[FairfieldLife] Re: Early American Yogic Flying

[dhamiltony2k5]

>
> > 
> > Also like with the shakers, getting to a point in their own long dwindling 
> > where they had to hire in outsiders to do the work of the community to have 
> > enough vitality remaining for the few old Shakers remaining to carry on 
> > inside.  Not unlike the TMorg and MUM now hiring contract workers to run 
> > the kitchens, plant the gardens, cut the grass, do the laundry and even 
> > come to the domes to make the meetings larger. 
> > 
> > 
> 
> Again,
> as it was before in the 19th Century, so it seems has come again with the TM 
> iteration:
> 
> "In the early days,  held themselves strictly in 
> the line of spiritual influx.  They were the fountain of spiritual supply, 
> the power centre of spiritual force.  For many years, increasingly, as 
> numbers have diminished, have places of temporal care and responsibility 
> fallen back upon the hands of these Spiritual Leaders, and these places are 
> being filled by .  A vessel can be no more than full.  When 
> temporal burdens of this nature must be borne, the spiritual gift, of 
> necessity, depreciates."
> 
>

Describing this loss of spiritual energy,

Mainstream's Critique works real well here too:

The loss of spiritual energy...

"When an institution formerly based on Subjective Inner Experience has 
long-since abandoned its uniqueness through diversifying its product line by
creating excessively high-profit-margin products marketed to every field of the
Objective Outer world,"
 

> > > > And they are a good example in their decline for how it may 
> > > > go for TM after MMY with the TMmovement.  
> > > 
> > > By 1920 there were only 12 Shakers left in
> > > the United States. Is this really how you
> > > see the TMO?  :-)
> > 
> > Shakers as example.   Well, not dissimilar.  A TM-like movement in their 
> > day that was alive for decades.  Parallel, the Transcendental Meditation 
> > movement with a million meditators, 30k teacher "exponents of reality",  
> > also a rending down to some few.  
> > 
> > May be 12 hundreds left in the TM movement by the time they tried a 
> > jump-start again with the recent Invincibility course from that recent 
> > summer of the Lebanon civil war breaking out.  The whole Transcendental 
> > Meditation movement numbers had dwindled down to a very few hundreds by 
> > then.  Is proly a ratio not even unlike with the Shaker decline in time by 
> > example.  Even evident in transcendental meditation `dome numbers' today.  
> > 
> > Also like with the shakers, getting to a point in their own long dwindling 
> > where they had to hire in outsiders to do the work of the community to have 
> > enough vitality remaining for the few old Shakers remaining to carry on 
> > inside.  Not unlike the TMorg and MUM now hiring contract workers to run 
> > the kitchens, plant the gardens, cut the grass, do the laundry and even 
> > come to the domes to make the meetings larger. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > 19th Century Yogic Levitation
> > > 
> > > Nothing is new under the sun.
> > > 
> > > Group Flying (19th Century America)
> > > "Sometimes the hands are raised, palms outwards, and the position shifted 
> > > with such quickness and velocity as to indicate the lively, sweet and 
> > > beautiful motions of the heavenly spirits, in all the charms of heavenly 
> > > beauty, untainted with the flesh.  Sometimes the subjects of these 
> > > operations are taken from the floor, as if their feet were snatched from  
> > > under them, and they are again caught and supported from falling, as 
> > > being handled by the most active and powerful agents.  Some are whirled 
> > > off to a distance and others carried to and fro, or in a circle, with 
> > > indescribable force…"
> > > 
> > > "Jemima Blanchard, of Harvard, having a gift of turning, would sometimes 
> > > go from the Square House to the South House, whirling rapidly and passing 
> > > over fences or whatever came in her way, without touching them or making 
> > > the least effort to clear them. At times she would be entirely supported 
> > > by the power without touching any material thing."
> > >
> >
>
om

[FairfieldLife] Re: Early American Yogic Flying

[dhamiltony2k5]

> 
> Also like with the shakers, getting to a point in their own long dwindling 
> where they had to hire in outsiders to do the work of the community to have 
> enough vitality remaining for the few old Shakers remaining to carry on 
> inside.  Not unlike the TMorg and MUM now hiring contract workers to run the 
> kitchens, plant the gardens, cut the grass, do the laundry and even come to 
> the domes to make the meetings larger. 
> 
> 

Again,
as it was before in the 19th Century, so it seems has come again with the TM 
iteration:

"In the early days,  held themselves strictly in the 
line of spiritual influx.  They were the fountain of spiritual supply, the 
power centre of spiritual force.  For many years, increasingly, as numbers have 
diminished, have places of temporal care and responsibility fallen back upon 
the hands of these Spiritual Leaders, and these places are being filled by 
.  A vessel can be no more than full.  When temporal burdens of 
this nature must be borne, the spiritual gift, of necessity, depreciates."


> > > And they are a good example in their decline for how it may 
> > > go for TM after MMY with the TMmovement.  
> > 
> > By 1920 there were only 12 Shakers left in
> > the United States. Is this really how you
> > see the TMO?  :-)
> 
> Shakers as example.   Well, not dissimilar.  A TM-like movement in their day 
> that was alive for decades.  Parallel, the Transcendental Meditation movement 
> with a million meditators, 30k teacher "exponents of reality",  also a 
> rending down to some few.  
> 
> May be 12 hundreds left in the TM movement by the time they tried a 
> jump-start again with the recent Invincibility course from that recent summer 
> of the Lebanon civil war breaking out.  The whole Transcendental Meditation 
> movement numbers had dwindled down to a very few hundreds by then.  Is proly 
> a ratio not even unlike with the Shaker decline in time by example.  Even 
> evident in transcendental meditation `dome numbers' today.  
> 
> Also like with the shakers, getting to a point in their own long dwindling 
> where they had to hire in outsiders to do the work of the community to have 
> enough vitality remaining for the few old Shakers remaining to carry on 
> inside.  Not unlike the TMorg and MUM now hiring contract workers to run the 
> kitchens, plant the gardens, cut the grass, do the laundry and even come to 
> the domes to make the meetings larger. 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > 19th Century Yogic Levitation
> > 
> > Nothing is new under the sun.
> > 
> > Group Flying (19th Century America)
> > "Sometimes the hands are raised, palms outwards, and the position shifted 
> > with such quickness and velocity as to indicate the lively, sweet and 
> > beautiful motions of the heavenly spirits, in all the charms of heavenly 
> > beauty, untainted with the flesh.  Sometimes the subjects of these 
> > operations are taken from the floor, as if their feet were snatched from  
> > under them, and they are again caught and supported from falling, as being 
> > handled by the most active and powerful agents.  Some are whirled off to a 
> > distance and others carried to and fro, or in a circle, with indescribable 
> > force…"
> > 
> > "Jemima Blanchard, of Harvard, having a gift of turning, would sometimes go 
> > from the Square House to the South House, whirling rapidly and passing over 
> > fences or whatever came in her way, without touching them or making the 
> > least effort to clear them. At times she would be entirely supported by the 
> > power without touching any material thing."
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Early American Yogic Flying

[dhamiltony2k5]

> > And they are a good example in their decline for how it may 
> > go for TM after MMY with the TMmovement.  
> 
> By 1920 there were only 12 Shakers left in
> the United States. Is this really how you
> see the TMO?  :-)

Shakers as example.   Well, not dissimilar.  A TM-like movement in their day 
that was alive for decades.  Parallel, the Transcendental Meditation movement 
with a million meditators, 30k teacher "exponents of reality",  also a rending 
down to some few.  

May be 12 hundreds left in the TM movement by the time they tried a jump-start 
again with the recent Invincibility course from that recent summer of the 
Lebanon civil war breaking out.  The whole Transcendental Meditation movement 
numbers had dwindled down to a very few hundreds by then.  Is proly a ratio not 
even unlike with the Shaker decline in time by example.  Even evident in 
transcendental meditation `dome numbers' today.  

Also like with the shakers, getting to a point in their own long dwindling 
where they had to hire in outsiders to do the work of the community to have 
enough vitality remaining for the few old Shakers remaining to carry on inside. 
 Not unlike the TMorg and MUM now hiring contract workers to run the kitchens, 
plant the gardens, cut the grass, do the laundry and even come to the domes to 
make the meetings larger. 



>
> 19th Century Yogic Levitation
> 
> Nothing is new under the sun.
> 
> Group Flying (19th Century America)
> "Sometimes the hands are raised, palms outwards, and the position shifted 
> with such quickness and velocity as to indicate the lively, sweet and 
> beautiful motions of the heavenly spirits, in all the charms of heavenly 
> beauty, untainted with the flesh.  Sometimes the subjects of these operations 
> are taken from the floor, as if their feet were snatched from  under them, 
> and they are again caught and supported from falling, as being handled by the 
> most active and powerful agents.  Some are whirled off to a distance and 
> others carried to and fro, or in a circle, with indescribable force…"
> 
> "Jemima Blanchard, of Harvard, having a gift of turning, would sometimes go 
> from the Square House to the South House, whirling rapidly and passing over 
> fences or whatever came in her way, without touching them or making the least 
> effort to clear them. At times she would be entirely supported by the power 
> without touching any material thing."
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Early American Yogic Flying

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> > 
> > Anyone heard Bevan reflect on the decades of decline as he presided over 
> > it? 31 years as Pres of Trustees.  
> > 
> > How does he explain it and feel about how it went?  Would be insightful to 
> > someday hear the heartfelt interview about the years of dwindle.
> >
> 
> 
> I recall walking with him and commiserating with him about `how it was going' 
> one day on the Amherst course back when we were younger.  I knew him before 
> from courses in Europe.  He had come in charge by Amherst then and his was a 
> deep chagrin even then about people who were not following the schedule so 
> closely.  Seems he took care of that, staking administrative guideline for 
> the teaching, as the hard-line doctrinal guideliner.  Not a lot of empathy 
> that way in the kid even then.


Empathy with weaklings without inner discipline that preffer to chat and go to 
cafees or do hikes instead of being on the Programme, empathy with diasters 
like Barry ?

Oh please !

[FairfieldLife] Re: Early American Yogic Flying

[dhamiltony2k5]

> 
> Anyone heard Bevan reflect on the decades of decline as he presided over it? 
> 31 years as Pres of Trustees.  
> 
> How does he explain it and feel about how it went?  Would be insightful to 
> someday hear the heartfelt interview about the years of dwindle.
>


I recall walking with him and commiserating with him about `how it was going' 
one day on the Amherst course back when we were younger.  I knew him before 
from courses in Europe.  He had come in charge by Amherst then and his was a 
deep chagrin even then about people who were not following the schedule so 
closely.  Seems he took care of that, staking administrative guideline for the 
teaching, as the hard-line doctrinal guideliner.  Not a lot of empathy that way 
in the kid even then.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Early American Yogic Flying

[dhamiltony2k5]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shukra69"  wrote:
>
> blaming Bevan is about as useful as blaming the "devil"
> 

Anyone heard Bevan reflect on the decades of decline as he presided over it? 31 
years as Pres of Trustees.  

How does he explain it and feel about how it went?  Would be insightful to 
someday hear the heartfelt interview about the years of dwindle.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Early American Yogic Flying

[dhamiltony2k5]

> > > 
> > > -Doug in FF
> > 
> > Dear Doug,
> > 
> > I don't understand your questions. I write 
> > about Sitges all the time.
> > 
> > What makes you think that a place that has
> > nude beaches isn't spiritual, or a place in
> > which "things of a higher order" are not
> > common? 
> > 
> > - Barry in Sitges
> >
>

The science.

But about your particular spirituality question and that exhitition of wonton 
animal-like nakedness, i went through that in post 231266
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/231266

That essentially tells our feelings about it from our own experience as 
conservative meditators.

Enough said.  Is Sunday morning in FF now and dawn breaking over a hard frost.  
Quaker meeting at mid-morning.  I got sheep and such livestock to tend before.  
Peaceful and lowly citizens we tend and keep safe.  Some of life's practical 
rituals along with spiritual practice.  

Barry of Sitges, take your dog in the other direction up to the hills, hills 
like where christ was borne.  May take some spiritual discipline to walk away 
from those sirens which call you like in Homer to your own distruction at the 
beach.  I should still find that essay on negative energies practically useful 
for you.  Read it and practice it.  In the meantime, I shall meditate more and 
pray for you Barry in Stiges that you may come home safe.

-D in FF

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Early American Yogic Flying

[TurquoiseB]

Doug,

You kinda dropped the ball on this. I'm 
following up because I'd really like to
hear you explain 1) why a place with a
nude beach wouldn't be spiritual, and 2)
what exactly you consider "spiritual 
things of a higher order" might be.

I'm asking because I think it's your defi-
nition of what "spiritual" means that may
need work, not the places I write about.

I could write about my trip to Montserrat,
a centuries-old place of pilgrimage and
supposed "power place," and finding it
"lined out," devoid of any power or spir-
itual qualities whatsoever, and a tourist 
trap. 

Or I could write about walking along the
nude beach with my dogs and having a flash
of what Maharishi would have called UC,
perceiving nothing but Unity.

Which is "spiritual?" Which is "not?"

Curious minds want to know what your defi-
nitions are, and whether they have become 
a horizon beyond which you cannot see.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5"  wrote:
> >
> > Dear Turq,
> > 
> > No. Again way too superficial with the Shakers.  Too much 
> > assertion, jumping to conclusions, and even maybe projection. 
> > Evidently youre missing the mark it seems with recoil about 
> > the thought of sexual liberation.  
> > 
> > Of course, would be naturally very difficult for anyone to 
> > see their way through when you can just go down to the local 
> > nude beach there full of young European modeled flesh only a 
> > block walk away living there in Spain.  Such temptation at 
> > titillation you live in.  
> > 
> > Turq, have you been to any spiritual places there in old 
> > Europe you could write about?  Modern spiritual Europe?  
> > Places where they are doing spiritual things of a higher 
> > order that you could explore while you are there?
> > 
> > With Best Regards,
> > 
> > -Doug in FF
> 
> Dear Doug,
> 
> I don't understand your questions. I write 
> about Sitges all the time.
> 
> What makes you think that a place that has
> nude beaches isn't spiritual, or a place in
> which "things of a higher order" are not
> common? 
> 
> - Barry in Sitges
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Early American Yogic Flying

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shukra69"  wrote:
>
> blaming Bevan is about as useful as blaming the "devil"
> 
True, but then again, I thought he had signed up for the Position of...
'False Demi-God'...
He wasn't the only one to blame, in Fairfield, Iowa, when I was there...
There were a few 'Hard-Core-Nazis'...from back in the Day...
I'm sorry, I didn't recognize them, then...
Would have saved me a tremendous amount of 'Heart-aches'...
But, then again, that's why they calls it: 'Karma!', I guess...

Robert G.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Early American Yogic Flying

[shukra69]

blaming Bevan is about as useful as blaming the "devil"

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert"  wrote:
>
>   (sniP)
> > While many may gain enough from this artificial
> > and elitist view of "community" to value it over
> > being a simple member of a larger world community
> > or the "community of man," I tend to prefer those
> > spiritual communities that do *NOT* hide them-
> > selves behind cloistered walls and reject the
> > world around them. YMMV on this, and obviously
> > does, but to me that kind of "community" repre-
> > sents a kind of "spiritual suicide" similar to
> > the "group suicide" espoused by the Shakers.
> >  (snip)
> 
> Another thing, about the FF comumunity, is that it lost a lot of good people, 
> when it became 'Autistic'...
> 
> With Bevan and the others, we have a very 'Closed Commnunity'...with 
> everyone, not included
> 
> And, when you're tryin' to create a 'Spirit of Unity'...
> 
> Nothing kills that Spirit faster, then knocking down the Chapel...
> And banning people who are 'Free Spirits'...
> 
> What you have left, are 'Un-Free-Spirits'and a weakened community, base 
> on a limited genetic pool...
> 
> It becomes incestuous, and cruel
> 
> When you don't include, all your brothers and sisters...
> 
> Bye bye, FF Iowa
> 
> Good Luck and God Bless...
> 
> ~Robert Jeffrey Gimbel
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Early American Yogic Flying

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5"  wrote:
>
> Dear Turq,
> 
> No. Again way too superficial with the Shakers.  Too much 
> assertion, jumping to conclusions, and even maybe projection. 
> Evidently youre missing the mark it seems with recoil about 
> the thought of sexual liberation.  
> 
> Of course, would be naturally very difficult for anyone to 
> see their way through when you can just go down to the local 
> nude beach there full of young European modeled flesh only a 
> block walk away living there in Spain.  Such temptation at 
> titillation you live in.  
> 
> Turq, have you been to any spiritual places there in old 
> Europe you could write about?  Modern spiritual Europe?  
> Places where they are doing spiritual things of a higher 
> order that you could explore while you are there?
> 
> With Best Regards,
> 
> -Doug in FF

Dear Doug,

I don't understand your questions. I write 
about Sitges all the time.

What makes you think that a place that has
nude beaches isn't spiritual, or a place in
which "things of a higher order" and not
common? 

- Barry in Sitges

[FairfieldLife] Re: Early American Yogic Flying

[dhamiltony2k5]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5"  wrote:
> >
> > > Since the Shakers didn't believe in procreation
> > > (except through adoption), we can safely assume
> > > that this book was written based on hearsay, and
> > > not necessarily the best hearsay since there would
> > > have been no or few surviving descendants who
> > > ever saw this happen to describe it to the authors
> > > of the book in 1906. :-)
> > 
> > Well, no. That's the superficial read. They quite actually 
> > were very similar in ways as a spiritual movement of 
> > communities in their days to the TM movement in their day.  
> 
> Uh, Doug...are you actually suggesting that 
> the TM movement believes that procreation is
> evil, that sex is evil, and that it "set men 
> and women equal to one another in religious 
> leadership?" That's Shakerism. 
> 
> > The closeness in parallel similarity is striking as one looks 
> > more closely at their story.   
> 
> I think you need to look a bit more closely. 
> Shakers have accurately been described by 
> religious historians as being "so hung up 
> on sex and hating their parents for having
> indulged in sex to create them that they
> have vowed to end their parents' genetic
> line by not reproducing." *By definition*
> they were a suicidal cult, doomed by their
> own philosophy to die out within one gener-
> ation except by adoption or gaining converts.
> 

Dear Turq,

No. Again way too superficial with the Shakers.  Too much assertion, jumping to 
conclusions, and even maybe projection. Evidently youre missing the mark it 
seems with recoil about the thought of sexual liberation.  

Of course, would be naturally very difficult for anyone to see their way 
through when you can just go down to the local nude beach there full of young 
European modeled flesh only a block walk away living there in Spain.  Such 
temptation at titillation you live in.  

Turq, have you been to any spiritual places there in old Europe you could write 
about?  Modern spiritual Europe?  Places where they are doing spiritual things 
of a higher order that you could explore while you are there?

With Best Regards,

-Doug in FF

[FairfieldLife] Re: Early American Yogic Flying

[Robert]

  (sniP)
> While many may gain enough from this artificial
> and elitist view of "community" to value it over
> being a simple member of a larger world community
> or the "community of man," I tend to prefer those
> spiritual communities that do *NOT* hide them-
> selves behind cloistered walls and reject the
> world around them. YMMV on this, and obviously
> does, but to me that kind of "community" repre-
> sents a kind of "spiritual suicide" similar to
> the "group suicide" espoused by the Shakers.
>  (snip)

Another thing, about the FF comumunity, is that it lost a lot of good people, 
when it became 'Autistic'...

With Bevan and the others, we have a very 'Closed Commnunity'...with everyone, 
not included

And, when you're tryin' to create a 'Spirit of Unity'...

Nothing kills that Spirit faster, then knocking down the Chapel...
And banning people who are 'Free Spirits'...

What you have left, are 'Un-Free-Spirits'and a weakened community, base on 
a limited genetic pool...

It becomes incestuous, and cruel

When you don't include, all your brothers and sisters...

Bye bye, FF Iowa

Good Luck and God Bless...

~Robert Jeffrey Gimbel

[FairfieldLife] Re: Early American Yogic Flying

[TurquoiseB]

The below said, what I think you're "feeling" in
revering Shakerisms is the same thing you try to
promote here on FFL, Doug -- a sense of "community."

That they had, in spades. And that's a good thing
IMO *if it's real and not based on artificiality*.
Converts to Shakerism were drawn to the sense of
peace they may have felt and for other reasons,
but they turned their back on the world outside
to join that "community." It was by definition a
*closed* community, one that rejected the outer
world and considered it "sinful" and beneath them.

If this is your idea of "community," then I would
suggest that you may have indeed found your home
in the TM movement. What, after all, is it but a
group that has "huddled together" to promote a
group dream that rejects the values of the world
around them and considers that world and the people
of that world "beneath" them? We see this mindset
every day in the posts of Nabby and other True
Blue True Believers on this forum.

While many may gain enough from this artificial
and elitist view of "community" to value it over
being a simple member of a larger world community
or the "community of man," I tend to prefer those
spiritual communities that do *NOT* hide them-
selves behind cloistered walls and reject the
world around them. YMMV on this, and obviously
does, but to me that kind of "community" repre-
sents a kind of "spiritual suicide" similar to
the "group suicide" espoused by the Shakers.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5"  wrote:
> >
> > > Since the Shakers didn't believe in procreation
> > > (except through adoption), we can safely assume
> > > that this book was written based on hearsay, and
> > > not necessarily the best hearsay since there would
> > > have been no or few surviving descendants who
> > > ever saw this happen to describe it to the authors
> > > of the book in 1906. :-)
> > 
> > Well, no. That's the superficial read. They quite actually 
> > were very similar in ways as a spiritual movement of 
> > communities in their days to the TM movement in their day.  
> 
> Uh, Doug...are you actually suggesting that 
> the TM movement believes that procreation is
> evil, that sex is evil, and that it "set men 
> and women equal to one another in religious 
> leadership?" That's Shakerism. 
> 
> > The closeness in parallel similarity is striking as one looks 
> > more closely at their story.   
> 
> I think you need to look a bit more closely. 
> Shakers have accurately been described by 
> religious historians as being "so hung up 
> on sex and hating their parents for having
> indulged in sex to create them that they
> have vowed to end their parents' genetic
> line by not reproducing." *By definition*
> they were a suicidal cult, doomed by their
> own philosophy to die out within one gener-
> ation except by adoption or gaining converts.
> 
> > And they are a good example in their decline for how it may 
> > go for TM after MMY with the TMmovement.  
> 
> By 1920 there were only 12 Shakers left in
> the United States. Is this really how you
> see the TMO?  :-)
> 
> > To your particular take on the abstinence, they were early 
> > women's civil and spiritual rights advocates hence their 
> > take on women's liberation and equality of gender. Advocates 
> > for due process & equal protection under the civil, and 
> > religious/spiritual practice.  
> 
> Women in Shaker communities had the "right"
> to all wear exactly the same costumes and
> to stay inside sewing, cooking and doing
> "womanly" things, while the men were outside
> working on their "manly" things. Yes, they 
> professed to men and women being equal, but 
> there were clear gender roles that could not 
> be crossed without being banished from the 
> community. Do you consider that "liberation?"
> 
> On the other hand, they did allow women equal
> access to positions of power in the clergy,
> something the Catholic Church has never done,
> and that the TM movement will never do.  :-)
> 
> > In modern time we may tend to seize in a revulsion thing 
> > of our modern ego and flesh on the chastity/celibate thing, 
> > lifting it out of a larger context.  
> 
> It wasn't just celibacy, Doug. The Shakers 
> believed that even sex for purposes of pro
> creation was evil and having children was
> the "sign" of that evil. Adam and Eve's "sin" 
> was having had sex and having had Cain and
> Abel, and had nothing to do with the apple.
> 
> > Oh and yes, there were also Shakers who lived off-campus 
> > then who had families too, who did their spiritual practices 
> > (including meditation) and came to the union meetings too.  
> > Similar like TSR meditators in FF, living off-campus.  
> 
> If they had those children the normal way,
> they would have been expelled from the Shaker 
> community as the obvious sinners they were. 
> The only way to "have" a child in Shakerworld 
> was to adopt one. You are projecting your 
> dre

[FairfieldLife] Re: Early American Yogic Flying

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5"  wrote:
>
> > Since the Shakers didn't believe in procreation
> > (except through adoption), we can safely assume
> > that this book was written based on hearsay, and
> > not necessarily the best hearsay since there would
> > have been no or few surviving descendants who
> > ever saw this happen to describe it to the authors
> > of the book in 1906. :-)
> 
> Well, no. That's the superficial read. They quite actually 
> were very similar in ways as a spiritual movement of 
> communities in their days to the TM movement in their day.  

Uh, Doug...are you actually suggesting that 
the TM movement believes that procreation is
evil, that sex is evil, and that it "set men 
and women equal to one another in religious 
leadership?" That's Shakerism. 

> The closeness in parallel similarity is striking as one looks 
> more closely at their story.   

I think you need to look a bit more closely. 
Shakers have accurately been described by 
religious historians as being "so hung up 
on sex and hating their parents for having
indulged in sex to create them that they
have vowed to end their parents' genetic
line by not reproducing." *By definition*
they were a suicidal cult, doomed by their
own philosophy to die out within one gener-
ation except by adoption or gaining converts.

> And they are a good example in their decline for how it may 
> go for TM after MMY with the TMmovement.  

By 1920 there were only 12 Shakers left in
the United States. Is this really how you
see the TMO?  :-)

> To your particular take on the abstinence, they were early 
> women's civil and spiritual rights advocates hence their 
> take on women's liberation and equality of gender. Advocates 
> for due process & equal protection under the civil, and 
> religious/spiritual practice.  

Women in Shaker communities had the "right"
to all wear exactly the same costumes and
to stay inside sewing, cooking and doing
"womanly" things, while the men were outside
working on their "manly" things. Yes, they 
professed to men and women being equal, but 
there were clear gender roles that could not 
be crossed without being banished from the 
community. Do you consider that "liberation?"

On the other hand, they did allow women equal
access to positions of power in the clergy,
something the Catholic Church has never done,
and that the TM movement will never do.  :-)

> In modern time we may tend to seize in a revulsion thing 
> of our modern ego and flesh on the chastity/celibate thing, 
> lifting it out of a larger context.  

It wasn't just celibacy, Doug. The Shakers 
believed that even sex for purposes of pro
creation was evil and having children was
the "sign" of that evil. Adam and Eve's "sin" 
was having had sex and having had Cain and
Abel, and had nothing to do with the apple.

> Oh and yes, there were also Shakers who lived off-campus 
> then who had families too, who did their spiritual practices 
> (including meditation) and came to the union meetings too.  
> Similar like TSR meditators in FF, living off-campus.  

If they had those children the normal way,
they would have been expelled from the Shaker 
community as the obvious sinners they were. 
The only way to "have" a child in Shakerworld 
was to adopt one. You are projecting your 
dreams of their life "should" have been onto 
what it really was.

> They dwindled not really for lack of procreation but rather 
> as they became more doctrinal and less spiritual in practice 
> through time.  Is a good lesson there.

They "dwindled" because they committed a form
of group suicide. End of story.

They believed that to have sex was evil, that
to have children as the result of sex was evil,
and that everyone had to dress alike and restrict
themselves to only the activities suitable to
their gender role and what the community thought
was "proper." Is it any wonder they didn't attract
any new members?  

And you're trying to make the case that they're
like the TM movement?  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Early American Yogic Flying

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Since the Shakers didn't believe in procreation
> > (except through adoption), we can safely assume
> > that this book was written based on hearsay, and
> > not necessarily the best hearsay since there would
> > have been no or few surviving descendants who
> > ever saw this happen to describe it to the authors
> > of the book in 1906. :-)
> > 
> 
> Well, no.  That's the superficial read.  They quite actually were very 
> similar in ways as a spiritual movement of communities in their days to the 
> TM movement in their day.  The closeness in parallel similarity is striking 
> as one looks more closely at their story.   
> 
> And they are a good example in their decline for how it may go for TM after 
> MMY with the TMmovement.  
> 
> To your particular take on the abstinence, they were early women's civil and 
> spiritual rights advocates hence their take on women's liberation and 
> equality of gender.  Advocates for due process & equal protection under the 
> civil, and religious/spiritual practice.  
> 
> In modern time we may tend to seize in a revulsion thing of our modern ego 
> and flesh on the chastity/celibate thing, lifting it out of a larger context. 
>  So thanks for making the observation.  It is a typical and superficial one 
> made looking back on Shakers.  
> 
> Oh and yes, there were also Shakers who lived off-campus then who had 
> families too, who did their spiritual practices (including meditation) and 
> came to the union meetings too.  Similar like TSR meditators in FF, living 
> off-campus.  
> 
> They dwindled not really for lack of procreation but rather as they became 
> more doctrinal and less spiritual in practice through time.  Is a good lesson 
> there.
> 
> They quite successfully thrived as a spiritual practice community for about 
> eight decades with the purpose of providing a means of lifestyle for 
> spiritual practice, as TM'ers could relate to it.  They reached their zenith 
> around and after the Civil War and have gone through a long dwindle of 
> closing since then as they got away from their being about time for spiritual 
> practices primarily.  Times changed, circumstances changed and they changed. 
> To icons even now.
> 
> It's a good story to learn from.
>
I like the word: 'Zenith'...

One of the Zenith's reached, during the movement, happened, in 1983-84, 'Taste 
of Utopia Course'...
What's his name, the fundie minister, in town, had called it correctly, at the 
time...he said, that the movement, had hit it's pinnacle...

And there was the Beatles...
And there was Merv...
And there was Director Guy, Blue Velvet...

But, then, there's always a guy, like Bevan...
Who comes in, and like a male 'Nurse Rachette'...
Puts the 'Axe to Everything'...

The 'Cyclops' the 'One-Eyed Beast'...

He/She comes and smashes it, and makes it dead...

Ohm my?


Roberto De Verona...

copywritten sometime in 2009>

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Early American Yogic Flying

[dhamiltony2k5]

> 
> Since the Shakers didn't believe in procreation
> (except through adoption), we can safely assume
> that this book was written based on hearsay, and
> not necessarily the best hearsay since there would
> have been no or few surviving descendants who
> ever saw this happen to describe it to the authors
> of the book in 1906. :-)
> 

Well, no.  That's the superficial read.  They quite actually were very similar 
in ways as a spiritual movement of communities in their days to the TM movement 
in their day.  The closeness in parallel similarity is striking as one looks 
more closely at their story.   

And they are a good example in their decline for how it may go for TM after MMY 
with the TMmovement.  

To your particular take on the abstinence, they were early women's civil and 
spiritual rights advocates hence their take on women's liberation and equality 
of gender.  Advocates for due process & equal protection under the civil, and 
religious/spiritual practice.  

In modern time we may tend to seize in a revulsion thing of our modern ego and 
flesh on the chastity/celibate thing, lifting it out of a larger context.  So 
thanks for making the observation.  It is a typical and superficial one made 
looking back on Shakers.  

Oh and yes, there were also Shakers who lived off-campus then who had families 
too, who did their spiritual practices (including meditation) and came to the 
union meetings too.  Similar like TSR meditators in FF, living off-campus.  

They dwindled not really for lack of procreation but rather as they became more 
doctrinal and less spiritual in practice through time.  Is a good lesson there.

They quite successfully thrived as a spiritual practice community for about 
eight decades with the purpose of providing a means of lifestyle for spiritual 
practice, as TM'ers could relate to it.  They reached their zenith around and 
after the Civil War and have gone through a long dwindle of closing since then 
as they got away from their being about time for spiritual practices primarily. 
 Times changed, circumstances changed and they changed. To icons even now.

It's a good story to learn from.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Early American Yogic Flying

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> >written based on hearsay, and
> > not necessarily the best hearsay since there would
> > have been no or few surviving descendants who
> > ever saw this happen to describe it to the authors
> > of the book in 1906. :-)
> > 
> > Also, in the context of the book, these passages
> > seem to be descriptions of *fainting* and thrash-
> > ing around in fits similar to "speaking in tongues,"
> > not flying.
> > 
> > In other words, you're being deceptive again, Doug.
> > 
> 
> Dear Turq,
> 
> Nay, these were long-lived elders editing.  You're being presumptive and 
> assuming out of context, again.  They can be taken at face value.
> 
> With Fond Regards,
> -Doug in FF
>


Regardless, unless you wrote it yourself you need to provide a citation or a 
link.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Early American Yogic Flying

[dhamiltony2k5]

>written based on hearsay, and
> not necessarily the best hearsay since there would
> have been no or few surviving descendants who
> ever saw this happen to describe it to the authors
> of the book in 1906. :-)
> 
> Also, in the context of the book, these passages
> seem to be descriptions of *fainting* and thrash-
> ing around in fits similar to "speaking in tongues,"
> not flying.
> 
> In other words, you're being deceptive again, Doug.
> 

Dear Turq,

Nay, these were long-lived elders editing.  You're being presumptive and 
assuming out of context, again.  They can be taken at face value.

With Fond Regards,
-Doug in FF  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Early American Yogic Flying

[TurquoiseB]

Doug,

You really should have given a citation on this.
As far as I can tell, it is an excerpt from:
http://www.archive.org/details/shakerismitsmea00taylgoog

Detail:
http://www.archive.org/stream/shakerismitsmea00taylgoog/shakerismitsmea0\
0taylgoog_djvu.txt

Since the Shakers didn't believe in procreation
(except through adoption), we can safely assume
that this book was written based on hearsay, and
not necessarily the best hearsay since there would
have been no or few surviving descendants who
ever saw this happen to describe it to the authors
of the book in 1906. :-)

Also, in the context of the book, these passages
seem to be descriptions of *fainting* and thrash-
ing around in fits similar to "speaking in tongues,"
not flying.

In other words, you're being deceptive again, Doug.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5"
 wrote:
>
> 19th Century Yogic Levitation
>
> Nothing is new under the sun.
>
> Group Flying (19th Century America)
> "Sometimes the hands are raised, palms outwards, and the position
shifted with such quickness and velocity as to indicate the lively,
sweet and beautiful motions of the heavenly spirits, in all the charms
of heavenly beauty, untainted with the flesh.  Sometimes the subjects of
these operations are taken from the floor, as if their feet were
snatched from  under them, and they are again caught and supported from
falling, as being handled by the most active and powerful agents.  Some
are whirled off to a distance and others carried to and fro, or in a
circle, with indescribable force…"
>
> "Jemima Blanchard, of Harvard, having a gift of turning, would
sometimes go from the Square House to the South House, whirling rapidly
and passing over fences or whatever came in her way, without touching
them or making the least effort to clear them. At times she would be
entirely supported by the power without touching any material thing."
>