[FairfieldLife] Jerry Jarvis' website of Maharishi tapes

[randyanand]

Hi Everyone,
Does anyone know the website that Jerry put up of the old Maharishi tapes?
It was "Spiritualregeneration.org", but that was taken down and it was put up 
under a new name which I can't find.
Thanks

[FairfieldLife] Re: Dr. Michael Dean Goodman - Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Pseudo-Guru variety)?

[randyanand]

I love the fact that when Michael attacks Vaj as a narcissist, Vaj's response 
is that he was just told by a psychiatrist that he is one of the healthiest 
people he knows.  A classic narcissistic response.
(I'm special because I'm not just ordinary healthy, I'm one of the elite of the 
healthiest people! and this has been verified by a psychiatrist no less, an 
expert!)  
Vaj you show your true colors very well.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Jul 15, 2010, at 10:29 PM, feste37 wrote:
> 
> > If you are such a "mentally healthy" person, why are you so roundly  
> > disliked on this forum? Why is no one springing to your defense  
> > following Micheal's negative characterization of you? Not a single  
> > person has offered a single word in your defense. Can you offer any  
> > explanation for this odd but undeniable fact? Have you ever stopped  
> > to think about how you come across in your posts?
> 
> 
> Feste I suspect most saw Dr. Michael Dean Goodman's post as so whacky  
> and weird that it's simply not something worth responding to...  
> despite the fact that many have supported me in the past. When  
> someone totally sidesteps the issue: Mahesh's behavior and it's odd  
> parallel in narcissism, and then tries to attack the deliverer of  
> that message; (I can't speak for others) but it's likely perceived as  
> Dr. Michael Dean Goodman's issue rather than mine. Rather  
> embarrassing situation for him, I'm afraid.
> 
> In fact he never responded to any of Mahesh's issues at all. Very odd.
> 
> It seems the latest revelation on M's lack of spiritual and personal  
> integrity pushed a few people over the edge. It was just more than  
> they could bear. So instead of addressing the issue at hand, filled  
> with undigested anger and rage, they transfer all that pent up  
> disappointment upon others.
> 
> Like I said Dr. Michael Dean Goodman's behavior is well known in FF,  
> where they had to seriously readjust a spiritual gathering's rule  
> system because he would literally 'take over' the proceedings as if  
> he were the sole person there! Knowing that, you tend to take Mike's  
> expression of disappointment with the Maharishi in a different light.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thanks for posting this Michael. Namaste !

[randyanand]

Hi Michael,

Also a thanks for posting this from me.  
I don't have the credentials to make a diagnosis of Vaj, but I can say that my 
dealings with him here have always had me perplexed as to why he can not admit 
that he is ever wrong about anything.  His pattern with me is simply not to 
deal with subjects  that I bring up when he has no way to "prove" his position 
and his superiority.

Probably the one I remember best is when I once wrote and said that I felt that 
I have great gratitude toward MMY because I have experienced everything that he 
promised I would.  Vaj's response was that I "think" I have experienced 
everything he promised, implying that I hadn't really had the experiences that 
I have had.  And I'm thinking, what kind of egotistic moron is he to believe he 
knows my experiences better than I do?!! Only someone who seriously has his own 
ego in need of an overhaul.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> > One day, when I was showing a whole lot of Vaj's posts to my profes-
> > sional friends, one of them (who is a spiritual man - not on the TM path
> > -
> > currently a Buddhist) took me aside and said "Michael - I get the
> > distinct
> > feeling here that we are dealing with something darker than Narcissistic
> > Personality Disorder.  Have you considered that we are watching the
> > very clever tactics of a demon, the handiwork of an obstructer of
> > Truth?"
> 
> 
> 
> With Vaj's intense hate of Maharishi, this makes perfect sense.
> 
> Thank you for posting this very timely post Michael !
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Maharishi's Personality Disorders, was Teacher-student sex

[randyanand]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
>  wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> Secrets like that form an intimate bond for the insiders and the "master."  I 
> can't believe Jerry wasn't conflicted about all this happening under his nose.
> 
> I beg your pardon ? How can you be sure anything particular was happening 
> "under Jerry's nose" ? Because some "psychic reader" wrote a book ?
>
And, even if Judith's book is true, how do we know that Jerry knew about it, 
and/or knew about it and didn't say or do anything about it.
The bottom line is we don't know.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand

[randyanand]

Mike,
I can't say 100% certanty that there is no relation.  However, I probably would 
have heard about it as I am very close friends with a number of his direct 
disciples.
Up until the very end of Maharishi's life, my understanding is that 
Vasudevanand had very little to do with Maharishi.  That did change in the last 
few years when Maharishi asked him to be involved with the Brahmananda trust.  
But up until then, there was not a lot of connections except maybe some 
ceremonial ones here and there.

Vaj always likes to say that Vasudevanand was a "bought Shankararcharya".  But 
there is little eveidence of that either.
My sources tell me that, yes, Maharishi gave Vasudevanand some money, but it 
was very little.  And I do know for a fact that one time after Deepak left the 
movement, the Shankaracharya came to bless one of Deepak's big courses in 
India.  Maharishi asked Vasudevanand not to go, but Vasudevanand went anyway.  
If he was truly "bought", he never would have gone fearing Maharishi's 
donations would stop

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
>
> Randy, and you know this how? I can't say they are related either, however, I 
> did hear this from the person that claims to have gotten directly from 
> Vasudeva's shishya. As I said earlier, I thought there might be a 
> mis-communication, but this friend swore by it and said in no way was it a 
> misunderstanding. I chose not to believe it, but in the light of what is said 
> here on FFL, I have to realize maybe my friend was right and I have been in 
> denial about it all along. Who knows? I have to take the Beatle's attitude, M 
> wasn't the God I thought he was, he's just a man, maybe a very special man, 
> but 
> a man very good at putting on a show. Still love him though!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: randyanand 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 1:44:13 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
> 
>   
> The current shankaracharya of Jyotir Math is Swami Vasudevanand.
> He is in no way related to Maharishi.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of Joe
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 1:07 PM
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Wowthat would explain plenty. But who knows.
> > 
> > I wonder if he looks "lighter" than most Indians. There should be a photo of
> > him online. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , Mike Dixon 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >  I hate to say this, but when I was in India, at Jyotir Math, the 
> > > friend
> > I was 
> > > with, swore to me the monk baby sitting the place, told him that the
> > current 
> > > Shankaracharya, forget his name, was M's son! At the time, I laughed it
> > off as a 
> > > missunderstanding, but in light of what I've read on FFL, I have to wonder
> > if 
> > > it's not true. He, the current Shank, does resemble a younger M. What a
> > Soap 
> > > Opera that would make!
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand

[randyanand]

The current shankaracharya of Jyotir Math is Swami Vasudevanand.
He is in no way related to Maharishi.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Joe
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 1:07 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> Wowthat would explain plenty. But who knows.
> 
> I wonder if he looks "lighter" than most Indians. There should be a photo of
> him online. 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , Mike Dixon 
> wrote:
> >
> >  I hate to say this, but when I was in India, at Jyotir Math, the friend
> I was 
> > with, swore to me the monk baby sitting the place, told him that the
> current 
> > Shankaracharya, forget his name, was M's son! At the time, I laughed it
> off as a 
> > missunderstanding, but in light of what I've read on FFL, I have to wonder
> if 
> > it's not true. He, the current Shank, does resemble a younger M. What a
> Soap 
> > Opera that would make!
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand

[randyanand]

When I was visiting Rishikesh a few years ago, I was told that Sattyanand had 
moved from Rishikesh to Noida and was staying there.  
It appeared that he was not doing much in Noida, but was looked upon as one of 
the movemements' elders.  He died a few years ago.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe"  wrote:
>
> Wow...hey, you'll all get old and forgetful too one day! Thanks AlexI had 
> this feeling that I had asked about this before. Unfortunately, the answers 
> don't get any better.
> 
> Sad.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe"  wrote:
> > >
> > > All this talk of being (or NOT being) a brahmachari these past few days, 
> > > has me wondering what became of MMY's two most famous Indian 
> > > Brahmachari's, Divindra and Sattyanand.
> > > 
> > > I recall reading a sad story about Divindrathat he, after being 
> > > abandon by MMY, ended up being a waiter in an Indian restaurant in 
> > > London. Is this correct? And where did I read that story?
> > > 
> > > And how about Bramachary Sattyanand?
> > >
> > 
> > Here's the same thread, started by you 4 years ago:
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/111844
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh YINO

[randyanand]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> On Jul 9, 2010, at 10:34 AM, randyanand wrote:
> > 
> > Oh and by the way, many months ago we got into a discussion about the 
> > Shankaracharya tradition. You stated it was part of the Vaishnava 
> > tradition.  I disagreed and said it was a Shaivite tradition. We went back 
> > and forth on this and I finally realized who I was dealing with.  You are 
> > not interested in the facts about things, only your opinions.  Well, for 
> > the record, I have since been to india and visited the Shankaracharya 
> > ashram in Allahabad, the Shankaracharya ashram in Kanchipuram and one of 
> > the heads of the Juna Akhara of Naga Babas.
> 
> And hopefully this long-distance, undoubtedly very-expensive
> trip was made for a greater purpose than just showing
> Vaj to be "wrong."
> 
> >  They all confirmed that the Shankaracharya tradition is not asociated with 
> > the Vaishnava tradition, it is in fact a Shaivite tradition.  
> 
> And, like, who gives a crap?
> 
> These arcane, musty details of something that almost 
> nobody else knows (or cares) anything about will get you
> exactly what, randy?
> 
> > So here I can definitely cite my sources and say, sorry dude, you were 
> > wrong.  Although knowing you, you'll prpbably come back and say you never 
> > said that, or twist your words so you will not appear wrong.
> > You are entitiled to your opinions Vaj.  Just realize, that like all of us, 
> > you sometime may be wrong.
> 
> randy, just out of curiosity, do you actually have  a life
> outside of wallowing in esoteric details that make
> you feel "special"?  
> 
> Sal
>
Thanks Sal.  My various India trips have nothing to do with proving Vaj to be 
right or wrong. I don't feel special about knowing esoteric details.  As a 
matter of fact this stuff is from from esoteric.  In India its just part of 
daily life.  And as far as who gives a crap, I would have to say that thousands 
and thousands of sadhus, babas and yogis who live their daily lives based on 
this "crap" certanly care about it.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh YINO

[randyanand]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Jul 9, 2010, at 11:34 AM, randyanand wrote:
> 
> > It was in a back and forth posting on Fairifield Life many month ago.
> > I was making the point that you kept referring to Maharishi as  
> > Mahesh and it was disrespectful because whatever you think of him,  
> > thats his name.  You countered with, you would not call him  
> > Maharishi because he was not a real guru and he poisoned his guru.
> 
> Like I said, I don't believe he poisoned his guru, he may have in  
> some way been complicit, I feel it speaks more to his character than  
> to his actual actions.
> 
> >
> > Sorry Vaj, first you say he poisoned him to me, then you deny  
> > believing that.  You are inconsistant.
> 
> Please show me the post you're referring to, and then I can better  
> respond to your accusations. I'm just telling you what I've believed  
> for a long time, I really don't care what you chose to think you know  
> I believe!
> 
> >   Also I have noticed that you only seem to respond to certan posts  
> > here when you can twist them to fit your beliefs.  For example,  
> > when I repeated twice in two previous posts that just because  
> > Maharishi had someone else design his yoga course does not mean  
> > that he is or is not a yogi, you made no attempt to respond.  When  
> > I said in a previous post that there is no way to verify that he  
> > did or did not recieve some type of "special yogi" training from  
> > Guru Dev, you again did not respond.  Because you make statements  
> > that you can not prove.  The same with the poisoning of Guru dev.   
> > There has never been any evidence of poisoning.
> 
> You've already decided what you want to believe.
> 
> >
> > Oh and by the way, many months ago we got into a discussion about  
> > the Shankaracharya tradition.  You stated it was part of the  
> > Vaishnava tradition.  I disagreed and said it was a Shaivite  
> > tradition.  We went back and forth on this and I finally realized  
> > who I was dealing with.  You are not interested in the facts about  
> > things, only your opinions.  Well, for the record, I have since  
> > been to india and visited the Shankaracharya ashram in Allahabad,  
> > the Shankaracharya ashram in Kanchipuram and one of the heads of  
> > the Juna Akhara of Naga Babas.  They all confirmed that the  
> > Shankaracharya tradition is not asociated with the Vaishnava  
> > tradition, it is in fact a Shaivite tradition.  So here I can  
> > definitely cite my sources and say, sorry dude, you were wrong.   
> > Although knowing you, you'll prpbably come back and say you never  
> > said that, or twist your words so you will not appear wrong.
> > You are entitiled to your opinions Vaj.  Just realize, that like  
> > all of us, you sometime may be wrong.
> 
> You sound confused. The Shakaracharya tradition is a Vaishnavite  
> tradition but it not from the Vaishnavite tradition. I doubt you'll  
> get what I mean by that. Also be aware many, many sadhus have little  
> knowledge of their own historical origins or place. But I'm glad you  
> found the answer you sought. Just because they worship or accept  
> Shiva would not make them a Shaivite line. It still sounds like  
> you're confusing the two. Again, I recommend you take a look at the  
> TM puja which shows the tradition originating from Vishnu-Narayana.
>

Oh yes, I see.  You know more about the Shankaracharya tradition than the 
Shankaracharya ashrams themselves. If they say they are Shaivite tradition, 
they must not know what they are talking about, even though its about 
themselves.  You know more than they know about themselves.  Got it Vaj.   When 
confronted to with the facts you will twist them to still make yourself right.
Your endless egotism never ceases to amaze me.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh YINO

[randyanand]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, vajradhatu108  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "randyanand"  wrote:
> 
> > > News to me.
> > 
> > Well if you don't believe it, why did you say that Mahrishi poisoned his 
> > Guru in a resonse >to something I said months ago on this forum.  
> 
> Randyanand, could you please point me to that post so I'm clear what exactly 
> you are referring to? Thanks.
>
It was in a back and forth posting on Fairifield Life many month ago.
I was making the point that you kept referring to Maharishi as Mahesh and it 
was disrespectful because whatever you think of him, thats his name.  You 
countered with, you would not call him Maharishi because he was not a real guru 
and he poisoned his guru.

Sorry Vaj, first you say he poisoned him to me, then you deny believing that.  
You are inconsistant.  Also I have noticed that you only seem to respond to 
certan posts here when you can twist them to fit your beliefs.  For example, 
when I repeated twice in two previous posts that just because Maharishi had 
someone else design his yoga course does not mean that he is or is not a yogi, 
you made no attempt to respond.  When I said in a previous post that there is 
no way to verify that he did or did not recieve some type of "special yogi" 
training from Guru Dev, you again did not respond.  Because you make statements 
that you can not prove.  The same with the poisoning of Guru dev.  There has 
never been any evidence of poisoning.

Oh and by the way, many months ago we got into a discussion about the 
Shankaracharya tradition.  You stated it was part of the Vaishnava tradition.  
I disagreed and said it was a Shaivite tradition.  We went back and forth on 
this and I finally realized who I was dealing with.  You are not interested in 
the facts about things, only your opinions.  Well, for the record, I have since 
been to india and visited the Shankaracharya ashram in Allahabad, the 
Shankaracharya ashram in Kanchipuram and one of the heads of the Juna Akhara of 
Naga Babas.  They all confirmed that the Shankaracharya tradition is not 
asociated with the Vaishnava tradition, it is in fact a Shaivite tradition.  So 
here I can definitely cite my sources and say, sorry dude, you were wrong.  
Although knowing you, you'll prpbably come back and say you never said that, or 
twist your words so you will not appear wrong.
You are entitiled to your opinions Vaj.  Just realize, that like all of us, you 
sometime may be wrong.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh YINO

[randyanand]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "randyanand"  wrote:
> >
> > Its true.  And somehow he thinks he knows everything about 
> > Maharishi's time with Guru Dev and is an expert in that area 
> > also. He appears to really believe that all Maharishi was 
> > during that time was a glorified clerk running errands.  
> 
> NOT to get into the "Bash the Maharishi critic 
> rather than deal with the issue" fest or anything,
> but I believe this, too, *based on Maharishi's
> own accounts*. In my experience he never claimed
> anything else. 
> 
> "Anything else" was invented IMO by hanger-ons who 
> were trying to invent justifications for putting MMY 
> up on a pedestal.
> 
> While it's true that Vaj has a thing for being right,
> it IS good to remember that only one of the three
> names in Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is deserved; the rest
> were invented, to better market to the West, where
> they have neither the criteria for telling whether
> a "spiritual title" is deserved or not, nor the 
> desire to find out. This is all about "Protect the
> importance of the guy I hung out with for so long
> so that I can cling to *my* importance in having
> gotten to hang with him" IMO.
> 
> I'd have more respect for the TM crowd *or* those
> who want to preserve their good feelings about MMY
> if they just did what Joe suggested -- read the 
> friggin' book and then discuss it rationally, with-
> out trying to diss the writer or those who believe
> her vs. the TMO version. My only point so far in 
> all of this is that the *immediate* reaction of
> some is to try to diss the writer; the *immediate*
> reaction of others is to try to diss those who
> believe her. 
> 
> No one's been dealing with the real issues, which
> are 1) that MMY seems to have crossed an important
> ethical line in having sex with his own much younger
> (and admittedly naive and not too bright) students,
> and 2) that MMY seems to have felt the need to lie
> about it and cover it up. THOSE are worth discussing
> in my opinion.
> 
> I'm in a weird position in all of this because the
> Rama - Fred Lenz guy was MUCH worse in terms of 
> diddling his disciples than MMY was. The only thing
> to be said in Lenz's defense on this is that he was
> open about it. But, having known quite a few of these
> women and heard their stories, being placed in the
> position of a disciple having to put out to the person 
> they consider enlightened *and* who had the power to
> remove them from the study they had come to believe
> was the "highest path" to enlightenment for them-
> selves is a real bitch. It puts you through some 
> shit. Some of the women Fred Lenz did this to have
> IMO gotten past it and come to a balanced view of
> both his actions and theirs; others are still fucked
> up by it 20 years later. 
> 
> IMO diddling one's Western students is a Classically
> Dumb Idea. It shows 1) how little the teacher under-
> stands how hung up on sex and sexuality Westerners
> are, and 2) how little they *care* about their own
> students. 
> 
> There is "meat" for meaningful discussions in this
> book, and in Maharishi's behavior. IMO it would be 
> better to deal with the "meat" than waste a bunch of
> time trying to demonize the person(s) who served 
> the dish up. 
> 
> One of my ongoing "points" on this forum has been to
> point out this knee-jerk behavior on the part of TMers.
> I can recognize it because (sadly) I participated in
> it, too, when I was part of the TMO. I remember in
> TTC being trained *TO* diss the critic and come up
> with something to undercut their credibility and cast
> aspersions on the critics' "real motives," and I rem-
> ember being expected to do that on a regular basis
> as a State Coordinator or as the temporary Regional
> Coordinator while Stan was on courses. 
> 


Somehow I missed the part about being trained to "diss" the critic and undercut 
their credibility on my teacher training.  Not saying you didn't get this, but 
I never heard it.  Was this from some official movement course leader as part 
of the curriculum, or was it just people talking???





> I think it sucks. I think it's an aspect of Maharishi's
> personality that got "passed along" to generations of
> students as wisdom and the way one "should" react to
> criticism, whereas in reality it's just insecurity and
> the need to stay in control and the even greater need
> to cling to one's own self importance. 
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh YINO

[randyanand]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, vajradhatu108  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "randyanand"  wrote:
> 
> >And he also believes Maharishi poisoned Guru Dev and there is no evidence of 
> >this either.  
> 
> Is that what I believe?
> 
> News to me.

Well if you don't believe it, why did you say that Mahrishi poisoned his Guru 
in a resonse to something I said months ago on this forum.  
Sorry Vaj, you can lie to yourself and everyone else here and change your story 
so you can look good, but I know what you said to me.  And of course you'll 
probably never respond to this as you never respond to any specific point when 
you can't be right.  Nothing against you buddy, just get real.  
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh YINO

[randyanand]

What is it with you vaj. You didn't at all deal with the point I was making.  
Just because Maharishi was not an expert or even a practitoner of hatha yoga 
does not mean he was not a yogi.
And by the way, in a post you made to me in response to a comment I made 
several months ago, you specifically said that Maharishi poisoned his guru.  
You can say whatever you want now, but thats what you said to me some months 
back.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, vajradhatu108  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "randyanand"  wrote:
> >
> > Hey Vaj,
> > 
> > Most of the real "yogi's" that I met in India, never practiced asanas.
> > You should know that yoga means so much than asana. So if Maharishi had 
> > someone else >who was an expert in that areadesign the course, it just 
> > shows that he didn't claim to be a >know it all.  And it has nothing to do 
> > with whether he was a "yogi" or not
> 
> Or, of course, maybe he just added the "yogi" as his own alias?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh YINO

[randyanand]

Hey Vaj,

Most of the real "yogi's" that I met in India, never practiced asanas.
You should know that yoga means so much than asana. So if Maharishi had someone 
else who was an expert in that areadesign the course, it just shows that he 
didn't claim to be a know it all.  And it has nothing to do with whether he was 
a "yogi" or not

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, vajradhatu108  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
> >
> >  vajradhatu108  wrote:
> > 
> > > A Shankaracharya who knew Mahesh has stated that he never knew or studied 
> > > yoga. Indeed his yoga asana course was designed by someone else! A close 
> > > examination of his teachings also reveals no signs that he was trained as 
> > > a yogi.
> > >
> > So his asana course was designed by someone else.  Like so what.  Did he 
> > claim to be an >expert in yoga. 
> 
> Steevo!
> 
> Next time ya get a chance, check out the last four letters in the Big Reesh's 
> assumed name.
> 
> I know, I know. You probably missed it. Or you may be from Texas.
> 
> But usually people who put the four letters Y-O-G-I after their names know a 
> little bit about yoga.
> 
> Just sayin'. ;-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh YINO

[randyanand]

Its true.  And somehow he thinks he knows everything about Maharishi's time 
with Guru Dev and is an expert in that area also.  He appears to really believe 
that all Maharishi was during that time was a glorified clerk running errands.  
Yet there is no evidence of this.  And he also believes Maharishi poisoned Guru 
Dev and there is no evidence of this either.  So he formed his opinions based 
on zero evidence and maintains his stance because of his need to be superior to 
everyone else here.  Go figure.   Still waiting for comments from you Vaj...

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
>
> Vaj could be vactioning in the north pole, and if somebody says something 
> kindly about the Maharishi, like Waldo he's gonna appear.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "randyanand"  wrote:
> >
> > And how and where would you find such evidence if it did exist? It would be 
> > very difficult to trace and difficult to prove one way or the other.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, vajradhatu108  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > > In my understanding, a yogii/yoginii can do just 
> > > > > > about anything without collecting kriyamaaNa-karma, 
> > > > > or whatever... 
> > > > > > 
> > > > Vaj: 
> > > > > Of course if you believe this, the person in question 
> > > > > would have to be an *actual* yogi, not a YINO.
> > > > > 
> > > > Apparently the Mahesh Yogi was doing exactly what a
> > > > tantric yogi is supposed to be doing. But, what is an 
> > > > *actual* yogi? Was your guru the 'Swami Rama of the 
> > > > Himalayas' and *actual* yogi? LOL!
> > > 
> > > Not, my guru was not Swami Rama.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > A Shankaracharya who knew Mahesh has stated that 
> > > > > he never knew or studied yoga.
> > > > >
> > > > According to the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath, Mr. 
> > > > Varma was a 'yogi' who was trained by a self-realized 
> > > > master - Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, who was 
> > > > considered to be a 'Maha Yogi'. 
> > > 
> > > Actually there's no evidence that Mahesh received any special teaching 
> > > from Brahmananda beyond his public teachings.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > It should be noted that the Shankaracharya mentioned
> > > > by Vaj has been arrested and charged with premeditated
> > > > murder, so Vaj's sources can't be trusted to tell the 
> > > > truth.
> > > 
> > > Not that I'm aware of.
> > > 
> > > It should be noted that Willy apparently owns a Red Herring business.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > A close examination of his teachings also reveals 
> > > > > no signs that he was trained as a yogi.
> > > > >
> > > > So, you're saying that spending thirteen years at
> > > > the feet of Yoga Master doesn't count as training to
> > > > be a 'Yogi'? Go figure.
> > > 
> > > No, I'm saying spending 13 years at a desk or running errands doesn't 
> > > count as training as a yogi. This ain't Texas, home schooling doesn't 
> > > count.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh YINO

[randyanand]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
>
>  vajradhatu108  wrote:
> 
> > A Shankaracharya who knew Mahesh has stated that he never knew or studied 
> > yoga. Indeed his yoga asana course was designed by someone else! A close 
> > examination of his teachings also reveals no signs that he was trained as a 
> > yogi.
> >
> So his asana course was designed by someone else.  Like so what.  Did he 
> claim to be an expert in yoga.  I never got that impression.  As far as being 
> trained as a Yogi.  Was Ramakrishna, was Vivekenanda, was Yogananda, Was 
> Ramana Maharishi. Was Amma.  Maybe nobody but your beloved teacher if you 
> have one. But perhaps you give much credence to book knowledge. At any rate, 
> is this the best criticism you can muster.  And why do you despise the guy so 
> much.  Why do you feel the need to hang out and find some find something to 
> counter anything positive that may be said about him.  He must have been some 
> kind of powerful dude to exert the influence on you he does to this very day.
>
If you haven't noticed, Vaj has the constant need to be right on his opinions. 
For some reason, he thinks he is an expert about Indian and Vedic knowledge, 
even though he clearly isn't.  Don't know why he has to feel he is more 
knowledgeable than so many of us.  How come Vaj?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque

[randyanand]

Hey Rick,
I am wondering what your take is on Maharishi's sexual escapes.  Assuming the 
stories are true, it appears he was sexually active in the late 60's into the 
70's, but then no stories appear.  By the time Deepak was around him, he didn't 
even want a female nurse touching him when he got sick.  
What do you think may have happenned that he swon from one extreme to the other?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 3:38 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
>  
> > Is that so ? You're greatly misinformed. 
> > Watch the Larry King interview
> 
> > . This was taped quite late in his life. King asked him if he had any
> > children, and he said he was a monk.
> 
> How can you claim that He was not a monk at this time ?
> That wasn't King's question. He asked whether MMY had any children. They
> might have been 40 years old for all King knew. MMY's answer was that he was
> a monk, which implied that he didn't have children for that reason.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh YINO

[randyanand]

Vaj,
What does that mean to you, "special training as a yogi"?
Whatever that means, this is going to be very difficult to verify, one way or 
the other.
And it is clear that Maharishi was a close disciple of Brahmanandaji's as he is 
in many of the old photos with him, whereas most of the other disciples are not 
in these photos.  Of course that does not necessarily mean that he recieved any 
special training, but it does imply that he was more than just a clerk.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, vajradhatu108  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
> 
> > So, you're thinking there is a 'special teaching'
> > involved in being a 'yogi'? What secret teaching would
> > that be? 
> 
> No, I was not thinking that.
> 
> > 
> > > > It should be noted that the Shankaracharya mentioned
> > > > by Vaj has been arrested and charged with premeditated
> > > > murder, so Vaj's sources can't be trusted to tell the 
> > > > truth.
> > > >
> > > Not that I'm aware of.
> > > 
> > Why didn't you tell us that the Shankaracharya is in jail 
> > accused of murder? The news was all over the Indian press.
> > 
> > > It should be noted that Willy apparently owns a Red 
> > > Herring business.
> > > 
> > You brought up the Shankaracharya as an information 
> > source, not me. As it is, you're looking like you're a 
> > dishonest informant to say the least.
> 
> It's not new information, Karpinski's interview has been around a long time 
> Willy.
> 
> And there's a new movie you can check out called "David Wants to Fly" which 
> explains that Mahesh was never actually authorized to teach at all. Go 
> figure, huh. It's really not that much of a surprise that he also lied about 
> being a life long celibate, a monk.
> 
> I wonder if Larry King will have Judith on?
> 
> >  
> > > > > A close examination of his teachings also reveals 
> > > > > no signs that he was trained as a yogi.
> > > > >
> > > > So, you're saying that spending thirteen years at
> > > > the feet of Yoga Master doesn't count as training to
> > > > be a 'Yogi'? Go figure.
> > > 
> > > No, I'm saying spending 13 years at a desk or running 
> > > errands doesn't count as training as a yogi. 
> > >
> > So, you're saying that anyone who runs errands or sits at
> > a desk at a yoga camp can't be a yogi? You're not making 
> > any sense.
> > 
> > > This ain't Texas, home schooling doesn't count.
> > >
> > But, you got your yoga training in Maine, right?
> 
> Wrong.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh YINO

[randyanand]

And how and where would you find such evidence if it did exist? It would be 
very difficult to trace and difficult to prove one way or the other.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, vajradhatu108  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > > > In my understanding, a yogii/yoginii can do just 
> > > > about anything without collecting kriyamaaNa-karma, 
> > > or whatever... 
> > > > 
> > Vaj: 
> > > Of course if you believe this, the person in question 
> > > would have to be an *actual* yogi, not a YINO.
> > > 
> > Apparently the Mahesh Yogi was doing exactly what a
> > tantric yogi is supposed to be doing. But, what is an 
> > *actual* yogi? Was your guru the 'Swami Rama of the 
> > Himalayas' and *actual* yogi? LOL!
> 
> Not, my guru was not Swami Rama.
> 
> > 
> > > A Shankaracharya who knew Mahesh has stated that 
> > > he never knew or studied yoga.
> > >
> > According to the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath, Mr. 
> > Varma was a 'yogi' who was trained by a self-realized 
> > master - Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, who was 
> > considered to be a 'Maha Yogi'. 
> 
> Actually there's no evidence that Mahesh received any special teaching from 
> Brahmananda beyond his public teachings.
> 
> > 
> > It should be noted that the Shankaracharya mentioned
> > by Vaj has been arrested and charged with premeditated
> > murder, so Vaj's sources can't be trusted to tell the 
> > truth.
> 
> Not that I'm aware of.
> 
> It should be noted that Willy apparently owns a Red Herring business.
> 
> 
> > 
> > > A close examination of his teachings also reveals 
> > > no signs that he was trained as a yogi.
> > >
> > So, you're saying that spending thirteen years at
> > the feet of Yoga Master doesn't count as training to
> > be a 'Yogi'? Go figure.
> 
> No, I'm saying spending 13 years at a desk or running errands doesn't count 
> as training as a yogi. This ain't Texas, home schooling doesn't count.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh YINO

[randyanand]

Which Shankaracharya was that?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, vajradhatu108  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > In my understanding, a yogii/yoginii can do just about anything without
> > collecting kriyamaaNa-karma, or whatever. Heck, even kill
> > their relatives!
> > 
> > **karmaashuklaakRSnaM** yoginaH... (YS IV 7).
> >
> 
> 
> Of course if you believe this, the person in question would have to be an 
> *actual* yogi, not a YINO.
> 
> A Shankaracharya who knew Mahesh has stated that he never knew or studied 
> yoga. Indeed his yoga asana course was designed by someone else! A close 
> examination of his teachings also reveals no signs that he was trained as a 
> yogi.
>