[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm hardly the only person to have made this > observation (and I made it independently, > before learning that others had made it as > well, just on the strength of the similarities). > It seems rather strange, Vaj, that with all > your vast knowledge of MMY's teaching ... Joke of the Day :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Karma is what tradition would state, not "stress". > > > > > > Actually, "stress" in MMY's lingo refers to samskaras, [restoring snipped portion] > impressions left in the mind of past experiences (in > this or previous lives). In the yogic tradition, > they're said to be the imprints of past karmas > (actions) that compel new actions/reactions in the > present. > > Note that stress can be "eustress" (from positive > experiences) or "distress" (from negative experiences), > per Hans Selye; the same is true of samskaras. > > The parallel between Selye's "stress" and samskaras > isn't perfect, although there are many common elements. > MMY uses "stress" simply as a translation of "samskaras," > rather than strictly in the Selyean sense. > > MMY believes, of course, that everything mental has > a physical (or neurophysiological) correlate (including > the "subtle" nervous system). TM is said to allow the > release of the physical/neurophysiological correlates > of mental impressions (samskaras), which results in the > dissolution of the mental impressions as well. > > Generally one > > would practice a technique to resolve the karmic eddies that > > still exist in the pranic body. Once practicing such a > > technique, then one can follow various signs to see how that's > > working. MMY's position is a marketable one, that's all, > > otherwise it's utterly fallacious and misleading. > > Of course, it's neither. It's *simplified*, but > conceptually it's pretty straight yogic theory a > la Patanjali. > If this is indeed what he's referring to, then please > quote a source showing the equivalency in MMB's own words. Who's "MMB"? If you mean MMY, I don't have a quote, but none is needed. If you know what samskaras are, and you've ever heard MMY talking about "stress," the equivalence is ridiculously obvious. I'm hardly the only person to have made this observation (and I made it independently, before learning that others had made it as well, just on the strength of the similarities). It seems rather strange, Vaj, that with all your vast knowledge of MMY's teaching and the yogic teaching, you wouldn't have made the association on your own. For that matter, MMY isn't the only one to have adopted the term "stress" to refer to samskaras. See, for instance, this from Swami Satyananda Saraswati (student of Sivananda): http://tinyurl.com/2gevpa > If indeed it is, and I suspect you may be right, the mediator is > indeed the pranic body and it's karmic eddies not the physical > nervous system (as oft advertised in TMO tracts). > > There may indeed be a physical component in the nervous system, > e.g. glia with an extremely short time span unmeasurable by > current medical imaging technology or some short biological half- > life fast neurotransmitters, but currently there is no tangible > evidence to definitely arrive at such a conclusion. There are a lot of things in yogic theory for which there is no "tangible evidence."
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--No need to separate out one body from another. It's a package deal. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On May 28, 2007, at 11:50 AM, cardemaister wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 2007, at 9:23 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: > > > > > > > > > > This just verifies what I've stated here numerous times, > > > > > > that the TM myth of physical stress release from the > > > > > > physical nervous system was fallacious. Where stress is > > > > > > being released is in the pranic body or vajra body. It is > > > > > > the pranic body that evolves. > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand the inconsistency between MMY's position, > > > > > your's, and Muktananda's. > > > > > > > > > > Whether it's the "pranic body or vajra body" (although I'm not > > > > > sure what "vajra body" is), isn't that still on the relative > > > > > level? Whether it's actual physical body or subtle, the stress > > > > > (or karma) is still stored there and has to be released. > > > > > > > > Karma is what tradition would state, not "stress". > > > > > > Actually, "stress" in MMY's lingo refers to samskaras, > > > > The word "saMskaara" is actually almost the "same" as > > Sanskrit in, well, Sanskrit -- which is "saMskRta". > > That word, "saM-s-kRta", consists of the perfect participle > > of the root "kR" (to do, etc), with the prefix "sam" > > (together, etc.), and a transition consonant, or perhaps, > > as per Whitney, an original consonant that's lost from > > most other forms of the root "kR", which would thus have > > been originally *skR (in linguistics asterix is used to > > indicate hypothetical word forms). > > The word "saMskaara" differs from "saMskRta" in that > > the second part is a noun, "kaara", from the same root "kR". > > > If this is indeed what he's referring to, then please quote a source > showing the equivalency in MMB's own words. > > If indeed it is, and I suspect you may be right, the mediator is > indeed the pranic body and it's karmic eddies not the physical > nervous system (as oft advertised in TMO tracts). > > There may indeed be a physical component in the nervous system, e.g. > glia with an extremely short time span unmeasurable by current > medical imaging technology or some short biological half-life fast > neurotransmitters, but currently there is no tangible evidence to > definitely arrive at such a conclusion. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > I know that many people don't like to consider this, > > > and find some comfort or inspiration in believing > > > that Christ was NOT human, and that he was somehow > > > "divine" and the literal Son Of God. > > > > Actually, Christian doctrine is that Jesus was > > *both* fully human *and* fully divine, not one > > or the other. The belief that he was purely divine > > and not human is one of the oldest heresies, > > called Docetism (a later variant was called > > Monophysitism). > > Judy, you are correct regarding the Christian doctrine about Jesus > being both human and divine. > > For some reason, I can't help thinking about the status of Krishna in > theological terms, assuming he was indeed a valid historical figure. > Since he too was born of a human mother, it is possible to say the > same thing about Krishna. But, upon reading the Shrimad Bhagavatam, > I would hazard to guess that the Krishna devotees would consider > Krishna to be divine only. > > Nonetheless, I remember reading that Prabhupada believed Krishna and > Jesus were one and the same. From the Hindu point of view, it is > possible to consider Jesus as another incarnation of Krishna. What's the line from the Gita, "To protect the righteous and destroy the wicked, I take birth again and again"? Something like that. I'm not actually a believer in either Hindu or Christian theology. I'm inclined to think that a human bean who has achieved his or her full potential is likely to be so extraordinary that religious people will *assume* he or she is divine. > > I don't find > > > that inspiring. Where is the impetus for someone > > > to follow his example if Christ only got to where > > > he got to, consciousness-wise, because he was > > > "special." I find inspiration in the idea that > > > he was Just Another Human, just like me and you. > > > If he could do the things he did *as* a human, > > > then so can we. If the only reason that he could > > > do them was because he was "special," then we > > > *can't* aspire to doing those things. > > > > John 14:10: > > > > He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he > > do also; and greater works than these shall he do. > > Bravo! You do good research. Thankew! That saying has always stuck in my mind, though, so except for the chapter and verse numbers, I can't really call it research (although at my age, calling something to mind is often as much work as research).
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > The word "saMskaara" is actually almost the "same" as
> > Sanskrit in, well, Sanskrit -- which is "saMskRta".
> > That word, "saM-s-kRta", consists of the perfect participle
> > of the root "kR" (to do, etc), with the prefix "sam"
> > (together, etc.), and a transition consonant, or perhaps,
> > as per Whitney, an original consonant that's lost from
> > most other forms of the root "kR", which would thus have
> > been originally *skR (in linguistics asterix is used to
> > indicate hypothetical word forms).
> > The word "saMskaara" differs from "saMskRta" in that
> > the second part is a noun, "kaara", from the same root "kR".
>
>
> If this is indeed what he's referring to, then please quote a
source
> showing the equivalency in MMB's own words.
>
> If indeed it is, and I suspect you may be right, the mediator is
> indeed the pranic body and it's karmic eddies not the physical
> nervous system (as oft advertised in TMO tracts).
>
> There may indeed be a physical component in the nervous system,
e.g.
> glia with an extremely short time span unmeasurable by current
> medical imaging technology or some short biological half-life
fast
> neurotransmitters, but currently there is no tangible evidence to
> definitely arrive at such a conclusion.
>
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the words "saMskRta" and
"saMskaara" have anything at all in common as to their respective
meanings in those contexts (refined language vs. mental impressions
from previous lifetimes) although one might come to that conclusion
from what I wrote.
Here are the dictionary definitions of both of those words:
saMskRta (or %{sa4M-skRta}) mfn. put together , constructed , well
or completely formed , perfected Lalit. ; made ready , prepared ,
completed , finished RV. &c. &c.: dressed , cooked (as food) MBh. R.
BhP. ; purified , consecrated , sanctified , hallowed , initiated
S3Br. &c. &c. ; refined , adorned , ornamented , polished , highly
elaborated (esp. applied to highly wrought speech , such as the
Sanskr2it language as opp , to the vernaculars) Mn. MBh. &c. ; m. a
man of one of the three classes who has been sanctified by the
purificatory rites W. ; a Iearned man MW. ; a word formed according
to accurate rules , a regular derivation ib. ; (%{a4m}) n. making
ready , preparation or a prepared place , sacrifice RV. TS. S3Br.
Gr2S3rS. ; a sacred usage or custom MW. ; the Sanskr2it language
(cf. above) S3iksh. Bhar. Das3ar. &c. ; %{-tva} n. the being
prepared or made ready &c. Jaim. ; %{-maJjarI} f. N. of wk. ; %{-
maya} mf(%{I}) u. consisting of Sanskr2it , Ka1s3ikh. ; %{-mAlA} f. %
{-ratna-mAlA} f. %{-vAkya-ratnA7valI} f. N. of wks. ; %{-vat} mfn.
one who has perfected or elaborated or finished MW. ; %{-tA7tman} m.
one who has received the purificatory rites Mn. x , 110 ; a sage
W. ; %{-to7kti} f. refined or polished language , a Sanskr2it word
or expression Hit. [1121,1]
saMskAra m. (ifc. f. %{A}) putting together , forming well , making
perfect , accomplishment , embellishment adornment , purification ,
cleansing , making ready , preparation , dressing (of food) ,
refining (of metals) , polishing (of gems) , rearing (of animals or
plants) Gr2S3rS. MBh. Ka1v. , &c. ; cleansing the body , toilet ,
attire Hariv. ; forming the mind , training , education R. Ragh. ;
correction (also in an astronomical sense Su1ryas.) , correct
formation or use of a word Nir. Sarvad. ; correctness , purity (esp.
of pronunciation or expression) MBh. R. &c. ; making sacred ,
hallowing , consecration Mn. MBh. &c. ; a sacred or sanctifying
ceremony , one which purifies from the taint of sin contracted in
the , womb and leading to regeneration (12 such ceremonies are
enjoined on the first three or twice-born classes in Mn. ii , 27 ,
viz. 1. %{garbhA7dhAna} , 2. %{puM-savana} , 3. %{sImanto7nnayana} ,
4. %{jAta-karman} , 5. %{nAmakarman} , 6. %{niSkramaNa} , 7. %{anna-
prA7zana} , 8. %{cUDA-karman} , 9. %{upanayana} , 10. %{kezA7nta} ,
11. %{samAvartana} , 12. %{vivAha} , qq. vv. ; accord. to Gaut.
viii , 8 &c. there are 40 Sam2ska1ras) Gr2S. Mn. MBh. &c. (IW.188 ;
192 &c. RTL. 353) [1120,3] ; the ceremony performed on a dead body
(i.e. cremation) R. ; any purificatory ceremony W. ; the faculty of
memory , ***mental impression or recollection , impression on
the mind of acts done in a former state of existence*** (one of
the 24 qualities of the Vais3eshikas , including %{bhAvanA} , the
faculty of reproductive imagination "') Kan2. Sarvad. (IW. 69) ;
(pl. , with Buddhists) a mental conformation or creation of the mind
(such as that of the external world , regarded by it as real ,
though actually non-existent , and forming the second link in the
twelvefold chain of causation or the fourth of the 5 Skandhas)
Dharmas. 22 ; 42 ; a polishing stone MW.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
On May 28, 2007, at 11:50 AM, cardemaister wrote: > > On May 25, 2007, at 9:23 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: > > > > > > This just verifies what I've stated here numerous times, > > > > that the TM myth of physical stress release from the > > > > physical nervous system was fallacious. Where stress is > > > > being released is in the pranic body or vajra body. It is > > > > the pranic body that evolves. > > > > > > I don't understand the inconsistency between MMY's position, > > > your's, and Muktananda's. > > > > > > Whether it's the "pranic body or vajra body" (although I'm not > > > sure what "vajra body" is), isn't that still on the relative > > > level? Whether it's actual physical body or subtle, the stress > > > (or karma) is still stored there and has to be released. > > > > Karma is what tradition would state, not "stress". > > Actually, "stress" in MMY's lingo refers to samskaras, The word "saMskaara" is actually almost the "same" as Sanskrit in, well, Sanskrit -- which is "saMskRta". That word, "saM-s-kRta", consists of the perfect participle of the root "kR" (to do, etc), with the prefix "sam" (together, etc.), and a transition consonant, or perhaps, as per Whitney, an original consonant that's lost from most other forms of the root "kR", which would thus have been originally *skR (in linguistics asterix is used to indicate hypothetical word forms). The word "saMskaara" differs from "saMskRta" in that the second part is a noun, "kaara", from the same root "kR". If this is indeed what he's referring to, then please quote a source showing the equivalency in MMB's own words. If indeed it is, and I suspect you may be right, the mediator is indeed the pranic body and it's karmic eddies not the physical nervous system (as oft advertised in TMO tracts). There may indeed be a physical component in the nervous system, e.g. glia with an extremely short time span unmeasurable by current medical imaging technology or some short biological half-life fast neurotransmitters, but currently there is no tangible evidence to definitely arrive at such a conclusion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > I know that many people don't like to consider this, > > and find some comfort or inspiration in believing > > that Christ was NOT human, and that he was somehow > > "divine" and the literal Son Of God. > > Actually, Christian doctrine is that Jesus was > *both* fully human *and* fully divine, not one > or the other. The belief that he was purely divine > and not human is one of the oldest heresies, > called Docetism (a later variant was called > Monophysitism). Judy, you are correct regarding the Christian doctrine about Jesus being both human and divine. For some reason, I can't help thinking about the status of Krishna in theological terms, assuming he was indeed a valid historical figure. Since he too was born of a human mother, it is possible to say the same thing about Krishna. But, upon reading the Shrimad Bhagavatam, I would hazard to guess that the Krishna devotees would consider Krishna to be divine only. Nonetheless, I remember reading that Prabhupada believed Krishna and Jesus were one and the same. From the Hindu point of view, it is possible to consider Jesus as another incarnation of Krishna. > I don't find > > that inspiring. Where is the impetus for someone > > to follow his example if Christ only got to where > > he got to, consciousness-wise, because he was > > "special." I find inspiration in the idea that > > he was Just Another Human, just like me and you. > > If he could do the things he did *as* a human, > > then so can we. If the only reason that he could > > do them was because he was "special," then we > > *can't* aspire to doing those things. > > John 14:10: > > He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he > do also; and greater works than these shall he do. Bravo! You do good research.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On May 25, 2007, at 9:23 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: > > > > > > This just verifies what I've stated here numerous times, > > > > that the TM myth of physical stress release from the > > > > physical nervous system was fallacious. Where stress is > > > > being released is in the pranic body or vajra body. It is > > > > the pranic body that evolves. > > > > > > I don't understand the inconsistency between MMY's position, > > > your's, and Muktananda's. > > > > > > Whether it's the "pranic body or vajra body" (although I'm not > > > sure what "vajra body" is), isn't that still on the relative > > > level? Whether it's actual physical body or subtle, the stress > > > (or karma) is still stored there and has to be released. > > > > Karma is what tradition would state, not "stress". > > Actually, "stress" in MMY's lingo refers to samskaras, The word "saMskaara" is actually almost the "same" as Sanskrit in, well, Sanskrit -- which is "saMskRta". That word, "saM-s-kRta", consists of the perfect participle of the root "kR" (to do, etc), with the prefix "sam" (together, etc.), and a transition consonant, or perhaps, as per Whitney, an original consonant that's lost from most other forms of the root "kR", which would thus have been originally *skR (in linguistics asterix is used to indicate hypothetical word forms). The word "saMskaara" differs from "saMskRta" in that the second part is a noun, "kaara", from the same root "kR".
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are two people here: you mention Mary of Magdala, > This is a different person than Mary Magdalene. No, same lady. "Magdalene" means "of Magdala" (just as "Nazarene" means "of Nazareth"). > From the New Testament, you know the story of Jesus saving Mary > Magdalene from death by stoning. No, actually the woman Jesus saves from stoning is anonymous. There's no hint anywhere in the Gospels that it was Mary Magdalene. There was a later *tradition* that Mary Magdalene had been a prostitute, but there's nothing in the Bible to support it. (Interestingly, the story of the woman taken in adultery, wonderful as it is, is almost certainly a later scribal addition, not originally in the Gospel of John. Whether that means it never happened is another issue entirely.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On May 25, 2007, at 9:23 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: > > > > This just verifies what I've stated here numerous times, > > > that the TM myth of physical stress release from the > > > physical nervous system was fallacious. Where stress is > > > being released is in the pranic body or vajra body. It is > > > the pranic body that evolves. > > > > I don't understand the inconsistency between MMY's position, > > your's, and Muktananda's. > > > > Whether it's the "pranic body or vajra body" (although I'm not > > sure what "vajra body" is), isn't that still on the relative > > level? Whether it's actual physical body or subtle, the stress > > (or karma) is still stored there and has to be released. > > Karma is what tradition would state, not "stress". Actually, "stress" in MMY's lingo refers to samskaras, impressions left in the mind of past experiences (in this or previous lives). In the yogic tradition, they're said to be the imprints of past karmas (actions) that compel new actions/reactions in the present. Note that stress can be "eustress" (from positive experiences) or "distress" (from negative experiences), per Hans Selye; the same is true of samskaras. The parallel between Selye's "stress" and samskaras isn't perfect, although there are many common elements. MMY uses "stress" simply as a translation of "samskaras," rather than strictly in the Selyean sense. MMY believes, of course, that everything mental has a physical (or neurophysiological) correlate (including the "subtle" nervous system). TM is said to allow the release of the physical/ neurophysiological correlates of mental impressions (samskaras), which results in the dissolution of the mental impressions as well. Generally one > would practice a technique to resolve the karmic eddies that > still exist in the pranic body. Once practicing such a > technique, then one can follow various signs to see how that's > working. MMY's position is a marketable one, that's all, > otherwise it's utterly fallacious and misleading. Of course, it's neither. It's *simplified*, but conceptually it's pretty straight yogic theory a la Patanjali.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know that many people don't like to consider this, > and find some comfort or inspiration in believing > that Christ was NOT human, and that he was somehow > "divine" and the literal Son Of God. Actually, Christian doctrine is that Jesus was *both* fully human *and* fully divine, not one or the other. The belief that he was purely divine and not human is one of the oldest heresies, called Docetism (a later variant was called Monophysitism). I don't find > that inspiring. Where is the impetus for someone > to follow his example if Christ only got to where > he got to, consciousness-wise, because he was > "special." I find inspiration in the idea that > he was Just Another Human, just like me and you. > If he could do the things he did *as* a human, > then so can we. If the only reason that he could > do them was because he was "special," then we > *can't* aspire to doing those things. John 14:10: He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert, again no disrespect intended, but you > should get a few books on the Bible and "read > up" before you spout off. There is not ONE > WORD in the Bible that characterizes Mary > Magdalene as a whore. Not one. This is correct. However: There is even > less in the other Gospels that were carefully > excised from the Bible. Actually, there were no Gospels "excised" (carefully or otherwise) from "the Bible." There was no Bible until well after a general consensus had developed (over centuries) about which of the many circulating Christian documents were the most authentic, important, and useful for teaching Christian doctrine. By that time, Gospels other than the Final Four had long since failed to qualify for inclusion. (It's a little like saying a minor baseball player was "excised" from the Baseball Hall of Fame when he had never been nominated for membership in the first place, let alone been inducted into it.) In ALL of them she > is characterized as a woman of high character, > on whom Jesus bestowed a great deal of attention. > She is often portrayed as his favorite, the one > to whom he gave certain teachings FIRST. > > The crap about her being a "whore" was added > *centuries* later, by woman-hating Paulists who > were looking for yet another excuse to put down > women and portray them as less evolved than a > man. On the other hand, she was elevated by these same people to become the poster child for successful repentance through belief in Jesus. If *even a prostitute* can repent and be saved, there's hope for everyone. > As for his marriage to Magdalene, that is not > stated overtly in even the excised Gospels, Again, there were no "excised Gospels." Rather, there were Gospels that were never considered for inclusion (the Gnostic Gospels, where most of the mentions of the Magdalene are found, were by definition heretical). > but can be inferred because he acted *publicly* > towards her in a manner that would have been > considered *inappropriate* at the time for a > rabbi who was not married to the woman he was > diaplaying this behavior with, but that would > have been perfectly appropriate if he had been > married to her. Not necessarily. If you're referring to the (Gnostic) Gospel of Philip, in which Jesus is said to have kissed her, that would have been fine with the Gnostics; kisses were a standard greeting of recognition among Gnostic initiates. Which...again...would have been > not only appropriate for a rabbi of the period, > but expected of him. It would have been more > unusual and inappropriate for a rabbi to remain > *unmarried* than it would have for one to be > married. Incorrect. It wouldn't have been *common*, but it wouldn't have been inappropriate either. The emphasis on marriage as a requirement for Jewish men was a considerably later (Talmudic) development. > I'm not ragging on you...you're just repeating > lies that have been carefully introduced into > the Catholic dogma for centuries, as if they > were true. But, as far as scholars can tell, > they are not. There is a *strong* case to be > made for Jesus being a *normal* rabbi of his > times, and being married, and an even stronger > case to be made for the person he was married > to being Mary of Magdala. Actually, there's just about zero evidence to this effect. Virtually everything we "know" about Jesus's life comes from the Gospels (both canonical and non-), but they really don't tell us much about who he was in the society in which he lived and worked, and a lot of what they *do* tell us is suspect. By the same token, though, we can't *rule out* that he was married. We just have no way of knowing. I'd be tickled if evidence came to light that Jesus wasn't celibate or that he was married. But there just ain't any at this point.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" > > wrote: > > > > > > Robert Gimbel wrote: > > > > Yeah, but, Ms. Magdalene was considered to be a whore, > > > > and I'm not sure that anyone would respect a Rabbi who > > > > married a whore. You remember that in that period of > > > > history, her fate would have been death, if Jesus had > > > > not intervened. Much like the women of Islam who would > > > > suffer the same fate, in this period of history, if > > > > anyone of them committed the same 'crime'. > > > > > > > You don't seem to be very familiar with the New Testament, > > > Robert. Mary of Magdala was not a "whore" unless you think > > > that she had sexual a relationship with Jesus. However, > > > this is not stated to be so in the Bible. > > > > > > So, where, exactly, did you get the idea that Mary of > > > Magdala was a "whore" who had sex with Jesus? From a > > > Gnostic source? If so, which one? > > > > There are two people here: you mention Mary of Magdala, > > This is a different person than Mary Magdalene. > > From the New Testament, you know the story of Jesus saving Mary > > Magdalene from death by stoning. I used the word whore for effect, > > but nonetheless, as the story goes, in the New Testament, she was > > sleeping with many men, as a prostitute. > > I'm gonna have to challenge you to produce the verses > of the New Testament to support this, Robert. > > You won't be able to, because nothing you say above > is true. > Time magazine has a decent intro to this topic: Mary Magdalene Saint or Sinner? A new wave of literature is cleaning up her reputation. How a woman of substance was "harlotized" http://www.danbrown.com/media/morenews/time.html The article makes clear that Mary M. was neither the woman who jesus saved from being stoned nor the woman simply called "a sinner" and assumed to be a prostitute. There is certainly nothing in the new testament about Mary M sleeping with many men. I mentioned yesterday that the Church apologized for Pope Gregory equating Mary M with the woman "the sinner" which promoted the prostitute myth, but apparently the Church didn't actually apologize but just clarified their doctrine that Mary M was neither the sinner nor Mary of Bethaney. What's interesting to me is how easily the myth of Mary M as a prostitute has filtered into christian awareness even though there's no basis for it at all. Almost as interesting is how easily they accept the phrase God the Father and not wonder about why's there's no God the Mother.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" > wrote: > > > > Robert Gimbel wrote: > > > Yeah, but, Ms. Magdalene was considered to be a whore, > > > and I'm not sure that anyone would respect a Rabbi who > > > married a whore. You remember that in that period of > > > history, her fate would have been death, if Jesus had > > > not intervened. Much like the women of Islam who would > > > suffer the same fate, in this period of history, if > > > anyone of them committed the same 'crime'. > > > > > You don't seem to be very familiar with the New Testament, > > Robert. Mary of Magdala was not a "whore" unless you think > > that she had sexual a relationship with Jesus. However, > > this is not stated to be so in the Bible. > > > > So, where, exactly, did you get the idea that Mary of > > Magdala was a "whore" who had sex with Jesus? From a > > Gnostic source? If so, which one? > > There are two people here: you mention Mary of Magdala, > This is a different person than Mary Magdalene. > From the New Testament, you know the story of Jesus saving Mary > Magdalene from death by stoning. I used the word whore for effect, > but nonetheless, as the story goes, in the New Testament, she was > sleeping with many men, as a prostitute. I'm gonna have to challenge you to produce the verses of the New Testament to support this, Robert. You won't be able to, because nothing you say above is true.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Robert Gimbel wrote: > > Yeah, but, Ms. Magdalene was considered to be a whore, > > and I'm not sure that anyone would respect a Rabbi who > > married a whore. You remember that in that period of > > history, her fate would have been death, if Jesus had > > not intervened. Much like the women of Islam who would > > suffer the same fate, in this period of history, if > > anyone of them committed the same 'crime'. > > > You don't seem to be very familiar with the New Testament, > Robert. Mary of Magdala was not a "whore" unless you think > that she had sexual a relationship with Jesus. However, > this is not stated to be so in the Bible. > > So, where, exactly, did you get the idea that Mary of > Magdala was a "whore" who had sex with Jesus? From a > Gnostic source? If so, which one? There are two people here: you mention Mary of Magdala, This is a different person than Mary Magdalene. >From the New Testament, you know the story of Jesus saving Mary Magdalene from death by stoning. I used the word whore for effect, but nonetheless, as the story goes, in the New Testament, she was sleeping with many men, as a prostitute. >From readings and other sources, through the years, I just have come to the conclusion, that Jesus had a very close relationship with Mary Magdalene... Whether or not there was a sexual connection is not important to me. And having a relationship with Jesus, would certainly not make her a 'whore'. A whore to me is someone who has sex, for the sake of sex, or for money- sex without love, that's all. Sex without love is not the same, as making love with someone you truely love. Sex is a part of being human. And I was just attempting to tweak the notion a bit: The notion that one can be spiritual and feel sexual too, yes? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "matrixmonitor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ---It's quite true that many people not doing any Sadhana are highly > evolved; but it's also true (imo) that they can be MORE highly > evolved by taking up some type of meditation practice, or perhaps > chanting.. Your opinion differs from that of MMY - since he clearly, > at one time believe in and expected an ideal objective to become > manifest: Make TM available to the entire world. > . My take on his objective: (no...not save the Cheerleader, save the > world); but get things right globally - spread the practice of TM to > as many people as possible. That's one of my objectives. What's > yours? Thanks for your input. > Of course, one can look at evolution from any materialist angle. > Chuck Yeager was highly evolved as a test pilot and was the first > person to break the sound barrier. > I agree that anyone doing any spiritual practice will accelerate their evolution. And I am in complete agreement that the more people do TM the better. On the other hand, many of the old meta thoughts of the earth's population and beyond seem to have grown obsolete very quickly in the past few years. No more juice. Sort of like MMY's declaration that test tube science is all but dead, or impotent for this task. Its a curious phenomenon, for I am enough of a realist and pragmatist to recognize that many souls continue to suffer, and the work is not done yet. On the other hand the days of actively generating momentum for the world's people to suffer less seems over. At least in conventional ways. The momentum carries on naturally now, habitually, spiritually, globally thoughtlessly. From a personal perspective, for example, I am far more interested when engaging others in public or socially that I can uplift them by expressing inclusive and loving values, keeping an open mind and heart. >From a meta perspective, there are siddhis-like practices that I have developed purely out of a desire to do so, that change the auric energy for large groups or individuals. There is a lot that I do with this second sight that changes the spiritual "weather", lightening the auric energy, absorbing atmospheric impurities in my gut, transforming the energy or opening a channel for Divine Light. This is not to be confused as something of a personal nature and I just do it to satisfy the Divine nature of my heart. And it is completely hidden from daily life and others. No one else sees it. It is not about "me" or "mine". These meta practices naturally evolve in any of us of with a genuine desire for positive world change. What form that desire specifically takes for each of us, no one can predict. It is according to desire, ability, and Dharma. And something more to watch with profound peace and gratitude, than get caught up in. There is never an absence of things to learn. I believe it is a fundamental desire in all of us to improve our surroundings and the lives of those around us. As basic as breathing. Once that is awakened it must be seen through to fruition. It feels to me as if that impulse is strong enough in the world that it has taken on a life of its own, through you, and me, and so many others. How that gets expressed, how it all fits together, and how the momentum for quantum change moves forward in this world cannot be rationally explained by any theory or formula, except in general terms. "If only everybody would..." is a dead empty phrase and thought these days, though will always be lively in the Heart of the Divine. The only thing that can be said with certainly is that this change is occurring very quickly, through each one of us who has awakened within ourselves the desire for a better world. So if we see MMY's ideas as seemingly insane or impractical initiatives, or continue to see areas of the world mired in trumoil and/or destruction, we can know in our hearts that underlying it all, there is the hidden half of the world, the shadow world, where darkness and ignorance are being embraced, blessed with light and assuming their rightful place, bowing ever in service to the Divine. This transformation of the earth can no longer be comprehended in purely human terms. The intellect is frozen or frustrated and frenzied in its ability to understand it. There is no "key evidence" for or against it any longer. Just know that those with such a desire for a new earth will have their day, and that day will not be postponed, because of the ever increasing numbers of earth's citizens sharing this simple, eternal and coherent desire. Is there anything that each of us must especially do? Not specifically. Just like there is nothing left to do when the Divine Mother and Father love their children, the result is ever expressed according to the myriad dynamics of the Dharma of world enlightenment; the kids will turn out allright. No worries, no comprehension i
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of boo_lives
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 6:46 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, but, Ms. Magdalene was considered to be a whore, and I'm not
> > sure that anyone would respect a Rabbi who married a whore.
> > You remember that in that period of history, her fate would have
> been
> > death, if Jesus had not intervened. Much like the women of Islam
The mary magdalene as whore lie was started by pope gregory long ago
without any support from the bible in an effort to denigrate women.
the catholic church apologized for this false accusation though not
until sometime last century as it served many of their purposes.
There would not have been any problem with jesus marrying mary
magdalene - in fact a rabbi being an unmarried celebate is what would
have been considered weird at the time.
Also, the woman whom Jesus saved from death by stoning ("Let him who is
without sin cast the first stone.") was a different woman - an accused
adulterer - not Mary Magdalene.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
On May 25, 2007, at 6:36 PM, qntmpkt wrote: ---Vaj, I know you're heavily into "tradition" but there's something called "new knowledge"; And you feel the blossoming of new knowledge isn't part of or hasn't happened in a tradition before? There's little "new" under the sun. Tradition is merely an authentic line of transmission, that's all, a river of transmission, it's not static. Don't think it means nothing new or unique happens. Something new or unique *always* happens as each person, unique in their own ways, awakens. but ultimately, the idea is to seek the truth, whether from tradition, authorities, Scriptures, one's own experience, heresay evidence;...better yet, everything together with one's own experience at the top of the list. This separates the true Gnostics from the TB. I see no reason to separate karma from stress and say it's only karma. Why not get rid of the bad karma AND the stress, on all levels. It's not an either/or proposition, unless one's Guru is only adept at helping you one one level and not another. I was not objecting to karma in my remarks but the insistence on "stress release" and the purification of the physical nervous system.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yeah, but, Ms. Magdalene was considered to be a whore, and I'm not > > sure that anyone would respect a Rabbi who married a whore. > > You remember that in that period of history, her fate would have > been > > death, if Jesus had not intervened. Much like the women of Islam The mary magdalene as whore lie was started by pope gregory long ago without any support from the bible in an effort to denigrate women. the catholic church apologized for this false accusation though not until sometime last century as it served many of their purposes. There would not have been any problem with jesus marrying mary magdalene - in fact a rabbi being an unmarried celebate is what would have been considered weird at the time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > Uh, with all due respect, the only thing Jesus > > has ever been "accused of," and in some of the > > Gospels excised from the Bible, no less, was > > that he was *married* to Mary Magdalene. Which, > > of course, would have been perfectly acceptable > > for a rabbi. > > > > One should be careful not to project one's modern > > hangups about sex onto a period of history in > > which they are inappropriate. > > > > As far as I can tell, the myth of Jesus' celibacy > > was made up long after his death by uptight men > > to justify their own inability to relate to half > > of the human race. > > Which brings us back to the theme of the Da Vinci Code. I believe > the author was trying to imagine the possibility of the divine and > humans, a product of the earth or matter, coming together as one. > Then, their descendants will perpetuate a new race of people here > on earth. Either that or the author (whom I do not defend and who I don't think a lot of as an author, and who stole all the material he based his book upon from other researchers) believes, as I do, that Christ was never "divine." That is, he was not in any way an "avatar." He was Just Another Human who realized the full potential of being human. I know that many people don't like to consider this, and find some comfort or inspiration in believing that Christ was NOT human, and that he was somehow "divine" and the literal Son Of God. I don't find that inspiring. Where is the impetus for someone to follow his example if Christ only got to where he got to, consciousness-wise, because he was "special." I find inspiration in the idea that he was Just Another Human, just like me and you. If he could do the things he did *as* a human, then so can we. If the only reason that he could do them was because he was "special," then we *can't* aspire to doing those things. Natch, I feel the same way towards those seekers who project "specialness" or "avatarhood" onto their modern-day teachers, whether those teachers be Maharishi or Mother Meera or whomever. I do *understand* the desire to believe that your teacher is "special" and be inspired by that thought, but I think that seekers are depriving themselves of a potentially *greater* source of inspiration by taking that route. If the teacher is cool because he or she is "special," that's one level of inspir- ation. But if the teacher is Just Another Human, just like us, and achieved cool *anyway*, then so can we.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ---Yea...Swami Muktananda - it appears from available > > > > > evidence > > > > > that he was quite adept at molesting underage Daughters of > > > > > his > > > > > disciples. > > > > > > > > And Bill Clinton brutally raped Juanita Broderick. > > > > > > > > So what? Whether it's true or untrue regarding what Clinton > > > > or > > > > Muktananda or Maharishi did, we won't know for sure until said > > > > gentlemen are brought to trial for these alleged crimes > > > > (assuming > > > > they are still alive). > > > > > > > > In the meantime we can take the positive stuff they said and > > > > did and dwell on that. > > > > > > Yes, and even Jesus now gets accused of all kinds of stuff > > > regarding Mary Magdalene- there's just now end to this kind > > > of gossipy thingy. > > > > Uh, with all due respect, the only thing Jesus > > has ever been "accused of," and in some of the > > Gospels excised from the Bible, no less, was > > that he was *married* to Mary Magdalene. Which, > > of course, would have been perfectly acceptable > > for a rabbi. > > > > One should be careful not to project one's modern > > hangups about sex onto a period of history in > > which they are inappropriate. > > > > As far as I can tell, the myth of Jesus' celibacy > > was made up long after his death by uptight men > > to justify their own inability to relate to half > > of the human race. > > Yeah, but, Ms. Magdalene was considered to be a whore, > and I'm not sure that anyone would respect a Rabbi who > married a whore. Robert, again no disrespect intended, but you should get a few books on the Bible and "read up" before you spout off. There is not ONE WORD in the Bible that characterizes Mary Magdalene as a whore. Not one. There is even less in the other Gospels that were carefully excised from the Bible. In ALL of them she is characterized as a woman of high character, on whom Jesus bestowed a great deal of attention. She is often portrayed as his favorite, the one to whom he gave certain teachings FIRST. The crap about her being a "whore" was added *centuries* later, by woman-hating Paulists who were looking for yet another excuse to put down women and portray them as less evolved than a man. As for his marriage to Magdalene, that is not stated overtly in even the excised Gospels, but can be inferred because he acted *publicly* towards her in a manner that would have been considered *inappropriate* at the time for a rabbi who was not married to the woman he was diaplaying this behavior with, but that would have been perfectly appropriate if he had been married to her. Which...again...would have been not only appropriate for a rabbi of the period, but expected of him. It would have been more unusual and inappropriate for a rabbi to remain *unmarried* than it would have for one to be married. I'm not ragging on you...you're just repeating lies that have been carefully introduced into the Catholic dogma for centuries, as if they were true. But, as far as scholars can tell, they are not. There is a *strong* case to be made for Jesus being a *normal* rabbi of his times, and being married, and an even stronger case to be made for the person he was married to being Mary of Magdala. > You remember that in that period of history, her fate > would have been death, if Jesus had not intervened. Possibly true, if it applied to Magdalene. It doesn't. She wasn't the woman in the Bible whom Jesus saved from stoning. Later misogynist priests of the Catholic Church promoted the idea that the two women were the same, again, in an attempt to put down women and characterize them as "fallen" and "not worthy." > Much like the women of Islam who would suffer the same > fate, in this period of history, if anyone of > them committed the same 'crime'. Again, true, but again, irrelevant. We're talking about the stories of the Bible. You will be unable to find any such stories characterizing Magdalene *IN* the Bible. They were all made up much later and added to the dogma of the Church. They are NOT present in the Bible itself. Are we clear now?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ---Yea...Swami Muktananda - it appears from available > evidence > > > > > that he was quite adept at molesting underage Daughters of > his > > > > > disciples. > > > > > > > > And Bill Clinton brutally raped Juanita Broderick. > > > > > > > > So what? Whether it's true or untrue regarding what Clinton or > > > > Muktananda or Maharishi did, we won't know for sure until said > > > > gentlemen are brought to trial for these alleged crimes > (assuming > > > > they are still alive). > > > > > > > > In the meantime we can take the positive stuff they said and > did > > > > and dwell on that. > > > > > > Yes, and even Jesus now gets accused of all kinds of stuff > > > regarding Mary Magdalene- there's just now end to this kind > > > of gossipy thingy. > > > > Uh, with all due respect, the only thing Jesus > > has ever been "accused of," and in some of the > > Gospels excised from the Bible, no less, was > > that he was *married* to Mary Magdalene. Which, > > of course, would have been perfectly acceptable > > for a rabbi. > > > > One should be careful not to project one's modern > > hangups about sex onto a period of history in > > which they are inappropriate. > > > > As far as I can tell, the myth of Jesus' celibacy > > was made up long after his death by uptight men > > to justify their own inability to relate to half > > of the human race. > > Yeah, but, Ms. Magdalene was considered to be a whore, and I'm not > sure that anyone would respect a Rabbi who married a whore. > You remember that in that period of history, her fate would have been > death, if Jesus had not intervened. Much like the women of Islam who > would suffer the same fate, in this period of history, if anyone of > them committed the same 'crime'. > The current gospels show her as a reformed person and is considered a saint. Kazantsakis, the author, has dealth with this possibility of Jesus' relationship with Magdalene. In any event, the Reverend Moon has picked up on this idea that Christ's true destiny was to get married and create a new race of people here on earth. This appears to be the reason why we see a lot of group marriages among the Moonies.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" wrote: > > > > > > > > ---Yea...Swami Muktananda - it appears from available evidence > > > > that he was quite adept at molesting underage Daughters of his > > > > disciples. > > > > > > And Bill Clinton brutally raped Juanita Broderick. > > > > > > So what? Whether it's true or untrue regarding what Clinton or > > > Muktananda or Maharishi did, we won't know for sure until said > > > gentlemen are brought to trial for these alleged crimes (assuming > > > they are still alive). > > > > > > In the meantime we can take the positive stuff they said and did > > > and dwell on that. > > > > Yes, and even Jesus now gets accused of all kinds of stuff > > regarding Mary Magdalene- there's just now end to this kind > > of gossipy thingy. > > Uh, with all due respect, the only thing Jesus > has ever been "accused of," and in some of the > Gospels excised from the Bible, no less, was > that he was *married* to Mary Magdalene. Which, > of course, would have been perfectly acceptable > for a rabbi. > > One should be careful not to project one's modern > hangups about sex onto a period of history in > which they are inappropriate. > > As far as I can tell, the myth of Jesus' celibacy > was made up long after his death by uptight men > to justify their own inability to relate to half > of the human race. Which brings us back to the theme of the Da Vinci Code. I believe the author was trying to imagine the possibility of the divine and humans, a product of the earth or matter, coming together as one. Then, their descendants will perpetuate a new race of people here on earth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" wrote: > > > > > > > > ---Yea...Swami Muktananda - it appears from available evidence > > > > that he was quite adept at molesting underage Daughters of his > > > > disciples. > > > > > > And Bill Clinton brutally raped Juanita Broderick. > > > > > > So what? Whether it's true or untrue regarding what Clinton or > > > Muktananda or Maharishi did, we won't know for sure until said > > > gentlemen are brought to trial for these alleged crimes (assuming > > > they are still alive). > > > > > > In the meantime we can take the positive stuff they said and did > > > and dwell on that. > > > > Yes, and even Jesus now gets accused of all kinds of stuff > > regarding Mary Magdalene- there's just now end to this kind > > of gossipy thingy. > > Uh, with all due respect, the only thing Jesus > has ever been "accused of," and in some of the > Gospels excised from the Bible, no less, was > that he was *married* to Mary Magdalene. Which, > of course, would have been perfectly acceptable > for a rabbi. > > One should be careful not to project one's modern > hangups about sex onto a period of history in > which they are inappropriate. > > As far as I can tell, the myth of Jesus' celibacy > was made up long after his death by uptight men > to justify their own inability to relate to half > of the human race. Yeah, but, Ms. Magdalene was considered to be a whore, and I'm not sure that anyone would respect a Rabbi who married a whore. You remember that in that period of history, her fate would have been death, if Jesus had not intervened. Much like the women of Islam who would suffer the same fate, in this period of history, if anyone of them committed the same 'crime'.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
---It's quite true that many people not doing any Sadhana are highly evolved; but it's also true (imo) that they can be MORE highly evolved by taking up some type of meditation practice, or perhaps chanting.. Your opinion differs from that of MMY - since he clearly, at one time believe in and expected an ideal objective to become manifest: Make TM available to the entire world. . My take on his objective: (no...not save the Cheerleader, save the world); but get things right globally - spread the practice of TM to as many people as possible. That's one of my objectives. What's yours? Thanks for your input. Of course, one can look at evolution from any materialist angle. Chuck Yeager was highly evolved as a test pilot and was the first person to break the sound barrier. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" wrote: > > > My ambition (among other things), is to find out what > > makes "ordinary" people -i.e. not on the Spiritual path - tick in > > terms of their reluctance to practice any type of Spiritual Sadhana. > > For the most part, I blame myself for not coming up with something > > demonstrable to offer them. Any talk of "pure Consciousness" only > > meets with a blank stare. > > Perhaps a dazzing display of Sidhis would turn such people on. What > > do you think? > > Another with mystic and unsatisfied eyes > Who loved his slain belief and mourned its death, > "Is there one left who seeks for a Beyond? > Can still the path be found, opened the gate?" > -- from Sri Aurobindo's Savitri. > > I find that in many respects people not on the spiritual path have no > compelling reason to be *on* a spiritual path. As I've said before, > none of the people I know at work, as acquaintances, as relatives, as > neighbors, or just meet casually are practicing any kind of spiritual > practice, and are for the most part happy, congenial, generous good > humored souls. Many of them I find to be extraordinarily evolved and > comfortable with themselves. > > The idea that many seekers hold, including myself at one time, that we > are somehow special is just not true. What is true is that TM and TMSP > works in such a way to very efficiently clean our bodies and the > earth's atmosphere of stress and tension. Nothing special about that > either, or really on par with the blessed souls that remove the refuse > from my house each and every week. Or the wonderful and generous > people who aid me in getting food at the store every week. Or the > dedicated tanker truck drivers who make it possible for me to drive my > car to work, and the enlightened souls at work who help to make each > and every day a joy for me. > > We each play our part, and to see others who may not have found the > unique set of circumstances in their lives that compel them to take up > some regular and evolving spiritual practice as lacking somehow is a > false view, imo. To hold the view that if only more people would > meditate, everything would be better is a great hope and desire. But I > have found it is best to be very careful with such thoughts; before > you know it the ego is splitting the world into us and them. > > Especially in the last ten years I have observed that many of the next > two generations of souls are really remarkably clear and evolved, much > more so than our generation was. It is a great credit to all of the > meditators to bring this about, to usher in an age where such great > souls feel comfortable alighting on earth in greater numbers. I see > them everywhere, especially the successively younger generations, > which reminds me of another excerpt from Sri Aurobindo's epic > poem, "Savitri": > > ...I saw them cross the twilight of an age, > The sun-eyed children of a marvelous dawn, > Great creators with wide brows of calm, > The massive barrier-breakers of the world, > Laborers in the quarries of the gods > The architects of immortality. > > Into the fallen human sphere they came, > Faces that wore the Immortal's glory still > Bodies made beautiful by the spirit's light > Carrying the Dionysian cup of joy, > Lips chanting an unknown anthem of the soul, > Feet echoing in the corridors of Time. > > High priests of wisdom, sweetness, might, and bliss; > Discoverers of beauty's sunlit ways > Their tread one day shall change the suffering earth > And justify the light on Nature's face. > (Savitri, pp. 3434) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps a dazzing display of Sidhis would turn such people on. What > do you think? Wow! I think you should consider writing a book on your various experiences with all these paths and gurus. It might reach a great many people, and would certainly be a whole lot of fun to read! Many thanks for your reply :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" wrote: > > > > > > ---Yea...Swami Muktananda - it appears from available evidence > > > that he was quite adept at molesting underage Daughters of his > > > disciples. > > > > And Bill Clinton brutally raped Juanita Broderick. > > > > So what? Whether it's true or untrue regarding what Clinton or > > Muktananda or Maharishi did, we won't know for sure until said > > gentlemen are brought to trial for these alleged crimes (assuming > > they are still alive). > > > > In the meantime we can take the positive stuff they said and did > > and dwell on that. > > Yes, and even Jesus now gets accused of all kinds of stuff > regarding Mary Magdalene- there's just now end to this kind > of gossipy thingy. Uh, with all due respect, the only thing Jesus has ever been "accused of," and in some of the Gospels excised from the Bible, no less, was that he was *married* to Mary Magdalene. Which, of course, would have been perfectly acceptable for a rabbi. One should be careful not to project one's modern hangups about sex onto a period of history in which they are inappropriate. As far as I can tell, the myth of Jesus' celibacy was made up long after his death by uptight men to justify their own inability to relate to half of the human race.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" wrote: > > > > ---Yea...Swami Muktananda - it appears from available evidence that > > he was quite adept at molesting underage Daughters of his > > disciples. > > > > And Bill Clinton brutally raped Juanita Broderick. > > So what? Whether it's true or untrue regarding what Clinton or > Muktananda or Maharishi did, we won't know for sure until said > gentlemen are brought to trial for these alleged crimes (assuming > they are still alive). > > In the meantime we can take the positive stuff they said and did and > dwell on that. Yes, and even Jesus now gets accused of all kinds of stuff regarding Mary Magdalene- there's just now end to this kind of gossipy thingy. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > When reading the following passage from Swami Muktananda's "Satsang > with Baba, Volume III" (August 18, 1972, page 122), I thought that it > was another explanation of the mechanics of stress release; that is, > that the thoughts we have during meditation are indications of stress > being released on the physical level: > > "According to the seers of the yogic scriptures, countless impressions > of past lives are embedded in the central nadi, sushumna. After > Kundalini becomes awake, these impressions start rising to the > surface. You should be aware that they are coming to the surface to be > ejected from the system. If you are aware of this truth, you will find > it entirely pointless to be concerned or overwhelmed by the feelings > that come to the conscious surface." This also has to do with 'witnessing' what is being released; As if it is not really 'you' that is being released, but a part of 'you' that has been there for a long time. So, witnessing or being with the self, or the 'simplest state of awareness', also helps in the healing and releasing process, and soothes the feeling of being overwhelmed. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My ambition (among other things), is to find out what > makes "ordinary" people -i.e. not on the Spiritual path - tick in > terms of their reluctance to practice any type of Spiritual Sadhana. > For the most part, I blame myself for not coming up with something > demonstrable to offer them. Any talk of "pure Consciousness" only > meets with a blank stare. > Perhaps a dazzing display of Sidhis would turn such people on. What > do you think? Another with mystic and unsatisfied eyes Who loved his slain belief and mourned its death, "Is there one left who seeks for a Beyond? Can still the path be found, opened the gate?" -- from Sri Aurobindo's Savitri. I find that in many respects people not on the spiritual path have no compelling reason to be *on* a spiritual path. As I've said before, none of the people I know at work, as acquaintances, as relatives, as neighbors, or just meet casually are practicing any kind of spiritual practice, and are for the most part happy, congenial, generous good humored souls. Many of them I find to be extraordinarily evolved and comfortable with themselves. The idea that many seekers hold, including myself at one time, that we are somehow special is just not true. What is true is that TM and TMSP works in such a way to very efficiently clean our bodies and the earth's atmosphere of stress and tension. Nothing special about that either, or really on par with the blessed souls that remove the refuse from my house each and every week. Or the wonderful and generous people who aid me in getting food at the store every week. Or the dedicated tanker truck drivers who make it possible for me to drive my car to work, and the enlightened souls at work who help to make each and every day a joy for me. We each play our part, and to see others who may not have found the unique set of circumstances in their lives that compel them to take up some regular and evolving spiritual practice as lacking somehow is a false view, imo. To hold the view that if only more people would meditate, everything would be better is a great hope and desire. But I have found it is best to be very careful with such thoughts; before you know it the ego is splitting the world into us and them. Especially in the last ten years I have observed that many of the next two generations of souls are really remarkably clear and evolved, much more so than our generation was. It is a great credit to all of the meditators to bring this about, to usher in an age where such great souls feel comfortable alighting on earth in greater numbers. I see them everywhere, especially the successively younger generations, which reminds me of another excerpt from Sri Aurobindo's epic poem, "Savitri": ...I saw them cross the twilight of an age, The sun-eyed children of a marvelous dawn, Great creators with wide brows of calm, The massive barrier-breakers of the world, Laborers in the quarries of the gods The architects of immortality. Into the fallen human sphere they came, Faces that wore the Immortal's glory still Bodies made beautiful by the spirit's light Carrying the Dionysian cup of joy, Lips chanting an unknown anthem of the soul, Feet echoing in the corridors of Time. High priests of wisdom, sweetness, might, and bliss; Discoverers of beauty's sunlit ways Their tread one day shall change the suffering earth And justify the light on Nature's face. (Savitri, pp. 3434)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--Question below: did I stray from TM while (during the period) Muktananda dug his fingers into my eyeballs, giving me Shaktipat? Ans: Nope...not straying, just continuing my overall research into various Gurus. I've always practiced TM since 1967 but wanted to confirm if there was anything else of value (in addition to TM, not replacing it), through my own experience. Is there? Yes: Buddhism but I'm still in the investigative stage and not quite ready to make any "pronouncements". Also, chanting the Gayatri mantra is of value. I got initiated into Eckankar in 1970, also Guru Maharaji gave me the "Knowledge" in 1970. In 1976 I was initiated by Thakur Singh, Darshan Singh, and Charan Singh, and Madhusadandasji.; and I met Muktananda in that year; (seeing him every day for several months in 1980). In 1982, the Kriya Yoga Guru Swami Satyeswarananda Giri initiated me. All of the foregoing was simply part of my ongoing research. Also, I've received intensive training in Fundamentalist Christianity, Hare Krishna philosophy;, Mormonism, and was baptized as a Mormon in 1981. I took refuge from 3 Buddhist teachers: Hsuan Hua (1976), somewhat later Sogyal Rinpoche, and Kalu Rinpoche. I worked at SIMS as a paid employee from 1970 - 1973 but got fired as a result of talking about various other Paths to people there...in L.A. But basically for the last 25 years, I've been closely observing people at work,who are not on the Spiritual path; since during that time among the many hundreds of people I've worked with, only 3 were "New Agers". One was into Sant Mat, one was into astrology, and another practiced Hatha Yoga. The rest are basically into Happy Hour and shopping at the Home Depot on weekends. However, I might add that there is a certain consistent percentage of co-workers - mainly Black females; who regularly go to their respective Evangelical Churches , sometimes 3X per week. Impressive!...if one is into Fundamentalism. My ambition (among other things), is to find out what makes "ordinary" people -i.e. not on the Spiritual path - tick in terms of their reluctance to practice any type of Spiritual Sadhana. For the most part, I blame myself for not coming up with something demonstrable to offer them. Any talk of "pure Consciousness" only meets with a blank stare. Perhaps a dazzing display of Sidhis would turn such people on. What do you think? Nityananda in his early career was known to manifest various items out of thin air, walk on water, and even stop a train in its tracks. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" wrote: > > > > > > ---Yea...Swami Muktananda - it appears from available evidence > that > > > he was quite adept at molesting underage Daughters of his > disciples. > > > > Yes, so I've heard. Still a nice insight, and I appreciate Shemp's > > posting it. > > > > > Looks like a mismatch between speech and action! > > > > Yes, that might really bother me if I were expecting any particular > > action/speech from him :-) > > > > > He initiated me into "Shaktipat" in 1980. (dug his fingers into > my > > > eyeballs and a brilliant image of himself appeared in my visual > > > field). > > > > Interesting! Were you a steady TM-er at the time? If so, how did > you > > justify "straying"? Among many other Master-flavors, I used > > to "channel" his shaktipat-energies in 1982 or so. BAM! Very > dynamic, > > but I quit tuning into his channel when I found my heart was > feeling > > pained and strained afterward from the excess voltage running > through > > it :-) > > > > I have always found the following photograph of Muktananda's master, > Nityananda, most remarkable. Of all the saints' photographs I have > seen over the years, this one has the most profound effect upon me: > > http://www.nityanandainstitute.org/images/jpg/nit_teaching.jpg >
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" wrote: > > > > ---Yea...Swami Muktananda - it appears from available evidence that > > he was quite adept at molesting underage Daughters of his disciples. > > Yes, so I've heard. Still a nice insight, and I appreciate Shemp's > posting it. > > > Looks like a mismatch between speech and action! > > Yes, that might really bother me if I were expecting any particular > action/speech from him :-) > > > He initiated me into "Shaktipat" in 1980. (dug his fingers into my > > eyeballs and a brilliant image of himself appeared in my visual > > field). > > Interesting! Were you a steady TM-er at the time? If so, how did you > justify "straying"? Among many other Master-flavors, I used > to "channel" his shaktipat-energies in 1982 or so. BAM! Very dynamic, > but I quit tuning into his channel when I found my heart was feeling > pained and strained afterward from the excess voltage running through > it :-) > I have always found the following photograph of Muktananda's master, Nityananda, most remarkable. Of all the saints' photographs I have seen over the years, this one has the most profound effect upon me: http://www.nityanandainstitute.org/images/jpg/nit_teaching.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
---Vaj, I know you're heavily into "tradition" but there's something called "new knowledge"; but ultimately, the idea is to seek the truth, whether from tradition, authorities, Scriptures, one's own experience, heresay evidence;...better yet, everything together with one's own experience at the top of the list. This separates the true Gnostics from the TB. I see no reason to separate karma from stress and say it's only karma. Why not get rid of the bad karma AND the stress, on all levels. It's not an either/or proposition, unless one's Guru is only adept at helping you one one level and not another. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On May 25, 2007, at 9:23 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: > > > > This just verifies what I've stated here numerous times, that the > > TM > > > myth of physical stress release from the physical nervous system > > was > > > fallacious. Where stress is being released is in the pranic body > > or > > > vajra body. It is the pranic body that evolves. > > > > > > > I don't understand the inconsistency between MMY's position, your's, > > and Muktananda's. > > > > Whether it's the "pranic body or vajra body" (although I'm not sure > > what "vajra body" is), isn't that still on the relative level? > > Whether it's actual physical body or subtle, the stress (or karma) is > > still stored there and has to be released. > > Karma is what tradition would state, not "stress". Generally one > would practice a technique to resolve the karmic eddies that still > exist in the pranic body. Once practicing such a technique, then one > can follow various signs to see how that's working. MMY's position is > a marketable one, that's all, otherwise it's utterly fallacious and > misleading. Muktananda just touches on some basics, but does give an > idea of what is involved. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
On May 25, 2007, at 10:25 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: "utterly fallacious and misleading"? Methinks you doth protest too much. It's just an innoculous way of saying the same thing to make it palatable to another audience. Methinks thou art brainwashed. Sorry, they are not the same thing, despite what your programming may tell you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On May 25, 2007, at 9:23 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: > > > > This just verifies what I've stated here numerous times, that the > > TM > > > myth of physical stress release from the physical nervous system > > was > > > fallacious. Where stress is being released is in the pranic body > > or > > > vajra body. It is the pranic body that evolves. > > > > > > > I don't understand the inconsistency between MMY's position, your's, > > and Muktananda's. > > > > Whether it's the "pranic body or vajra body" (although I'm not sure > > what "vajra body" is), isn't that still on the relative level? > > Whether it's actual physical body or subtle, the stress (or karma) is > > still stored there and has to be released. > > Karma is what tradition would state, not "stress". Generally one > would practice a technique to resolve the karmic eddies that still > exist in the pranic body. Once practicing such a technique, then one > can follow various signs to see how that's working. MMY's position is > a marketable one, that's all, otherwise it's utterly fallacious and > misleading. Muktananda just touches on some basics, but does give an > idea of what is involved. > "utterly fallacious and misleading"? Methinks you doth protest too much. It's just an innoculous way of saying the same thing to make it palatable to another audience.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On May 25, 2007, at 9:23 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: > > > > This just verifies what I've stated here numerous times, that the > > TM > > > myth of physical stress release from the physical nervous system > > was > > > fallacious. Where stress is being released is in the pranic body > > or > > > vajra body. It is the pranic body that evolves. > > > > > > > I don't understand the inconsistency between MMY's position, your's, > > and Muktananda's. > > > > Whether it's the "pranic body or vajra body" (although I'm not sure > > what "vajra body" is), isn't that still on the relative level? > > Whether it's actual physical body or subtle, the stress (or karma) is > > still stored there and has to be released. > > Karma is what tradition would state, not "stress". Generally one > would practice a technique to resolve the karmic eddies that still > exist in the pranic body. Once practicing such a technique, then one > can follow various signs to see how that's working. MMY's position is > a marketable one, that's all, otherwise it's utterly fallacious and > misleading. Muktananda just touches on some basics, but does give an > idea of what is involved. > Who cares? It works. That is the important thing. Otherwise, if we tried to reach consensus on how it works, we'd still be stuck at some series of inertia laden academic conferences, debating the issue. Is that really preferable?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
On May 25, 2007, at 9:23 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: > This just verifies what I've stated here numerous times, that the TM > myth of physical stress release from the physical nervous system was > fallacious. Where stress is being released is in the pranic body or > vajra body. It is the pranic body that evolves. > I don't understand the inconsistency between MMY's position, your's, and Muktananda's. Whether it's the "pranic body or vajra body" (although I'm not sure what "vajra body" is), isn't that still on the relative level? Whether it's actual physical body or subtle, the stress (or karma) is still stored there and has to be released. Karma is what tradition would state, not "stress". Generally one would practice a technique to resolve the karmic eddies that still exist in the pranic body. Once practicing such a technique, then one can follow various signs to see how that's working. MMY's position is a marketable one, that's all, otherwise it's utterly fallacious and misleading. Muktananda just touches on some basics, but does give an idea of what is involved.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On May 24, 2007, at 8:53 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: > > > When reading the following passage from Swami Muktananda's "Satsang > > with Baba, Volume III" (August 18, 1972, page 122), I thought that it > > was another explanation of the mechanics of stress release; that is, > > that the thoughts we have during meditation are indications of stress > > being released on the physical level: > > > > "According to the seers of the yogic scriptures, countless impressions > > of past lives are embedded in the central nadi, sushumna. After > > Kundalini becomes awake, these impressions start rising to the > > surface. You should be aware that they are coming to the surface to be > > ejected from the system. If you are aware of this truth, you will find > > it entirely pointless to be concerned or overwhelmed by the feelings > > that come to the conscious surface." > > > This just verifies what I've stated here numerous times, that the TM > myth of physical stress release from the physical nervous system was > fallacious. Where stress is being released is in the pranic body or > vajra body. It is the pranic body that evolves. > You could be right, although it occurs to me that the pranic or vajra bodies' stresses must have correlating symptoms in the physical body. Given that, and the attempt of the TM organization to explain TM in terms that the scientific community recognizes leads to their reliance on physical influences from TM. So the primary action of TM may not be on the physical body, but its close enough.;- ) Your explanation may be more accurate, but it wouldn't sell in today's world. Nor is the TM explanation a myth, per se. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On May 24, 2007, at 8:53 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: > > > When reading the following passage from Swami Muktananda's "Satsang > > with Baba, Volume III" (August 18, 1972, page 122), I thought that it > > was another explanation of the mechanics of stress release; that is, > > that the thoughts we have during meditation are indications of stress > > being released on the physical level: > > > > "According to the seers of the yogic scriptures, countless impressions > > of past lives are embedded in the central nadi, sushumna. After > > Kundalini becomes awake, these impressions start rising to the > > surface. You should be aware that they are coming to the surface to be > > ejected from the system. If you are aware of this truth, you will find > > it entirely pointless to be concerned or overwhelmed by the feelings > > that come to the conscious surface." > > > This just verifies what I've stated here numerous times, that the TM > myth of physical stress release from the physical nervous system was > fallacious. Where stress is being released is in the pranic body or > vajra body. It is the pranic body that evolves. > I don't understand the inconsistency between MMY's position, your's, and Muktananda's. Whether it's the "pranic body or vajra body" (although I'm not sure what "vajra body" is), isn't that still on the relative level? Whether it's actual physical body or subtle, the stress (or karma) is still stored there and has to be released.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ---Yea...Swami Muktananda - it appears from available evidence that > he was quite adept at molesting underage Daughters of his > disciples. And Bill Clinton brutally raped Juanita Broderick. So what? Whether it's true or untrue regarding what Clinton or Muktananda or Maharishi did, we won't know for sure until said gentlemen are brought to trial for these alleged crimes (assuming they are still alive). In the meantime we can take the positive stuff they said and did and dwell on that. > Looks like a mismatch between speech and action! > He initiated me into "Shaktipat" in 1980. (dug his fingers into my > eyeballs and a brilliant image of himself appeared in my visual > field). > > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > > wrote: > > > > > > When reading the following passage from Swami > Muktananda's "Satsang > > > with Baba, Volume III" (August 18, 1972, page 122), I thought > that > > it > > > was another explanation of the mechanics of stress release; that > > is, > > > that the thoughts we have during meditation are indications of > > stress > > > being released on the physical level: > > > > > > "According to the seers of the yogic scriptures, countless > > impressions > > > of past lives are embedded in the central nadi, sushumna. After > > > Kundalini becomes awake, these impressions start rising to the > > > surface. You should be aware that they are coming to the surface > > to be > > > ejected from the system. If you are aware of this truth, you > will > > find > > > it entirely pointless to be concerned or overwhelmed by the > > feelings > > > that come to the conscious surface." > > > > Very nice; many thanks, Shemp! > > > > :-) > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"
> wrote:
> >
> > When reading the following passage from Swami
Muktananda's "Satsang
> > with Baba, Volume III" (August 18, 1972, page 122), I thought
that
> it
> > was another explanation of the mechanics of stress release; that
> is,
> > that the thoughts we have during meditation are indications of
> stress
> > being released on the physical level:
> >
> > "According to the seers of the yogic scriptures, countless
> impressions
> > of past lives are embedded in the central nadi, sushumna.
suSumna mf(%{A})n. very gracious or kind RV. VS. ; m. N. of one of
the 7 principal rays of the sun (supposed to supply heat to the
moon) VP. ; ***(%{A}*) f. a partic. artery (prob. `" the carotid "')
or vein of the body (lying between those called %{iDA} and %
{piGgalA} , and supposed to be one of the passages for the breath or
spirit ; cf. %{brahma-randhra}) Up. BhP. Ra1jat. - 1.
*) suSumnaa [~soo-shoomnar -- aarrghh!]; in this
case the long (diirgha) 'a' at the end indicates
that this is a (grammatically) feminine gender word
su 2 ({sU3}) adv. well, indeed (strengthening and assevering);
often --- in adj., adv., & subst. = Gr. 'eu (opp. {dus}).
sumna mfn. (prob. fr. 5. %{su} and %{mnA} = %{man}) benevolent ,
kind , gracious , favourable RV. x , 5 , 3 ; 7 ; (%{am}) n.
benevolence , favour , grace RV. TS. ; devotion , prayer , hymn (cf.
Gk. $) RV. ; &371866[1231 ,3] satisfaction , peace , joy , happiness
ib. ; N. of various Sa1mans A1rshBr.
mnA (cf. %{man} , with which %{mnA} was originally identical) cl. 1.
P. Dha1tup. xxii , 31 ; %{manati} (Gr. also pf. %{mamnau} ; aor. %
{amnAsIt} ; Prec. %{mnAyAt} , or %{mneyAt} ; fut. %{mnAtA} and %
{mnAsyati} ; inf. %{mnAtum}: Caus. %{mnApayati} aor. %{amimnapat}:
Desid. %{mimnAsati}: Intens. , %{mAmnAyate} , %{mAmnAti} , %
{mAmneti}) , only in %{anu-} , %{A-} , %{praty-A-} , %{sam-A-} , %
{pari-mnA}.
man, manyate, -ti, manute , pp. {mata3} (q.v.) think, believe, [[-
,]] imagine; consider as or take for (2 acc., acc. & dat., or acc. &
adv. in {vat}), also refl. consider one's self as, pass for, appear
as (nom. {ñiva}); think fit or right, approve of (acc.); think of,
meditate on (as in prayer), intend or wish for, remember, mention,
declare (acc., r. gen.); find out, invent; perceive, observe, know,
understand, comprehend (gen. or acc.). With {bahu} esteem, honour,
w. {laghu} disesteem, despise, w. {sAdhu} ({ñiti}) approve, commend,
w. {tRNAya} (cf. above) value at a straw, esteem lightly, w. {na}
think nothing of, disregard; {manye} methinks-(often inserted
parenthetically). C. {mAnayati} ({-te}), pp. {mAnita} honour,
esteem. D. {mImAMsate} ({-ti}) consider, examine, call in question. -
- {ati} value lightly, slighten; be proud or conceited. {anu}
assent, approve, like; acknowledge as (2 acc.); grant, impart;
allow, permit; indulge, forgive; w. {na} have no patience with,
dislike. C. ask (acc.) for permission, take leave of (acc.), beg for
(acc.); honour, regard, consider. {ava} disregard, despise. {abhi}
put one's mind upon, wish for (acc.), love, like; have (evil)
intentions against (acc.), threaten, menace, hurt, injure, kill;
think, suppose, take for or consider as (2 acc., P. 2 nom.). {ava}
despise, treat contemptuously, disregard. {abhyava} the same. {pari}
overlook, neglect, forget. {prati} answer, return, oppose (2 acc.).
C. honour, applaud, regard, consider, deign to accept. {vi}
distinguish. C. disgrace, disregard, slighten. {sam} think, suppose,
take for (2 acc.); intend, purpose; esteem, honour. C. honour,
revere. -- Cf. {a3numata, abhimata, vimata, saMmata}.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ---Yea...Swami Muktananda - it appears from available evidence that > he was quite adept at molesting underage Daughters of his disciples. Yes, so I've heard. Still a nice insight, and I appreciate Shemp's posting it. > Looks like a mismatch between speech and action! Yes, that might really bother me if I were expecting any particular action/speech from him :-) > He initiated me into "Shaktipat" in 1980. (dug his fingers into my > eyeballs and a brilliant image of himself appeared in my visual > field). Interesting! Were you a steady TM-er at the time? If so, how did you justify "straying"? Among many other Master-flavors, I used to "channel" his shaktipat-energies in 1982 or so. BAM! Very dynamic, but I quit tuning into his channel when I found my heart was feeling pained and strained afterward from the excess voltage running through it :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
---Yea...Swami Muktananda - it appears from available evidence that he was quite adept at molesting underage Daughters of his disciples. Looks like a mismatch between speech and action! He initiated me into "Shaktipat" in 1980. (dug his fingers into my eyeballs and a brilliant image of himself appeared in my visual field). In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > wrote: > > > > When reading the following passage from Swami Muktananda's "Satsang > > with Baba, Volume III" (August 18, 1972, page 122), I thought that > it > > was another explanation of the mechanics of stress release; that > is, > > that the thoughts we have during meditation are indications of > stress > > being released on the physical level: > > > > "According to the seers of the yogic scriptures, countless > impressions > > of past lives are embedded in the central nadi, sushumna. After > > Kundalini becomes awake, these impressions start rising to the > > surface. You should be aware that they are coming to the surface > to be > > ejected from the system. If you are aware of this truth, you will > find > > it entirely pointless to be concerned or overwhelmed by the > feelings > > that come to the conscious surface." > > Very nice; many thanks, Shemp! > > :-) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > When reading the following passage from Swami Muktananda's "Satsang > with Baba, Volume III" (August 18, 1972, page 122), I thought that it > was another explanation of the mechanics of stress release; that is, > that the thoughts we have during meditation are indications of stress > being released on the physical level: > > "According to the seers of the yogic scriptures, countless impressions > of past lives are embedded in the central nadi, sushumna. After > Kundalini becomes awake, these impressions start rising to the > surface. You should be aware that they are coming to the surface to be > ejected from the system. If you are aware of this truth, you will find > it entirely pointless to be concerned or overwhelmed by the feelings > that come to the conscious surface." Very nice; many thanks, Shemp! :-)
