[FairfieldLife] Re: Is the TMO part of the Shankara tradition?

[TurquoiseB]

Ah, Judy's back from another long, relaxing, 
rejuvenating weekend away :-), firing off nine
posts in a row, each distinguished by...uh, wait
for it...I know it'll come as a surprise...her
correcting someone on this forum and setting
them straight about how the world really is
and what the truth about things really is.  :-)

Me, I just think out loud.

They're just thoughts. Opinions.

And, as I've said *many times* here, I DON'T 
KNOW THE TRUTH. I don't even *believe* in 
such a thing as TRUTH.

I'm just thinkin' out loud, trying to figure
things out, rappin' about subjects that seem
interesting to me. 

And y'know...the fascinating thing is that 
for the last few days, while Judy was away
*getting* all rejuvenated and refreshed, no
one here seems to have gotten upset at my
musings and at my attempts to figure things
out in my writing. No one accused me of trying
to exalt myself. 

Could it possibly be because I *wasn't*?

Could the real story be that Judy sees things
that way, and sees this phenomenon in other
people (mainly me) because she's projecting 
what *she* does onto someone else?

Again, I have no answers here, and no declarations
of truth; I'm just thinkin' out loud. But what
I *am* thinkin' is that a person who spends almost
ALL of her posts correcting others, and pointing
out where they are WRONG, DAMMIT, and then going
on from there to point out all the terrible things
that *being* WRONG indicates about their character
just *might* be doing a bit of exalting herself.

I understand. Judy seems to have the classic 
inferiority complex that manifests itself in posing
as being superior. She chose a profession in which
she gets to pose as the expert and correct other
people's writing all day, every day. And then, to
relax, she comes here and corrects other people's
writing all night, every night. The bottom line of
this lifestyle is that everyone else is consistently
WRONG, and Judy is consistently RIGHT. 

Cool, I guess, if that's the kind of fantasy that 
gets you off and gets you over your feelings of 
insecurity and non-worth. But it doesn't really
float my boat.

So I think I'll continue to just think out loud
here, with NO declarations that my words have anything
to DO with truth. They're just opinion, and pretty
second-rate opinion at that. I'd steer clear of them
if I were you. If you're lookin' for someone to tell
you how to live and what to think, I'd go for someone
who seems to enjoy doing that sorta stuff. 

If you're lookin' for a philosophy and a lifestyle
to adopt, and someone else's path to follow, rather
than mine, I'd suggest that you go with Judy's. She
seems to enjoy presenting it here, as if it's RIGHT,
and it may well be just the ticket to help you 
become as happy and as fulfilled as she is. I mean,
look at what it's done for her...


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@
  wrote:
 snip
   The problems with believing in the stories, as you say,
   is that you can start taking them personally and then
   feel personally diminished when someone doesn't buy into
   them.  And everyone chafes when they're made to feel
   small.  First the war of the stories, and ultimately
   (maybe), actual war.
  
  Great last line, tremendous insight!
  
  Doesn't that just say it all? I live in an area that
  has seen the War of the Stories for centuries now.
  First it was the pagan stories vs. the Roman stories,
  and then the Roman Church's stories vs. the Cathars'
  stories, and then the Catholic stories vs. the Prot-
  estant stories. And of course it didn't take long
  for the war stories to become actual war.
  
  Even though I've poked a little fun at the Byron
  Katie thing lately, I do have to say that if folks
  in all of these times had done the work on their
  stories to determine if they were really true or not, 
  they probably wouldn't have had to do the work on
  each other with knives and spears and swords and
  torture chambers and burning at the stake.
 
 And here we have yet another example of Barry's
 apparently limitless capacity for unintended
 irony.
 
 His flurry of posts this weekend geared to
 instructing us all in How to Be Really Spiritual
 Like Barry are all based on elaborate stories of
 his own devising in which he has apparently come
 to believe, but which bear almost no relationship
 to reality, particularly those about what goes on
 on FFL.
 
 It seems never to have occurred to him to do the
 work on his own many stories to determine if
 they are really true or not.
 
 Just for instance, from another post of Barry's
 in this latest batch of rants:
 
  It just explains so *much* about TM and the TM experience
  and Fairfield Life and a few of the folks who hang out here 
  to me. Those of us who don't necessarily believe that TM is 
  the best say so, and the shit hits the fan. A few 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is the TMO part of the Shankara tradition?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Ah, Judy's back from another long, relaxing, 
 rejuvenating weekend away :-), firing off nine
 posts in a row, each distinguished by...uh, wait
 for it...I know it'll come as a surprise...her
 correcting someone on this forum and setting
 them straight about how the world really is
 and what the truth about things really is.  :-)
 
 Me, I just think out loud.
 
 They're just thoughts. Opinions.
 
 And, as I've said *many times* here, I DON'T 
 KNOW THE TRUTH. I don't even *believe* in 
 such a thing as TRUTH.

Which is, it seems, why you make stuff up all
the time.

Such as, for example, putting in quotes, as if
they were words I had used, setting them
straight. You made that up entirely out of
your own head.

 I'm just thinkin' out loud, trying to figure
 things out, rappin' about subjects that seem
 interesting to me. 
 
 And y'know...the fascinating thing is that 
 for the last few days, while Judy was away
 *getting* all rejuvenated and refreshed, no
 one here seems to have gotten upset at my
 musings and at my attempts to figure things
 out in my writing. No one accused me of trying
 to exalt myself. 
 
 Could it possibly be because I *wasn't*?

Nope.

 Could the real story be that Judy sees things
 that way, and sees this phenomenon in other
 people (mainly me) because she's projecting 
 what *she* does onto someone else?

Nope. If it were, I'd be seeing it in a lot more
people than just you and Vaj.

 Again, I have no answers here, and no declarations
 of truth; I'm just thinkin' out loud. But what
 I *am* thinkin' is that a person who spends almost
 ALL of her posts correcting others, and pointing
 out where they are WRONG, DAMMIT, and then going
 on from there to point out all the terrible things
 that *being* WRONG indicates about their character
 just *might* be doing a bit of exalting herself.

Nope. I just believe that discussion is more
fruitful and opinion more reliable when the
facts cited are actually facts rather than
nonfacts.

Everybody, including me, gets their facts
wrong from time to time. That's a reflection
on character only when they've been lazy about
checking first, or when they're deliberately
misrepresenting the facts.

 I understand. Judy seems to have the classic 
 inferiority complex that manifests itself in posing
 as being superior. She chose a profession in which
 she gets to pose as the expert and correct other
 people's writing all day, every day. And then, to
 relax, she comes here and corrects other people's
 writing all night, every night. The bottom line of
 this lifestyle is that everyone else is consistently
 WRONG, and Judy is consistently RIGHT.

Nope, everything you said in this paragraph
is wrong, including the last sentence.

 Cool, I guess, if that's the kind of fantasy that 
 gets you off and gets you over your feelings of 
 insecurity and non-worth. But it doesn't really
 float my boat.

Right, you make things up to exalt yourself in
the interests of getting over your feelings of
insecurity and non-worth.

How's that workin' for you, Barry?

 So I think I'll continue to just think out loud
 here, with NO declarations that my words have anything
 to DO with truth. They're just opinion, and pretty
 second-rate opinion at that.

That last is the single accurate statement you've
made in this entire post.

 I'd steer clear of them
 if I were you. If you're lookin' for someone to tell
 you how to live and what to think, I'd go for someone
 who seems to enjoy doing that sorta stuff. 
 
 If you're lookin' for a philosophy and a lifestyle
 to adopt, and someone else's path to follow, rather
 than mine, I'd suggest that you go with Judy's. She
 seems to enjoy presenting it here, as if it's RIGHT,
 and it may well be just the ticket to help you 
 become as happy and as fulfilled as she is. I mean,
 look at what it's done for her...

Editorial comment: If you're going to drop your
g's in an attempt to make yourself seem folksy
and down to earth, you'd do a lot better to be
consistent about it, at least within a paragraph
(preferably within the entire post).

Dropping g's in written material calls attention
to itself anyway, but dropping them inconsistently
makes it painfully obvious that you're doing it
deliberately--but sloppily--for effect, rather
than its being a genuine feature of your style.

Best of all would be not to drop them at all,
because all it really does is make you appear
self-conscious and generally phony. Any editor
would tell you that.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is the TMO part of the Shankara tradition?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  Ah, Judy's back from another long, relaxing, 
  rejuvenating weekend away :-), firing off nine
  posts in a row, each distinguished by...uh, wait
  for it...I know it'll come as a surprise...her
  correcting someone on this forum and setting
  them straight about how the world really is
  and what the truth about things really is.  :-)
  
  Me, I just think out loud.
  
  They're just thoughts. Opinions.
  
  And, as I've said *many times* here, I DON'T 
  KNOW THE TRUTH. I don't even *believe* in 
  such a thing as TRUTH.
 
 Which is, it seems, why you make stuff up all
 the time.
 
 Such as, for example, putting in quotes, as if
 they were words I had used, setting them
 straight. You made that up entirely out of
 your own head.

Someday, Judy, *as* someone who corrects other
people's writing for a living, you might figure
out that a very common usage of quotation marks,
in the absence of italics, is *as* italics, as
a way of highlighting words and phrases. 

Only the truly paranoid would see them as an 
attempt to quote *them* every time they're used.  :-)

snip to
  If you're lookin' for a philosophy and a lifestyle
  to adopt, and someone else's path to follow, rather
  than mine, I'd suggest that you go with Judy's. She
  seems to enjoy presenting it here, as if it's RIGHT,
  and it may well be just the ticket to help you 
  become as happy and as fulfilled as she is. I mean,
  look at what it's done for her...
 
 Editorial comment: If you're going to drop your
 g's in an attempt to make yourself seem folksy
 and down to earth, you'd do a lot better to be
 consistent about it, at least within a paragraph
 (preferably within the entire post).

Have you ever noticed that, when I say something
that gets your goat and flusters you, you always 
drop into editor mode and try to criticize my
writing?

While I appreciate the advice, I'll stick to my
own style, thanks. It's mine, as are my ideas. 
When you can say that about your own writing, 
get back to me.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is the TMO part of the Shankara tradition?

[Rory Goff]

Barry, I love you infinitely, and IMO/IME virtually everything Judy 
tells you is true -- she must love you infinitely more than I do, to 
show that much patience and compassion with you; you are *supremely* 
fortunate to have merited and attracted her concentrated attention 
for as long as you have. I hope you are not squandering this 
opportunity of infinite Grace! :-)

*L*L*L*


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Ah, Judy's back from another long, relaxing, 
 rejuvenating weekend away :-), firing off nine
 posts in a row, each distinguished by...uh, wait
 for it...I know it'll come as a surprise...her
 correcting someone on this forum and setting
 them straight about how the world really is
 and what the truth about things really is.  :-)
 
 Me, I just think out loud.
 
 They're just thoughts. Opinions.
 
 And, as I've said *many times* here, I DON'T 
 KNOW THE TRUTH. I don't even *believe* in 
 such a thing as TRUTH.
 
 I'm just thinkin' out loud, trying to figure
 things out, rappin' about subjects that seem
 interesting to me. 
 
 And y'know...the fascinating thing is that 
 for the last few days, while Judy was away
 *getting* all rejuvenated and refreshed, no
 one here seems to have gotten upset at my
 musings and at my attempts to figure things
 out in my writing. No one accused me of trying
 to exalt myself. 
 
 Could it possibly be because I *wasn't*?
 
 Could the real story be that Judy sees things
 that way, and sees this phenomenon in other
 people (mainly me) because she's projecting 
 what *she* does onto someone else?
 
 Again, I have no answers here, and no declarations
 of truth; I'm just thinkin' out loud. But what
 I *am* thinkin' is that a person who spends almost
 ALL of her posts correcting others, and pointing
 out where they are WRONG, DAMMIT, and then going
 on from there to point out all the terrible things
 that *being* WRONG indicates about their character
 just *might* be doing a bit of exalting herself.
 
 I understand. Judy seems to have the classic 
 inferiority complex that manifests itself in posing
 as being superior. She chose a profession in which
 she gets to pose as the expert and correct other
 people's writing all day, every day. And then, to
 relax, she comes here and corrects other people's
 writing all night, every night. The bottom line of
 this lifestyle is that everyone else is consistently
 WRONG, and Judy is consistently RIGHT. 
 
 Cool, I guess, if that's the kind of fantasy that 
 gets you off and gets you over your feelings of 
 insecurity and non-worth. But it doesn't really
 float my boat.
 
 So I think I'll continue to just think out loud
 here, with NO declarations that my words have anything
 to DO with truth. They're just opinion, and pretty
 second-rate opinion at that. I'd steer clear of them
 if I were you. If you're lookin' for someone to tell
 you how to live and what to think, I'd go for someone
 who seems to enjoy doing that sorta stuff. 
 
 If you're lookin' for a philosophy and a lifestyle
 to adopt, and someone else's path to follow, rather
 than mine, I'd suggest that you go with Judy's. She
 seems to enjoy presenting it here, as if it's RIGHT,
 and it may well be just the ticket to help you 
 become as happy and as fulfilled as she is. I mean,
 look at what it's done for her...
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis 
reavismarek@
   wrote:
  snip
The problems with believing in the stories, as you say,
is that you can start taking them personally and then
feel personally diminished when someone doesn't buy into
them.  And everyone chafes when they're made to feel
small.  First the war of the stories, and ultimately
(maybe), actual war.
   
   Great last line, tremendous insight!
   
   Doesn't that just say it all? I live in an area that
   has seen the War of the Stories for centuries now.
   First it was the pagan stories vs. the Roman stories,
   and then the Roman Church's stories vs. the Cathars'
   stories, and then the Catholic stories vs. the Prot-
   estant stories. And of course it didn't take long
   for the war stories to become actual war.
   
   Even though I've poked a little fun at the Byron
   Katie thing lately, I do have to say that if folks
   in all of these times had done the work on their
   stories to determine if they were really true or not, 
   they probably wouldn't have had to do the work on
   each other with knives and spears and swords and
   torture chambers and burning at the stake.
  
  And here we have yet another example of Barry's
  apparently limitless capacity for unintended
  irony.
  
  His flurry of posts this weekend geared to
  instructing us all in How to Be Really Spiritual
  Like Barry are all based on elaborate stories of
  his own devising in which he has apparently 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is the TMO part of the Shankara tradition?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
wrote:
  
   Ah, Judy's back from another long, relaxing, 
   rejuvenating weekend away :-), firing off nine
   posts in a row, each distinguished by...uh, wait
   for it...I know it'll come as a surprise...her
   correcting someone on this forum and setting
   them straight about how the world really is
   and what the truth about things really is.  :-)
   
   Me, I just think out loud.
   
   They're just thoughts. Opinions.
   
   And, as I've said *many times* here, I DON'T 
   KNOW THE TRUTH. I don't even *believe* in 
   such a thing as TRUTH.
  
  Which is, it seems, why you make stuff up all
  the time.
  
  Such as, for example, putting in quotes, as if
  they were words I had used, setting them
  straight. You made that up entirely out of
  your own head.
 
 Someday, Judy, *as* someone who corrects other
 people's writing for a living, you might figure
 out that a very common usage of quotation marks,
 in the absence of italics, is *as* italics, as
 a way of highlighting words and phrases.

Bull, and you know it. Quote marks are *not* a 
common or even an accepted substitute for italics.

What you and many others use is asterisks, as you
just did above.

 Only the truly paranoid would see them as an 
 attempt to quote *them* every time they're used.  :-)

Nope. You've been using quote marks around your
own words in an attempt to imply they're someone
else's as long as I've known you. It's just one
of your many dishonest tricks.

 snip to

Restoring part of what you couldn't respond to:

 I understand. Judy seems to have the classic
 inferiority complex that manifests itself in posing
 as being superior. She chose a profession in which
 she gets to pose as the expert and correct other
 people's writing all day, every day. And then, to
 relax, she comes here and corrects other people's
 writing all night, every night. The bottom line of
 this lifestyle is that everyone else is consistently
 WRONG, and Judy is consistently RIGHT.

Nope, everything you said in this paragraph
is wrong, including the last sentence.

 Cool, I guess, if that's the kind of fantasy that
 gets you off and gets you over your feelings of
 insecurity and non-worth. But it doesn't really
 float my boat.

Right, you make things up to exalt yourself in
the interests of getting over your feelings of
insecurity and non-worth.

How's that workin' for you, Barry?

 So I think I'll continue to just think out loud
 here, with NO declarations that my words have anything
 to DO with truth. They're just opinion, and pretty
 second-rate opinion at that.

That last is the single accurate statement you've
made in this entire post.

   If you're lookin' for a philosophy and a lifestyle
   to adopt, and someone else's path to follow, rather
   than mine, I'd suggest that you go with Judy's. She
   seems to enjoy presenting it here, as if it's RIGHT,
   and it may well be just the ticket to help you 
   become as happy and as fulfilled as she is. I mean,
   look at what it's done for her...
  
  Editorial comment: If you're going to drop your
  g's in an attempt to make yourself seem folksy
  and down to earth, you'd do a lot better to be
  consistent about it, at least within a paragraph
  (preferably within the entire post).
 
 Have you ever noticed that, when I say something
 that gets your goat and flusters you, you always 
 drop into editor mode and try to criticize my
 writing?

In fact, as you know, I criticize your writing very
rarely. And it's your fantasy that you get my goat
and fluster me. Only someone for whom I have respect
could do that.

 While I appreciate the advice, I'll stick to my
 own style, thanks. It's mine, as are my ideas.
 When you can say that about your own writing,
 get back to me. :-)

I can, and I do. But if I couldn't do any better
than you in both those areas, I'd give up. Your
style is self-conscious and phony--See Barry Write--
and your ideas are shallow and poorly thought out,
as well as typically based on your own fantasies.

As I've said many times before, you're a phony.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is the TMO part of the Shankara tradition?

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
  
   Ah, Judy's back from another long, relaxing, 
   rejuvenating weekend away :-), firing off nine
   posts in a row, each distinguished by...uh, wait
   for it...I know it'll come as a surprise...her
   correcting someone on this forum and setting
   them straight about how the world really is
   and what the truth about things really is.  :-)
   
   Me, I just think out loud.
   
   They're just thoughts. Opinions.
   
   And, as I've said *many times* here, I DON'T 
   KNOW THE TRUTH. I don't even *believe* in 
   such a thing as TRUTH.
  
  Which is, it seems, why you make stuff up all
  the time.
  
  Such as, for example, putting in quotes, as if
  they were words I had used, setting them
  straight. You made that up entirely out of
  your own head.
 
 Someday, Judy, *as* someone who corrects other
 people's writing for a living, you might figure
 out that a very common usage of quotation marks,
 in the absence of italics, is *as* italics, as
 a way of highlighting words and phrases. 
 
 Only the truly paranoid would see them as an 
 attempt to quote *them* every time they're used.  :-)
 
 snip to
   If you're lookin' for a philosophy and a lifestyle
   to adopt, and someone else's path to follow, rather
   than mine, I'd suggest that you go with Judy's. She
   seems to enjoy presenting it here, as if it's RIGHT,
   and it may well be just the ticket to help you 
   become as happy and as fulfilled as she is. I mean,
   look at what it's done for her...
  
  Editorial comment: If you're going to drop your
  g's in an attempt to make yourself seem folksy
  and down to earth, you'd do a lot better to be
  consistent about it, at least within a paragraph
  (preferably within the entire post).
 
 Have you ever noticed that, when I say something
 that gets your goat and flusters you, you always 
 drop into editor mode and try to criticize my
 writing?
 
 While I appreciate the advice, I'll stick to my
 own style, thanks. It's mine, as are my ideas. 
 When you can say that about your own writing, 
 get back to me.  :-)


Maybe you really should change your name to Mahananda as you had
mentioned, to reflect on that horrendous whopper of an ego you carry,
Barry. 

You're a bright fellow, don't you ever consider how embarrassingly
transparent you are?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is the TMO part of the Shankara tradition?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
 wrote:
   
Ah, Judy's back from another long, relaxing, 
rejuvenating weekend away :-), firing off nine
posts in a row, each distinguished by...uh, wait
for it...I know it'll come as a surprise...her
correcting someone on this forum and setting
them straight about how the world really is
and what the truth about things really is.  :-)

Me, I just think out loud.

They're just thoughts. Opinions.

And, as I've said *many times* here, I DON'T 
KNOW THE TRUTH. I don't even *believe* in 
such a thing as TRUTH.
   
   Which is, it seems, why you make stuff up all
   the time.
   
   Such as, for example, putting in quotes, as if
   they were words I had used, setting them
   straight. You made that up entirely out of
   your own head.
  
  Someday, Judy, *as* someone who corrects other
  people's writing for a living, you might figure
  out that a very common usage of quotation marks,
  in the absence of italics, is *as* italics, as
  a way of highlighting words and phrases.
 
 Bull, and you know it. Quote marks are *not* a 
 common or even an accepted substitute for italics.
 
 What you and many others use is asterisks, as you
 just did above.

No, I use asterisks as a substitute for bolding.

  Only the truly paranoid would see them as an 
  attempt to quote *them* every time they're used.  :-)
 
 Nope. You've been using quote marks around your
 own words in an attempt to imply they're someone
 else's as long as I've known you. It's just one
 of your many dishonest tricks.

Now let me get this straight. :-)

Let's present my version of things here, and
then yours, and allow people on this forum to
decide for themselves what's goin' down, Ok?

My version is that I used quote marks similarly
to the way the Mark Myers holds up two fingers
of each hand and makes quote marks in the air
as he's playing Dr. Evil, saying something he
obviously wants to emphasize in a silly way. So 
I would have made quote marks in the air and put 
them around setting them straight to point out 
how *ludicrous* that idea was, the idea that you 
actually *could* set people straight. See, I 
did the quote marks thing again. 

*Your* version is that I put quotes around the
phrase setting them straight as part of an
evil, horrible plot to convince people here on
FFL that you had actually used that phrase. Did
I get that right? I'm just checkin' to make sure,
because last I checked the use of that phrase
wasn't considered either illegal or, for that
matter, terribly embarrassing.

So which is it, Jude -- my version or your version?
I can psychically hear a few people in the Fairfield 
Life audience just panting to hear which you think 
is more believable.

:-)
 
  snip to
If you're lookin' for a philosophy and a lifestyle
to adopt, and someone else's path to follow, rather
than mine, I'd suggest that you go with Judy's. She
seems to enjoy presenting it here, as if it's RIGHT,
and it may well be just the ticket to help you 
become as happy and as fulfilled as she is. I mean,
look at what it's done for her...
   
   Editorial comment: If you're going to drop your
   g's in an attempt to make yourself seem folksy
   and down to earth, you'd do a lot better to be
   consistent about it, at least within a paragraph
   (preferably within the entire post).
  
  Have you ever noticed that, when I say something
  that gets your goat and flusters you, you always 
  drop into editor mode and try to criticize my
  writing?
 
 In fact, as you know, I criticize your writing very
 rarely. And it's your fantasy that you get my goat
 and fluster me. Only someone for whom I have respect
 could do that.

Uh-huh. That's why you said that I intentionally 
tried to slander and defame you by claiming that
I tried to convince people here that you said
the horrible phrase setting them straight.

*That* claim is certainly indicative of someone
who's not the *least* bit not-goat-gotten.  :-)

Judy, I wait with 'bated breath for your reply.
I just can't *wait* for you to stick to your
story and claim that me putting setting them
straight inside quotes was part of my evil,
twisted, lying plot to slander you and discredit 
you here on FFL. If a smart person wanted to 
convince people here that their goat hadn't 
been gotten, they'd find a saner story. But 
you won't will you?

The way I see it, you either stick to your claim 
and look crazy as a loon, or you admit that you
kinda overreacted in a paranoid fashion, and
write it off to something I said that got your
goat. There's no shame in the latter, Judy, 
and from my point of view it lessens your
credibility here a lot less than being a 
paranoid 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is the TMO part of the Shankara tradition?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
wrote:
snip
 And, as I've said *many times* here, I DON'T 
 KNOW THE TRUTH. I don't even *believe* in 
 such a thing as TRUTH.

Which is, it seems, why you make stuff up all
the time.

Such as, for example, putting in quotes, as if
they were words I had used, setting them
straight. You made that up entirely out of
your own head.
   
   Someday, Judy, *as* someone who corrects other
   people's writing for a living, you might figure
   out that a very common usage of quotation marks,
   in the absence of italics, is *as* italics, as
   a way of highlighting words and phrases.
  
  Bull, and you know it. Quote marks are *not* a 
  common or even an accepted substitute for italics.
  
  What you and many others use is asterisks, as you
  just did above.
 
 No, I use asterisks as a substitute for bolding.

No, you don't. As a published writer, you're well
aware that bold is almost never used in text; it's
used almost exclusively for headings. Italics are
what are used to emphasize a word or phrase in text,
and that's how you and most others use asterisks.

   Only the truly paranoid would see them as an 
   attempt to quote *them* every time they're used.  :-)
  
  Nope. You've been using quote marks around your
  own words in an attempt to imply they're someone
  else's as long as I've known you. It's just one
  of your many dishonest tricks.
 
 Now let me get this straight. :-)
 
 Let's present my version of things here, and
 then yours, and allow people on this forum to
 decide for themselves what's goin' down, Ok?
 
 My version is that I used quote marks similarly
 to the way the Mark Myers holds up two fingers
 of each hand and makes quote marks in the air
 as he's playing Dr. Evil, saying something he
 obviously wants to emphasize in a silly way.

Those are called scare quotes (quotation marks
used to express especially skepticism or derision
concerning the use of the enclosed word or phrase,
per my dictionary). That's quite different from
emphasis, for which italics are used.

But you wouldn't be using scare quotes for your own
words, obviously. What you do is use quotes in such
a way as to suggest you're quoting somebody else's
words when they're actually *your* words.

 So 
 I would have made quote marks in the air and put 
 them around setting them straight to point out 
 how *ludicrous* that idea was, the idea that you 
 actually *could* set people straight.

Except, of course, that those are your own words,
not mine.

 *Your* version is that I put quotes around the
 phrase setting them straight as part of an
 evil, horrible plot to convince people here on
 FFL that you had actually used that phrase.

No, it's just your standard casual dishonesty,
an attempt to load your argument when you're
aware it's weak.

 Did
 I get that right? I'm just checkin' to make sure,
 because last I checked the use of that phrase
 wasn't considered either illegal or, for that
 matter, terribly embarrassing.

Which is why you'd put scare quotes around it,
right, because it's a perfectly ordinary phrase?

Oopsie!

My point was that you regularly put words in the
mouths of your enemies. It's part of your whole
fantasy trip, your compulsion to make stuff up
instead of sticking to what goes on in the real
world.

snip
   Have you ever noticed that, when I say something
   that gets your goat and flusters you, you always 
   drop into editor mode and try to criticize my
   writing?
  
  In fact, as you know, I criticize your writing very
  rarely. And it's your fantasy that you get my goat
  and fluster me. Only someone for whom I have respect
  could do that.
 
 Uh-huh. That's why you said

(Notice Barry's careful evasion of the correction
of his misstatement about my criticisms of his
writing.)

 that I intentionally 
 tried to slander and defame you by claiming that
 I tried to convince people here that you said
 the horrible phrase setting them straight.

As noted, I was giving an example of your tendency
to casual dishonesty. I didn't think it rose to
the level of slander, but apparently you did.

I know it makes you feel better to think that I
call attention to your phoniness, hypocrisy, and
dishonesty because you've somehow gotten my goat,
rather than because I think you're a phony,
dishonest hypocrite who needs to be publicly
scorned and laughed at. But the latter is the case.
As noted, I have to have some respect for a person
before they can get my goat.

 *That* claim is certainly indicative of someone
 who's not the *least* bit not-goat-gotten.  :-)

Oops, double negative there. Getting a little
flustered, are you?

 Judy, I wait with 'bated breath for your reply.

No apostrophe needed there, Bar'.

 I just can't *wait* for you to stick to your
 story and claim that me 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is the TMO part of the Shankara tradition?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 Turq, this first part reminded me of the division of Hindu 
 scripture into the Srutis, Smirtis, and Puranas -- the Heard 
 (actually experienced), the Remembered (got the skinny 
 from someone actually experienced, and this is what he told 
 me), and the Stories (there's some really wild stuff out 
 there, stuff you've never heard of before now, listen to this.)

That's an interesting way of looking at it. Thanks.

 Seems like there are all sorts of different ways of pointing 
 yourself in the right direction, and believing (or feeling) 
 the divinity of the teacher is just an interior position 
 relative to the divine that one already is.  Kind of like a 
 boomerang -- you throw it out and it comes right back with 
 more of the same.

Nice.

 The wild and crazy stories are, I think, just a way of catching 
 your attention; but believing the stories and the myths *does* 
 play with your mind -- reshapes it and reorients it towards That 
 that everyone seems to be chasing in one way or another, anyway, 
 even though they may not define it the same way.  
 
 The problems with believing in the stories, as you say, is that 
 you can start taking them personally and then feel personally 
 diminished when someone doesn't buy into them.  And everyone 
 chafes when they're made to feel small.  First the war of the 
 stories, and ultimately (maybe), actual war.

Great last line, tremendous insight!

Doesn't that just say it all? I live in an area that
has seen the War of the Stories for centuries now.
First it was the pagan stories vs. the Roman stories,
and then the Roman Church's stories vs. the Cathars'
stories, and then the Catholic stories vs. the Prot-
estant stories. And of course it didn't take long
for the war stories to become actual war.

Even though I've poked a little fun at the Byron
Katie thing lately, I do have to say that if folks
in all of these times had done the work on their
stories to determine if they were really true or not, 
they probably wouldn't have had to do the work on
each other with knives and spears and swords and
torture chambers and burning at the stake.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is the TMO part of the Shankara tradition?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@
 wrote:
snip
  The problems with believing in the stories, as you say,
  is that you can start taking them personally and then
  feel personally diminished when someone doesn't buy into
  them.  And everyone chafes when they're made to feel
  small.  First the war of the stories, and ultimately
  (maybe), actual war.
 
 Great last line, tremendous insight!
 
 Doesn't that just say it all? I live in an area that
 has seen the War of the Stories for centuries now.
 First it was the pagan stories vs. the Roman stories,
 and then the Roman Church's stories vs. the Cathars'
 stories, and then the Catholic stories vs. the Prot-
 estant stories. And of course it didn't take long
 for the war stories to become actual war.
 
 Even though I've poked a little fun at the Byron
 Katie thing lately, I do have to say that if folks
 in all of these times had done the work on their
 stories to determine if they were really true or not, 
 they probably wouldn't have had to do the work on
 each other with knives and spears and swords and
 torture chambers and burning at the stake.

And here we have yet another example of Barry's
apparently limitless capacity for unintended
irony.

His flurry of posts this weekend geared to
instructing us all in How to Be Really Spiritual
Like Barry are all based on elaborate stories of
his own devising in which he has apparently come
to believe, but which bear almost no relationship
to reality, particularly those about what goes on
on FFL.

It seems never to have occurred to him to do the
work on his own many stories to determine if
they are really true or not.

Just for instance, from another post of Barry's
in this latest batch of rants:

 It just explains so *much* about TM and the TM experience
 and Fairfield Life and a few of the folks who hang out here 
 to me. Those of us who don't necessarily believe that TM is 
 the best say so, and the shit hits the fan. A few folks 
 just *have* to try to turn it into a debate, and win. 
 And even if the person who says that they don't believe 
 that TM is the best DOESN'T make any claim saying that 
 *their* trip or philosophy is best, that's what these 
 compulsive debators HEAR. 
 
 They claim that people who merely suggest that TM might 
 *not* be the best -- or who suggest that there might not 
 be such a *thing* as the best -- are really saying 
 that *they* are the best. They accuse these other people 
 of exalting themselves, when from my point of view often
 the only thing the person did is say, Uh, isn't your
 position that you're 'the best' and your defensiveness at
 any suggestion to the contrary a lot like exalting *yourself*
 a bit? They try to turn even the most civil conversation
 and exchange of ideas into a debate, and then try to win
 that debate. And when they do -- at least in their minds --
 they then move on to Phase II of the Shankara tradition,
 which judging from this website seems to be *gloating*
 about having won.

It's hard to believe, but he really does not see
how compulsively and consistently he exalts his own
spirituality by making up stories about the behavior
of others that are designed to contrast unfavorably
with his own.

Here's another especially egregious example:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor
 matrixmonitor@ wrote:
 
   Of course, Vaj is the incarnation of the Buddhist Tantrik 
  Abhinava Gupta, who was so jealous of Shankara (MMY and TM). 
  Vaj, you should have regular exams to look for fistulas.
 
 I can't disagree with you here. :-) As I've said
 many times ( and as Judy and others claim I'm lying
 about and that they see the situation better 
 than I do :-), I really don't believe much of *any-
 thing* is true or Truth.

Made up out of whole cloth. Barry fantasizes a
whole alternate reality, then comes over to the
real FFL to complain about it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is the TMO part of the Shankara tradition?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 ---true, very perceptive - I love your alternative story.  It's 
 so Philip - Dickian (he wrote The Man in the High Castle and 
 other short books expressing such themes as time travel, alternative 
 possible histories (e.g. Hitler takes over Europe and the U.S., then 
 what happens).

PKD was always one of my favorites, and you're
probably right that his ability to have a new
and twisted view of pretty much *anything* has
influenced me. :-)

In this case it really was more of a revelation
for me than anything else. I'd never been inter-
ested enough in Shankara to find out much about
his life. I'd read The Crest Jewel of Discrim-
ination, of course, and appreciated his intellect,
but I wasn't aware of his propensity to argue
best-ness. IMO *of course* that 'tude filters
down to the disciples, and to the tradition 
itself, and *of course* we're going to see ele-
ments of that same tendency in monks who come
out of one of the traditions he created to 
establish and preserve that best-ness.

Me, I'm not convinced that *any* spiritual tech-
nique or tradition is the best, and it often
surprises me when folks read that into what I
say here. I'm by predilection pretty much a 
loner; while I may admire a certain path, and
feel a resonance with it (such as Buddhism), at
the same time I feel free to reject the parts of
it I *don't* feel a resonance with and take
what you need and leave the rest. I even do
this with Buddha's first Noble Truth -- I'm not
too keen on the notion that Life is suffering.
I see far too many Buddhists getting hung up on
that one and getting more than a little bent 
behind trying to get liberated from something --
life -- which isn't really imprisoning them
in the first place.

  Of course, Vaj is the incarnation of the Buddhist Tantrik 
 Abhinava Gupta, who was so jealous of Shankara (MMY and TM). 
 Vaj, you should have regular exams to look for fistulas.

I can't disagree with you here. :-) As I've said
many times ( and as Judy and others claim I'm lying
about and that they see the situation better 
than I do :-), I really don't believe much of *any-
thing* is true or Truth. To me it's always a 
matter of POV, and I don't have one that allows me
to perceive Truth. So I'm always a bit surprised
by those who seem to believe that either they or 
their teachers/traditions *do* have such a cosmic
point of view.  

Fortunately so far, this laissez-faire 'tude has kept 
me free of anal fistulas. But given the vehemence with
which at least one person (who seems to feel that she
does have such a POV), and given the story of Shankara 
you posted, I'm kinda hopin' that her TMO-indoctrinated 
fear of trying anything from other traditions keeps her 
from learning any gory Tantrik rituals. :-)  :-)  :-)


  In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  
  As you can probably tell, I'm really taken with the 
  biography of Shankara that matrixmonitor posted an 
  excerpt from, and with the larger website that it's 
  a part of:
  
  http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/shankarabio.htm
  
  http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/index.htm
  
  It's a fascinating resource, one that would certainly be
  of value to those interested in this tradition and its
  philosophy. If you visit, please read the whole bio and
  glance at the links in the Critics section at the
  bottom of the page.
  
  Vaj and some others here have suggested at various times
  that Maharishi and his teachings might *not* be a legitimate
  example of the Shankaracharya tradition, and have expressed
  their reasons for believing this. In this post I'm suggest-
  ing that in at least one respect I can't imagine anything
  *more* representative of Shankara and his approach to
  spiritual teaching than Maharishi and the TMO.
  
  Reading first the excerpt from the bio, and then the full
  bio, and then some of the other things posted on the 
  Advaita Vendanta Library site, one thing just *leaped* off 
  the screen at me. It was me saying to myself, Wow...this
  all sounds so *familiar*.
  
  So *what* sounded familiar?
  
  The near-compulsive attempt to establish best-ness, 
  that's what.
  
  Think about it. Whoever wrote the bio of Shankara on this
  site, what did he choose to *focus* on? 
  
  His many debates with other spiritual teachers, Shankara 
  *himself* trying to establish best-ness, that's what.
  The bio is almost a litany of such encounters, a listing 
  of debate after debate in which Shankara proved that his 
  teachings were superior to the teachings of others. And
  there is also in the writing (IMO, of course) a simultan-
  eous gloating about all of these lesser teachings and 
  teachers who *had* been proven to be lesser. The rest 
  of the site echoes this theme, especially in my opinion 
  the naming of the links in the Critics section. Most of 
  them are called attempted refutations of Shankara's ideas, 
  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is the TMO part of the Shankara tradition?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Not a single part of Swami Rama's statement is based upon 
 Shankara's actual written works or upon his transmissions 
 to his disciples. Scholars of Shankara would consider the 
 claims written below to be typical hindu nonsense. 

On the other hand, they'd have no problem with 
the notion that if they argued with Vaj about
any of these points and later developed an anal
fistula, it would be because Vaj had cast a 
spell on them, so I think the nonsense is
fairly equally spread around.  :-)


   Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
   Recently I was looking thru an old copy of _Living with the
Himalayan Masters_ by Swami Rama. He is also from the Shankaracharya
tradition. He actually outlines the full path to enlightenment in that
tradition. I include it below for those interested in the big picture.
   
 
   -Vaj
   
 
   Our Tradition
   
 
   Shankaracharya established an ascetic order 1,200 years ago,
though renunciates had already lived in an unbroken lineage from the
Vedic period. He organized his orders through five main centers in the
North, East, South, West, and center of India. The entire ascetic
order of India traces its tradition from one of these centers. Our
tradition is Bharati. Bha means knowledge; rati means lover.
Bharati means, he who is the lover of knowledge. From this comes the
word Bharata, the land of spiritual knowledge, one of the Sanskrit
names used for India.
   
 
   There is one thing unique to our tradition. It links itself to an
unbroken lineage of sages even beyond Shankara. Our Himalayan
tradition, though a tradition of Shankara, is purely ascetic, and is
practiced in the Himalayan caves rather than being related with
institutions established in the plains of India. In our tradition,
learning of the Upanishads is very important, along with the special
advanced spiritual practices taught by the sages. The Mandukya 
Upanishad is accepted as one of the authoritative scriptures.
   
 
   The knowledge of Sri Vidya is imparted stage by stage and the
advanced student is taught Prayoga Shastra. * We believe in both the
Mother and the Father principles of the universe. That which is called
maya or illusion, in our worship becomes the Mother and does not
remain as a stumbling block or obstacle on the path of spiritual
enlightenment. All of our worship is internal and we do not perform
any rituals. There are three stages of initiation given according to
our tradition. First, mantra, breath awareness, and meditation;
second, inner worship of Sri Vidya and bindu vedhan (piercing the
pearl of wisdom); third, shaktipata and leading the force of kundalini
to the thousand-petaled lotus called sahasrara chakra. At this stage,
we do not associate ourselves with any particular religion, caste,
sex, or color. Such yogis are called masters and are allowed to impart
the traditional knowledge. We strictly follow the discipline of the sages.
   
 
   It is not possible for me to discuss in detail the secret
teachings of Prayoga Shastra for it is said, na datavyam, na
datavyam, na datavyam -- don't impart, don't impart, don't impart
unless someone is fully prepared and committed and has practiced
self-control to a high degree. These attainments can be verified
through the experiences of the sages of the past. In our path,
gurudeva is not a god but a bright being who has faithfully and
sincerely attained a state of enlightenment. We believe in the grace
of the guru as the highest means for enlightenment, but never as the
end. The purpose of the guru is to selflessly help his disciples on
the way to perfection.
   
 
   Our tradition has the following orientation:
   
 
   I. One absolute without a second is our philosophy. 
   
 
   2. Serving humanity through selflessness is an expression of love
which one should follow through mind, action, and speech.
   
 
   3. The yoga system of Patanjali is a preliminary step accepted by
us for the higher practices in our tradition, but philosophically we
follow the Advaita system of one absolute without a second.
   
 
   4. Meditation is systematized by stilling the body, having serene
breath, and controlling the mind.
   Breath awareness, control of the autonomic nervous system, and
learning to discipline primitive urges are practiced.
   
 
   5. We teach the middle path to students in general, and those who
are prepared for higher steps of learning have the opportunity to
learn the advanced practices. This helps people in general in their
daily lives to live in the world and yet remain above. Our method, for
the convenience of Western students, is called Superconscious
Meditation. I am only a messenger delivering the wisdom of the
Himalayan sages of this tradition, and whatever spontaneously comes
from the center of intuition, that I teach. I never prepare my
lectures or speeches, for I was told by my master not to do so.
   
 
   6. We do not believe in conversion, 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is the TMO part of the Shankara tradition?

[Vaj]

On Jul 29, 2007, at 1:56 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


 Of course, Vaj is the incarnation of the Buddhist Tantrik
 Abhinava Gupta, who was so jealous of Shankara (MMY and TM).
 Vaj, you should have regular exams to look for fistulas.

I can't disagree with you here. :-



Too bad, then you might want to crack open your copy Hinduism for  
Dummies: Abhinavagupta was Hindu nondual tantric master not a Buddhist.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is the TMO part of the Shankara tradition?

[Marek Reavis]

Comment below:

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 **snip**
 
 Vaj and some others here have suggested at various times
 that Maharishi and his teachings might *not* be a legitimate
 example of the Shankaracharya tradition, and have expressed
 their reasons for believing this. In this post I'm suggest-
 ing that in at least one respect I can't imagine anything
 *more* representative of Shankara and his approach to
 spiritual teaching than Maharishi and the TMO.
 
 Reading first the excerpt from the bio, and then the full
 bio, and then some of the other things posted on the 
 Advaita Vendanta Library site, one thing just *leaped* off 
 the screen at me. It was me saying to myself, Wow...this
 all sounds so *familiar*.
 
 So *what* sounded familiar?
 
 The near-compulsive attempt to establish best-ness, 
 that's what.
 
 Think about it. Whoever wrote the bio of Shankara on this
 site, what did he choose to *focus* on? 
 
 His many debates with other spiritual teachers, Shankara 
 *himself* trying to establish best-ness, that's what.
 The bio is almost a litany of such encounters, a listing 
 of debate after debate in which Shankara proved that his 
 teachings were superior to the teachings of others. And
 there is also in the writing (IMO, of course) a simultan-
 eous gloating about all of these lesser teachings and 
 teachers who *had* been proven to be lesser. The rest 
 of the site echoes this theme, especially in my opinion 
 the naming of the links in the Critics section. Most of 
 them are called attempted refutations of Shankara's ideas, 
 *continuing* the tradition of claiming best-ness, and 
 perpetuating the debate. The guy who wrote the bio (it 
 just really *had* to be a guy) seems to really *enjoy* 
 the idea that Shankara put Buddhist groups and other com-
 peting Indian spiritual groups out of business and/or 
 humiliated them. 
 

**snip to end**

Turq, this first part reminded me of the division of Hindu scripture
into the Srutis, Smirtis, and Puranas -- the Heard (actually
experienced), the Remembered (got the skinny from someone actually
experienced, and this is what he told me), and the Stories
(there's some really wild stuff out there, stuff you've never heard
of before now, listen to this . . .)

Seems like there are all sorts of different ways of pointing yourself
in the right direction, and believing (or feeling) the divinity of the
teacher is just an interior position relative to the divine that one
already is.  Kind of like a boomerang -- you throw it out and it comes
right back with more of the same.

The wild and crazy stories are, I think, just a way of catching your
attention; but believing the stories and the myths *does* play with
your mind -- reshapes it and reorients it towards That that everyone
seems to be chasing in one way or another, anyway, even though they
may not define it the same way.  

The problems with believing in the stories, as you say, is that you
can start taking them personally and then feel personally diminished
when someone doesn't buy into them.  And everyone chafes when they're
made to feel small.  First the war of the stories, and ultimately
(maybe), actual war.

Anyway, more good stuff, thanks.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is the TMO part of the Shankara tradition?

[new . morning]

Thats why I like the Wok. It claims to be the worlds worst technique,
inferior to all others, and only nobodies with little self-esteem
would even be associated with it. No bragging rights, no
one-upmanship, no debates. Practicioners become and amount to
nothing.Its a hollow teaching, of no substance, where one becomes
insubstantive. Empty of any goals or labels, its leads to an empty
life.  A nothing method.  No proud, self-respecting persons of
strong-will, determination and superior intellect and accomplishment
would have anything to do with it. It simply makes you more of a
loser. Until you are totally lost.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 As you can probably tell, I'm really taken with the 
 biography of Shankara that matrixmonitor posted an 
 excerpt from, and with the larger website that it's 
 a part of:
 
 http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/shankarabio.htm
 
 http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/index.htm
 
 It's a fascinating resource, one that would certainly be
 of value to those interested in this tradition and its
 philosophy. If you visit, please read the whole bio and
 glance at the links in the Critics section at the
 bottom of the page.
 
 Vaj and some others here have suggested at various times
 that Maharishi and his teachings might *not* be a legitimate
 example of the Shankaracharya tradition, and have expressed
 their reasons for believing this. In this post I'm suggest-
 ing that in at least one respect I can't imagine anything
 *more* representative of Shankara and his approach to
 spiritual teaching than Maharishi and the TMO.
 
 Reading first the excerpt from the bio, and then the full
 bio, and then some of the other things posted on the 
 Advaita Vendanta Library site, one thing just *leaped* off 
 the screen at me. It was me saying to myself, Wow...this
 all sounds so *familiar*.
 
 So *what* sounded familiar?
 
 The near-compulsive attempt to establish best-ness, 
 that's what.
 
 Think about it. Whoever wrote the bio of Shankara on this
 site, what did he choose to *focus* on? 
 
 His many debates with other spiritual teachers, Shankara 
 *himself* trying to establish best-ness, that's what.
 The bio is almost a litany of such encounters, a listing 
 of debate after debate in which Shankara proved that his 
 teachings were superior to the teachings of others. And
 there is also in the writing (IMO, of course) a simultan-
 eous gloating about all of these lesser teachings and 
 teachers who *had* been proven to be lesser. The rest 
 of the site echoes this theme, especially in my opinion 
 the naming of the links in the Critics section. Most of 
 them are called attempted refutations of Shankara's ideas, 
 *continuing* the tradition of claiming best-ness, and 
 perpetuating the debate. The guy who wrote the bio (it 
 just really *had* to be a guy) seems to really *enjoy* 
 the idea that Shankara put Buddhist groups and other com-
 peting Indian spiritual groups out of business and/or 
 humiliated them. 
 
 Now flash forward to Maharishi, TM, the TMO, and FFL.
 
 Are all of these traits part of *that* tradition? Well, duh!
 
 The claim of best-ness. The near-compulsive desire to
 engage anyone who says that it might *not* be best in
 debate and prove the claim of best-ness. The gloating 
 over fantasies of refuting these heretics' claims and 
 winning the debate, much less the fantasies about 
 humiliating those who believe something else.
 
 It just explains so *much* about TM and the TM experience
 and Fairfield Life and a few of the folks who hang out here 
 to me. Those of us who don't necessarily believe that TM is 
 the best say so, and the shit hits the fan. A few folks 
 just *have* to try to turn it into a debate, and win. 
 And even if the person who says that they don't believe 
 that TM is the best DOESN'T make any claim saying that 
 *their* trip or philosophy is best, that's what these 
 compulsive debators HEAR. 
 
 They claim that people who merely suggest that TM might 
 *not* be the best -- or who suggest that there might not 
 be such a *thing* as the best -- are really saying 
 that *they* are the best. They accuse these other people 
 of exalting themselves, when from my point of view often
 the only thing the person did is say, Uh, isn't your 
 position that you're 'the best' and your defensiveness at 
 any suggestion to the contrary a lot like exalting *yourself* 
 a bit? They try to turn even the most civil conversation 
 and exchange of ideas into a debate, and then try to win 
 that debate. And when they do -- at least in their minds -- 
 they then move on to Phase II of the Shankara tradition, 
 which judging from this website seems to be *gloating* 
 about having won. 
 
 Is the TMO part of the Shankara tradition?
 
 Well, duh.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is the TMO part of the Shankara tradition?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Thats why I like the Wok. It claims to be the worlds worst 
 technique, inferior to all others, and only nobodies with 
 little self-esteem would even be associated with it. No 
 bragging rights, no one-upmanship, no debates. Practicioners 
 become and amount to nothing.Its a hollow teaching, of no 
 substance, where one becomes insubstantive. Empty of any goals 
 or labels, its leads to an empty life.  A nothing method.  No 
 proud, self-respecting persons of strong-will, determination 
 and superior intellect and accomplishment would have anything 
 to do with it. It simply makes you more of a loser. Until 
 you are totally lost.

Ha! You think *your* technique is the worst?
Wait'll you try VM.

As all practitioners of the Virtual Moodmaking
technique know, *it* is the worst. It's both
effortless *and* benefitless. And we have the
scientific data to back it up.

And it's not just scientific data that confirms 
that we're the worst. VM has its roots in an
ancient technique first practiced by cavemen,
and passed down in an unbroken lineage from
that day to the present, at least by the ones
who survived long enough to pee in the gene pool.

The way VM works is that you moodmake about
moodmaking. Moodmaking, as we all know, can
and does actually produce results, sometimes
beneficial results. But VM is one step beyond
that, in that the practitioner never actually
*gets* to the moodmaking. 

You just sit in a comfortable chair (or cross-
legged on the floor of your cave, if you want
to be a traditionalist), close your eyes, and 
think the following phrase: Y'know, someday I 
should get around to doing some moodmaking. 
It'd probably do me a world of good. You don't 
repeat the phrase, you just think it once and
then just sit there and do nothing, as effort-
lessly as you just sit there and do nothing
most of the rest of the time. 

Do this twice a day, for 20 minutes each session,
and we from the World Government of Virtual
Moodmaking can pretty much assure you that
absolutely nothing will happen. 

That'll be $3500.00.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is the TMO part of the Shankara tradition?

[matrixmonitor]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 On Jul 28, 2007, at 9:34 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
 
  His many debates with other spiritual teachers, Shankara
  *himself* trying to establish best-ness, that's what.
  The bio is almost a litany of such encounters, a listing
  of debate after debate in which Shankara proved that his
  teachings were superior to the teachings of others. And
  there is also in the writing (IMO, of course) a simultan-
  eous gloating about all of these lesser teachings and
  teachers who *had* been proven to be lesser. The rest
  of the site echoes this theme, especially in my opinion
  the naming of the links in the Critics section. Most of
  them are called attempted refutations of Shankara's ideas,
  *continuing* the tradition of claiming best-ness, and
  perpetuating the debate. The guy who wrote the bio (it
  just really *had* to be a guy) seems to really *enjoy*
  the idea that Shankara put Buddhist groups and other com-
  peting Indian spiritual groups out of business and/or
  humiliated them.
 
  Now flash forward to Maharishi, TM, the TMO, and FFL.
 
  Are all of these traits part of *that* tradition? Well, duh!
 
  The claim of best-ness. The near-compulsive desire to
  engage anyone who says that it might *not* be best in
  debate and prove the claim of best-ness. The gloating
  over fantasies of refuting these heretics' claims and
  winning the debate, much less the fantasies about
  humiliating those who believe something else.
 
  It just explains so *much* about TM and the TM experience
  and Fairfield Life and a few of the folks who hang out here
  to me. Those of us who don't necessarily believe that TM is
  the best say so, and the shit hits the fan. A few folks
  just *have* to try to turn it into a debate, and win.
  And even if the person who says that they don't believe
  that TM is the best DOESN'T make any claim saying that
  *their* trip or philosophy is best, that's what these
  compulsive debators HEAR.
 
  They claim that people who merely suggest that TM might
  *not* be the best -- or who suggest that there might not
  be such a *thing* as the best -- are really saying
  that *they* are the best. They accuse these other people
  of exalting themselves, when from my point of view often
  the only thing the person did is say, Uh, isn't your
  position that you're 'the best' and your defensiveness at
  any suggestion to the contrary a lot like exalting *yourself*
  a bit? They try to turn even the most civil conversation
  and exchange of ideas into a debate, and then try to win
  that debate. And when they do -- at least in their minds --
  they then move on to Phase II of the Shankara tradition,
  which judging from this website seems to be *gloating*
  about having won.
 
  Is the TMO part of the Shankara tradition?
 
  Well, duh.
 
 You're confusing that Shankara was a compulsive debater with the  
 tradition itself. Some sects to this day still consider Shankara 
a  
 demon and a destroyer, because in his zeal to defeat dualistic  
 schools, he actually destroyed or caused to wither and die, many 
the  
 yogic sect and particularly helped destroy samkhya.
 
 The reason TM/TMO is not like the Shankara tradition is because 
it  
 teaches yogic methods, not Advaita Vedanta and simply bares no  
 resemblance to the Shank tradition (other than using one of it's 
pujas).
 
 Here's a yogic school from the Shank tradition and how their 
practice  
 teaching unfolds for comparison:
 
 Recently I was looking thru an old copy of _Living with the 
Himalayan  
 Masters_ by Swami Rama. He is also from the Shankaracharya 
tradition.  
 He actually outlines the full path to enlightenment in that  
 tradition. I include it below for those interested in the big 
picture.
 
 -Vaj
 
 Our Tradition
 
 Shankaracharya established an ascetic order 1,200 years ago, 
though  
 renunciates had already lived in an unbroken lineage from the 
Vedic  
 period. He organized his orders through five main centers in the  
 North, East, South, West, and center of India. The entire ascetic  
 order of India traces its tradition from one of these centers. 
Our  
 tradition is Bharati. Bha means knowledge; rati means lover.  
 Bharati means, he who is the lover of knowledge. From this 
comes  
 the word Bharata, the land of spiritual knowledge, one of the  
 Sanskrit names used for India.
 
 There is one thing unique to our tradition. It links itself to an  
 unbroken lineage of sages even beyond Shankara. Our Himalayan  
 tradition, though a tradition of Shankara, is purely ascetic, and 
is  
 practiced in the Himalayan caves rather than being related with  
 institutions established in the plains of India. In our 
tradition,  
 learning of the Upanishads is very important, along with the 
special  
 advanced spiritual practices taught by the sages. The Mandukya   
 Upanishad is accepted as one of the authoritative scriptures.
 
 The knowledge of Sri Vidya is 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is the TMO part of the Shankara tradition?

[matrixmonitor]

---true, very perceptive - I love your alternative story.  It's 
so Philip - Dickian (he wrote The Man in the High Castle and 
other short books expressing such themes as time travel, alternative 
possible histories (e.g. Hitler takes over Europe and the U.S., then 
what happens).
 Of course, Vaj is the incarnation of the Buddhist Tantrik Abhinava 
Gupta, who was so jealous of Shankara (MMY and TM). Vaj, you should 
have regular exams to look for fistulas.


 In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 As you can probably tell, I'm really taken with the 
 biography of Shankara that matrixmonitor posted an 
 excerpt from, and with the larger website that it's 
 a part of:
 
 http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/shankarabio.htm
 
 http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/index.htm
 
 It's a fascinating resource, one that would certainly be
 of value to those interested in this tradition and its
 philosophy. If you visit, please read the whole bio and
 glance at the links in the Critics section at the
 bottom of the page.
 
 Vaj and some others here have suggested at various times
 that Maharishi and his teachings might *not* be a legitimate
 example of the Shankaracharya tradition, and have expressed
 their reasons for believing this. In this post I'm suggest-
 ing that in at least one respect I can't imagine anything
 *more* representative of Shankara and his approach to
 spiritual teaching than Maharishi and the TMO.
 
 Reading first the excerpt from the bio, and then the full
 bio, and then some of the other things posted on the 
 Advaita Vendanta Library site, one thing just *leaped* off 
 the screen at me. It was me saying to myself, Wow...this
 all sounds so *familiar*.
 
 So *what* sounded familiar?
 
 The near-compulsive attempt to establish best-ness, 
 that's what.
 
 Think about it. Whoever wrote the bio of Shankara on this
 site, what did he choose to *focus* on? 
 
 His many debates with other spiritual teachers, Shankara 
 *himself* trying to establish best-ness, that's what.
 The bio is almost a litany of such encounters, a listing 
 of debate after debate in which Shankara proved that his 
 teachings were superior to the teachings of others. And
 there is also in the writing (IMO, of course) a simultan-
 eous gloating about all of these lesser teachings and 
 teachers who *had* been proven to be lesser. The rest 
 of the site echoes this theme, especially in my opinion 
 the naming of the links in the Critics section. Most of 
 them are called attempted refutations of Shankara's ideas, 
 *continuing* the tradition of claiming best-ness, and 
 perpetuating the debate. The guy who wrote the bio (it 
 just really *had* to be a guy) seems to really *enjoy* 
 the idea that Shankara put Buddhist groups and other com-
 peting Indian spiritual groups out of business and/or 
 humiliated them. 
 
 Now flash forward to Maharishi, TM, the TMO, and FFL.
 
 Are all of these traits part of *that* tradition? Well, duh!
 
 The claim of best-ness. The near-compulsive desire to
 engage anyone who says that it might *not* be best in
 debate and prove the claim of best-ness. The gloating 
 over fantasies of refuting these heretics' claims and 
 winning the debate, much less the fantasies about 
 humiliating those who believe something else.
 
 It just explains so *much* about TM and the TM experience
 and Fairfield Life and a few of the folks who hang out here 
 to me. Those of us who don't necessarily believe that TM is 
 the best say so, and the shit hits the fan. A few folks 
 just *have* to try to turn it into a debate, and win. 
 And even if the person who says that they don't believe 
 that TM is the best DOESN'T make any claim saying that 
 *their* trip or philosophy is best, that's what these 
 compulsive debators HEAR. 
 
 They claim that people who merely suggest that TM might 
 *not* be the best -- or who suggest that there might not 
 be such a *thing* as the best -- are really saying 
 that *they* are the best. They accuse these other people 
 of exalting themselves, when from my point of view often
 the only thing the person did is say, Uh, isn't your 
 position that you're 'the best' and your defensiveness at 
 any suggestion to the contrary a lot like exalting *yourself* 
 a bit? They try to turn even the most civil conversation 
 and exchange of ideas into a debate, and then try to win 
 that debate. And when they do -- at least in their minds -- 
 they then move on to Phase II of the Shankara tradition, 
 which judging from this website seems to be *gloating* 
 about having won. 
 
 Is the TMO part of the Shankara tradition?
 
 Well, duh.