Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[Richard J. Williams]

On 10/27/2013 6:05 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote:
Patanjali said the /pranava /was the name/designation of Ishvara. 
Repetition of the pranava and contemplation of it leads to realization 
of its meaning.
Repetition of OM as the nickname of the demi-god Krishna and 
concentrating on OM does NOT lead to realization. Anyone who repeats OM 
and imagines that a nonsense syllable is God, will stay on the conscious 
thinking level - they will NOT transcend very far but will remain on the 
surface level of thinking and mood-making.


Are you sure you were trained by MMY as a teacher of TM?

[FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[awoelflebater]

 
 

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "TurquoiseB" wrote:
 >
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
> >
> > "So, let's sum up what we know ... "
> >
> > This is the sure sign of a scammer.
> 
> And trying to argue with him about what follows is a
> sure sign that you've been scammed.
> 
> Willytex *succeeded* in poking your ego until it reacted,
> and you had to dive in to "prove" that you "know" more
> than he does.
> 
> Trolls exist because egos do. That's what argument trolls
> like Willytex and Judy feed on. They don't care about who
> really "wins" any of the arguments they start, because
> they'll "declare victory" in all of them. All they care about
> is suckering someone's ego into reacting so that the
> arguments happen, and thus the "declarations of
> victory" can happen.
> 
> If you react to their provocation, in their minds they "win."
> If you *don't* react, they'll find some way to try to spin
> *that* into a "win," too, but at least you won't be all
> covered with slime from interacting with them.
> 
> Just my opinion...

 Hi Empty,

I'm going to follow up on my earlier post this morning, 
partly to expand upon it, but also because at least three
people here don't seem to understand who I was talking
to. Trying to help them appear less STOOOPID, I remind 
them of a stern dictum issued by She Who Must Not Be 
Disobeyed herself:

"Hey, doofus, nobody was talking to you. End of story."
- Judy Stein, 13 October 2013

Anyway, what I was trying to say *to you* earlier is that
while I understand that it pains you to see Willytex 
spouting bullshit here on FFL, when you fall for it and
get into it with him, you're playing *his* game, not yours.
He's trolled you. 

That's just what he and the other troll I mentioned earlier
DO. They lie in wait for someone to say something, then
they rush out and search Google or Wikipedia or some
batch of saved files and they post a "rebuttal." 

It isn't *really* a rebuttal, of course -- it's an invitation
for you to argue with them. If you do, they win. That's
just how trolls think. 

The thing is, even if you *don't* fall for it and argue with
them, they'll find a way to spin *that* and consider it a 
"win" for them, too. Just as the three people whom *I* did
not respond to (and wasn't talking to in the first place)
did today. 

I'm not faulting your scholarship, or trying to start some 
kinda argument with you, either. I'm just pointing out The
Nature Of Trolls, and reminding you that it really *isn't*
worth your time to try to rebut or correct them. They don't
care about that. ALL that they care about is that they got
you to argue with them. 

IMO, doing so is a classic waste of time. But if you've got
so much time left in this life that you don't mind wasting 
it, forgive me for butting in and more power to ya...argue 
with them all you want. Your call...
 

 Barry takes the time and the 'trouble' to once more advise someone about 
falling for and responding to and satisfying the 'trolls' of FFL all the while 
in doing so he is responding to and falling for and satisfying the 'trolls' of 
FFL. If you really wanted to prove your point, Barry, and follow your own 
advice you'd button it.



 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[Richard Williams]

> I have a vision of a dusty, broken down abandoned small school
> house somewhere in the desert outside Austin where Willy is
> lecturing to a class . of stuffed prairie dogs.
>
[image: Inline image 1]


On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Bhairitu  wrote:

> **
>
>
> On 10/28/2013 11:12 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "TurquoiseB" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
> > >
> > > "So, let's sum up what we know ... "
> > >
> > > This is the sure sign of a scammer.
> >
> > And trying to argue with him about what follows is a
> > sure sign that you've been scammed.
> >
> > Willytex *succeeded* in poking your ego until it reacted,
> > and you had to dive in to "prove" that you "know" more
> > than he does.
> >
> > Trolls exist because egos do. That's what argument trolls
> > like Willytex and Judy feed on. They don't care about who
> > really "wins" any of the arguments they start, because
> > they'll "declare victory" in all of them. All they care about
> > is suckering someone's ego into reacting so that the
> > arguments happen, and thus the "declarations of
> > victory" can happen.
> >
> > If you react to their provocation, in their minds they "win."
> > If you *don't* react, they'll find some way to try to spin
> > *that* into a "win," too, but at least you won't be all
> > covered with slime from interacting with them.
> >
> > Just my opinion...
>
> Hi Empty,
>
> I'm going to follow up on my earlier post this morning,
> partly to expand upon it, but also because at least three
> people here don't seem to understand who I was talking
> to. Trying to help them appear less STOOOPID, I remind
> them of a stern dictum issued by She Who Must Not Be
> Disobeyed herself:
>
> "Hey, doofus, nobody was talking to you. End of story."
> - Judy Stein, 13 October 2013
>
> Anyway, what I was trying to say *to you* earlier is that
> while I understand that it pains you to see Willytex
> spouting bullshit here on FFL, when you fall for it and
> get into it with him, you're playing *his* game, not yours.
> He's trolled you.
>
> That's just what he and the other troll I mentioned earlier
> DO. They lie in wait for someone to say something, then
> they rush out and search Google or Wikipedia or some
> batch of saved files and they post a "rebuttal."
>
> It isn't *really* a rebuttal, of course -- it's an invitation
> for you to argue with them. If you do, they win. That's
> just how trolls think.
>
> The thing is, even if you *don't* fall for it and argue with
> them, they'll find a way to spin *that* and consider it a
> "win" for them, too. Just as the three people whom *I* did
> not respond to (and wasn't talking to in the first place)
> did today.
>
> I'm not faulting your scholarship, or trying to start some
> kinda argument with you, either. I'm just pointing out The
> Nature Of Trolls, and reminding you that it really *isn't*
> worth your time to try to rebut or correct them. They don't
> care about that. ALL that they care about is that they got
> you to argue with them.
>
> IMO, doing so is a classic waste of time. But if you've got
> so much time left in this life that you don't mind wasting
> it, forgive me for butting in and more power to ya...argue
> with them all you want. Your call...
>
>
> I have a vision of a dusty, broken down abandoned small school house
> somewhere in the desert outside Austin where Willy is lecturing to a class
> . of stuffed prairie dogs. :-D
>
>
>  
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[Richard J. Williams]

We are the Materialists, one of the schools of Indian Philosophy, 
founded by Brhaspati, and very old. We have always existed, and we will 
exist at the end of time. Our teacher is Ajitakeshakambalin, (of the 
hair-blanket), so-called because he wanted to be having a hair-blanket 
wrapped about him at all times. Go figure.


We believe in four elements. Our motto is "emphasize the substance, 
ignore the shadows". Perception is rejected as a valid means of 
knowledge and we reject inference as a leap in the dark. Verbal 
testimony is a lie. In fact we reject all means of knowledge.


Earth, water, fire, and air are reality. Enjoyment is the true end of 
human existence. Consciousness is a product of the elements, an 
epi-phenomenon, and the senses are the by-product of matter. There is no 
other world and no individual soul: death is liberation. There is no 
returning here again. The three authors of the Vedas were clowns, 
buffoons, and knaves.


Eat, drink and be merry. Pleasure is a fact, desired by all. After all, 
all humans are animals, and satisfaction is as natural as life itself. 
As Vatsyana has written: "No pleasure should be neglected."


On 10/28/2013 1:12 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "TurquoiseB" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
> >
> > "So, let's sum up what we know ... "
> >
> > This is the sure sign of a scammer.
>
> And trying to argue with him about what follows is a
> sure sign that you've been scammed.
>
> Willytex *succeeded* in poking your ego until it reacted,
> and you had to dive in to "prove" that you "know" more
> than he does.
>
> Trolls exist because egos do. That's what argument trolls
> like Willytex and Judy feed on. They don't care about who
> really "wins" any of the arguments they start, because
> they'll "declare victory" in all of them. All they care about
> is suckering someone's ego into reacting so that the
> arguments happen, and thus the "declarations of
> victory" can happen.
>
> If you react to their provocation, in their minds they "win."
> If you *don't* react, they'll find some way to try to spin
> *that* into a "win," too, but at least you won't be all
> covered with slime from interacting with them.
>
> Just my opinion...

Hi Empty,

I'm going to follow up on my earlier post this morning,
partly to expand upon it, but also because at least three
people here don't seem to understand who I was talking
to. Trying to help them appear less STOOOPID, I remind
them of a stern dictum issued by She Who Must Not Be
Disobeyed herself:

"Hey, doofus, nobody was talking to you. End of story."
- Judy Stein, 13 October 2013

Anyway, what I was trying to say *to you* earlier is that
while I understand that it pains you to see Willytex
spouting bullshit here on FFL, when you fall for it and
get into it with him, you're playing *his* game, not yours.
He's trolled you.

That's just what he and the other troll I mentioned earlier
DO. They lie in wait for someone to say something, then
they rush out and search Google or Wikipedia or some
batch of saved files and they post a "rebuttal."

It isn't *really* a rebuttal, of course -- it's an invitation
for you to argue with them. If you do, they win. That's
just how trolls think.

The thing is, even if you *don't* fall for it and argue with
them, they'll find a way to spin *that* and consider it a
"win" for them, too. Just as the three people whom *I* did
not respond to (and wasn't talking to in the first place)
did today.

I'm not faulting your scholarship, or trying to start some
kinda argument with you, either. I'm just pointing out The
Nature Of Trolls, and reminding you that it really *isn't*
worth your time to try to rebut or correct them. They don't
care about that. ALL that they care about is that they got
you to argue with them.

IMO, doing so is a classic waste of time. But if you've got
so much time left in this life that you don't mind wasting
it, forgive me for butting in and more power to ya...argue
with them all you want. Your call...

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[Richard J. Williams]

It sure didn't take long for this thread to go to shit. LoL!

On 10/28/2013 11:30 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:




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

I can't decide if Barry or WIllyTex hold the FFL record for being the 
most reviled in FFL history.


Well I don't revile anyone here. There are some who I might find 
interesting to interact with in 'real' life to see if they are either 
as agreeable or disagreeable as they seem to be here at FFL. A few I 
feel a real affinity with and others I would be curious to see if they 
have an online persona that is at odds with the person they are in 
3D. Certainly Barry is the biggest sitting duck for major gaffs and 
intentional shit stirring and lazy half truths he spouts continually 
so he just brings the flak onto himself; no one with any self respect 
would let him continually fire off stink bombs at them and not call 
them on it. Richard is just a guy from Texas, what else would/could 
you expect?



On Mon, 10/28/13, awoelflebater@... <mailto:awoelflebater@...>
mailto:awoelflebater@...>> wrote:

Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Monday, October 28, 2013, 2:10 PM




























---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com>,
mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:

uh, Barry, you should know
that some ten year old kid, just posted to FFL, while you
were in the men's room...

Post of the moment. I love
it...

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>,
mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:

---
In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>,
wrote:

>

> "So, let's sum up what we know ... "

>

> This is the sure sign of a scammer.



And trying to argue with him about what
follows is a

sure sign that you've been scammed.



Willytex *succeeded* in poking your ego until it reacted,

and you had to dive in to "prove" that you
"know" more

than he does.



Trolls exist because egos do. That's what argument
trolls

like Willytex and Judy feed on. They don't care about
who

really "wins" any of the arguments they start,
because

they'll "declare victory" in all of them. All
they care about

is suckering someone's ego into reacting so that the

arguments happen, and thus the "declarations of

victory" can happen.



If you react to their provocation, in their minds they
"win."

If you *don't* react, they'll find some way to try
to spin

*that* into a "win," too, but at least you
won't be all

covered with slime from interacting with them.



Just my opinion... 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[Richard J. Williams]

Uh oh! Somebody got their buttons pushed. LoL!

On 10/28/2013 12:49 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> "So, let's sum up what we know ... "
>
> This is the sure sign of a scammer.

And trying to argue with him about what follows is a
sure sign that you've been scammed.

Willytex *succeeded* in poking your ego until it reacted,
and you had to dive in to "prove" that you "know" more
than he does.

Trolls exist because egos do. That's what argument trolls
like Willytex and Judy feed on. They don't care about who
really "wins" any of the arguments they start, because
they'll "declare victory" in all of them. All they care about
is suckering someone's ego into reacting so that the
arguments happen, and thus the "declarations of
victory" can happen.

If you react to their provocation, in their minds they "win."
If you *don't* react, they'll find some way to try to spin
*that* into a "win," too, but at least you won't be all
covered with slime from interacting with them.

Just my opinion...

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[Bhairitu]

On 10/28/2013 11:12 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "TurquoiseB" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
> >
> > "So, let's sum up what we know ... "
> >
> > This is the sure sign of a scammer.
>
> And trying to argue with him about what follows is a
> sure sign that you've been scammed.
>
> Willytex *succeeded* in poking your ego until it reacted,
> and you had to dive in to "prove" that you "know" more
> than he does.
>
> Trolls exist because egos do. That's what argument trolls
> like Willytex and Judy feed on. They don't care about who
> really "wins" any of the arguments they start, because
> they'll "declare victory" in all of them. All they care about
> is suckering someone's ego into reacting so that the
> arguments happen, and thus the "declarations of
> victory" can happen.
>
> If you react to their provocation, in their minds they "win."
> If you *don't* react, they'll find some way to try to spin
> *that* into a "win," too, but at least you won't be all
> covered with slime from interacting with them.
>
> Just my opinion...

Hi Empty,

I'm going to follow up on my earlier post this morning,
partly to expand upon it, but also because at least three
people here don't seem to understand who I was talking
to. Trying to help them appear less STOOOPID, I remind
them of a stern dictum issued by She Who Must Not Be
Disobeyed herself:

"Hey, doofus, nobody was talking to you. End of story."
- Judy Stein, 13 October 2013

Anyway, what I was trying to say *to you* earlier is that
while I understand that it pains you to see Willytex
spouting bullshit here on FFL, when you fall for it and
get into it with him, you're playing *his* game, not yours.
He's trolled you.

That's just what he and the other troll I mentioned earlier
DO. They lie in wait for someone to say something, then
they rush out and search Google or Wikipedia or some
batch of saved files and they post a "rebuttal."

It isn't *really* a rebuttal, of course -- it's an invitation
for you to argue with them. If you do, they win. That's
just how trolls think.

The thing is, even if you *don't* fall for it and argue with
them, they'll find a way to spin *that* and consider it a
"win" for them, too. Just as the three people whom *I* did
not respond to (and wasn't talking to in the first place)
did today.

I'm not faulting your scholarship, or trying to start some
kinda argument with you, either. I'm just pointing out The
Nature Of Trolls, and reminding you that it really *isn't*
worth your time to try to rebut or correct them. They don't
care about that. ALL that they care about is that they got
you to argue with them.

IMO, doing so is a classic waste of time. But if you've got
so much time left in this life that you don't mind wasting
it, forgive me for butting in and more power to ya...argue
with them all you want. Your call...



I have a vision of a dusty, broken down abandoned small school house 
somewhere in the desert outside Austin where Willy is lecturing to a 
class . of stuffed prairie dogs. :-D

RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[azgrey]

Judy Koan: If Barry was talking to himself while walking alone in the woods is 
he still lying?
 

 

 

  
 

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

 Oh, Barry, by a long shot. Richard is annoying, but most people figure him out 
quickly and stop paying much attention to him. Barry is malicious, vicious, and 
genuinely sadistic, absolutely determined to cause damage (even if he isn't 
anywhere near as successful at it as he'd like to believe). Richard is just a 
pain in the ass.
 

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

 I can't decide if Barry or WIllyTex hold the FFL record for being the most 
reviled in FFL history.
 
 On Mon, 10/28/13, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... 
mailto:awoelflebater@...> wrote:
 
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Monday, October 28, 2013, 2:10 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
 uh, Barry, you should know
 that some ten year old kid, just posted to FFL, while you
 were in the men's room... 
 
 Post of the moment. I love
 it... 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
 ---
 In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 wrote:
 
 >
 
 > "So, let's sum up what we know ... "
 
 >
 
 > This is the sure sign of a scammer.
 
 
 
 And trying to argue with him about what
 follows is a
 
 sure sign that you've been scammed.
 
 
 
 Willytex *succeeded* in poking your ego until it reacted,
 
 and you had to dive in to "prove" that you
 "know" more
 
 than he does.
 
 
 
 Trolls exist because egos do. That's what argument
 trolls
 
 like Willytex and Judy feed on. They don't care about
 who
 
 really "wins" any of the arguments they start,
 because
 
 they'll "declare victory" in all of them. All
 they care about
 
 is suckering someone's ego into reacting so that the
 
 arguments happen, and thus the "declarations of
 
 victory" can happen.
 
 
 
 If you react to their provocation, in their minds they
 "win."
 
 If you *don't* react, they'll find some way to try
 to spin
 
 *that* into a "win," too, but at least you
 won't be all
 
 covered with slime from interacting with them.
 
 
 
 Just my opinion... 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "TurquoiseB"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
> >
> > "So, let's sum up what we know ... "
> >
> >  This is the sure sign of a scammer.
>
> And trying to argue with him about what follows is a
> sure sign that you've been scammed.
>
> Willytex *succeeded* in poking your ego until it reacted,
> and you had to dive in to "prove" that you "know" more
> than he does.
>
> Trolls exist because egos do. That's what argument trolls
> like Willytex and Judy feed on. They don't care about who
> really "wins" any of the arguments they start, because
> they'll "declare victory" in all of them. All they care about
> is suckering someone's ego into reacting so that the
> arguments happen, and thus the "declarations of
> victory" can happen.
>
> If you react to their provocation, in their minds they "win."
> If you *don't* react, they'll find some way to try to spin
> *that* into a "win," too, but at least you won't be all
> covered with slime from interacting with them.
>
> Just my opinion...

Hi Empty,

I'm going to follow up on my earlier post this morning,
partly to expand upon it, but also because at least three
people here don't seem to understand who I was talking
to. Trying to help them appear less STOOOPID, I remind
them of a stern dictum issued by She Who Must Not Be
Disobeyed herself:

"Hey, doofus, nobody was talking to you. End of story."
- Judy Stein, 13 October 2013

Anyway, what I was trying to say *to you* earlier is that
while I understand that it pains you to see Willytex
spouting bullshit here on FFL, when you fall for it and
get into it with him, you're playing *his* game, not yours.
He's trolled you.

That's just what he and the other troll I mentioned earlier
DO. They lie in wait for someone to say something, then
they rush out and search Google or Wikipedia or some
batch of saved files and they post a "rebuttal."

It isn't *really* a rebuttal, of course -- it's an invitation
for you to argue with them. If you do, they win. That's
just how trolls think.

The thing is, even if you *don't* fall for it and argue with
them, they'll find a way to spin *that* and consider it a
"win" for them, too. Just as the three people whom *I* did
not respond to (and wasn't talking to in the first place)
did today.

I'm not faulting your scholarship, or trying to start some
kinda argument with you, either. I'm just pointing out The
Nature Of Trolls, and reminding you that it really *isn't*
worth your time to try to rebut or correct them. They don't
care about that. ALL that they care about is that they got
you to argue with them.

IMO, doing so is a classic waste of time. But if you've got
so much time left in this life that you don't mind wasting
it, forgive me for butting in and more power to ya...argue
with them all you want. Your call...

[FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[awoelflebater]

 
 

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

 I can't decide if Barry or WIllyTex hold the FFL record for being the most 
reviled in FFL history.
 

 Well I don't revile anyone here. There are some who I might find interesting 
to interact with in 'real' life to see if they are either as agreeable or 
disagreeable as they seem to be here at FFL. A few I feel a real affinity with 
and others I would be curious to see if they have an online persona that is at 
odds with the person they are in 3D. Certainly Barry is the biggest sitting 
duck for major gaffs and intentional shit stirring and lazy half truths he 
spouts continually so he just brings the flak onto himself; no one with any 
self respect would let him continually fire off stink bombs at them and not 
call them on it. Richard is just a guy from Texas, what else would/could you 
expect?
 
 On Mon, 10/28/13, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... 
mailto:awoelflebater@...> wrote:
 
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Monday, October 28, 2013, 2:10 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
 uh, Barry, you should know
 that some ten year old kid, just posted to FFL, while you
 were in the men's room... 
 
 Post of the moment. I love
 it... 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
 ---
 In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 wrote:
 
 >
 
 > "So, let's sum up what we know ... "
 
 >
 
 > This is the sure sign of a scammer.
 
 
 
 And trying to argue with him about what
 follows is a
 
 sure sign that you've been scammed.
 
 
 
 Willytex *succeeded* in poking your ego until it reacted,
 
 and you had to dive in to "prove" that you
 "know" more
 
 than he does.
 
 
 
 Trolls exist because egos do. That's what argument
 trolls
 
 like Willytex and Judy feed on. They don't care about
 who
 
 really "wins" any of the arguments they start,
 because
 
 they'll "declare victory" in all of them. All
 they care about
 
 is suckering someone's ego into reacting so that the
 
 arguments happen, and thus the "declarations of
 
 victory" can happen.
 
 
 
 If you react to their provocation, in their minds they
 "win."
 
 If you *don't* react, they'll find some way to try
 to spin
 
 *that* into a "win," too, but at least you
 won't be all
 
 covered with slime from interacting with them.
 
 
 
 Just my opinion... 
 

RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[authfriend]

Oh, Barry, by a long shot. Richard is annoying, but most people figure him out 
quickly and stop paying much attention to him. Barry is malicious, vicious, and 
genuinely sadistic, absolutely determined to cause damage (even if he isn't 
anywhere near as successful at it as he'd like to believe). Richard is just a 
pain in the ass.
 

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

 I can't decide if Barry or WIllyTex hold the FFL record for being the most 
reviled in FFL history.
 
 On Mon, 10/28/13, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... 
mailto:awoelflebater@...> wrote:
 
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Monday, October 28, 2013, 2:10 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
 uh, Barry, you should know
 that some ten year old kid, just posted to FFL, while you
 were in the men's room... 
 
 Post of the moment. I love
 it... 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
 ---
 In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 wrote:
 
 >
 
 > "So, let's sum up what we know ... "
 
 >
 
 > This is the sure sign of a scammer.
 
 
 
 And trying to argue with him about what
 follows is a
 
 sure sign that you've been scammed.
 
 
 
 Willytex *succeeded* in poking your ego until it reacted,
 
 and you had to dive in to "prove" that you
 "know" more
 
 than he does.
 
 
 
 Trolls exist because egos do. That's what argument
 trolls
 
 like Willytex and Judy feed on. They don't care about
 who
 
 really "wins" any of the arguments they start,
 because
 
 they'll "declare victory" in all of them. All
 they care about
 
 is suckering someone's ego into reacting so that the
 
 arguments happen, and thus the "declarations of
 
 victory" can happen.
 
 
 
 If you react to their provocation, in their minds they
 "win."
 
 If you *don't* react, they'll find some way to try
 to spin
 
 *that* into a "win," too, but at least you
 won't be all
 
 covered with slime from interacting with them.
 
 
 
 Just my opinion... 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[Michael Jackson]

I can't decide if Barry or WIllyTex hold the FFL record for being the most 
reviled in FFL history.

On Mon, 10/28/13, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com  wrote:

 Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Monday, October 28, 2013, 2:10 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
   
   
     
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,
  wrote:
 
 uh, Barry, you should know
 that some ten year old kid, just posted to FFL, while you
 were in the men's room... 
 
 Post of the moment. I love
 it... 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
  wrote:
 
  ---
 In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
  wrote:
 
  >
 
 > "So, let's sum up what we know ... "
 
 >
 
 >  This is the sure sign of a scammer.
 
 
 
  And trying to argue with him about what
 follows is a
 
 sure sign that you've been scammed.
 
 
 
 Willytex *succeeded* in poking your ego until it reacted,
 
 and you had to dive in to "prove" that you
 "know" more
 
 than he does.
 
 
 
 Trolls exist because egos do. That's what argument
 trolls
 
 like Willytex and Judy feed on. They don't care about
 who
 
 really "wins" any of the arguments they start,
 because
 
 they'll "declare victory" in all of them. All
 they care about
 
 is suckering someone's ego into reacting so that the
 
 arguments happen, and thus the "declarations of
 
 victory" can happen.
 
 
 
 If you react to their provocation, in their minds they
 "win."
 
 If you *don't* react, they'll find some way to try
 to spin
 
 *that* into a "win," too, but at least you
 won't be all
 
 covered with slime from interacting with them.
 
 
 
 Just my opinion...
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[awoelflebater]

 
 

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

 uh, Barry, you should know that some ten year old kid, just posted to FFL, 
while you were in the men's room... 

 

 Post of the moment. I love it...
 

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
wrote:
 >
 > "So, let's sum up what we know ... "
 >
 > This is the sure sign of a scammer.
 
 And trying to argue with him about what follows is a
 sure sign that you've been scammed.
 
 Willytex *succeeded* in poking your ego until it reacted,
 and you had to dive in to "prove" that you "know" more
 than he does.
 
 Trolls exist because egos do. That's what argument trolls
 like Willytex and Judy feed on. They don't care about who
 really "wins" any of the arguments they start, because
 they'll "declare victory" in all of them. All they care about
 is suckering someone's ego into reacting so that the
 arguments happen, and thus the "declarations of
 victory" can happen.
 
 If you react to their provocation, in their minds they "win."
 If you *don't* react, they'll find some way to try to spin
 *that* into a "win," too, but at least you won't be all
 covered with slime from interacting with them.
 
 Just my opinion...


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>
> "So, let's sum up what we know ... "
>
>  This is the sure sign of a scammer.

And trying to argue with him about what follows is a
sure sign that you've been scammed.

Willytex *succeeded* in poking your ego until it reacted,
and you had to dive in to "prove" that you "know" more
than he does.

Trolls exist because egos do. That's what argument trolls
like Willytex and Judy feed on. They don't care about who
really "wins" any of the arguments they start, because
they'll "declare victory" in all of them. All they care about
is suckering someone's ego into reacting so that the
arguments happen, and thus the "declarations of
victory" can happen.

If you react to their provocation, in their minds they "win."
If you *don't* react, they'll find some way to try to spin
*that* into a "win," too, but at least you won't be all
covered with slime from interacting with them.

Just my opinion...

[FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[emptybill]

"So, let's sum up what we know ... " 
 

 This is the sure sign of a scammer.
 

 You are so ignorant you don't even know the basic stuff. Any self-respecting 
Indian (who isn't a communist) always has 20-30 mantras on-hand just in case 
there is need to get the "gods" favor for something. 
 
 "Maybe so but ..." is the confession of a deceiver who believes that just by 
endlessly repeating a claim others will believe it. 
 
 Patanjali said the pranava was the name/designation of Ishvara. Repetition of 
the pranava and contemplation of it leads to realization of its meaning. 

 

 Judy was quite right. You are a FFL troll. You don’t know anything but shit 
you read. You are an arrogant fool. 

 

 Oh … did I mention that you are also a cheat and a thief? 

 Maybe so but …
 

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

 So, let's sum up what we know about the bija mantras used in TM. 

 It has already been established that MMY got one single bija mantra from his 
teacher SBS. It has also been established that SSRS cribbed the list of bijas 
from MMY. It has NOT been established that SSRS has had a tantric yoga teacher 
other than MMY. Let's face it - the bija mantras used in TM were cribbed from a 
tantra yoga book. Why would SBS give a whole list of bijas to MMY if SBS didn't 
even endorse MMY to teach tantra?
 

 According to SBS, the monosyllable 'OM' isn't a bija (seed) sound at all - 
it's just a place-holder for the bija given in initiation. The Pranava is OM, 
but OM is not a bija, it;s just a symbol for the Vedic Sun God. If there were 
any bijas to meditate on when Patanjali compiled the Yoga Sutras he would have 
mentioned them, would he not? Or, the historical Buddha would have mentioned 
them. 
 

 Or, MMY would have said that the TM bija mantras came from the Vedas. Or, 
Larry Domash would have told us the bijas came from the Vedas. They did not.
 

 So, it would seem that the Marshy got confused - instead of extolling the 
Vedas, he should have been promoting the Tantras. Apparently there are no 
'bija' mantras mentioned in the Rig Veda. In order to establish the TM 
practice, the Marshy should have been explaining how TM came to use the tantric 
bija mantras.
 

 From what I've read, TM practice and the use of bijas comes from the Sri 
Vidya, and not from the Rig Veda. Sri Vidya is a tantric sect, purportedly 
founded by Shankaracharya. Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was a member of the Sri 
Vidya - all the Saraswati dasnamis are headquarted at Sringeri. SBS's guru, 
Swami Krishanand Saraswati, was from Sringeri. The primary symbol of the Sri 
Vidya is the Shri Yantra, not the OM symbol.
 

 So, it's obvious that TM adherents should be looking to the Tantras, such as 
the 'Saundaryalahari' for the origins of TM, not the to the Vedas. The Rig Veda 
has little to say about yoga practices such as 'TM'. The Rig Veda is based on 
sacrificial rituals, dedicated to appeasing the celestial beings that control 
the forces of nature, such as earth, wind and fire, etc. 
 

 The Devatas, such as Krishna, Balarama, Vasudeva, and Ramchandra are deified 
heroes of Indian mythology. There are no 'istadevatas' mentioned in the Rig 
Veda, so how could there be any istadevata bija mantras? Go figure.
 

 The use of bijas came a long time after the composition of the Rig Veda, 
during the Gupta age in India. Bija mantras are products of the Indian 
alchemists, not the Vedic Rishis. The Rig Veda was probably compiled before the 
Aryan speakers even arrived in India. 
 



 

 On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 2:38 PM, mailto:emptybill@...> wrote:
   
 Prairie Dog Troll
 

 You are such an ignorant, pseudo-intellectual bullshitter that you'll make any 
kind of claim just to appear like you know something. I would call you a liar 
but in actuality you are just arrogantly stupid.
 
 Patanjali talks extensively about OM you fool. He uses the standard vedic term 
pranava. See YS 1.27 -  tasya vâcaka.h pra.nava.h “(His) designation is the 
pranava (pronouncement)”.
  
 Prairie Dog sez:
 Vajrayana Buddhism is esoteric, in the sense that the transmission of certain 
teachings only occurs directly from teacher to student during an initiation or 
empowerment and cannot be simply learned from a book.
  
 Idiot! I’ve had a Vajrayana and Dzogchen teacher for a decade. You are only a 
stinking troll parroting something you read in a book. You don’t know shit 
about Vajrayana.
  
 Prairie Dog sez:
 So, SSRS get the bija mantras from MMY without even becoming a TM teacher -  
it has not been established where and from whom MMY got the list of bijas, but 
you only get one bija in TM - so how did MMY and SSRS get to know all the bija 
mantras? They probably read about the bija mantras in a  yoga book. Because no 
TM teacher would give out seventeen different bijas to one student. Go figure.
  
 Brahmarishi Devarata said that the supreme bija of the Rg Veda is Im, of Yajur 
Veda is Shri and of the Upanishads is the pranava Om. 
  
 The supreme

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[Richard Williams]

So, let's sum up what we know about the bija mantras used in TM.

It has already been established that MMY got one single bija mantra from
his teacher SBS. It has also been established that SSRS cribbed the list of
bijas from MMY. It has NOT been established that SSRS has had a tantric
yoga teacher other than MMY. Let's face it - the bija mantras used in TM
were cribbed from a tantra yoga book. Why would SBS give a whole list of
bijas to MMY if SBS didn't even endorse MMY to teach tantra?

According to SBS, the monosyllable 'OM' isn't a bija (seed) sound at all -
it's just a place-holder for the bija given in initiation. The Pranava is
OM, but OM is not a bija, it;s just a symbol for the Vedic Sun God. If
there were any bijas to meditate on when Patanjali compiled the Yoga Sutras
he would have mentioned them, would he not? Or, the historical Buddha would
have mentioned them.

Or, MMY would have said that the TM bija mantras came from the Vedas. Or,
Larry Domash would have told us the bijas came from the Vedas. They did not.

So, it would seem that the Marshy got confused - instead of extolling the
Vedas, he should have been promoting the Tantras. Apparently there are no
'bija' mantras mentioned in the Rig Veda. In order to establish the TM
practice, the Marshy should have been explaining how TM came to use the
tantric bija mantras.

>From what I've read, TM practice and the use of bijas comes from the Sri
Vidya, and not from the Rig Veda. Sri Vidya is a tantric sect, purportedly
founded by Shankaracharya. Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was a member of the
Sri Vidya - all the Saraswati dasnamis are headquarted at Sringeri. SBS's
guru, Swami Krishanand Saraswati, was from Sringeri. The primary symbol of
the Sri Vidya is the Shri Yantra, not the OM symbol.

So, it's obvious that TM adherents should be looking to the Tantras, such
as the 'Saundaryalahari' for the origins of TM, not the to the Vedas. The
Rig Veda has little to say about yoga practices such as 'TM'. The Rig Veda
is based on sacrificial rituals, dedicated to appeasing the celestial
beings that control the forces of nature, such as earth, wind and fire,
etc.

The Devatas, such as Krishna, Balarama, Vasudeva, and Ramchandra are
deified heroes of Indian mythology. There are no 'istadevatas' mentioned in
the Rig Veda, so how could there be any istadevata bija mantras? Go figure.

The use of bijas came a long time after the composition of the Rig Veda,
during the Gupta age in India. Bija mantras are products of the Indian
alchemists, not the Vedic Rishis. The Rig Veda was probably compiled before
the Aryan speakers even arrived in India.


On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 2:38 PM,  wrote:

> **
>
>
> Prairie Dog Troll
>
>
> You are such an ignorant, pseudo-intellectual bullshitter that you'll make
> any kind of claim just to appear like you know something. I would call you
> a liar but in actuality you are just arrogantly stupid.
>
> Patanjali talks extensively about OM you fool. He uses the standard vedic
> term *pranava*. *See** YS 1.27 -  tasya vâcaka.h pra.nava.h “(His)
> designation is the pranava (pronouncement)”.*
>
>
>
> *Prairie Dog sez:*
>
> *Vajrayana Buddhism is esoteric, in the sense that the transmission of
> certain teachings only occurs directly from teacher to student during an
> initiation or empowerment and cannot be simply learned from a book.*
>
>
>
> Idiot! I’ve had a Vajrayana and Dzogchen teacher for a decade. You are
> only a stinking troll parroting something you read in a book. You don’t
> know shit about Vajrayana.
>
>
>
> *Prairie Dog sez:*
>
> *So, SSRS get the bija mantras from MMY without even becoming a TM
> teacher -  it has not been established where and from whom MMY got the list
> of bijas, but you only get one bija in TM - so how did MMY and SSRS get to
> know all the bija mantras? They probably read about the bija mantras in a
> yoga book. Because no TM teacher would give out seventeen different bijas
> to one student. Go figure.*
>
>
>
> Brahmarishi Devarata said that the supreme bija of the Rg Veda is *Im,*of 
> Yajur Veda is
> *Shri* and of the Upanishads is the pranava *Om*.
>
>
>
> The supreme bija of Prairie Dog yoga is *Duh*!
>
> ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>
> It is a fact that here are no bija mantras mentioned in the Rig Veda. So,
> how would the SSRS know any bijas from being a Vedic Pandit?
>
> There are no bija mantras mentioned by Patanjali. The historical Buddha
> doesn't mention any bija mantras. So, the bija mantras usage must have come
> AFTER the rise of Buddhism (463 BC) in India and Patanjali's Yoga Sutras
> (200 BC).
>
> The Siddha tradition of using bija mantras can be traced back to the
> Vajrayana Buddhism which probably began at Odisha, or in the modern day
> Swat Valley in what is now Pakistan during the Gupta Age. Vajrayana
> Buddhism is esoteric, in the sense that the transmission of certain
> teachings only occurs directly from teacher to student during an initiation
> or empower

[FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[emptybill]

Prairie Dog Troll
 

 You are such an ignorant, pseudo-intellectual bullshitter that you'll make any 
kind of claim just to appear like you know something. I would call you a liar 
but in actuality you are just arrogantly stupid.
 
 Patanjali talks extensively about OM you fool. He uses the standard vedic term 
pranava. See YS 1.27 -  tasya vâcaka.h pra.nava.h “(His) designation is the 
pranava (pronouncement)”.
  
 Prairie Dog sez:
 Vajrayana Buddhism is esoteric, in the sense that the transmission of certain 
teachings only occurs directly from teacher to student during an initiation or 
empowerment and cannot be simply learned from a book.
  
 Idiot! I’ve had a Vajrayana and Dzogchen teacher for a decade. You are only a 
stinking troll parroting something you read in a book. You don’t know shit 
about Vajrayana.
  
 Prairie Dog sez:
 So, SSRS get the bija mantras from MMY without even becoming a TM teacher -  
it has not been established where and from whom MMY got the list of bijas, but 
you only get one bija in TM - so how did MMY and SSRS get to know all the bija 
mantras? They probably read about the bija mantras in a  yoga book. Because no 
TM teacher would give out seventeen different bijas to one student. Go figure.
  
 Brahmarishi Devarata said that the supreme bija of the Rg Veda is Im, of Yajur 
Veda is Shri and of the Upanishads is the pranava Om. 
  
 The supreme bija of Prairie Dog yoga is Duh!
 
---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 It is a fact that here are no bija mantras mentioned in the Rig Veda. So, how 
would the SSRS know any bijas from being a Vedic Pandit?
 
 There are no bija mantras mentioned by Patanjali. The historical Buddha 
doesn't mention any bija mantras. So, the bija mantras usage must have come 
AFTER the rise of Buddhism (463 BC) in India and Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (200 
BC). 
 
 The Siddha tradition of using bija mantras can be traced back to the Vajrayana 
Buddhism which probably began at Odisha, or in the modern day Swat Valley in 
what is now Pakistan during the Gupta Age. Vajrayana Buddhism is esoteric, in 
the sense that the transmission of certain teachings only occurs directly from 
teacher to student during an initiation or empowerment and cannot be simply 
learned from a book. 
 
 So, SSRS get the bija mantras from MMY without even becoming a TM teacher -  
it has not been established where and from whom MMY got the list of bijas, but 
you only get one bija in TM - so how did MMY and SSRS get to know all the bija 
mantras? They probably read about the bija mantras in a  yoga book. Because no 
TM teacher would give out seventeen different bijas to one student. Go figure.
 
 On 10/26/2013 11:20 PM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote:
 
   SSRS, although a mahapundit of the four vedas, should have asked you first. 
Although he had a number of teachers other than MMY, he  obviously never asked 
permission from you - the "punditster". I'm sure he regrets the omission to 
this day.
 
 I'm also sure you could clarify his pronunciation of the riks, reveal the 
hidden connections between between the vaious chhanda-s. Maybe you could obtain 
the blessing of the deva-s and get him authorized for using these cheating 
bijas stolen from the Buddhists. 
 
  
 You should call him and offer to help him out. However, I wouldn't use your 
Prairie Dog credentials. Rather you should just introduce yourself as a pandit 
dedicated to cleaning up the fallen lineage of pseudo-pandits using fake bijas. 
You could give him a copy of the The Tantric Tradition by Leopold Fischer 
(agehananda bharati) and just point out "You need to read this and stop ripping 
everyone off!"
 
 
 
 So great of you to consider this. 
 
 
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:punditster@... wrote:
 
 Under whose authority would the SSRS be giving out any bija mantras? If you 
can't reveal where MMY got the bijas, so how could you say SSRS got any bijas? 
There aren't any bijas mentioned in the Vedas. From what I've read, SSRS, like 
Deepak Chopra and Charlie Lutes, never became TM teachers by completing a TTC. 
So, how would they be knowing any bijas? Go figure.
 
 On 10/24/2013 7:41 PM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote:
 

 Authfriend: Today at 8:16 AM 
 
 
 
 
 So what would the problem be if "OM" wasn't included in a maha-mantra but 
rather along with, say, a bija mantra like what TM uses? Did Sri Sri give out 
bija mantras, or just the maha-mantras?
 
 
 SSRS does indeed give out bija-mantras for meditation. However, I was never 
taught his sahaj-meditation technique so I did not receive one of his chosen 
meditation bija-mantras. 
 
 
 
 What I asked him for (asked four times over a 7 year period) was 
"guru-mantra". When he finally gave it to me it was a maha-mantra that "named" 
the source of our teaching lineage. If you consider the guru-puja which is 
performed at initiation then you can guess which  mantra. I received it

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[Richard J. Williams]

It is a fact that here are no bija mantras mentioned in the Rig Veda. 
So, how would the SSRS know any bijas from being a Vedic Pandit?


There are no bija mantras mentioned by Patanjali. The historical Buddha 
doesn't mention any bija mantras. So, the bija mantras usage must have 
come AFTER the rise of Buddhism (463 BC) in India and Patanjali's Yoga 
Sutras (200 BC).


The Siddha tradition of using bija mantras can be traced back to the 
Vajrayana Buddhism which probably began at Odisha, or in the modern day 
Swat Valley in what is now Pakistan during the Gupta Age. Vajrayana 
Buddhism is esoteric, in the sense that the transmission of certain 
teachings only occurs directly from teacher to student during an 
initiation or empowerment and cannot be simply learned from a book.


So, SSRS get the bija mantras from MMY without even becoming a TM 
teacher -  it has not been established where and from whom MMY got the 
list of bijas, but you only get one bija in TM - so how did MMY and SSRS 
get to know all the bija mantras? They probably read about the bija 
mantras in a  yoga book. Because no TM teacher would give out seventeen 
different bijas to one student. Go figure.


On 10/26/2013 11:20 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote:


SSRS, although a mahapundit of the four vedas, should have asked you 
first. Although he had a number of teachers other than MMY, he  
obviously never asked permission from you - the "punditster". I'm sure 
he regrets the omission to this day.


I'm also sure you could clarify his pronunciation of the riks, reveal 
the hidden connections between between the vaious chhanda-s. Maybe you 
could obtain the blessing of the deva-s and get him authorized for 
using these cheating bijas stolen from the Buddhists.


You should call him and offer to help him out. However, I wouldn't use 
your Prairie Dog credentials. Rather you should just introduce 
yourself as a pandit dedicated to cleaning up the fallen lineage of 
pseudo-pandits using fake bijas. You could give him a copy of the The 
Tantric Tradition by Leopold Fischer (agehananda bharati) and just 
point out "You need to read this and stop ripping everyone off!"



So great of you to consider this.



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

Under whose authority would the SSRS be giving out any bija mantras? 
If you can't reveal where MMY got the bijas, so how could you say SSRS 
got any bijas? There aren't any bijas mentioned in the Vedas. From 
what I've read, SSRS, like Deepak Chopra and Charlie Lutes, never 
became TM teachers by completing a TTC. So, how would they be knowing 
any bijas? Go figure.


On 10/24/2013 7:41 PM, emptybill@...  wrote:


Authfriend: Today at 8:16 AM

So what would the problem be if "OM" wasn't included in a maha-mantra 
but rather along with, say, a bija mantra like what TM uses? Did Sri 
Sri give out bija mantras, or just the maha-mantras?



*SSRS does indeed give out bija-mantras for meditation. However, I 
was never taught his sahaj-meditation technique so I did not receive 
one of his chosen meditation bija-mantras.

*

*
*

*What I asked him for (asked four times over a 7 year period) was 
"guru-mantra". When he finally gave it to me it was a maha-mantra 
that "named" the source of our teaching lineage. If you consider the 
guru-puja which is performed **at initiation **then you can guess 
which  mantra. I received it along with another one of SSRS's 
teachers who often stayed at my house. According to that teacher, he 
also received the same maha-mantra (it includes om).*



*I couldn't have asked for a better mantra. I use it after my 
tm-mantra and before I perform sanyama on a few select sutras that 
work especially well for me. *



*SSRS did tell me and that all the different bija-mantras naturally 
merge into the om sound at the finest level.

*


*BTW - the sankhya-yoga scholar said the same ... no problem with 
using om if sheltered in a longer mantra. *

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[Share Long]

yep, that's what I thought (-:





On Sunday, October 27, 2013 4:23 AM, "cardemais...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  
View Source
Card, maybe they made a typo and yom should really be yum. As in yummy soma. 
Also not to be taken seriously (-:

Well, to change 'yom' to 'yum' one only needs to move the dot
of the nikkud 'cholem vav' (o) inside the 'vav' , and it becomes
a shureq (u)... ???

https://www.google.fi/search?q=cholem+vav&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=BdtsUs_jJIiS4ASj9YH4AQ&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=631


https://www.google.fi/search?q=cholem+vav&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=BdtsUs_jJIiS4ASj9YH4AQ&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=631#q=shureq&tbm=isch


LOL!


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


Card, maybe they made a typo and yom should really be yum. As in yummy soma. 
Also not to be taken seriously (-:





On Thursday, October 24, 2013 2:08 AM, "cardemaister@..."  
wrote:
 
  
(Not to be taken all too seriously...)

Just as 'om' may be "embedded" in the word 'soma',
so in the tanakh (Hebrew Bible =~ Old Testament)
it may be embedded in the word 'yom' (day) that appears
several times in the first verses of bereshit (Genesis)...

[FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[cardemaister]

View Source
 Card, maybe they made a typo and yom should really be yum. As in yummy soma. 
Also not to be taken seriously (-:
 

 Well, to change 'yom' to 'yum' one only needs to move the dot
 of the nikkud 'cholem vav' (o) inside the 'vav' , and it becomes
 a shureq (u)... ???
 

 
https://www.google.fi/search?q=cholem+vav&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=BdtsUs_jJIiS4ASj9YH4AQ&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=631
 
https://www.google.fi/search?q=cholem+vav&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=BdtsUs_jJIiS4ASj9YH4AQ&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=631

 

 
https://www.google.fi/search?q=cholem+vav&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=BdtsUs_jJIiS4ASj9YH4AQ&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=631#q=shureq&tbm=isch
 
https://www.google.fi/search?q=cholem+vav&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=BdtsUs_jJIiS4ASj9YH4AQ&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=631#q=shureq&tbm=isch

 

 LOL!
 

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

 Card, maybe they made a typo and yom should really be yum. As in yummy soma. 
Also not to be taken seriously (-:
 

 
 
 On Thursday, October 24, 2013 2:08 AM, "cardemaister@..."  
wrote:
 
   (Not to be taken all too seriously...)
 

 Just as 'om' may be "embedded" in the word 'soma',
 so in the tanakh (Hebrew Bible =~ Old Testament)
 it may be embedded in the word 'yom' (day) that appears
 several times in the first verses of bereshit (Genesis)...
 

 

 
 

 
 



 
 
 
 


 

[FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[emptybill]

SSRS, although a mahapundit of the four vedas, should have asked you first. 
Although he had a number of teachers other than MMY, he  obviously never asked 
permission from you - the "punditster". I'm sure he regrets the omission to 
this day.

I'm also sure you could clarify his pronunciation of the riks, reveal the 
hidden connections between between the vaious chhanda-s. Maybe you could obtain 
the blessing of the deva-s and get him authorized for using these cheating 
bijas stolen from the Buddhists. 
  
 You should call him and offer to help him out. However, I wouldn't use your 
Prairie Dog credentials. Rather you should just introduce yourself as a pandit 
dedicated to cleaning up the fallen lineage of pseudo-pandits using fake bijas. 
You could give him a copy of the The Tantric Tradition by Leopold Fischer 
(agehananda bharati) and just point out "You need to read this and stop ripping 
everyone off!"

 

 So great of you to consider this. 

 

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

 Under whose authority would the SSRS be giving out any bija mantras? If you 
can't reveal where MMY got the bijas, so how could you say SSRS got any bijas? 
There aren't any bijas mentioned in the Vedas. From what I've read, SSRS, like 
Deepak Chopra and Charlie Lutes, never became TM teachers by completing a TTC. 
So, how would they be knowing any bijas? Go figure.
 
 On 10/24/2013 7:41 PM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote:
 

 Authfriend: Today at 8:16 AM 
 
 
 
 
 So what would the problem be if "OM" wasn't included in a maha-mantra but 
rather along with, say, a bija mantra like what TM uses? Did Sri Sri give out 
bija mantras, or just the maha-mantras?
 
 
 SSRS does indeed give out bija-mantras for meditation. However, I was never 
taught his sahaj-meditation technique so I did not receive one of his chosen 
meditation bija-mantras. 
 
 
 
 What I asked him for (asked four times over a 7 year period) was 
"guru-mantra". When he finally gave it to me it was a maha-mantra that "named" 
the source of our teaching lineage. If you consider the guru-puja which is 
performed at initiation then you can guess which  mantra. I received it along 
with another one of SSRS's teachers who often stayed at my house. According to 
that teacher, he also received the same maha-mantra (it includes om).
 
 
 I couldn't have asked for a better mantra. I use it after my tm-mantra and 
before I perform sanyama on a few select sutras that work especially well for 
me.  
 
 SSRS did tell me and that all the different bija-mantras naturally merge into 
the om sound at the finest level. 
 
 
 BTW - the sankhya-yoga scholar said the same ... no problem with using om if 
sheltered in a longer mantra.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

[FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[srijau]

"It is said that Narayana mantra can take you all the way" - Maharishi Mahesh 
Yogi. 

 there is versions that do not include om.
  
 

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

 Under whose authority would the SSRS be giving out any bija mantras? If you 
can't reveal where MMY got the bijas, so how could you say SSRS got any bijas? 
There aren't any bijas mentioned in the Vedas. From what I've read, SSRS, like 
Deepak Chopra and Charlie Lutes, never became TM teachers by completing a TTC. 
So, how would they be knowing any bijas? Go figure.
 
 On 10/24/2013 7:41 PM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote:
 

 Authfriend: Today at 8:16 AM 
 
 
 
 
 So what would the problem be if "OM" wasn't included in a maha-mantra but 
rather along with, say, a bija mantra like what TM uses? Did Sri Sri give out 
bija mantras, or just the maha-mantras?
 
 
 SSRS does indeed give out bija-mantras for meditation. However, I was never 
taught his sahaj-meditation technique so I did not receive one of his chosen 
meditation bija-mantras. 
 
 
 
 What I asked him for (asked four times over a 7 year period) was 
"guru-mantra". When he finally gave it to me it was a maha-mantra that "named" 
the source of our teaching lineage. If you consider the guru-puja which is 
performed at initiation then you can guess which  mantra. I received it along 
with another one of SSRS's teachers who often stayed at my house. According to 
that teacher, he also received the same maha-mantra (it includes om).
 
 
 I couldn't have asked for a better mantra. I use it after my tm-mantra and 
before I perform sanyama on a few select sutras that work especially well for 
me.  
 
 SSRS did tell me and that all the different bija-mantras naturally merge into 
the om sound at the finest level. 
 
 
 BTW - the sankhya-yoga scholar said the same ... no problem with using om if 
sheltered in a longer mantra.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[Richard J. Williams]

Under whose authority would the SSRS be giving out any bija mantras? If 
you can't reveal where MMY got the bijas, so how could you say SSRS got 
any bijas? There aren't any bijas mentioned in the Vedas. From what I've 
read, SSRS, like Deepak Chopra and Charlie Lutes, never became TM 
teachers by completing a TTC. So, how would they be knowing any bijas? 
Go figure.


On 10/24/2013 7:41 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote:


Authfriend: Today at 8:16 AM

So what would the problem be if "OM" wasn't included in a maha-mantra 
but rather along with, say, a bija mantra like what TM uses? Did Sri 
Sri give out bija mantras, or just the maha-mantras?



*SSRS does indeed give out bija-mantras for meditation. However, I was 
never taught his sahaj-meditation technique so I did not receive one 
of his chosen meditation bija-mantras.

*

*
*

*What I asked him for (asked four times over a 7 year period) was 
"guru-mantra". When he finally gave it to me it was a maha-mantra that 
"named" the source of our teaching lineage. If you consider the 
guru-puja which is performed **at initiation **then you can guess 
which  mantra. I received it along with another one of SSRS's teachers 
who often stayed at my house. According to that teacher, he also 
received the same maha-mantra (it includes om).*



*I couldn't have asked for a better mantra. I use it after my 
tm-mantra and before I perform sanyama on a few select sutras that 
work especially well for me. *



*SSRS did tell me and that all the different bija-mantras naturally 
merge into the om sound at the finest level.

*


*BTW - the sankhya-yoga scholar said the same ... no problem with 
using om if sheltered in a longer mantra. *

[FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[emptybill]

 
 Authfriend: Today at 8:16 AM 
 
 
 

 So what would the problem be if "OM" wasn't included in a maha-mantra but 
rather along with, say, a bija mantra like what TM uses? Did Sri Sri give out 
bija mantras, or just the maha-mantras?
 

 SSRS does indeed give out bija-mantras for meditation. However, I was never 
taught his sahaj-meditation technique so I did not receive one of his chosen 
meditation bija-mantras. 

 

 What I asked him for (asked four times over a 7 year period) was 
"guru-mantra". When he finally gave it to me it was a maha-mantra that "named" 
the source of our teaching lineage. If you consider the guru-puja which is 
performed at initiation then you can guess which  mantra. I received it along 
with another one of SSRS's teachers who often stayed at my house. According to 
that teacher, he also received the same maha-mantra (it includes om).
 

I couldn't have asked for a better mantra. I use it after my tm-mantra and 
before I perform sanyama on a few select sutras that work especially well for 
me.  

 SSRS did tell me and that all the different bija-mantras naturally merge into 
the om sound at the finest level. 

 
BTW - the sankhya-yoga scholar said the same ... no problem with using om if 
sheltered in a longer mantra.  

 
 
 
 


 

Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[Share Long]

thanks, wgm, very wonderful knowledge on and analogy about AUM...





On Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:57 PM, wgm4u  wrote:
 
  
A-U-M is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end of all creation.  
MMY once described AUM (paraphrased) like hearing a City from a distance, you 
can hear the drone of the City, only when you get up close can you distinguish 
the individual sounds. These individual sounds are the sounds of creation and 
the Ved, these individual sound vibrations ARE the Vedic Gods.

The Divine Mother is the source/essence/substance of them all;  all is AUM, and 
AUM is all.


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


SSRS teaches techniques that are very similar to the TM practice of MMY.  It's 
a matter of positioning and placement, Sudarsha Kriya is a hatha yoga asana and 
involves rhythmic breathing techniques in Vajrasana and Sukhasana. It's not 
complicated.

The similarity to Buddhist Yoga is obvious. It has already been
  established that SK and TM are just common Indian meditation
  exercises designed to relieve stress, similar to Buddhist
  meditation practices such as Kum Nye and Vippasana. 

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

However, it is doubtful that SSRS was ever initiated into any
  esoteric tantric school, so he wouldn't be knowing any secret bija
  mantras that he could issue with any authority. Everyone knows you
  have to agree to a non-disclosure agreement in order to learn from
  an authentic tantric guru. Go figure.

But, for the average pundit, espousing on OM seems an easy thing
  to pontificate about. After all, it worked for Lobsang Rampa and
  the Zen Master Rama. LoL!




On 10/24/2013 8:06 AM, emptybill@... wrote:
>
  
>SSRS, a vedic pandit, has given out OM as part of traditional
>maha-mantras. After receiving one from him, I asked the OM 
>
>question to a sankhya-yoga scholar, a former TMer and student of SSRS. He said 
>"No possible problem if included within a traditional maha-mantra ... like om 
>namo bhagavate vasudevaya."
>
>
>
>---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>
>
>He said OM was a mantra for recluses, I believe. It's in Beacon Light of
>the Himalayas.
>
>Buck wrote:
>
>
>So[m],  what was Maharishi's particular teaching on "Om"?  His was counter to 
>everything "Om", wasn't it.  He did not use "Om" in any of the mantras he 
>gave.  Succinctly, what was that?  What is unique about his Vedic studies 
>around "Om"?  I got a dressing down recently about how Maharishi saved India 
>around the understanding of  "Om".  What did he say that "Om" "aum" was so bad 
>that puts him opposed to "Om"?   While at the same time Brahmananda Saraswati 
>[Guru Dev] it seems was very in favor of "Om" spiritually.  See Guru Dev's 
>discourses.   Who do you believe?  What is your experience with "Om"?  I find 
>it the vibration of the giant electro-magnet of nature turning over in the 
>center of the Earth and unified sound of all of Nature and great to attune to 
>as such to spin and line up the chakras of the subtle system .  It seems the 
>energetic pre-condition that all the nervous systems on earth have evolved 
>with.  It runs deep as a vibration
 (when people sit up) in the Dome as a vortex.   Maharishi seems to have put 
the wammy of fear in to "Om" for the TM spiritual community.  Does that explain 
something about the TM community?  What is your experience with it and what was 
really said about it?  Just wondering, -Buck  
>
>
>---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>
>
>(Not to be taken all too seriously...) 
>
>
>Just as 'om' may be "embedded" in the word 'soma',
>so in the tanakh (Hebrew Bible =~ Old Testament)
>it may be embedded in the word 'yom' (day) that appears
>several times in the first verses of bereshit (Genesis)...
>
>
>
>

RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[wgm4u]

A-U-M is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end of all creation.  
MMY once described AUM (paraphrased) like hearing a City from a distance, you 
can hear the drone of the City, only when you get up close can you distinguish 
the individual sounds. These individual sounds are the sounds of creation and 
the Ved, these individual sound vibrations ARE the Vedic Gods.
 

 The Divine Mother is the source/essence/substance of them all;  all is AUM, 
and AUM is all.
 

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

 SSRS teaches techniques that are very similar to the TM practice of MMY.  It's 
a matter of positioning and placement, Sudarsha Kriya is a hatha yoga asana and 
involves rhythmic breathing techniques in Vajrasana and Sukhasana. It's not 
complicated.
 
 The similarity to Buddhist Yoga is obvious. It has already been established 
that SK and TM are just common Indian meditation exercises designed to relieve 
stress, similar to Buddhist meditation practices such as Kum Nye and Vippasana. 
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kum_Nye http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kum_Nye
 
 However, it is doubtful that SSRS was ever initiated into any esoteric tantric 
school, so he wouldn't be knowing any secret bija mantras that he could issue 
with any authority. Everyone knows you have to agree to a non-disclosure 
agreement in order to learn from an authentic tantric guru. Go figure.
 
 But, for the average pundit, espousing on OM seems an easy thing to 
pontificate about. After all, it worked for Lobsang Rampa and the Zen Master 
Rama. LoL!
 
 
 
 On 10/24/2013 8:06 AM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote:
 
   SSRS, a vedic pandit, has given out OM as part of traditional
 maha-mantras. After receiving one from him, I asked the OM 
 
 question to a sankhya-yoga scholar, a former TMer and student of SSRS. He said 
"No possible problem if included within a traditional maha-mantra ... like om 
namo bhagavate vasudevaya."
 
 
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
 He said OM was a mantra for recluses, I believe. It's in Beacon Light of
 the Himalayas.
 
 Buck wrote:
 
 So[m],  what was Maharishi's particular teaching on "Om"?  His was counter to 
everything "Om", wasn't it.  He did not use "Om" in any of the mantras he gave. 
 Succinctly, what was that?  What is unique about his Vedic studies around 
"Om"?  I got a dressing down recently about how Maharishi saved India around 
the understanding of  "Om".  What did he say that "Om" "aum" was so bad that 
puts him opposed to "Om"?   While at the same time Brahmananda Saraswati [Guru 
Dev] it seems was very in favor of "Om" spiritually.  See Guru Dev's 
discourses.   Who do you believe?  What is your experience with "Om"?  I find 
it the vibration of the giant electro-magnet of nature turning over in the 
center of the Earth and unified sound of all of Nature and great to attune to 
as such to spin and line up the chakras of the subtle system .  It seems the 
energetic pre-condition that all the nervous systems on earth have evolved 
with.  It runs deep as a vibration (when people sit up) in the Dome as a 
vortex.   Maharishi seems to have put the wammy of fear in to "Om" for the TM 
spiritual community.  Does that explain something about the TM community?  What 
is your experience with it and what was really said about it?  Just wondering, 
-Buck  
 
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:cardemaister@... wrote:
 
 (Not to be taken all too seriously...) 
 
 Just as 'om' may be "embedded" in the word 'soma',
 so in the tanakh (Hebrew Bible =~ Old Testament)
 it may be embedded in the word 'yom' (day) that appears
 several times in the first verses of bereshit (Genesis)...
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[Richard J. Williams]

SSRS teaches techniques that are very similar to the TM practice of 
MMY.  It's a matter of positioning and placement, Sudarsha Kriya is a 
hatha yoga asana and involves rhythmic breathing techniques in Vajrasana 
and Sukhasana. It's not complicated.


The similarity to Buddhist Yoga is obvious. It has already been 
established that SK and TM are just common Indian meditation exercises 
designed to relieve stress, similar to Buddhist meditation practices 
such as Kum Nye and Vippasana.


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

However, it is doubtful that SSRS was ever initiated into any esoteric 
tantric school, so he wouldn't be knowing any secret bija mantras that 
he could issue with any authority. Everyone knows you have to agree to a 
non-disclosure agreement in order to learn from an authentic tantric 
guru. Go figure.


But, for the average pundit, espousing on OM seems an easy thing to 
pontificate about. After all, it worked for Lobsang Rampa and the Zen 
Master Rama. LoL!




On 10/24/2013 8:06 AM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote:


SSRS, a vedic pandit, has given out OM as part of traditional

maha-mantras. After receiving one from him, I asked the OM

question to a sankhya-yoga scholar, a former TMer and student of SSRS. 
He said "No possible problem if included within a traditional 
maha-mantra ... like om namo bhagavate vasudevaya."




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

*He said OM was a mantra for recluses, I believe. It's in Beacon Light of*

*the Himalayas.*

*
Buck wrote:*

So[m],  what was Maharishi's particular teaching on "Om"?  His was 
counter to everything "Om", wasn't it.  He did not use "Om" in any of 
the mantras he gave.  Succinctly, what was that?  What is unique about 
his Vedic studies around "Om"?  I got a dressing down recently about 
how Maharishi saved India around the understanding of  "Om".  What did 
he say that "Om" "aum" was so bad that puts him opposed to "Om"?   
While at the same time Brahmananda Saraswati [Guru Dev] it seems was 
very in favor of "Om" spiritually.  See Guru Dev's discourses.   Who 
do you believe?  What is your experience with "Om"?  I find it the 
vibration of the giant electro-magnet of nature turning over in the 
center of the Earth and unified sound of all of Nature and great to 
attune to as such to spin and line up the chakras of the subtle system 
.  It seems the energetic pre-condition that all the nervous systems 
on earth have evolved with.  It runs deep as a vibration (when people 
sit up) in the Dome as a vortex.   Maharishi seems to have put the 
wammy of fear in to "Om" for the TM spiritual community.  Does that 
explain something about the TM community?  What is your experience 
with it and what was really said about it?  Just wondering, -Buck




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

(Not to be taken all too seriously...)

Just as 'om' may be "embedded" in the word 'soma',
so in the tanakh (Hebrew Bible =~ Old Testament)
it may be embedded in the word 'yom' (day) that appears
several times in the first verses of bereshit (Genesis)...

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[Richard J. Williams]

Yeah, all those god men can't compare to all the good you've done for 
India. LoL!


On 10/24/2013 7:42 AM, Michael Jackson wrote:


Whomever gave you the dressing down only needs to look at a few news 
articles about the current state of India to know that neither Marshy 
nor any of these other supposed god men has done a damn thing to 
"save" India.


On Thu, 10/24/13, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com  wrote:

Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, October 24, 2013, 11:07 AM


























So[m],  what was Maharishi's particular
teaching on "Om"?  His was counter to
everything "Om", wasn't it.  He did not
use "Om" in any of the mantras he gave.
 Succinctly, what was that?  What is unique about
his Vedic studies around "Om"?  I got a
dressing down recently about how Maharishi saved India
around the understanding of  "Om".  What
did he say that "Om" "aum" was so bad
that puts him opposed to "Om"?   While at the
same time Brahmananda Saraswati [Guru Dev] it seems was very
in favor of "Om" spiritually.  See Guru
Dev's discourses.   Who do you believe?  What
is your experience with "Om"?  I find it the
vibration of the giant electro-magnet of nature turning over
in the center of the Earth and unified sound of all of
Nature and great to attune to as such to spin and line up
the chakras of the subtle system .  It seems the
energetic pre-condition that all the nervous systems on
earth have evolved with.  It runs deep as a vibration
(when people sit up) in the Dome as a vortex.
Maharishi seems to have put the wammy of fear in to
"Om" for the TM spiritual community.  Does
that explain something about the TM community?  What is
your experience with it and what was really said about it?
 Just wondering, -Buck

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

(Not to be taken
all too seriously...)
Just as 'om' may be "embedded"
in the word 'soma',so in the tanakh
(Hebrew Bible =~ Old Testament)it may be embedded
in the word 'yom' (day) that
appearsseveral times in the first verses of
bereshit (Genesis)...

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[Richard J. Williams]

'OM" it is of relatively recent oirgin, from the time of Pannini, who 
arranged Sanskrit into a written language. OM is a symbol that was 
invented by the Indian alchemists much later than Pannini, in order to 
make their system seem profound and esoteric.


'Om" is nothing more than a phoneme, or a quasi phoneme, made up by 
Brahmins in order to confuse the people. It is merely a salutation, 
similar to the Latin 'Amen', a phrase meaning 'So be it'.


It is not a 'bija' mantra at all. If chanting 'OM' had been a known 
means of liberation, it would have been mentioned by the historical 
Buddha, or carved onto an Ashokan Pillar or something.


In reality, the 'OM' 'sound' is just another instance of the Indian 
proclivity for making simple things seem mysterious. It is a 'mantra' by 
courtesy only, according to Swami Ageananda Bharati, the author of the 
definitive work on mantra, 'The Tantric Tradition'.


Work cited:

'The Tantric Tradition'
Ageananda Bharati
Rider, 1965


On 10/24/2013 6:07 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote:


So[m],  what was Maharishi's particular teaching on "Om"?  His was 
counter to everything "Om", wasn't it.  He did not use "Om" in any of 
the mantras he gave.  Succinctly, what was that?  What is unique about 
his Vedic studies around "Om"?  I got a dressing down recently about 
how Maharishi saved India around the understanding of  "Om".  What did 
he say that "Om" "aum" was so bad that puts him opposed to "Om"?   
While at the same time Brahmananda Saraswati [Guru Dev] it seems was 
very in favor of "Om" spiritually.  See Guru Dev's discourses.   Who 
do you believe?  What is your experience with "Om"?  I find it the 
vibration of the giant electro-magnet of nature turning over in the 
center of the Earth and unified sound of all of Nature and great to 
attune to as such to spin and line up the chakras of the subtle system 
.  It seems the energetic pre-condition that all the nervous systems 
on earth have evolved with.  It runs deep as a vibration (when people 
sit up) in the Dome as a vortex.   Maharishi seems to have put the 
wammy of fear in to "Om" for the TM spiritual community.  Does that 
explain something about the TM community?  What is your experience 
with it and what was really said about it?  Just wondering, -Buck




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

(Not to be taken all too seriously...)

Just as 'om' may be "embedded" in the word 'soma',
so in the tanakh (Hebrew Bible =~ Old Testament)
it may be embedded in the word 'yom' (day) that appears
several times in the first verses of bereshit (Genesis)...

[FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[emptybill]

SSRS, a vedic pandit, has given out OM as part of traditional
 maha-mantras. After receiving one from him, I asked the OM 

 question to a sankhya-yoga scholar, a former TMer and student of SSRS. He said 
"No possible problem if included within a traditional maha-mantra ... like om 
namo bhagavate vasudevaya."

 

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

 He said OM was a mantra for recluses, I believe. It's in Beacon Light of
 the Himalayas.
 
Buck wrote:
 
 So[m],  what was Maharishi's particular teaching on "Om"?  His was counter to 
everything "Om", wasn't it.  He did not use "Om" in any of the mantras he gave. 
 Succinctly, what was that?  What is unique about his Vedic studies around 
"Om"?  I got a dressing down recently about how Maharishi saved India around 
the understanding of  "Om".  What did he say that "Om" "aum" was so bad that 
puts him opposed to "Om"?   While at the same time Brahmananda Saraswati [Guru 
Dev] it seems was very in favor of "Om" spiritually.  See Guru Dev's 
discourses.   Who do you believe?  What is your experience with "Om"?  I find 
it the vibration of the giant electro-magnet of nature turning over in the 
center of the Earth and unified sound of all of Nature and great to attune to 
as such to spin and line up the chakras of the subtle system .  It seems the 
energetic pre-condition that all the nervous systems on earth have evolved 
with.  It runs deep as a vibration (when people sit up) in the Dome as a 
vortex.   Maharishi seems to have put the wammy of fear in to "Om" for the TM 
spiritual community.  Does that explain something about the TM community?  What 
is your experience with it and what was really said about it?  Just wondering, 
-Buck  
 

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

 (Not to be taken all too seriously...) 

 Just as 'om' may be "embedded" in the word 'soma',
 so in the tanakh (Hebrew Bible =~ Old Testament)
 it may be embedded in the word 'yom' (day) that appears
 several times in the first verses of bereshit (Genesis)...
 

 


 



 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[Michael Jackson]

Whomever gave you the dressing down only needs to look at a few news articles 
about the current state of India to know that neither Marshy nor any of these 
other supposed god men has done a damn thing to "save" India.

On Thu, 10/24/13, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com  wrote:

 Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Thursday, October 24, 2013, 11:07 AM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
   
   
   So[m],  what was Maharishi's particular
 teaching on "Om"?  His was counter to
 everything "Om", wasn't it.  He did not
 use "Om" in any of the mantras he gave.
  Succinctly, what was that?  What is unique about
 his Vedic studies around "Om"?  I got a
 dressing down recently about how Maharishi saved India
 around the understanding of  "Om".  What
 did he say that "Om" "aum" was so bad
 that puts him opposed to "Om"?   While at the
 same time Brahmananda Saraswati [Guru Dev] it seems was very
 in favor of "Om" spiritually.  See Guru
 Dev's discourses.   Who do you believe?  What
 is your experience with "Om"?  I find it the
 vibration of the giant electro-magnet of nature turning over
 in the center of the Earth and unified sound of all of
 Nature and great to attune to as such to spin and line up
 the chakras of the subtle system .  It seems the
 energetic pre-condition that all the nervous systems on
 earth have evolved with.  It runs deep as a vibration
 (when people sit up) in the Dome as a vortex.  
 Maharishi seems to have put the wammy of fear in to
 "Om" for the TM spiritual community.  Does
 that explain something about the TM community?  What is
 your experience with it and what was really said about it?
  Just wondering, -Buck   
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,
  wrote:
 
 (Not to be taken
 all too seriously...)
 Just as 'om' may be "embedded"
 in the word 'soma',so in the tanakh
 (Hebrew Bible =~ Old Testament)it may be embedded
 in the word 'yom' (day) that
 appearsseveral times in the first verses of
 bereshit (Genesis)...
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[dhamiltony2k5]

So[m],  what was Maharishi's particular teaching on "Om"?  His was counter to 
everything "Om", wasn't it.  He did not use "Om" in any of the mantras he gave. 
 Succinctly, what was that?  What is unique about his Vedic studies around 
"Om"?  I got a dressing down recently about how Maharishi saved India around 
the understanding of  "Om".  What did he say that "Om" "aum" was so bad that 
puts him opposed to "Om"?   While at the same time Brahmananda Saraswati [Guru 
Dev] it seems was very in favor of "Om" spiritually.  See Guru Dev's 
discourses.   Who do you believe?  What is your experience with "Om"?  I find 
it the vibration of the giant electro-magnet of nature turning over in the 
center of the Earth and unified sound of all of Nature and great to attune to 
as such to spin and line up the chakras of the subtle system .  It seems the 
energetic pre-condition that all the nervous systems on earth have evolved 
with.  It runs deep as a vibration (when people sit up) in the Dome as a 
vortex.   Maharishi seems to have put the wammy of fear in to "Om" for the TM 
spiritual community.  Does that explain something about the TM community?  What 
is your experience with it and what was really said about it?  Just wondering, 
-Buck  
 

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

 (Not to be taken all too seriously...) 

 Just as 'om' may be "embedded" in the word 'soma',
 so in the tanakh (Hebrew Bible =~ Old Testament)
 it may be embedded in the word 'yom' (day) that appears
 several times in the first verses of bereshit (Genesis)...