal of unity with god is a false doctrine. For the avoidance of doubt I do not ascribe to the Vaishnava view, so this is not meant to promote their view but only to state it as best I can. "Sin against God" is strong language, from MMY or from anyone else, and it is not unusual to reserve our strongest language for sectarian wrangling, which yes is what seems to be imbedded here.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stampede in an Indian Temple
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote: > > metoo: > > > ...he later repudiated Vedanta > > > Vaishnavas have their own interpretation of > Vedanta (those who follow the Upanishads). > > A Very Brief Outline of the South Asian Systems > of Philosophy and Heterodox Epistemology:... > WillyTex: Thanks for the list, and yes I have some familiarity with the run. Quite a range of choices. As to repudiated Vedanta, Prakashanand has commented of his time as SBS's attendant that SBS was, while Shankaracharya, still seeking enlightenment, and that the ideal goal is not jivanmukti but, as you say, "inconceivable oneness and difference'... and the relation of...Radha and Krishna" and as pointedly, eternity in Vrindavan with Krisn, perhaps a sort of Christian sounding goal? Of more interesting to me when I first came to know of the differences in the systems was not the merit of either view, but the fact that such disagreement exists "between the wise." Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stampede in an Indian Temple
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > Why does this happen so frequently? > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100304/ap_on_re_as/as_india_temple_stampede > I'm not sure if anyone picked up on this but as a matter of cult trivia this was at the India ashram of Kripalu Maharaj, the master of Swami Prakashanand Saraswati, who was formerly a close disciple of Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, MMY's Guru, and who started a "competing" ashram in Austin TX on the campus of the former TM Radiance community there . He is one of the 5 grads of SBS's Jyotir Math Ashram that have never had much good to say about each other, the others being MMY and the 3 fellows arguing for decades over who is the next Shankaracharya.So much for "even the wild tigers do not fight in his presence." Swamiji, as he is known, says he was offered the seat by SBS but turned it down, he later repudiated Vedanta and the concept of jivanmukti for the Vaishnava Hari Krishna cult of Kripalu and its dualist goal of eternal Krishna devotion in Vrindavan. Kripalu, a male, claims to be an incarnation of Rhada, Krishna's consort, and often is cross dressed. As "our own" Seinfeld would say, "not that there's anything wrong with that." Many old TM teachers are devotees there, although both Kripalu and Swamiji have been accused of sexual abuse over the past several years. Old Great Neck LI TM teacher Peter Speigel posted $10 million dollars bail for Swamiji in Austin TX a few years ago when Swamiji was first arrested. Most all of that is common knowledge but I was not sure if anyone connected Kripalu with the Radiance TX ashram community. The connection was mentioned in the NYT article about the incident : Mr. Kripalu runs four ashrams in India and an ashram and a temple in Austin, Tex. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/world/asia/05india.html?scp=1&sq=stampede%20kills%20scores%20in%20india&st=cse Not sure how to do a tiny url, sorry.
[FairfieldLife] Lost last week
I note a lot of no response posts so I thought I would put up a review I did of last week's Lost to up the cultural relevance of our cafe society. The show seemed particularly relevant to our community and its intellectual trajectory. LOST Feb 16, 2010 Season 6 Episode 4 The Substitute Down the cliff ladder to the cave. Locke/MIB walks up to a balance scale with a black rock on one side and a white rock on the other side sitting in balance. He plucks off the white rock and skims it out to sea. James asks "what was that" and Locke replies "an inside joke." Indeed. Justice is blind, or a moment later there is no such thing, the delusion that karma is a law is jettisoned. Look around, the kind are not healthy and wealthy, nor are the small-minded poor and sickly. Locke (or yes Jacob's adversary the Man in Black MIB - in the form of Locke) says to Richard Alpert (named after Ram Das who was of that name when he was still in the Harvard Psychedelic Club, but I digress) "you mean he (Jacob) didn't tell you why you're here? That is terrible, I would never do that to you." Like a good cosmic Dylan lyric Every one of them words rang true, And glowed like burnin' coal, Pourin' off of every page, Like it was written in my soul. "He didn't tell you why you are here [on the island]?" - but yes at the same time come on - "why are we here in this world." Sometimes in analogy things get clear about an everyday reality that you have had trouble putting your finger on or seeing just that clearly. That kind of analogy would be good writing! Yes that describes life on earth, here we are and no one has been told why we are here. So central to the human condition! And then he says "there are 3 things you can do. One, you can do nothing. Two, you can become a Candidate", someone who he just described as a candidate to take up the mantle of leader and represent himself as knowing why we are here (on the island), or represent that he has contact with someone who knows, and from whom he gets his orders. Now the show transcends the cult milieu to be about religion in general. "Or third, you can leave." Leave the island but by analogy you can try to leave this world. And he is not suggesting suicide. He is now nailing the central and some say pessimistic tenet shared by Hindu/Buddhist cosmology, that the goal of life is to through a directed life effort, not come back. The ultimate goal is not heaven or a good reincarnation, but moksa, an escape from the cycle of rebirths. And there we have our world: People without a cause; Candidates and their followers that include cults, the religious, political utopians, etc.; And as a subset of the cult/religious, those people who seek to opt out through some means where the eastern sects and cults fall between #2 and #3 being up for debate, and where the spiritually adept fall between #1 and #2 being equally so up for debate. But leading us the viewer up to that central reality of the human condition, that central to our difficulty and confusion is that we have not been told why we are here, was truly a gifted piece of script writing. And the follow on, that Candidates self or traditionally appointed ones and the complicated question of deciding whether or not to follow a particular one is one of the searing dilemmas of our contemporary human experience leading we the viewer there over the show's seasons was truly an inspired piece of work. Certain to be explored will be the legitimacy of each of the 3 options. Quite a talented bunch of writers. The Dharma Initiative indeed!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Prince; the blessings of MMY: How to play the guitar;
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifp_SVrlurY&feature=related > That was awesome, thanks for the post!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tony Nader living in Paris with wife and 2 kids
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote: > > me: > > Hey it is Saturday night... > > > Couldn't get a date? > Married with children.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tony Nader living in Paris with wife and 2 kids
OK I'll try a few more. 1. Tony came home one day and the wife said "I've had it with this crap, I'm not pretending I don't exist any more, and if you don't come clean I swear I'll do it for you 2. or, the kids got to school age and Tony said hey how about consciousness based education, and the wife said "you promised that you would never bring that nonsense up again, no, they're going to school down the street, if I wanted to live in one of those nutty places we obviously would have moved there years ago 3. or, Tony said "now do you want to move to siddhaland? and she said that's the last straw, I live in Paris and I am never moving to MUM, or to the Mandala Project, or to Vlodrop, or Seelisberg, or Livingston Manor, or any other place where your friends put those silly kalash pots on their roofs, and Tony figured "well I guess I have to deal with this" so next conference call with the boys he said "I have an announcement to make... 4. Speculation - hell yeah, like if Obama said at a press conference "oh and one more thing, Michelle is wonderful but also I have another wife in Indonesia who I visit a few times a year, well, that's all for today, see you next week." WTF?? 5. or actually she's really into the whole trip, but for her its Sai Baba who is the bomb, and it was getting awkward 6. It would seem not unlikely that if the whole trip didn't give her the shivers, at least one person would have some vague idea who she is and what she's thinking 7. Help me out here. 8. One day you come home from school and Mommy says "every day when you go out to school I go next door and live with Mr Smith as his wife" and then Dad comes home a few minutes later and Mom gives you a warm smile that says "that's our secret, Dad should mind his own business" and that's the last that is ever said on the subject. 9. After his death it was revealed that Strom Thurmond and a black maid, Carrie Butler, had a daughter whom Thurmond never publicly acknowledged 10. ... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "metoostill" wrote: > > Anybody have a name for the Mrs. or an address yet? Dying to know. There > were Popes
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tony Nader living in Paris with wife and 2 kids
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "metoostill" wrote: > > You rock. > >Hey it is Saturday night. And back at you for that Cult of Personality video.
[FairfieldLife] Tony Nader living in Paris with wife and 2 kids
Anybody have a name for the Mrs. or an address yet? Dying to know. There were Popes in the middle ages who had children too, kept them in Vegas I think, you know, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes I wonder was Tony: 1. Trying to quit, to ease himself out and away by letting the TMO world know that he was just being kind to MMY when MMY got attached to him as his physician, and played along with that, sort of "OK yeah sure I'm worth my weight in gold, now can we get back to your prescription Maharishi, are you taking those meds for your blood pressure?" 2. or was he just trying to come out of the closet because he heard Obama say don't ask don't tell was passe and he thought yes this has become a burden 3. or was he looking to test his authority figuring "if they buy this its off to the races, I will be able to say anything" and he'll be back strong in another few weeks and nobody can say no to anything he tries on if they backed him on this one 4. or did he realize that when somebody found him living the non monastic life in the non-vastu housing it would not go down well so he thought better get out in front of it, classic damage control strategy 5. or...[please fill in as appropriate] I am, Curious (Yellow)
[FairfieldLife] Re: please advise me on technique - mantras, experiences
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" wrote: > > Jesuuus Christ. Maybe some day I'll have the patience or attention span to > see what is written here. But not today. > This week's very best line, had to laugh out loud when I read it, thanks for that! Whole thing reminds me of a regular at our TM center in the 70's who started following me a little too closely and then insisted he had forgotten his mantra and that I should re-initiate him (which was the instruction for such instances) and with some healthy skepticism about his motive and after due consideration and consultation with the other teachers, I did so. Then he went AWOL for about a month and we were a bit concerned and then one day I got a letter saying don't to worry about him, he was hearing my daily instructions to him just fine, which was of course a little chilling. Then he signed it "Your Slave, ..." Poor guy. What a long strange trip its been.
[FairfieldLife] Re: LOST and its parallels to the TM movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > I am astounded not to see the actual parallels between the TMO and Lost mentioned here. Down in the hatch in Season I Desmond is resetting the magic number 108 onto a terminal and thinks if he stops the world as he knows it will end. Blind faith in the constant mechanical repetition of an ethically neutral act to effect salvation. If it was not Lost but Jeopardy, the question would be what is Yogic Flying? The isolated island is an experiment being run by the remnants of an apparently failed 1970's cult named the dharma project. TMO indeed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
> This has all the makings of a schism a la the Guru Maharaj Ji of the mid > '70s who was the 13-year-old guru whose mother disowned him thus > destroying their movement forever, kinda like Khruschev's Stalin > revelations of the mid '50s which resulted in 80% of the members of the > US Communist Party giving up their memberships the next day. > > I'll betcha a dollar to a donut that this creep Girish doesn't even > practise TM. > I was surprised to come to know that the former 13 year old perfect master, Maharaji, discredited as he seemed to have been, currently has a robust movement and many followers. Ditto for Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, now Osho, who in spite of some awfully bad press has fame and following that from what I can perceive seems to be greater than that of MMY and TM. Perhaps one of the better maps to the future of the TM group can be seen in Yogananda's legacy organization, SRF. He was less stridently self promotional or aka messianic than MMY so his claims as a sort of Hindu Billy Graham should provide a more durable platform. But his organization has split in half with lots of legal action between the factions over copyright and trademark issues related not only to use of Autobiography of a Yogi, but to the right to claim one is teaching in Yogananda's down line, or in his name, a sort of who inherited the next spot in the holy tradition argument. That seems almost inevitable in TM's future as other speculative posts have opined.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "metoostill" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > Finally, I'll note that those who don't question the MMY > > > > BAD interpretation *are basing their certainty on TMO > > > > spin*, assuming that what we're being told is the gospel > > > > truth. > > > > > > > > I find that hilarious, frankly. > > > > > > Apologies, Metoostill. I'd forgotten you had said earlier > > > you thought the chances that MMY knew about it at all were > > > only 50/50. So you, at least, aren't buying the TMO spin. > > > > > Kind of you to say so. > > De nada. But it would have been nice for you to > have apologized as well for so seriously > misconstruing my post. > > > > What I meant was, as you say, the idea that MMY knew is > > a stab at legitimization on the part of the TMO. > > It doesn't seem to matter here whether MMY did or > didn't know, does it? > > What I find interesting is that Hagelin says, "Many > were surprised..." Apparently some were not. So it > couldn't have been that well-kept a secret after all. > > > In another post I opine that if this one flies, its off to the races. It > > transfers to the next generation MMY's capability of declaring really > > pretty much anything (usually with a similar reverential reference to his > > master) and its being accepted as gospel. > Sorry if I did misconstrue, or perhaps misunderstand, your post. In this particular affair "MMY didn't know" could be used. like the more often employed "MMY says", to legitimize a host of competing claims, and frankly I don't know the players here well enough to instantly get who is trying what on the rest of the crowd. In any case your tone in that particular instance seemed quite civil and I thought that deserved an honorable "kind of you" reply.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > Finally, I'll note that those who don't question the MMY > > BAD interpretation *are basing their certainty on TMO > > spin*, assuming that what we're being told is the gospel > > truth. > > > > I find that hilarious, frankly. > > Apologies, Metoostill. I'd forgotten you had said earlier > you thought the chances that MMY knew about it at all were > only 50/50. So you, at least, aren't buying the TMO spin. > Kind of you to say so. It occurred to me after writing "50/50 MMY knew" that my post could be misinterpreted as one absolving him of any responsibility, which is liable to become a popular way out of the thicket, the other popular way out appearing here on FFL already as "so what, what's wrong with having children?", already responded to quite correctly with "nothing, its the idea that they need to be a secret that paints a dysfunctional picture." What I meant was, as you say, the idea that MMY knew is a stab at legitimization on the part of the TMO. In another post I opine that if this one flies, its off to the races. It transfers to the next generation MMY's capability of declaring really pretty much anything (usually with a similar reverential reference to his master) and its being accepted as gospel.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > A guy who will deny the existence of *his own > > wife and kids* and keep them hidden for 8 years > > because of "Maharishisez" is never going to do > > anything in his entire life *other than* > > Maharishisez. > > (Unless, of course, it was Tony and his wife who insisted > on secrecy and "Maharishisez" is just a cover story.) > This will be a mental space to preserve for a group who want to continue thinking "Tony, OK, something wrong, but MMY, perfection." I have to wonder which is more important to preserve in that instance, MMY's perfection or the individual thinking about themself "I couldn't have been that wrong, could I?" Not trying to point the finger far away, I had 3 decades deep of my own inside. Hey, it is what it is. We aren't dead yet. There is still a future as well as a past, capiche? No shame in being an idealist or a utopian, but at the same time the road to hell is paved with good intentions, only to mean that idealism and utopian intentions do not guarantee good ideas. If you were wrong, and you realize it, shrug and go on to the next thing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
If this one flies, its off to the races. "Maharishiji asked that I wait until you were ready before telling you...[insert statement here]." Sadly many of my dear family and friends are in this community. When they/we transited from thinking we could and might fly to we are flying, in the absence of anyone doing so, for me a sinking feeling of disappointment began to set in. Some people fortified themselves by slowly adopting the view that they cannot depend on themselves to critically evaluate any of this as its source is holy and unquestionable. This is the territory of David Koresh, Adi da, and Joseph Smith. It masquerades as innocent except that at its center is the highly trained belief that the community is special and of outsize importance in comparison to the rest of mankind, an all too ordinary and rarely benign utopian delusion. All very damning and negative only if you consider yourself not at all ordinary and in fact to be of outsize importance to the rest of mankind.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > though, how that jibes with the necessity to keep the > Royal Family secret is a puzzler. (And keeping the > marriage itself secret, for two and a half years before > the first kid was born, is even odder.) > > Wild guess: It wasn't MMY but Tony himself who wanted > to keep the whole thing secret. MMY agreed on condition > the secrecy last only until the first kid was in school; > and he told Tony that when the time came to reveal it, > he could blame the secrecy on MMY. > > Or Tony just decided to do that on his own since MMY > was no longer around to contradict him. > If it turns out to be true, I would say it is 50/50 at best that MMY ever knew about it at all.
[FairfieldLife] Tony married with 2 daughters?
Tony married with 2 daughters? So far a rumor, and maybe a practical joke. Regardless, and on a more serious note, Tony Nader was a physician and in a position to advise Maharishi on his health. After Maharishi's early 1980's subsequently disclosed heart attack his physician would have been unique in Maharishi's life as the only person he took instructions from instead of gave instructions to, and those instructions ironically ones that had a very real rather than imagined impact on Maharishi's mortality, in an inversion of his personal narrative. Medical profession ethical teaching trains against what is called the Florence Nightingale Syndrome. Nightingale Syndrome is used to describe the situation in which a patient becomes overawed with his/her medical caretaker due to the debt experienced when healed, and conversely in extreme cases manifesting as a God complex on the part of the health professional. In this instance one can only imagine Maharishi saying "you are amazing" and Tony saying "no you are amazing" and Maharishi saying "no you are amazing," and due to the singular nature of the Guru disciple relationship, Tony simply acquiescing. A slippery slope with the brakes neutered, but unequivocally one with an ethical conflict of interest on the part of the health practitioner, Tony, and one whose outcome is quite public. At some point Maharishi reached that point of "my kingdom for a moment in time" and the rest is history. In a case that may have parallels, legendary philanthropist Brooke Astor's son Anthony Marshall was recently convicted in New York of abuse of his aging mother, involving charges that he and his attorney conspired to steal from her. Secretly has a wife and 2 daughters, so far a rumor, somewhat telling that it is difficult be certain whether true or a joke.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "metoostill" wrote: > > > > Can anyone share an official source for this as it could be > > a practical joke? > > All I can say is that if it's a practical joke, > I for one am impressed. I would have thought > that no one in or recently-affiliated with the > TMO would have the stones to start such a rumor > and sign it "John Hagelin." > > I mean, you'd be putting the signature of The > World's Most Important Scientist Ever under a > load of horsecrap. How often does *that* happen? Yes the fact that there is no way to know whether someone is spoofing or not pretty much says it all. You could make up the most ridiculous sounding thing imaginable and set it right next to the official announcements and they nest together seamlessly. Regardless, and on a more serious note, Tony Nader was Maharishi's personal physician. After Maharishi's early 1980's subsequently disclosed heart attack Tony would have been unique in Maharishi's life as the only person he took instructions from instead of gave instructions to, and those instructions ironically ones that had a very real rather than imagined impact on Maharishi's mortality in an inversion of his personal narrative. Medical profession ethical teaching trains against what is called the Florence Nightingale Syndrome. Nightingale Syndrome is used to describe the situation in which a patient becomes overawed with his/her medical caretaker due to the debt experienced when healed, and conversely in extreme cases manifesting as a God complex on the part of the health professional. In this instance one can only imagine Maharishi saying "you are amazing" and Tony saying "no you are amazing" and Maharishi saying "no you are amazing," and due to the singular nature of the Guru disciple relationship, Tony simply acquiescing. A slippery slope with the brakes neutered, but unequivocally an unethical response on the part of the health practitioner. And so it goes.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
Can anyone share an official source for this as it could be a practical joke?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason wrote: > > Try telling this to people caught in Nazi holocaust, Partition riots, > Khemer rouge genocide in Cambodia, Stalinist purge in Soviet Union, Cancer > patients, children suffering from mal-nutrition in third world countries etc > etc. > > Life is not exactly "cool" for them. eh.?? > > --- On Sat, 1/2/10, TurquoiseB wrote: > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Self is just self capitalized > Date: Saturday, January 2, 2010, 4:14 AM > > For all I know I may be the only person on this forum who > thinks this is REEEALLY REEEALLY STOOOPID. But then > I believe that that First Noble Truth indicates that Buddha > was somewhat of a Wuss. "Life is suffering" as the basis of > all of his teachings? Give me a fuckin' break. I think the quote is not "Life is Suffering" but "Suffering is inevitable", one being as pessimistic and imbalanced (yes even really stupid) as it sounds, the other stating an unavoidable reality, as Buddha seems, in that well known story (even if hagiographic or apocryphal), to have noticed that without exception we all will age and die, and watch our loved ones age and die as that is inevitable, and quite appropriately none of us laugh about that, mixed with other more wondrous or awe inspiring experiences. As to those more horrific events which we are at risk to experiencing, that is why one of my favorite summaries of advaita is "sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me." Mamma was right, the error of superimposition is the root of much unnecessary mental anguish. But realizing that does not neuter the other reality, that sticks and stones can break my bones. Buddha, for what its worth, did there draw a line in the sand and part with magical thinking.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Message to Invincible America from Raja John Hagelin
> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:12:39 -0500 > Subject: Message to Invincible America from Raja John Hagelin > From: Invincible America > > No hurricanes - No hurricanes or tropical storms penetrated U.S. borders. > Crime Rate Plummets-On July 20, the Washington Post reported, > "Violent crime has plummeted in the Washington area and in major > cities across the country, a trend criminologists describe as > baffling and unexpected." > > Our group has accomplished wonders. Let's keep the momentum of > positivity growing in America. Thank you for being here in wonderful > Fairfield and Maharishi Vedic City. > > JAI GURU DEV > > Copyright 2009, Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation. > Publication or reproduction of this communication in any form is > prohibited without permission. > The last sentence is bizarre - to copyright an announcement and prohibit its publication without permission - it would seem to evidence fear of exposing your notions to the marketplace of ideas, along with an idea that narrow control of the information flow is vital to achieving your goal.
[FairfieldLife] The Dalai Lama makes the front page of the NYTimes
This NYTimes article illustrates humorously some of the pointed differences between Hinduism and Buddhism, ones that we see playing out in the philosophically Hindu Fairfield community, and in the way Maharishi dealt with his own health, mortality, and self portrait; and that are specific to the original Buddha earning himself a one way ticket to the label heretic 2500 years ago. No dreaming, no magic powers. Funny how it is still pertinent. Go figure. http://happydays.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/the-doctor-is-within/
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM mantras and meaning
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "metoostill" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > Is some aspect of ayurvedic medicine religious because tradition says it > > > was > > > presented to some vaidya by a god? > > > > > Umm, uh, well...huh?? Not sure where you are going with that one :) > > > > (smiley face added to reduce f-word road rage, as we are probably friends) > > > > > And, as I pointed out, what the f- are you doing telling me what is > > > religiously > > > significant about any practice I choose to indulge in? > > > > > There are many things we don't self assign. One of them is whether or not > > what we are doing has religious significance. Because words have meanings > > (no pun intended, I swear). We don't get to self determine whether what we > > are doing is religious or not religious. I suppose you could make a > > strained case that chanting the names of Hindu gods was not religious. I > > could maybe somehow get my head around that, just a rest technique, I > > didn't know the meaning, etc. But a major determinate between philosophy > > and religion is the presence of soteriological content. Notions relating > > to salvation. Our community is undeniably shot through with that one. > > > > We don't get to determine whehter what we are doing is religious or > not religious? > > > Goodness. Seldom have I encountered someone whose world-view is so > far removed from my won. Even most fundamentalists can accept that *for me* > TM practice isn't religious. > > and which community do you think I belong to? As a proud, card carrying member > of the Unitarian Universalist Church, I take pride in my ability to truely > understand > and live "The Unitarian Universalist Way" (TM). ;-) > > > > Not sure what is so shameful about being religious. Well actually it does > > have a troubled association, both cultural and political, so maybe I can > > see the politics involved. > > > > > Like as not, you've missed the point about the Unitarian Universalist Church, > which is that while it lays claim to being a legally established church with > all > the constitutional protections that provides, it doesn't require that its > members > embrace or eschew any particular religious or philosophical dogma. > > IOW, legally it is a church, but few religious scholars would insist that it > is a religion, > organized or otherwise. > > L > Lawson, thanks for writing back. First sentence of first google hit on Universalist Unitarian Church: "Unitarian Universalism, a liberal religious tradition..." Didn't bother to read past there. Religion is a word, not meant to be pejorative, not sure why you shun it. Maybe because religion carries the meaning of ones having adopted a learned perspective or belief, Maharishi's rose colored glasses analogy, and if you take your views to be "true" rather than "beliefs", to be told you are religious is unnerving. Or maybe wanting to appear neutral to facilitate making conversions. Wow that sounded evangelical, and so that it is not misunderstood to be sarcasm, I am just looking for a way to say it. The broader issue has to do with meaning. Words have meaning. There is the famous quote "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four "Orwellian" can also refer generally to twisted language which says the opposite of what it truly means, or specifically governmental propagandizing by the misnaming of things; hence the "Ministry of Peace" in the novel actually deals with war and the "Ministry of Love" actually tortures people. Religion has a meaning. Google it. OK I just took my own advice. First sentence of first google hit on Religion. "A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, ..." I have done TM for 40 years and I have gone back and forth on this question. I have come down on both sides of it, but generally leaned towards it is, tempered with my TM teacher desire to tip toe through the herds of sleeping elephants, to not have the wisdom crash on the rocks of ignorance of the lower consciousness... well you know the quote even if I got it slightly wrong. Admittedly the internet is not the place to tip toe, but it is here, whether we like it or not. But we digress. This string is about Keith D's article that the mantra's are meaningless but essential (to TM) sounds, and the discussion was about how, if at all, that relates to the fact that they are the names of Hindu gods.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM mantras and meaning
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > Is some aspect of ayurvedic medicine religious because tradition says it was > presented to some vaidya by a god? > Umm, uh, well...huh?? Not sure where you are going with that one :) (smiley face added to reduce f-word road rage, as we are probably friends) > And, as I pointed out, what the f- are you doing telling me what is > religiously > significant about any practice I choose to indulge in? > There are many things we don't self assign. One of them is whether or not what we are doing has religious significance. Because words have meanings (no pun intended, I swear). We don't get to self determine whether what we are doing is religious or not religious. I suppose you could make a strained case that chanting the names of Hindu gods was not religious. I could maybe somehow get my head around that, just a rest technique, I didn't know the meaning, etc. But a major determinate between philosophy and religion is the presence of soteriological content. Notions relating to salvation. Our community is undeniably shot through with that one. Not sure what is so shameful about being religious. Well actually it does have a troubled association, both cultural and political, so maybe I can see the politics involved.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM mantras and meaning
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante wrote: > > http://snipurl.com/iyubq [adventuresintranscendentalmeditation_blogspot_com] > Sometimes its easier to see things through analogy. Without passing judgement on the action. To get an idea of how it looks from the outside. Imagine a Christian evangelist going to India, and before teaching the locals English, teaching them the Hail Mary or the Nicene Creed. "I believe in... one Lord Jesus Christ..". And teaching them that the chant doesn't necessarily have to mean anything. It is not religious and doesn't conflict with Hinduism. But chanting it will lead to salvation; not religious salvation but salvation of some other sort. And then 10 or 20 years later somebody who speaks English comes along and tells them what it means. It would create a firestorm of indignation. I have done TM for many years and it can be very relaxing. But no one can print the TM mantras and credibly deny that they have in fact printed tantric bija mantra names of Lakshmi and Krishna, supplemented later with devotional phrases. As Al Gore said, an inconvenient truth. But there we have it. Other words won't work. Just the names of those Hindu gods. An inconvenient truth in the information age when you can learn more in 5 minutes with google than 25 years ago you could have learned after spending years digging through obscure book stores on foreign continents. So there is some good in that anyway. This is the age when you are what you are. Blue TM.org website comes up on the same google search with gold MOU.org website with the vedic gods. So no sense in not hitting the truth right out of the blocks so you can get on with whatever else you have to say. Even to say "jeepers I never knew that, but yep now that you mention it, they are the names of Hindu gods". Well I guess when I see it said like that I see why its kind of hard to just up and say. Fortunately for me, somebody else's row to hoe to get the branding right.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Passage from "Cartwheels In A Sari"...(new book by ex Sri Chinmoy disciple)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" wrote: > > The truth was that nothing was true. Guru Sri Chinmoy was a fabrication > dreamed and designed by a young and churlish Bangladeshi intent on > hypnotizing the world. He had manufactured his image as a modern swami, his > own presentation, to suit his vision. With subtle modifications along the > way, he molded himself to fit the story he wrote for himself. If Guru was > fiction, an invention, I realized, then so was I, for he had created me. I > could not imagine that somewhere inside was a real person who could exist > wholly unto herself. A fake, created as part of a larger scheme for nearly > twenty-five years, I had absorbed space, heralding a false life and a false > creator. Nothing around me was true; the emperor wore no clothes. > > Jayanti Tamm > Thanks for posting this. The half hour NPR Talk of the Nation interview was an interesting listen. It struck me that the people who called in expressing empathy were as often recovering Christian fundamentalists as former members of New Age Eastern groups. That is a convergence that began to appear more striking to me over the past 5 years or so. Though the two groups are in many ways anathema to each other, scratch the surface and they look very similar. Sri Chinmoy was the guru of Frederick Lenz, aka (self proclaimed Zen Master) Rama. Lenz was a student at Stony Brook University nearby to Chinmoy's Queens headquarters, and was for a time the Bevan Morris of the Sri Chinmoy movement. Or maybe the Robin Carlson, or the Deepak Chopra, as Lenz quit to become his own guru as they did. I had some close friends who followed Rama for quite a few years. Rama eventually committed suicide, another fact well known to the cognoscenti, and interpreted in a variety of either straightforward, or more creative, ways. I have seen a few FF Life posters refer admiringly to Lenz. They must know that background, but for those that didn't, that is the lineage tie in.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A timely message from DR. GIRISH VARMA
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "guyfawkes91" wrote: > > > > As I've written mucho times, about $500 million has been transferred > > from the Maharishi Global Development Fund to TMO offshore bank acc'ts > > over the past 8 yrs or so. > > References are required. Can you point us to all public sources of > information on this please? I want to see the figures and do my own sums. > The thing to consider is that there is no public record of the allocation of any of those funds. It should not require chasing. Non-profits as a common best practices standard observe transparency. For the tip of the iceberg see guidestar.org, you can register free, search Maharishi Global Development Fund, 2006 (last year available), page 20 of that required federal filing shows $38 million dollars to a Channell Islands trust, not an Indian or US trust. Offshore trusts prevent scrutiny and can avoid regulations associated with being a non profit.
[FairfieldLife] Catholic Church resumes offering indulgences
For Catholics, Heaven Moves a Step Closer (from today's NY Times) "The announcement in church bulletins and on Web sites has been greeted with enthusiasm by some and wariness by others. But mainly, it has gone over the heads of a vast generation of Roman Catholics who have no idea what it means: "Bishop Announces Plenary Indulgences." In recent months, dioceses around the world have been offering Catholics a spiritual benefit that fell out of favor decades ago the indulgence, a sort of amnesty from punishment in the afterlife and reminding them of the church's clout in mitigating the wages of sin. The fact that many Catholics under 50 have never sought one, and never heard of indulgences except in high school European history (where Martin Luther denounces the selling of them in 1517 and ignites the Protestant Reformation) simply makes their reintroduction more urgent among church leaders bent on restoring fading traditions of penance in what they see as a self-satisfied world." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/nyregion/10indulgence.html?_r=1&hp This took me by surprise. Sin, karma, the concept of ritual amoral (ethically neutral) acts as antidote for immoral acts. Intercession by the priestly class on behalf of the laity. If we were playing Jeopardy, the question might be "what is a yagya? The parallels are intriguing to say the least. Sometimes we see less flattering aspects of ourselves more easily through analogy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The confusion caused by the bubble diagram.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > > thanks for bringing this up-- something which i have been thinking > about as well lately. i think the beauty and power of the bubble > diagram is that it suddenly made consciousness comprehensible in a > simple and elegant way that hadn't been seen before. like so much of > what he brought out, the Maharishi transformed the way the western > world thinks about... Sorry, but I tripped over that one. I learned a lot from Maharishi many years ago and at times have revered him greatly but it would require considerable myopia to think that Maharishi has "transformed the way the western world thinks about..." His influence, whether his ideas were profound or not, while perhaps greater than your average rock band, was nothing on the order of transformational to the western world's thinking. As you more accurately state later "based on my own experience i'd say". Yes he has transformed your thinking, and lets grant that in some ways for the better. But in some ways observation tells us not so. The ease with which his most ardent admirers slip into that disproportionate image of self and group cannot be missed when looking at his legacy. That perspective is endemic among his followers and has been cultured by design. The stream of discourse on this site can sometimes fail on civility and email can miss the nuance of considerate human communication, so for the avoidance of doubt I will add that I'm sure you mean well and that I appreciate your taking the time to put down your thoughts. > thought, action and the link between the two. > when the Maharishi began using the bubble diagram to explain the > process of transcending thought, this was a radical and unknown > concept. and to tie this simple yet radical view of consciousness > and transcending to a technique whereby anyone could enjoy and > explore this process on their own, examining the very mechanics of > consciousness, was completely unheard of. > > based on my own experience i'd say you are correct when you say that > aside from some early experiences tip toeing through the sleeping > elephants, it takes years to reliably and regularly reach the source > of thought, even using the mechanical and reliable mechanicm of TM. > however not so for younger people i know who meditate. they seem to > dive more deeply from the beginning. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > Most TM'ers think they are actually transcending to Pure > Consciousness (i.e. Brahman or unmanifest Being), in the daily 2X20 > meditation > they practice. Nothing could be further from the truth! The > illustration of the thought bubble ... > > Correct me if I'm wrong...please! >
[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of "attachment?" (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > I think this yogic identification theory is totally bogus. It is a > made-up problem. I am not identified with any object of perception. > I can be passionate about some things, but trying to paint that as > some kind nonspiritual way to live seems so contrived. > > The whole premise of yoga that we are somehow not OK right now and > need to be fixed, that the fundamental way that we are inside is > "wrong" and unenlightened, ""the mistake of the intellect", seems to > be a manufactured problem meant to enslave people who are not > confident about themselves. It worked on me when I was a LOT younger. > > And the threat of living on earth again as something to escape?Being > damned to live again? We should be so lucky. Who is having such a > sucky life that you wouldn't jump at the chance for another one? > Curtis, your post resonated with me. A manufactured problem, yes. And that last paragraph is in my estimation a gem. That really when given the chance to come here we all waved our hands wildly saying "me, pick me". And will again the next time. Thanks.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Three Little Words
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > IMO, the most magical and liberating three words > in the entire spiritual lexicon: "I don't know." > I liked your post and felt some congruence with it. For those uncomfortable with its seeming finality, a gentler form might be "I might be wrong and often am". Starting a monologue with that phrase is an exercise in humility and orients one in perhaps a proper perspective. We can all think of people, well known or otherwise, for whom it would be difficult to utter those words. I see SSRS quoted in this string, not meaning to pick on him as I am sure he means well, but I wonder if he could start his next talk with those words. Maybe he could, maybe he does, I don't know him well.
[FairfieldLife] Re: WHAT IF?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" wrote: > > > > Psilocybin research fits pretty well. > > > > uns wrote: > > "What if..." enquiry should have included > > the message "...without turning the subject > > into a deluded acid head". > > > Some western people just can't deal with the > idea of people getting spiritual by ingesting > plant substances like the ancient Vedic Aryans > did. > > There's a deep-seated prejudice in America > against ritual trance-induction, unless its > alcohol induced. In our western society some > people have gotten to the point where otherwise > decent, honest people resort to rank hypocrisy > when even discussing the subject. > The talk on the link below is Maharishi on Feb 7 1966 at the Kumbha Mela spiritual gathering in Allahabad India talking about psychedelics. Endorsing the notion that psychedelics are not foreign to eastern wisdom traditions. It was posted only a week ago (Dec 2008) online for the first time since it's recording, apparently out of someone's long forgotten attic archives. It is hard to get similar statements out of people in the present age. A variety of questioners try to coach him to say they are bad or illusory in some sense, but others support the idea that they catalyze authentic and valuable experience. Maharishi eventually says that it is possible for a drug to produce the experience of transcendental consciousness, and that could be what the vedas describe as soma that you eat. Tape two again begins with a question meant to lead Maharishi to say that entheogens are not authentic, but again he endorses the notion that they can be. Not, for the avoidance of doubt, that I would subscribe to the view that he knows anything more than anyone else about the subject. But it is an interesting sentiment from a representative of that culture, recorded before psychedelics became such a politicized topic; albeit after considerable effect of cultural globalization, but still prior to the extreme politicization of the psychedelic phenomenon. Talk #1 is 48 min long, at 23 min talk on psychedelics starts, at 34:40 the talk becomes particularly interesting, leaving the topic at 43 min. For long time members of the TM movement, Vernon Katz, an English devotee, is one of the people on the tape, and they mention Mother Olson, an LA devotee, as owner of a big American car. For those who are not aficionados of Indian Vedic literature, the Kali Yuga and Sat Yuga being referred to are features of the Vedic creation myths, akin to Genesis in the bible. Those myths suffer the same fate as the Bible's Genesis in that we now understand that the world was not built in 7 days, and nor has the human species been on earth for the untold millions of years that the Yugas, or epochs, of the Vedic creation myths specify. I mention those points to underscore the fact that I am under no illusion myself as to the degree to which one can take this endorsement to the bank to be deposited under "so there". Only that it represents a member of that tradition considering the topic, according to his cultural background, his knowledge of the indigenous discussion of soma from the Sama Veda and other sources, at a time when denying that psychedelics were the soma that Aldous Huxley, Gordon Wasson and others suspected that they were, was not the polarizing and politicized topic that it later became. In fact Mahahishi at some point began requiring that one stop using drugs for 2 weeks before taking instruction in his meditation. Talk #2 is later the same day and is 5 min long and returns to the discussion on psychedelics at 3 min. http://www.spiritualregeneration.org/audios/19660207_KumbhaMela_2of3_Kali_yuga_psy chedelics_S.mp3 http://www.spiritualregeneration.org/audios/19660207_KumbhaMela_3of3_Kalki_psyche delics_S.mp3
[FairfieldLife] Re: Faith vs Proof and MMY's Interpretation of the Rig Veda
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" wrote: > > metoostill wrote: > > I found this fascinating and on the same topic(s). > > Hindu fundamentalism arguing back at Buddhism (in > > circa 200BC, a whole millennia before Shankara)... > > > Apparently you and I are on the same path! > > Satnaam and Jai Guru Dev! > > Read more: > > 'Rasavada: A Full Report' > http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/ras.htm > Read your report. Now that was funny. Very creative. Loved it. Would be funnier still if it wasn't in fact a tru-ish account of acts and occurrences (very well researched) that had led to such a sad present circumstance. Several years ago I spent a weekend there at the invitation of some dear old friends with whom I share a lot of history. But why dwell, thanks for the link to your "Report".
[FairfieldLife] Faith vs Proof and MMY's Interpretation of the Rig Veda
I found this fascinating and on the same topic(s). Hindu fundamentalism arguing back at Buddhism (in circa 200BC, a whole millennia before Shankara). The historic players are fairly irrelevant (although it is fascinating to come to know the antagonistic nature of the debate between opposing schools of Indian Philosophy). It is the present author, who has held posts in Sanskrit studies at Cornell and Harvard, who in summarizing the Mimamsa view, gives a great summation of the virtue of non-mystical knowing. Arriving at it backwards by describing the orthodox Mimamsa and essentially fundamentalist criticism of non-mystical knowing, in this context termed yogic perception. "Just Like Us, Just Like Now" The Tactical Implications of the Mīmāṃsā Rejection of Yogic Perception Lawrence McCrea, Harvard University Apart from the materialists, the Mīmāṃsakas were the only group of philosophers in premodern India who totally rejected the possibility of supernormal or yogic perception. In this paper I want to explore the tactical importance of this denial of yogic perception in the Mīmāṃsā polemic against their Buddhist and Jain opponents, as well as against "intra- Hindu" rivals such as the Naiyāyikas. The Mīmāṃsā denial of supernormal perception is intimately linked to their argument that only Vedic scripture is a reliable source of knowledge in matters beyond the scope of ordinary human perception. Rival traditions likewise rely upon scripture as an authoritative source of knowledge about supersensory matters, but all derive the validity of their preferred scriptures from the accurate knowledge of their authors: knowledge which they take these authors to have themselves acquired not through scriptural channels, but through direct perceptual awareness. Hence all rely on "yogic perception" (of human sages such as the Buddha and the Jina, or, on the Nyāya view, of God himself) in defending the accuracy of their respective scriptures. It is clear from their arguments that the Mīmāṃsakas' primary concern in their discussions of supernormal perception is to preclude its use as a means for validating scripture. Kumārilabhaṭṭa, the most articulate and influential Mīmāṃsā critic of yogic perception, offers arguments against the very possibility of yogic perception, but devotes rather more effort to showing that, even if such knowledge were admitted to exist, appeal to it could never serve as a basis for scriptural authenticity. All such defenses of scripture require one to accept at face value some person's claim to direct perceptual awareness of matters to which ordinary persons such as ourselves have no perceptual access. And, Kumārila argues, there is simply no way one can evaluate any individual's claim to such knowledge unless one has such knowledge oneself. Hence, on this model of validation, scripture can be held valid only insofar as it is redundant; we can only know it to be accurate when it tells us what we can determine for ourselves by other means. The Mīmāṃsakas take a radically different approach, grounding the authority of Vedic precisely in their purported lack of an author; they take the texts themselves to be eternal and unfalsifiable, in that they speak to matters regarding which mere humans, perceptually limited as they are, could never make any meaningful counterclaim. By stepping outside the authorial model of scriptural validation, the Mīmāṃsakas seek a way of justifying scriptural claims which does not depend on the assumption of special individuals in the past who "saw" what we can now only take on faith. They can claim, commonsensically enough, that the Buddha and other putative "seers" were simply persons like ourselves, and that their sensory capacities were therefore essentially like our own; that, as they say, people anywhere and everywhere are "like persons such as ourselves" (asmadādivat), that people in the past were "like persons nowadays" (adyatanavat), and that it is sheer fantasy to imagine that there are or ever were people capable of perceiving things radically beyond the perceptual capacities of "persons like ourselves". In doing so, moreover, they ground scriptural validity in features immemoriality and authorlessness that their Buddhist and Jain opponents, who both look back to human founders as the sources of their traditions, would not and could not ever claim for their own texts. http://ikga.oeaw.ac.at/Events/yogic_symp06/abstracts.htm#McCrea
[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity wrote: > > As to whether TM produces regular transcendence, it depends on the person and > how, as you say, you define transcendence. I have asked people about their experiences. Some say they never transcend. Many who quit early probably had no rewarding experiences. Others say they got into a trancey kind of zone. Others say that they found it relaxing and day dreamy. Others say they "transcend" making the experience sound important. But there is no real test for transcendence. So we don't know if TM produces regular transcendence. And we don't know if transcendence is important or just an artifact of our mind. I hope I have sniped the above quote in a way that correctly identifies it. This subject of what we experience when we practice TM, and what transcending means, is one I have thought about too. What we experience when we do TM is what we experience when we do TM. A circular statement but there it is. Some quietness, some silence, some mantra, some thoughts. Sometimes some sleep. Sometimes no mantra, no thoughts, more quietness, more silence, in varying degrees, and with varying degrees of awe and reverence. It is what it is. We can (and as taught, do) label it transcending. The experience is different, and or perceived from a different perspective, by different people. I don't mean to make any more or any less of the experience than what it is. To transcend means to go beyond. Let's change the subject for a moment from TM and transcending. What is this? Where did I come from? Why am I here? Each of us, TM students or not, experience this transient life on this earth and then leave it. We bring nothing in, and we take nothing out. Unless you count character, that might survive, but there I speculate. Nothing visible is removed. I have 35 years of TM under my belt. I have experienced some quietness, some silence. I don't know where I came from. I don't know where I go when it's over. I have read and heard some stories, or perhaps answers, to those questions. In Sunday school as a little boy, in Maharishi's lectures and books. Transcending is a word. Words refer to things. The thing we experience, we experience. The thing we don't experience, we don't experience. We experience the TM experience. I know of no one who has seen where we came from, or where we go to, who has seen outside this transient existence. There is a certain universal life experience with a limit that we share with the rest of humanity. We as TM'ers do have a belief system, both in answer to those questions, and as a perspective on ourselves as a group in relation to those questions. And then we have the TM experience, which we label transcending. No one can argue with that. So long as we understand it for what it is Some of that may be cliched, I hope not too, but these experiences are ubiquitous, so it's hard to avoid cliche. Happy New Year to all, and may we all transcend more next year, and in every conceivable way, than last.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders
From: David Orme-Johnson [mailto:davi...@...] > Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 2:06 PM > To: David Orme-Johnson > Subject: Letters on TM from religious/spiritual leaders > Dear Colleagues, "The fact that the TM program has been derived from an ancient tradition in India and revived by a man revered there with a spiritual title, of course should have no bearing on the validity of the use of the TM program. The TM program is not Hinduism, therefore, any more than Einstein's theory of relativity is Jewish, or Genetic theory, conceived of by Monk Gregor Mendel is considered to be Christian. The practice of the program involves no religious beliefs but is a mechanical and effortless technique for experiencing increasingly refined or restful levels of mental and physiological activity enjoyed by individuals of all religious (and non-religious) backgrounds." Einstein's composing the theory of relativity does not make it Jewish, but it's parallel is not TM, a simple relaxation technique, but His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi composing a commentary on the Hindu scripture The Bhagavad Gita, which is more difficult (I would think impossible) to distance from religion. As is a reverence for pundits performing Hindu yagyas. Neither of those are narrowly "the TM technique", but like that, bible study is not the act of taking communion at Mass. It is difficult nonetheless to separate the two as if they each exist in a vacuum. Not that there is anything wrong with any of the individual acts or events, only that understanding the way in which they relate to each other is either muddled or clear. The strained attempt to portray involvement with TM as not having relation to the area of religion may or may not have strategic benefit, but it is a hard row to hoe. Best of luck to those who assign themselves the task. I am sure they mean good.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is a Jew for Jesus still Jewish?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Beth wrote: > > No they are not they are simply Christians who like to parade around > as Jews in order to convert real Jews. Beth Bridges (new here) > > Beth, Welcome to FF Life. Do you think they were once Jews and are now > Christians or were they never Jews and are pretending they once were? > Either way, it sounds like a deceptive evangelical gimmick to get > converts. "Doing the Lord's work" can justify just about anything. > When I taught TM in the 1970's I had a relative who was a Southern Baptist who was involved with Jews for Jesus, although they try to get actual Jews to do the evangelizing to fellow Jews. At the time the TMO was involved in the court case about TM in the schools. My relative had a copy of the puja translation as part of the case evidence. I had a long conversation (read debate) with him about the virtues of TM and it's broader teaching about enlightenment, and it's relationship to Christianity. After an hour or so the conversation (debate) seemed to have run it's course with no real movement, but with the TM puja translation as part of the conversation, all the cards were on the table. So I summed up by suggesting to him that I thought maybe he would have a sympathetic understanding of the TMO's "we are not a religion" stance since as an advisor to Jews for Jesus he might just understand that we TM teachers were Christians for Krishna. It was a long time ago. Doing the Lord's work can justify just about anything.
