[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Why would I be upset, - I'm not Tejano. Joe: Maybe so, but you're the one eating prarie dogs. You're just not making any sense today Tex. What is a 'prarie' dog anyway? You're not making any sense. Go Figure. Well, I figure you're the one upset, because you're the TB that spent thousands of dollars learning how to be a TM Teacher, and years and years working for the Yogi. But, why blame it on the Tejanos? That's what I can't figure out. Why are some TM Teachers so prejudiced? It just doesn't make any sense.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Prarie dogs (Cynomys) are burrowing rodents (not actually dogs) native to the grasslands of North America. There are five different species of prairie dogs: black-tailed, white-tailed, Gunnison, Utah, and Mexican prairie dogs. They are a type of ground squirrel. On average, these stout-bodied rodents will grow to be between 3040 centimetres (1216 in) long, including the short tail and weigh between 0.51.5 kilograms (13 lb). They are found in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. In Mexico, prarie dogs are primarily found in the northern states which are the southern end of the great plains: northeastern Sonora, north and northeastern Chihuahua, northern Coahuila, northern Nuevo León, and northern Tamaulipas; in the U.S., they range primarily west of the Mississippi River, though they have also been introduced in a few eastern locales. They will eat all sorts of vegetables and fruits. Go Figure. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: Why would I be upset, - I'm not Tejano. Joe: Maybe so, but you're the one eating prarie dogs. You're just not making any sense today Tex. What is a 'prarie' dog anyway? You're not making any sense. Go Figure. Well, I figure you're the one upset, because you're the TB that spent thousands of dollars learning how to be a TM Teacher, and years and years working for the Yogi. But, why blame it on the Tejanos? That's what I can't figure out. Why are some TM Teachers so prejudiced? It just doesn't make any sense.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfr...@... wrote: Are you serious Lurk? Why don't I just say it? How about the feelings of the person involved? There are several here who know what and who I am talking about. If I told you, you would be extremely unhappy about both the events and the fact that I had outed the person against her wishes. Sono it stops here for now. You're not getting it, Joe. Folks who *don't* already know are now mentally going over all the movement women they can think of who might qualify for the fry your brains if you knew level, almost certainly including the woman in question (how many could there be at that level?). Maybe some will even figure it out. Maybe they'll ask somebody else who does know. And then tell their friends. This woman's privacy was more secure before you spoke up. Now, to many readers here, she's a known unknown; before, she was an unknown unknown. That's a significant change in status, for which you're responsible. Now she's only one step away from exposure; before, it was two.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
ok --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfr...@... wrote: Are you serious Lurk? Why don't I just say it? How about the feelings of the person involved? There are several here who know what and who I am talking about. If I told you, you would be extremely unhappy about both the events and the fact that I had outed the person against her wishes. Sono it stops here for now. Read Judith Bourke's book when it comes out. Also, I highly recommend reading Nancy Cook de Herrera's book which I just did again for the first time in several years. It really captures first hand what it was like to be a part of the growth of the movement in the early 60s and what it was like to be in on the great phase transition...the good and the bad...in the mid 70s. Read. Learn. - -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: This topic really agitates you doesn't it Tex? As I've said, I understand. I was agitated when I first heard about it myself way back when. However, I didn't put up a steel door and refuse to consider information coming from several sources, Joe, I for one don't care if he had sexual relations or not. I am not unnerved by it, but ...one of whom would really fry your brain if you knew. this type of innuendo is a little weak (Out of respect for her privacy, she will remain anonymous until she chooses to say something on her own.) By the way, your guesses' below are lousy. If you've got something to say, why don't you just say it, instead of saying, if you only knew, if you only knew. Well if you know, tell us! And if you are not going to tell us, then maybe get off the high horse a little, as the silent authority on the matter. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@ wrote: Maybe nobody ever 'caught' him doing anything like that. Joe: Tex, it doesn't make sense to you for the simple reason that you do not want it to make sense. You don't want this to compute since you would short circuit if you allowed yourself to allow this as a possibility. So, Joe, how many minutes did you spend in his direct company alone, in his room? Zero. In fact, I've seen no evidence that you were ever in a room with the guy at all, much less being a skin-boy, door stop. My guess is that you've never been within a thousand feet of the guy, if that. So, your comment makes no sense.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
On Apr 27, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Bhairitu wrote: The only reason Willy posts here is to be annoying. I can't even recall when he ever started a topic. He just posts non-sequitur replies to topics to just annoy folks. Trolls live under bridges, in Texas so do Illegal Aliens. Need I say any more? It's only a matter of time till Ricardo Guillermo is deported back to wherever he came from. I always figured the reason he made so many non sequiturs was because he just doesn't have a good command of English.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Bhairitu: I can't even recall when he ever started a topic... Don't get me started. I've already asked you please not to feed it. I've got over 8,000 posts on Usenet, some of which are very interesting and informative, if I say so myself. While you were posting one-liners that start with RE: and begin and end on one line, I wrote a whole book! jus b reg 2 x y med, ne alt sans 3 guns, seps abs, n' i's-wide shut; nodoze, no bear down, u-jus n joy, else. - (Wallah Sutra 1.5) Usenet Archives: http://www.rwilliams.us/archives.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Vaj: Trolls live under bridges, in Texas so do Illegal Aliens... Now this post has class! Not all 'trolls' live under bridges, Vaj, and not all illegal aliens are Hispanic. Why are you so prejudice against Tejanos? They are Caucasion people just like you are. You said you were opposed to the caste system, based on birth circumstances.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
This topic really agitates you doesn't it Tex? Maybe so, Joe, but the rumor I get most agitated by is the 'Mahesh Yogi murdered his Guru' rumor. When I first read this on Usenet, I thought it was a joke. 'Conspiracy Theories - The Cook Did It!' http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/shantanand3.htm But, apparently there are at least two informants on FFL that actually believe it, and one of them supports the 'Mahesh Had Sex' rumor, so I guess you could consider the source. As I've said, I understand. I was agitated when I first heard about it myself way back when. However, I didn't put up a steel door and refuse to consider information coming from several sources, one of whom would really fry your brain if you knew. It just doesn't make any sense. Go figure. (Out of respect for her privacy, she will remain anonymous until she chooses to say something on her own.) Well, at least you have the common decency to not reveal her name, unlike some skin-boys I know. But, that doesn't explain why you and the skin-boys are so interested in other people's private life, hanging outside his bedroom door all night. By the way, your guesses' below are lousy. My guess is that the Maharishi probably got seduced by women almost every day, from 1935 until his death, if what Turq says is true. I mean, the Mahesh was a powerhouse with women!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@... wrote: ok --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Are you serious Lurk? Why don't I just say it? How about the feelings of the person involved? There are several here who know what and who I am talking about. If I told you, you would be extremely unhappy about both the events and the fact that I had outed the person against her wishes. Sono it stops here for now. Read Judith Bourke's book when it comes out. Also, I highly recommend reading Nancy Cook de Herrera's book which I just did again for the first time in several years. It really captures first hand what it was like to be a part of the growth of the movement in the early 60s and what it was like to be in on the great phase transition...the good and the bad...in the mid 70s. Sounds like the housing and internet bubbles. Bubbles usually associated with investments. But each individuals invest their time, seeking the high promised returns of being on the ground floor of the phase change, and resulting new order. The value of the future investment (of time) is so high, some invested all there time on it. When the bubble bursts, these time investors are left strewn among the rubble -- at least for a while. And 10-20 years their college peers in careers, etc. Read. Learn. - -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: This topic really agitates you doesn't it Tex? As I've said, I understand. I was agitated when I first heard about it myself way back when. However, I didn't put up a steel door and refuse to consider information coming from several sources, Joe, I for one don't care if he had sexual relations or not. I am not unnerved by it, but ...one of whom would really fry your brain if you knew. this type of innuendo is a little weak (Out of respect for her privacy, she will remain anonymous until she chooses to say something on her own.) By the way, your guesses' below are lousy. If you've got something to say, why don't you just say it, instead of saying, if you only knew, if you only knew. Well if you know, tell us! And if you are not going to tell us, then maybe get off the high horse a little, as the silent authority on the matter. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@ wrote: Maybe nobody ever 'caught' him doing anything like that. Joe: Tex, it doesn't make sense to you for the simple reason that you do not want it to make sense. You don't want this to compute since you would short circuit if you allowed yourself to allow this as a possibility. So, Joe, how many minutes did you spend in his direct company alone, in his room? Zero. In fact, I've seen no evidence that you were ever in a room with the guy at all, much less being a skin-boy, door stop. My guess is that you've never been within a thousand feet of the guy, if that. So, your comment makes no sense.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Vaj wrote: On Apr 27, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Bhairitu wrote: The only reason Willy posts here is to be annoying. I can't even recall when he ever started a topic. He just posts non-sequitur replies to topics to just annoy folks. Trolls live under bridges, in Texas so do Illegal Aliens. Need I say any more? It's only a matter of time till Ricardo Guillermo is deported back to wherever he came from. I always figured the reason he made so many non sequiturs was because he just doesn't have a good command of English. I think all those prairie dogs he ate are catching up with him and their prions are eating away his brain.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
This topic really agitates you doesn't it Tex? As I've said, I understand. I was agitated when I first heard about it myself way back when. Judy: He's a flak generator, otherwise known as a troll. He particularly likes to throw up flak about movement history. He fondly envisions himself as a sort of crazy wisdom guy who forces folks to confront their assumptions by making contradictory or inane statements. He's just not very good at the wisdom part. My job is not to answer questions, but to question answers. I'll leave the 'wisdom' statements to you and Barry Wright. Don't waste your time. Good point!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Trolls live under bridges, in Texas so do Illegal Aliens... Bhairitu: I think all those prairie dogs he ate are catching up with him and their prions are eating away his brain... You don't have to get so angry and annoyed, Barry2. Not all Tejanos live under bridges and eat prairie dogs. California has the most illegal aliens of any state in the U.S.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Maybe so, but you're the one who seems angry and annoyed Tex. Go figure. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: Trolls live under bridges, in Texas so do Illegal Aliens... Bhairitu: I think all those prairie dogs he ate are catching up with him and their prions are eating away his brain... You don't have to get so angry and annoyed, Barry2. Not all Tejanos live under bridges and eat prairie dogs. California has the most illegal aliens of any state in the U.S.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Not all Tejanos live under bridges and eat prairie dogs. Joe: Maybe so, but you're the one who seems angry and annoyed Tex. Why would I be upset, - I'm not Tejano. Not all Texans are Hispanic. But, you're obviously prejudiced against Texans. Go figure. Mexico is now more violent than Iraq. The unrest is spilling across the borders. The old shrill argument that criminals, drug smugglers, and violence in general are spreading into the American southwest from Mexico is no longer quite so shrill... Read more: 'How Could They Do That in Arizona!' By Victor Davis Hanson Pajamas Media, April 27th, 2010 http://tinyurl.com/22vht78
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Maybe so, but you're the one eating prarie dogs. You're just not making any sense today Tex. Go Figure. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: Not all Tejanos live under bridges and eat prairie dogs. Joe: Maybe so, but you're the one who seems angry and annoyed Tex. Why would I be upset, - I'm not Tejano. Not all Texans are Hispanic. But, you're obviously prejudiced against Texans. Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Apr 25, 2010, at 12:16 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: The guy napped on his sofa all the time sitting up which is one of the coolest things I learned in TM myself. (Always freaks out my girlfriend! Are you saying you witnessed MMY napping in seated position? Just out of curiosity was he in upright position (i.e. cross legged) or reclining backwards (lazy boy style)? The guy who setup his bed told me that he liked it shortsheeted because he slept sitting up. From that time on I always assumed when he would close his eyes for long periods of time on the sofa he was catching a few. I could be wrong. But since even I have this skill from meditating I think it is a good bet!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
...how do you not get someone pregnant during this time? Judy: Maybe the women, or most of them, used birth control, and it was just luck with those who didn't? Maybe he was careful to pull out... Maybe. And maybe he never 'put it in'; maybe he preferred 'fellatio'; or maybe he got a body 'massage'. Who knows? Maybe nobody ever 'caught' him doing anything like that. But, how could you NOT get caught, *at least once*, in over fifteen years, with a couple of horny boys in suits, hanging outside your unlocked, bedroon door, 24/7? It doesn't make any sense! What I've read, so far, at least from the skin-boy 'door stops', is nothing more than bowling alley type 'locker talk' speculation, with no eyewitness details at all. Apparently Judith's book isn't published yet, and Linda isn't talking! (Alex Mardas and John Lennon are known liars.) So, it still doesn't make any sense. You'd think, that in 'fifteen years' of supposed activity, at least one young buck would have caught him in the act. But, apparently even Connie Larsson, 'God's Little Clown', who claims to have been his 'private secretary' and who 'travelled with him everywhere day and night', from 1969 to 1975, would have seen SOMETHING, would you not? It just doesn't seem in character for a person like Connie to NOT report such, seeing as how Connie was the primary informant in the Satya Sai Baba expose! And, Tom Anderson, (Sudarsha), his TTC 'manager' in Majorrca, Spain, and in Fuiggi, Italy, and Noida, India, from 1975 to 1980, who was so close that he even once saw his official Indian passport, doesn't report anything like that at all on Usenet. Go figure. Hell, even Steven Perino, who scoured the net for years looking for dirt on the 'Little MishMashy Old Man', didn't have anything to report about this. One thing is fer sure, somebody is lying. What does his biographer have to say about this, I wonder - his comment is a '404 - page not found'. Now, go figure that one! 'Sex Allegations' http://tinyurl.com/22qgehj Works cited: Subject: Re: Erotic Dreams and Gurus Author: ColdBluICE Newsgroups: alt.yogananda, alt.yoga, alt.paranormal, alt.meditation.transcendental, alt.religion.hindu Date: July 17, 2002 http://tinyurl.com/2clqgh2 Subject: One for the Sudarsha Author: Kurt Arbuckle Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: August 20, 2000 http://tinyurl.com/2ed8s5q Read more: 'God's Little Clown' http://tinyurl.com/383la3g TM-Free Blog: http://tinyurl.com/28dgw3m
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Tex, it doesn't make sense to you for the simple reason that you do not want it to make sense. You don't want this to compute since you would short circuit if you allowed yourself to allow this as a possibility. As you so often saygo figure. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: ...how do you not get someone pregnant during this time? Judy: Maybe the women, or most of them, used birth control, and it was just luck with those who didn't? Maybe he was careful to pull out... Maybe. And maybe he never 'put it in'; maybe he preferred 'fellatio'; or maybe he got a body 'massage'. Who knows? Maybe nobody ever 'caught' him doing anything like that. But, how could you NOT get caught, *at least once*, in over fifteen years, with a couple of horny boys in suits, hanging outside your unlocked, bedroon door, 24/7? It doesn't make any sense! What I've read, so far, at least from the skin-boy 'door stops', is nothing more than bowling alley type 'locker talk' speculation, with no eyewitness details at all. Apparently Judith's book isn't published yet, and Linda isn't talking! (Alex Mardas and John Lennon are known liars.) So, it still doesn't make any sense. You'd think, that in 'fifteen years' of supposed activity, at least one young buck would have caught him in the act. But, apparently even Connie Larsson, 'God's Little Clown', who claims to have been his 'private secretary' and who 'travelled with him everywhere day and night', from 1969 to 1975, would have seen SOMETHING, would you not? It just doesn't seem in character for a person like Connie to NOT report such, seeing as how Connie was the primary informant in the Satya Sai Baba expose! And, Tom Anderson, (Sudarsha), his TTC 'manager' in Majorrca, Spain, and in Fuiggi, Italy, and Noida, India, from 1975 to 1980, who was so close that he even once saw his official Indian passport, doesn't report anything like that at all on Usenet. Go figure. Hell, even Steven Perino, who scoured the net for years looking for dirt on the 'Little MishMashy Old Man', didn't have anything to report about this. One thing is fer sure, somebody is lying. What does his biographer have to say about this, I wonder - his comment is a '404 - page not found'. Now, go figure that one! 'Sex Allegations' http://tinyurl.com/22qgehj Works cited: Subject: Re: Erotic Dreams and Gurus Author: ColdBluICE Newsgroups: alt.yogananda, alt.yoga, alt.paranormal, alt.meditation.transcendental, alt.religion.hindu Date: July 17, 2002 http://tinyurl.com/2clqgh2 Subject: One for the Sudarsha Author: Kurt Arbuckle Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: August 20, 2000 http://tinyurl.com/2ed8s5q Read more: 'God's Little Clown' http://tinyurl.com/383la3g TM-Free Blog: http://tinyurl.com/28dgw3m
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
The only reason Willy posts here is to be annoying. I can't even recall when he ever started a topic. He just posts non-sequitur replies to topics to just annoy folks. Joe wrote: Tex, it doesn't make sense to you for the simple reason that you do not want it to make sense. You don't want this to compute since you would short circuit if you allowed yourself to allow this as a possibility. As you so often saygo figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Maybe nobody ever 'caught' him doing anything like that. Joe: Tex, it doesn't make sense to you for the simple reason that you do not want it to make sense. You don't want this to compute since you would short circuit if you allowed yourself to allow this as a possibility. So, Joe, how many minutes did you spend in his direct company alone, in his room? Zero. In fact, I've seen no evidence that you were ever in a room with the guy at all, much less being a skin-boy, door stop. My guess is that you've never been within a thousand feet of the guy, if that. So, your comment makes no sense.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul Bhairitu: The only reason Willy posts here is to be annoying. I can't even recall when he ever started a topic. He just posts non-sequitur replies to topics to just annoy folks. Non sequitur. 1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence. 2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it. The term non sequitur literally means it does not follow.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
This topic really agitates you doesn't it Tex? As I've said, I understand. I was agitated when I first heard about it myself way back when. However, I didn't put up a steel door and refuse to consider information coming from several sources, one of whom would really fry your brain if you knew. (Out of respect for her privacy, she will remain anonymous until she chooses to say something on her own.) By the way, your guesses' below are lousy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: Maybe nobody ever 'caught' him doing anything like that. Joe: Tex, it doesn't make sense to you for the simple reason that you do not want it to make sense. You don't want this to compute since you would short circuit if you allowed yourself to allow this as a possibility. So, Joe, how many minutes did you spend in his direct company alone, in his room? Zero. In fact, I've seen no evidence that you were ever in a room with the guy at all, much less being a skin-boy, door stop. My guess is that you've never been within a thousand feet of the guy, if that. So, your comment makes no sense.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfr...@... wrote: This topic really agitates you doesn't it Tex? As I've said, I understand. I was agitated when I first heard about it myself way back when. Joe...this is not the first he's heard the allegations, not by a long shot. You're getting his standard response. He's a flak generator, otherwise known as a troll. He particularly likes to throw up flak about movement history. He fondly envisions himself as a sort of crazy wisdom guy who forces folks to confront their assumptions by making contradictory or inane statements. He's just not very good at the wisdom part. Don't waste your time. However, I didn't put up a steel door and refuse to consider information coming from several sources, one of whom would really fry your brain if you knew. (Out of respect for her privacy, she will remain anonymous until she chooses to say something on her own.) BTW, this immediately inspires people to start speculating about who it could be, thereby casting suspicion on all sorts of prominent movement women, probably including the one you have in mind. If you want to protect her privacy, STFU about her. It looks like all you're really doing is boasting about your insider knowledge. By the way, your guesses' below are lousy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@ wrote: Maybe nobody ever 'caught' him doing anything like that. Joe: Tex, it doesn't make sense to you for the simple reason that you do not want it to make sense. You don't want this to compute since you would short circuit if you allowed yourself to allow this as a possibility. So, Joe, how many minutes did you spend in his direct company alone, in his room? Zero. In fact, I've seen no evidence that you were ever in a room with the guy at all, much less being a skin-boy, door stop. My guess is that you've never been within a thousand feet of the guy, if that. So, your comment makes no sense.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Yeah, I know he's a troll and I should know better than to interactother than to imitate him in responses back to him. (Kind of a minor guilty pleasure. Very minor...) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: This topic really agitates you doesn't it Tex? As I've said, I understand. I was agitated when I first heard about it myself way back when. Joe...this is not the first he's heard the allegations, not by a long shot. You're getting his standard response. He's a flak generator, otherwise known as a troll. He particularly likes to throw up flak about movement history. He fondly envisions himself as a sort of crazy wisdom guy who forces folks to confront their assumptions by making contradictory or inane statements. He's just not very good at the wisdom part. Don't waste your time. However, I didn't put up a steel door and refuse to consider information coming from several sources, one of whom would really fry your brain if you knew. (Out of respect for her privacy, she will remain anonymous until she chooses to say something on her own.) BTW, this immediately inspires people to start speculating about who it could be, thereby casting suspicion on all sorts of prominent movement women, probably including the one you have in mind. If you want to protect her privacy, STFU about her. It looks like all you're really doing is boasting about your insider knowledge. By the way, your guesses' below are lousy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@ wrote: Maybe nobody ever 'caught' him doing anything like that. Joe: Tex, it doesn't make sense to you for the simple reason that you do not want it to make sense. You don't want this to compute since you would short circuit if you allowed yourself to allow this as a possibility. So, Joe, how many minutes did you spend in his direct company alone, in his room? Zero. In fact, I've seen no evidence that you were ever in a room with the guy at all, much less being a skin-boy, door stop. My guess is that you've never been within a thousand feet of the guy, if that. So, your comment makes no sense.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfr...@... wrote: This topic really agitates you doesn't it Tex? As I've said, I understand. I was agitated when I first heard about it myself way back when. However, I didn't put up a steel door and refuse to consider information coming from several sources, Joe, I for one don't care if he had sexual relations or not. I am not unnerved by it, but ...one of whom would really fry your brain if you knew. this type of innuendo is a little weak (Out of respect for her privacy, she will remain anonymous until she chooses to say something on her own.) By the way, your guesses' below are lousy. If you've got something to say, why don't you just say it, instead of saying, if you only knew, if you only knew. Well if you know, tell us! And if you are not going to tell us, then maybe get off the high horse a little, as the silent authority on the matter. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@ wrote: Maybe nobody ever 'caught' him doing anything like that. Joe: Tex, it doesn't make sense to you for the simple reason that you do not want it to make sense. You don't want this to compute since you would short circuit if you allowed yourself to allow this as a possibility. So, Joe, how many minutes did you spend in his direct company alone, in his room? Zero. In fact, I've seen no evidence that you were ever in a room with the guy at all, much less being a skin-boy, door stop. My guess is that you've never been within a thousand feet of the guy, if that. So, your comment makes no sense.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Are you serious Lurk? Why don't I just say it? How about the feelings of the person involved? There are several here who know what and who I am talking about. If I told you, you would be extremely unhappy about both the events and the fact that I had outed the person against her wishes. Sono it stops here for now. Read Judith Bourke's book when it comes out. Also, I highly recommend reading Nancy Cook de Herrera's book which I just did again for the first time in several years. It really captures first hand what it was like to be a part of the growth of the movement in the early 60s and what it was like to be in on the great phase transition...the good and the bad...in the mid 70s. Read. Learn. - -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: This topic really agitates you doesn't it Tex? As I've said, I understand. I was agitated when I first heard about it myself way back when. However, I didn't put up a steel door and refuse to consider information coming from several sources, Joe, I for one don't care if he had sexual relations or not. I am not unnerved by it, but ...one of whom would really fry your brain if you knew. this type of innuendo is a little weak (Out of respect for her privacy, she will remain anonymous until she chooses to say something on her own.) By the way, your guesses' below are lousy. If you've got something to say, why don't you just say it, instead of saying, if you only knew, if you only knew. Well if you know, tell us! And if you are not going to tell us, then maybe get off the high horse a little, as the silent authority on the matter. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@ wrote: Maybe nobody ever 'caught' him doing anything like that. Joe: Tex, it doesn't make sense to you for the simple reason that you do not want it to make sense. You don't want this to compute since you would short circuit if you allowed yourself to allow this as a possibility. So, Joe, how many minutes did you spend in his direct company alone, in his room? Zero. In fact, I've seen no evidence that you were ever in a room with the guy at all, much less being a skin-boy, door stop. My guess is that you've never been within a thousand feet of the guy, if that. So, your comment makes no sense.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
On Apr 25, 2010, at 8:43 PM, yifuxero wrote: Willytex, you're not making sense. If some Tibetan Rinpoche's can do it, why not MMY? I doubt MMY was instructed in the anuttara-tantras. As late as his Larry King interview he was claiming to be a life-long monk! And not all lamas with anuttara tantric permissions take a physical consort, some simply use a visualized consort. Anuttara-tantra practitioners who go on to practice Dzogchen may have no need for taking a consort. In any event you have to be unattached to the sexual act to really practice it effectively anyway, and it doesn't sound like MMY had that level of renunciation. The sexual yogas of the inner tantras are more like strenuous physical exercises than they are love-making or western-style imaginings about what tantra is. It's not a way to 'get your rocks off' in an exotic eastern way. It's more about creating the specific conditions typically only experienced at the moment of death. La petite mort leveraged to be like la grand mort. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
On Apr 25, 2010, at 12:16 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: The guy napped on his sofa all the time sitting up which is one of the coolest things I learned in TM myself. (Always freaks out my girlfriend! Are you saying you witnessed MMY napping in seated position? Just out of curiosity was he in upright position (i.e. cross legged) or reclining backwards (lazy boy style)?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
WillyTex willy...@... wrote: So, why would a guy like the Maharishi, who could have women at any time since 1956, who had been celibate for sixty years, go off on a orgy of sex with young women for one year, and then not engage in sexual relations for the next fifty years? I'm not sure if I get the time table, but I think it is a good point. I guess we would have to assume that he had a period of sexual activity, and then turned that expression off? I don't believe it usually works that way, but I guess it could. If it did play out that way, then I guess you have to say, either he was experiementing, or that he realized that this could damage or destroy the franchise, or not sure what else it could be. Any other possibilities?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@... wrote: WillyTex willytex@ wrote: So, why would a guy like the Maharishi, who could have women at any time since 1956, who had been celibate for sixty years, go off on a orgy of sex with young women for one year, and then not engage in sexual relations for the next fifty years? I'm not sure if I get the time table, but I think it is a good point. I guess we would have to assume that he had a period of sexual activity, and then turned that expression off? I don't believe it usually works that way, but I guess it could. If it did play out that way, then I guess you have to say, either he was experiementing, or that he realized that this could damage or destroy the franchise, or not sure what else it could be. Any other possibilities? Duh. Lack of inspiration. In the early days of the TM movement, the majority of the women were young, attractive, full of energy, and wearing miniskirts and no bras. Then the TM movement dogma took over and many of them turned into sari- or granny dress-wearing matrons who wouldn't invite a second look from a guy who'd been in prison for thirty years. *I* had lost interest in TM movement women by the mid- 70s. As a possibility, maybe Maharishi looked around at what his prudish dress codes and imposed puritanical lifestyles had wrought and thought, WHAT could I have been seeing in these women? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@... wrote: WillyTex willytex@ wrote: So, why would a guy like the Maharishi, who could have women at any time since 1956, who had been celibate for sixty years, go off on a orgy of sex with young women for one year, and then not engage in sexual relations for the next fifty years? I'm not sure if I get the time table, From all reports, WillyTex's time table is wildly off. He wasn't, it seems, celibate for sixty years, nor was his sexual activity limited to one year. but I think it is a good point. I guess we would have to assume that he had a period of sexual activity, and then turned that expression off? At any rate, there don't seem to be any reports of same after the mid-70s. I don't believe it usually works that way, It doesn't. but I guess it could. If it did play out that way, then I guess you have to say, either he was experiementing, or that he realized that this could damage or destroy the franchise, or not sure what else it could be. Any other possibilities? He was diabetic, which frequently has a very negative effect on a man's sexual abilities. He may have reached the point where his efforts were so unsatisfying and embarrassing that he gave the whole thing up as a bad job. (This problem in male diabetics can be treated medically, but for him to obtain such treatment, obviously he'd have had to tell his physicians why he needed it.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Just a thought, but it seems 76, 77 ish forward, he had a different entourage and door personnel. Less gabby. More dedicated / fanatical. Perhaps tighter controls and discreetness. And more bundled up in Seelisberg -- less living in resort hotels. (a stretch -- but being resort hotels, particularly Mallorca, probably the walls were soaked in sex vibes. Perhaps an influence. Maybe two deerskins were necessary.) And the silk walls. I don't recall that in Mallorca. Came later? As a means for more protection from the environment? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@... wrote: WillyTex willytex@ wrote: So, why would a guy like the Maharishi, who could have women at any time since 1956, who had been celibate for sixty years, go off on a orgy of sex with young women for one year, and then not engage in sexual relations for the next fifty years? I'm not sure if I get the time table, but I think it is a good point. I guess we would have to assume that he had a period of sexual activity, and then turned that expression off? I don't believe it usually works that way, but I guess it could. If it did play out that way, then I guess you have to say, either he was experiementing, or that he realized that this could damage or destroy the franchise, or not sure what else it could be. Any other possibilities?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Field of all possibilities http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yZFbzaWbg From: lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, 26 April, 2010 7:57:08 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1! WillyTex willy...@.. . wrote: So, why would a guy like the Maharishi, who could have women at any time since 1956, who had been celibate for sixty years, go off on a orgy of sex with young women for one year, and then not engage in sexual relations for the next fifty years? I'm not sure if I get the time table, but I think it is a good point. I guess we would have to assume that he had a period of sexual activity, and then turned that expression off? I don't believe it usually works that way, but I guess it could. If it did play out that way, then I guess you have to say, either he was experiementing, or that he realized that this could damage or destroy the franchise, or not sure what else it could be. Any other possibilities?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Field of all possibilities http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yZFbzaWbg From: lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, 26 April, 2010 7:57:08 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1! WillyTex willy...@.. . wrote: So, why would a guy like the Maharishi, who could have women at any time since 1956, who had been celibate for sixty years, go off on a orgy of sex with young women for one year, and then not engage in sexual relations for the next fifty years? I'm not sure if I get the time table, but I think it is a good point. I guess we would have to assume that he had a period of sexual activity, and then turned that expression off? I don't believe it usually works that way, but I guess it could. If it did play out that way, then I guess you have to say, either he was experiementing, or that he realized that this could damage or destroy the franchise, or not sure what else it could be. Any other possibilities?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Field of all possibilities http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yZFbzaWbg From: lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, 26 April, 2010 7:57:08 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1! WillyTex willy...@.. . wrote: So, why would a guy like the Maharishi, who could have women at any time since 1956, who had been celibate for sixty years, go off on a orgy of sex with young women for one year, and then not engage in sexual relations for the next fifty years? I'm not sure if I get the time table, but I think it is a good point. I guess we would have to assume that he had a period of sexual activity, and then turned that expression off? I don't believe it usually works that way, but I guess it could. If it did play out that way, then I guess you have to say, either he was experiementing, or that he realized that this could damage or destroy the franchise, or not sure what else it could be. Any other possibilities?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
So, why would a guy like the Maharishi, who could have women at any time since 1956, who had been celibate for sixty years, go off on a orgy of sex with young women for one year, and then not engage in sexual relations for the next fifty years? lurk: I'm not sure if I get the time table, but I think it is a good point... Unless you might consider that the Maharishi was a 'Tantric Yogi', and maybe the Trungpa, the Sogyal, and the Prakash, were Tantics too. But, unlike the Tantras, you'd not want to be having sexual relations with someone underage, right? There seem to be at least three respondents on this forum, maybe more, that make various claims to being Tantric Yogis, of one sort or another. So, I wonder why some people put the Maharishi up on a pedestal? And ignore their own sexual proclivites. Aren't they spiritual teachers, just like the Maharishi, Trungpa, the Sogyal, and the Prakash. Or, are all of these informants just normal men and women with ordinary sexual appetites? What makes it wrong for one person, to engage, and not for the others? Haven't all the respondents on FFL been acting, at some time or another, like Tantrics? What is a Tantric anyway?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
On Apr 26, 2010, at 3:48 PM, WillyTex wrote: So, why would a guy like the Maharishi, who could have women at any time since 1956, who had been celibate for sixty years, go off on a orgy of sex with young women for one year, and then not engage in sexual relations for the next fifty years? lurk: I'm not sure if I get the time table, but I think it is a good point... Unless you might consider that the Maharishi was a 'Tantric Yogi', and maybe the Trungpa, the Sogyal, and the Prakash, were Tantics too. But, unlike the Tantras, you'd not want to be having sexual relations with someone underage, right? There seem to be at least three respondents on this forum, maybe more, that make various claims to being Tantric Yogis, of one sort or another. So, I wonder why some people put the Maharishi up on a pedestal? And ignore their own sexual proclivites. Aren't they spiritual teachers, just like the Maharishi, Trungpa, the Sogyal, and the Prakash. Or, are all of these informants just normal men and women with ordinary sexual appetites? What makes it wrong for one person, to engage, and not for the others? Haven't all the respondents on FFL been acting, at some time or another, like Tantrics? What is a Tantric anyway? Certainly not a Lecherishi. MAHARISHI: I am a single person. I'm a Purusha. I'm a -- what do you call it -- Sannyasi, if you understand the word. I'm a monk, if you understand it... LARRY KING: You're a bachelor. MAHARISHI: ... monk. KING: Do you have special diets that you eat? MAHARISHI: I think that diet that I eat, everyone eats the same thing -- some rice, some dal, some chapatis, something vegetables. But I like this organic, organic. I recommend to people organic agriculture -- Vedic organic agriculture. Huge amount of scientific research has shown that with the Vedic hymns, with the Vedic melodies, the nutrients grow in the trees very much in the fruits, in the crops, in the vegetables. May 12, 2002 A Young mother who became a top disciple of the Beatles' former guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, claims he seduced her -- although he professes to be a celibate monk. After travelling to India to join the Transcendental Meditation movement, Mrs Linda Pearce says she fell completely under the Maharishi's spell. And then into his bed. I was a virgin and knew nothing about sex, said 34-year-old Mrs Pearce. He said he loved me and that I was the only one. 'You make my life so good,' he told me. When I asked about his celibacy he said: 'There are exceptions to every rule.' He was a brilliant manipulator. I just couldn't see that he was a dirty old man. We made love regularly. And I don't think I was the only girl. At one stage I thought I was pregnant by him. - Sexy romps of the Beatle's giggling guru 'I gave my mind to the Maharishi and he took my body' News of the World, UK/August 23, 1981 By David Mertens
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
That is funny. Thanks for sharing that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail carc...@... wrote: Field of all possibilities http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yZFbzaWbg From: lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, 26 April, 2010 7:57:08 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1! WillyTex willytex@ . wrote: So, why would a guy like the Maharishi, who could have women at any time since 1956, who had been celibate for sixty years, go off on a orgy of sex with young women for one year, and then not engage in sexual relations for the next fifty years? I'm not sure if I get the time table, but I think it is a good point. I guess we would have to assume that he had a period of sexual activity, and then turned that expression off? I don't believe it usually works that way, but I guess it could. If it did play out that way, then I guess you have to say, either he was experiementing, or that he realized that this could damage or destroy the franchise, or not sure what else it could be. Any other possibilities?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
I was a virgin and knew nothing about sex, said 34-year-old Mrs Pearce. He said he loved me and that I was the only one. 'You make my life so good,' he told me. When I asked about his celibacy he said: 'There are exceptions to every rule.' He was a brilliant manipulator. I just couldn't see that he was a dirty old man. We made love regularly. And I don't think I was the only girl. At one stage I thought I was pregnant by him. I have said previously that it really makes no difference to me one way or the other about his sexual escapades. But if he was sexually active for fifteen years or so, and had these women under his spell, and therefore probably got sex whenever, wherever he wanted, how do you not get someone pregnant during this time? And I don't hear about anyone getting an abortion
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@... wrote: I was a virgin and knew nothing about sex, said 34-year- old Mrs Pearce. He said he loved me and that I was the only one. 'You make my life so good,' he told me. When I asked about his celibacy he said: 'There are exceptions to every rule.' He was a brilliant manipulator. I just couldn't see that he was a dirty old man. We made love regularly. And I don't think I was the only girl. At one stage I thought I was pregnant by him. I have said previously that it really makes no difference to me one way or the other about his sexual escapades. But if he was sexually active for fifteen years or so, and had these women under his spell, and therefore probably got sex whenever, wherever he wanted, how do you not get someone pregnant during this time? And I don't hear about anyone getting an abortion Maybe the women, or most of them, used birth control, and it was just luck with those who didn't? Maybe he was careful to pull out? (Not very dependable, but it reduces the chances.) Or maybe there were abortions that were kept really quiet. Hmmm. You don't suppose there could be...naah.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
I keep hearing this song when I see the topic title. You better watch out You better not cry Better not pout I'm telling you why Jerry Jarvis is coming to town He's making a list And checking it twice; Gonna find out Who's naughty and nice Jerry Jarvis is coming to town He sees you when you're sleeping He knows when you're awake He knows if you've been bad or good So be good for goodness sake! O! You better watch out! You better not cry Better not pout I'm telling you why Jerry Jarvis is coming to town Jerry Jarvis is coming to town
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: Maybe the women, or most of them, used birth control, and it was just luck with those who didn't? Maybe he was careful to pull out? (Not very dependable, but it reduces the chances.) Or maybe there were abortions that were kept really quiet. Well, he sure didn't get high marks as a lover from those with whom he was said to be having affairs. But maybe he was more sophisticated lover than he is being portrayed. I admit the whole notion of M being a lover strikes me as funny. On the one hand, he he said to be a real bungler in bed. On the other hand he said to be a sly manipulator who is able to get what he wants sexually from these women. The two just seems at odds with one another.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Who is to say he didn't father someone? I don't know that he did, I'm just asking since you present this as if it's some kind of proof that these things did not happen. They happened. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@... wrote: I was a virgin and knew nothing about sex, said 34-year-old Mrs Pearce. He said he loved me and that I was the only one. 'You make my life so good,' he told me. When I asked about his celibacy he said: 'There are exceptions to every rule.' He was a brilliant manipulator. I just couldn't see that he was a dirty old man. We made love regularly. And I don't think I was the only girl. At one stage I thought I was pregnant by him. I have said previously that it really makes no difference to me one way or the other about his sexual escapades. But if he was sexually active for fifteen years or so, and had these women under his spell, and therefore probably got sex whenever, wherever he wanted, how do you not get someone pregnant during this time? And I don't hear about anyone getting an abortion
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfr...@... wrote: Who is to say he didn't father someone? I don't know that he did, I'm just asking since you present this as if it's some kind of proof that these things did not happen. I figured this would hit a nerve. To me it's a logical question. To you, it's an indication that I believe it didn't happen. I am just trying to reconcile the various accounts. Maybe he has a love child some where. At some point it usually gets revealed. i.e Jesse Helms. Could it possibly be Tony Nader? He's probably about 10 years too old. Would have to be someone who is about 35-40, I would guess. They happened. Did you witness it first hand? And if so, what's your story? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sundur@ wrote: I was a virgin and knew nothing about sex, said 34-year-old Mrs Pearce. He said he loved me and that I was the only one. 'You make my life so good,' he told me. When I asked about his celibacy he said: 'There are exceptions to every rule.' He was a brilliant manipulator. I just couldn't see that he was a dirty old man. We made love regularly. And I don't think I was the only girl. At one stage I thought I was pregnant by him. I have said previously that it really makes no difference to me one way or the other about his sexual escapades. But if he was sexually active for fifteen years or so, and had these women under his spell, and therefore probably got sex whenever, wherever he wanted, how do you not get someone pregnant during this time? And I don't hear about anyone getting an abortion
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
You guys forgot a couple: Sometimes men can be sterile or have vasectomy's too. Now if you have some David Lynch footage, That could be pretty interesting. I may care enough to take notice. lol. From: lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, 26 April, 2010 10:48:38 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1! --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Joe geezerfreak@ ... wrote: Who is to say he didn't father someone? I don't know that he did, I'm just asking since you present this as if it's some kind of proof that these things did not happen. I figured this would hit a nerve. To me it's a logical question. To you, it's an indication that I believe it didn't happen. I am just trying to reconcile the various accounts. Maybe he has a love child some where. At some point it usually gets revealed. i.e Jesse Helms. Could it possibly be Tony Nader? He's probably about 10 years too old. Would have to be someone who is about 35-40, I would guess. They happened. Did you witness it first hand? And if so, what's your story? --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, lurkernomore200020 00 steve.sundur@ wrote: I was a virgin and knew nothing about sex, said 34-year-old Mrs Pearce. He said he loved me and that I was the only one. 'You make my life so good,' he told me. When I asked about his celibacy he said: 'There are exceptions to every rule.' He was a brilliant manipulator. I just couldn't see that he was a dirty old man. We made love regularly. And I don't think I was the only girl. At one stage I thought I was pregnant by him. I have said previously that it really makes no difference to me one way or the other about his sexual escapades. But if he was sexually active for fifteen years or so, and had these women under his spell, and therefore probably got sex whenever, wherever he wanted, how do you not get someone pregnant during this time? And I don't hear about anyone getting an abortion
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
And the folks who knew about it, like the guys who put together the Sexy Sadie files, got better at keeping their mouths shut? Right. I'm guessing that the ones who talked about it don't represent all the people who were involved. And it a group like TM secrets are the norm not the exception. TurquoiseB: One might ask, for example, anyone who disputes that secrets were the norm and the willingness of TBs to keep them without giving a second thought to it whether they, personally, have ever told anyone their TM mantra. You've got to be joking, right? You have not told us a single TM 'secret' in over fifteen years of posting to news forums. You ARE the TMO, Barry! You were one of the Maharishi's most important enablers, to hear you talk. Or, maybe you spent less than one minute, if that much, in the direct company of the Maharishi, alone in his room. So, how would you be knowing anything about the Maharishi by hanging around outside his bedroom door for a few months? If they have not, then they kept for decades a secret that in many cases here they only paid $35 for, or $75. Imagine being someone who had invested tens of thousands of dollars and decades of his life, becoming privy to a deep, dark secret, and being told that revealing it would not only get him kicked out of the movement, but imperil his everlasting soul, squelch his chances of enlighten- ment forever, and end him up in the Hell worlds for many, many incarnations. Do you think such a person might...uh...tend to keep the secret? How many people were surprised by King Tony's recent revelation about being married with children? Almost everybody. :-) The only surprise for me was how nosey you are about other people's private sex life. Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Speak for yourself. He chose a lifestyle that didn't exactly put a priority on quality of life, so that apparently wasn't what mattered to him. Curtis: He was a guy who had silk for wallpaper and never let his butt touch anything not covered with the skin of an endangered species... So, from that, you're thinking that the Maharishi would enjoy having messy sexual relations with an American girl? It doesn't make any sense. I'd think, based on your description, that the Maharishi would be avoiding anything that close to his own skin. His diet was meticulously prepared even to the point of him moving in an attractive cook from India to the Olsen's house when her first came here. I don't think you can say the guy was not interested in the quality of his own life. His lifestyle was as the Maharaja of his own personal kingdom. He had personal doctors at his beck and call both Ayurvedic and Western, the guy was interested in every area of quality of life. I don't know why you would say he wasn't interested in his quality of life. Well, if he was able to seduce that many women when he was sixty-five years old, I'd be very impressed, if true. I mean, how many times could you ejaculate with some pimply-faced guys in suits standing outside your bedroom door, after you had been awake and working for thirty-six hours without a nap and being on diabetic medications?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: Speak for yourself. He chose a lifestyle that didn't exactly put a priority on quality of life, so that apparently wasn't what mattered to him. Curtis: He was a guy who had silk for wallpaper and never let his butt touch anything not covered with the skin of an endangered species... So, from that, you're thinking that the Maharishi would enjoy having messy sexual relations with an American girl? It doesn't make any sense. I'd think, based on your description, that the Maharishi would be avoiding anything that close to his own skin. He wrapped her in a deer skin and banged her through the bullet holes like the Amish do with sheets. His diet was meticulously prepared even to the point of him moving in an attractive cook from India to the Olsen's house when her first came here. I don't think you can say the guy was not interested in the quality of his own life. His lifestyle was as the Maharaja of his own personal kingdom. He had personal doctors at his beck and call both Ayurvedic and Western, the guy was interested in every area of quality of life. I don't know why you would say he wasn't interested in his quality of life. Well, if he was able to seduce that many women when he was sixty-five years old, I'd be very impressed, if true. Powerful guys with lots of money don't seem to have trouble at any age. It is a law of nature. I mean, how many times could you ejaculate with some pimply-faced guys Myth, Maharishi's boys all had baby faced clear complexions with bottoms like peaches.(In fairness the peach-like nature of their bottoms is unverified but assumed.) in suits standing outside your bedroom door, after you had been awake and working for thirty-six hours Myth. without a nap The guy napped on his sofa all the time sitting up which is one of the coolest things I learned in TM myself. (Always freaks out my girlfriend! and being on diabetic medications? I would think that diabetic medication would help in this area. But I have no idea if he was sexually active in his old age. It is a weird area for me to contemplate like imagining Larry King putting his troll fingers on his hottie wife and her sister. Ugh!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
That's it Tex, shoot the messenger. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: Speak for yourself. He chose a lifestyle that didn't exactly put a priority on quality of life, so that apparently wasn't what mattered to him. Curtis: He was a guy who had silk for wallpaper and never let his butt touch anything not covered with the skin of an endangered species... So, from that, you're thinking that the Maharishi would enjoy having messy sexual relations with an American girl? It doesn't make any sense. I'd think, based on your description, that the Maharishi would be avoiding anything that close to his own skin. His diet was meticulously prepared even to the point of him moving in an attractive cook from India to the Olsen's house when her first came here. I don't think you can say the guy was not interested in the quality of his own life. His lifestyle was as the Maharaja of his own personal kingdom. He had personal doctors at his beck and call both Ayurvedic and Western, the guy was interested in every area of quality of life. I don't know why you would say he wasn't interested in his quality of life. Well, if he was able to seduce that many women when he was sixty-five years old, I'd be very impressed, if true. I mean, how many times could you ejaculate with some pimply-faced guys in suits standing outside your bedroom door, after you had been awake and working for thirty-six hours without a nap and being on diabetic medications?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Willytex, you're not making sense. If some Tibetan Rinpoche's can do it, why not MMY? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: Speak for yourself. He chose a lifestyle that didn't exactly put a priority on quality of life, so that apparently wasn't what mattered to him. Curtis: He was a guy who had silk for wallpaper and never let his butt touch anything not covered with the skin of an endangered species... So, from that, you're thinking that the Maharishi would enjoy having messy sexual relations with an American girl? It doesn't make any sense. I'd think, based on your description, that the Maharishi would be avoiding anything that close to his own skin. His diet was meticulously prepared even to the point of him moving in an attractive cook from India to the Olsen's house when her first came here. I don't think you can say the guy was not interested in the quality of his own life. His lifestyle was as the Maharaja of his own personal kingdom. He had personal doctors at his beck and call both Ayurvedic and Western, the guy was interested in every area of quality of life. I don't know why you would say he wasn't interested in his quality of life. Well, if he was able to seduce that many women when he was sixty-five years old, I'd be very impressed, if true. I mean, how many times could you ejaculate with some pimply-faced guys in suits standing outside your bedroom door, after you had been awake and working for thirty-six hours without a nap and being on diabetic medications?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
I know.Tex sounds very upset about something. Go figure. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote: Willytex, you're not making sense. If some Tibetan Rinpoche's can do it, why not MMY? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@ wrote: Speak for yourself. He chose a lifestyle that didn't exactly put a priority on quality of life, so that apparently wasn't what mattered to him. Curtis: He was a guy who had silk for wallpaper and never let his butt touch anything not covered with the skin of an endangered species... So, from that, you're thinking that the Maharishi would enjoy having messy sexual relations with an American girl? It doesn't make any sense. I'd think, based on your description, that the Maharishi would be avoiding anything that close to his own skin. His diet was meticulously prepared even to the point of him moving in an attractive cook from India to the Olsen's house when her first came here. I don't think you can say the guy was not interested in the quality of his own life. His lifestyle was as the Maharaja of his own personal kingdom. He had personal doctors at his beck and call both Ayurvedic and Western, the guy was interested in every area of quality of life. I don't know why you would say he wasn't interested in his quality of life. Well, if he was able to seduce that many women when he was sixty-five years old, I'd be very impressed, if true. I mean, how many times could you ejaculate with some pimply-faced guys in suits standing outside your bedroom door, after you had been awake and working for thirty-six hours without a nap and being on diabetic medications?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Tibetans are required to abandon their monastic vocation before taking a karma-mudra during the practice of anuttara yoga-s. That doesn't mean they all do it but that's the norm. Remember that a lama and a monk are not the same title or vaocation. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote: Willytex, you're not making sense. If some Tibetan Rinpoche's can do it, why not MMY? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@ wrote: Speak for yourself. He chose a lifestyle that didn't exactly put a priority on quality of life, so that apparently wasn't what mattered to him. Curtis: He was a guy who had silk for wallpaper and never let his butt touch anything not covered with the skin of an endangered species... So, from that, you're thinking that the Maharishi would enjoy having messy sexual relations with an American girl? It doesn't make any sense. I'd think, based on your description, that the Maharishi would be avoiding anything that close to his own skin. His diet was meticulously prepared even to the point of him moving in an attractive cook from India to the Olsen's house when her first came here. I don't think you can say the guy was not interested in the quality of his own life. His lifestyle was as the Maharaja of his own personal kingdom. He had personal doctors at his beck and call both Ayurvedic and Western, the guy was interested in every area of quality of life. I don't know why you would say he wasn't interested in his quality of life. Well, if he was able to seduce that many women when he was sixty-five years old, I'd be very impressed, if true. I mean, how many times could you ejaculate with some pimply-faced guys in suits standing outside your bedroom door, after you had been awake and working for thirty-six hours without a nap and being on diabetic medications?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
yifuxero: If some Tibetan Rinpoche's can do it, why not MMY? Well, maybe he could, but what would be the point? Chogyam Trungpa was a tantric and drank alcoholic to excess, smoked cigarettes, and screwed everyone except his own wife. He did this since he was nineteen years old. Trungpa died from riotus living at an early age. The Maharishi lived for thirty years longer than Trungpa, but apparently the Maharishi didn't drink any alcohol or smoke. So, why would a guy like the Maharishi, who could have women at any time since 1956, who had been celibate for sixty years, go off on a orgy of sex with young women for one year, and then not engage in sexual relations for the next fifty years? It just doesn't compute because it's so out of character.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Tex, you really are the champion of twisting words and ideas.or more often just blatantly lying as you are here when you don't care for the message. Who here has suggested that MMY only had sex for one year? No one. On the contrary, the period involved appears to have been from the early 60s (according to Joyce-Collins Smith in the book Call No Man Master) to roughly 1975. After 1975 there has been speculation over the last couple of days that either the effects of diabetes or some coaching from Jemmima Pittman might have ended his exploits. Some, like Nabby, have suggested that MMY never claimed to be celibate, that his change in name from Bal Bramachari Mahesh to MMY was the clue. I've been re-reading Nancy Cooke's book the last few days. I had forgotten the section where Charlie Lutes asks MMY about the stories of his indiscretions at Rishikesh in 1968. Charlie reports that MMY said: But Charlie, I am a lifetime celibate, I don't know anything about sensual desires. You really cannot deal with these stories of MMY's sexual life can you Tex. It's obvious they disturb you. I understand. They did the same to me back when I first heard them in Switzerland. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: yifuxero: If some Tibetan Rinpoche's can do it, why not MMY? Well, maybe he could, but what would be the point? Chogyam Trungpa was a tantric and drank alcoholic to excess, smoked cigarettes, and screwed everyone except his own wife. He did this since he was nineteen years old. Trungpa died from riotus living at an early age. The Maharishi lived for thirty years longer than Trungpa, but apparently the Maharishi didn't drink any alcohol or smoke. So, why would a guy like the Maharishi, who could have women at any time since 1956, who had been celibate for sixty years, go off on a orgy of sex with young women for one year, and then not engage in sexual relations for the next fifty years? It just doesn't compute because it's so out of character.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfr...@... wrote: I know.Tex sounds very upset about something. Go figure. Walmart might be out of prairie-dog ball-gags again.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfr...@... wrote: snip Keep in mind though that this last part is just speculation on my part, based on something that was passed on to me a long time ago. Don't you know that Rick Archer doesn't read everything that is posted here ? Speculations belongs to his Department of Denouncement, Rumours and Backstabbing and must be sent to him directly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: Did I miss something? Why are we assuming he wasn't down and dialing till the end? He, like many smart guys, may have just gotten better at it. And the folks who knew about it, like the guys who put together the Sexy Sadie files, got better at keeping their mouths shut? Right. snip Of course contrary to all the perfect health immortality bullshit, he was a sick old man long before his time. Right! Gee, if he hadn't been so sick, he might not have died so young.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Is anyone going to see Jerry in St. Paul? If so, here's my list of questions: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/209708 Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Did I miss something? Why are we assuming he wasn't down and dialing till the end? He, like many smart guys, may have just gotten better at it. And the folks who knew about it, like the guys who put together the Sexy Sadie files, got better at keeping their mouths shut? Right. snip Of course contrary to all the perfect health immortality bullshit, he was a sick old man long before his time. Right! Gee, if he hadn't been so sick, he might not have died so young.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 waybac...@... wrote: snip Some people here on FFL (I think Dr. Pete) have claimed that the whole idea that the brain creates consciousness is backward; they say with great conviction, based on their own experiences, that consciousness independent of the brain and its style of functioning gives rise to it all. FWIW, the idea that matter is emergent from consciousness rather than the reverse (commonly known as Idealism) has been around for a very long time. It isn't somethng Peter (or MMY) came up with on his own.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: snip The first is what do what I'll to call trans-personal unitive experiences mean? There are so many roads to these experiences it is probably wrong to lump them together but I will because for me they are more similar than different. First it was drugs, then meditation, then drugs again, then my musical performances that got me into a state of mind that has the qualities of being connected by pure love to everyone and everything. (Little poetic bullshit slipped in but bare with me please!) I understand the fascination because these elevated states can be an end in themselves in terms of pleasure. Because I perform regularly I pretty much walk around most of the time with that Tim Leary grin on my face feeling the vibes. I am happier that now I get paid for getting into that state than when it took lots of meditation time Did you ever wonder whether it might have been all that meditation time that now enables you to be in this state?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Is anyone going to see Jerry in St. Paul? If so, here's my list of questions: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/209708 Edg Both you and Rick are personalities of high standing in the TMO, why not ask yourself ? I'm sure they will very interested in your opinions ! hehe
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Did I miss something? Why are we assuming he wasn't down and dialing till the end? He, like many smart guys, may have just gotten better at it. And the folks who knew about it, like the guys who put together the Sexy Sadie files, got better at keeping their mouths shut? Right. I'm guessing that the ones who talked about it don't represent all the people who were involved. And it a group like TM secrets are the norm not the exception. snip Of course contrary to all the perfect health immortality bullshit, he was a sick old man long before his time. Right! Gee, if he hadn't been so sick, he might not have died so young. I believe that quality of life matters a bit more than longevity. His last 10 years sucked and his frail health was obvious from the videos from that decade.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Did I miss something? Why are we assuming he wasn't down and dialing till the end? He, like many smart guys, may have just gotten better at it. And the folks who knew about it, like the guys who put together the Sexy Sadie files, got better at keeping their mouths shut? Right. I'm guessing that the ones who talked about it don't represent all the people who were involved. And it a group like TM secrets are the norm not the exception. One might ask, for example, anyone who disputes that secrets were the norm and the willingness of TBs to keep them without giving a second thought to it whether they, personally, have ever told anyone their TM mantra. If they have not, then they kept for decades a secret that in many cases here they only paid $35 for, or $75. Imagine being someone who had invested tens of thousands of dollars and decades of his life, becoming privy to a deep, dark secret, and being told that revealing it would not only get him kicked out of the movement, but imperil his everlasting soul, squelch his chances of enlighten- ment forever, and end him up in the Hell worlds for many, many incarnations. Do you think such a person might...uh...tend to keep the secret? How many people were surprised by King Tony's recent revelation about being married with children? Almost everybody. :-) snip Of course contrary to all the perfect health immortality bullshit, he was a sick old man long before his time. Right! Gee, if he hadn't been so sick, he might not have died so young. I believe that quality of life matters a bit more than longevity. His last 10 years sucked and his frail health was obvious from the videos from that decade. What I liked the most was the trick of mounting the camera above his bed pointing downwards and then fluffing up the pillows to make it look as if he was sitting up, when in fact he was prone. That was the TMO in a nutshell.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Did I miss something? Why are we assuming he wasn't down and dialing till the end? He, like many smart guys, may have just gotten better at it. And the folks who knew about it, like the guys who put together the Sexy Sadie files, got better at keeping their mouths shut? Right. I'm guessing that the ones who talked about it don't represent all the people who were involved. And it a group like TM secrets are the norm not the exception. Color me dubious that if he continued, he could have stopped all the drip-drip-drip of informatio that had come out previously. Of course contrary to all the perfect health immortality bullshit, he was a sick old man long before his time. Right! Gee, if he hadn't been so sick, he might not have died so young. I believe that quality of life matters a bit more than longevity. Speak for yourself. He chose a lifestyle that didn't exactly put a priority on quality of life, so that apparently wasn't what mattered to him. His last 10 years sucked and his frail health was obvious from the videos from that decade. Since he was 84, you mean. Most peope wouldn't think that was long before his time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Did I miss something? Why are we assuming he wasn't down and dialing till the end? He, like many smart guys, may have just gotten better at it. And the folks who knew about it, like the guys who put together the Sexy Sadie files, got better at keeping their mouths shut? Right. I'm guessing that the ones who talked about it don't represent all the people who were involved. And it a group like TM secrets are the norm not the exception. One might ask, for example, anyone who disputes that secrets were the norm Of course, nobody is disputing that. and the willingness of TBs to keep them without giving a second thought to it whether they, personally, have ever told anyone their TM mantra. On the other hand, to suggest a parallel between not telling one's mantra and keeping one's mouth shut about MMY's dalliances is obviously absurd. If they have not, then they kept for decades a secret that in many cases here they only paid $35 for, or $75. Imagine being someone who had invested tens of thousands of dollars and decades of his life, becoming privy to a deep, dark secret, and being told that revealing it would not only get him kicked out of the movement, but imperil his everlasting soul, squelch his chances of enlighten- ment forever, and end him up in the Hell worlds for many, many incarnations. Do you think such a person might...uh...tend to keep the secret? Problem here is, you see, that quite a few people did *not* keep this secret, or we wouldn't have been talking about it here and elsewhere for years.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: Did you ever wonder whether it might have been all that meditation time that now enables you to be in this state? Sure. I'll bet my years of meditation had an effect on how my mind works today. But I have to give good neuro-transmitter genetics, fitness level,hours of performance and growing older the biggest credit for my current state of mind today. Those are the variables that changed years after I stopped meditating. And I am in a much better place mentally and physically than I was in 1989 when I stopped meditating. So to give meditation more than a passing mention at this point of my life, I would have to still buy into Maharishi's whole model of consciousness development. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip The first is what do what I'll to call trans-personal unitive experiences mean? There are so many roads to these experiences it is probably wrong to lump them together but I will because for me they are more similar than different. First it was drugs, then meditation, then drugs again, then my musical performances that got me into a state of mind that has the qualities of being connected by pure love to everyone and everything. (Little poetic bullshit slipped in but bare with me please!) I understand the fascination because these elevated states can be an end in themselves in terms of pleasure. Because I perform regularly I pretty much walk around most of the time with that Tim Leary grin on my face feeling the vibes. I am happier that now I get paid for getting into that state than when it took lots of meditation time Did you ever wonder whether it might have been all that meditation time that now enables you to be in this state?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Did I miss something? Why are we assuming he wasn't down and dialing till the end? He, like many smart guys, may have just gotten better at it. And the folks who knew about it, like the guys who put together the Sexy Sadie files, got better at keeping their mouths shut? Right. I'm guessing that the ones who talked about it don't represent all the people who were involved. And it a group like TM secrets are the norm not the exception. Color me dubious that if he continued, he could have stopped all the drip-drip-drip of informatio that had come out previously. Of course contrary to all the perfect health immortality bullshit, he was a sick old man long before his time. Right! Gee, if he hadn't been so sick, he might not have died so young. I believe that quality of life matters a bit more than longevity. Speak for yourself. He chose a lifestyle that didn't exactly put a priority on quality of life, so that apparently wasn't what mattered to him. He was a guy who had silk for wallpaper and never let his butt touch anything not covered with the skin of an endangered species. His diet was meticulously prepared even to the point of him moving in an attractive cook from India to the Olsen's house when her first came here. I don't think you can say the guy was not interested in the quality of his own life. His lifestyle was as the Maharaja of his own personal kingdom. He had personal doctors at his beck and call both Ayurvedic and Western, the guy was interested in every area of quality of life. I don't know why you would say he wasn't interested in his quality of life. His last 10 years sucked and his frail health was obvious from the videos from that decade. Since he was 84, you mean. Most peope wouldn't think that was long before his time. You have a point. I just can't stop comparing him to my dad who is about the same age. But by the stats he was probably quite normal.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Did you ever wonder whether it might have been all that meditation time that now enables you to be in this state? Sure. I'll bet my years of meditation had an effect on how my mind works today. But I have to give good neuro- transmitter genetics, fitness level,hours of performance and growing older the biggest credit for my current state of mind today. Those are the variables that changed years after I stopped meditating. And I am in a much better place mentally and physically than I was in 1989 when I stopped meditating. So to give meditation more than a passing mention at this point of my life, I would have to still buy into Maharishi's whole model of consciousness development. Heaven forfend...! Actually, I don't see why you'd have to buy into any of the stuff you've said you object to. And I was thinking of the various items you mention all working together with the effects of meditation to result in the state you describe. In my understanding, that's entirely consistent with the way TM could be expected to work (not necessarily for everyone, but perhaps for people with good neurotransmitter genetics and fitness levels after enough experience of performing and sufficient technical competence). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip The first is what do what I'll to call trans-personal unitive experiences mean? There are so many roads to these experiences it is probably wrong to lump them together but I will because for me they are more similar than different. First it was drugs, then meditation, then drugs again, then my musical performances that got me into a state of mind that has the qualities of being connected by pure love to everyone and everything. (Little poetic bullshit slipped in but bare with me please!) I understand the fascination because these elevated states can be an end in themselves in terms of pleasure. Because I perform regularly I pretty much walk around most of the time with that Tim Leary grin on my face feeling the vibes. I am happier that now I get paid for getting into that state than when it took lots of meditation time Did you ever wonder whether it might have been all that meditation time that now enables you to be in this state?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Did I miss something? Why are we assuming he wasn't down and dialing till the end? He, like many smart guys, may have just gotten better at it. And the folks who knew about it, like the guys who put together the Sexy Sadie files, got better at keeping their mouths shut? Right. I'm guessing that the ones who talked about it don't represent all the people who were involved. And it a group like TM secrets are the norm not the exception. Color me dubious that if he continued, he could have stopped all the drip-drip-drip of informatio that had come out previously. Of course contrary to all the perfect health immortality bullshit, he was a sick old man long before his time. Right! Gee, if he hadn't been so sick, he might not have died so young. I believe that quality of life matters a bit more than longevity. Speak for yourself. He chose a lifestyle that didn't exactly put a priority on quality of life, so that apparently wasn't what mattered to him. He was a guy who had silk for wallpaper and never let his butt touch anything not covered with the skin of an endangered species. His diet was meticulously prepared even to the point of him moving in an attractive cook from India to the Olsen's house when her first came here. I don't think you can say the guy was not interested in the quality of his own life. His lifestyle was as the Maharaja of his own personal kingdom. He had personal doctors at his beck and call both Ayurvedic and Western, the guy was interested in every area of quality of life. I don't know why you would say he wasn't interested in his quality of life. I was not, of course, talking about that kind of externals; nor, obviously, were you when you suggested he may have had longevity, but he didn't have quality of life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: I was not, of course, talking about that kind of externals; nor, obviously, were you when you suggested he may have had longevity, but he didn't have quality of life. Yes I got off on a tangent. He had legions of doctors for his health. I suspect he lost the ability to make good health choices because of the Maharaja lifestyle. He was famously anti-exercise and it showed. He cared about his health as long as it didn't involve effort or restrictions much like most modern rich people. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Did I miss something? Why are we assuming he wasn't down and dialing till the end? He, like many smart guys, may have just gotten better at it. And the folks who knew about it, like the guys who put together the Sexy Sadie files, got better at keeping their mouths shut? Right. I'm guessing that the ones who talked about it don't represent all the people who were involved. And it a group like TM secrets are the norm not the exception. Color me dubious that if he continued, he could have stopped all the drip-drip-drip of informatio that had come out previously. Of course contrary to all the perfect health immortality bullshit, he was a sick old man long before his time. Right! Gee, if he hadn't been so sick, he might not have died so young. I believe that quality of life matters a bit more than longevity. Speak for yourself. He chose a lifestyle that didn't exactly put a priority on quality of life, so that apparently wasn't what mattered to him. He was a guy who had silk for wallpaper and never let his butt touch anything not covered with the skin of an endangered species. His diet was meticulously prepared even to the point of him moving in an attractive cook from India to the Olsen's house when her first came here. I don't think you can say the guy was not interested in the quality of his own life. His lifestyle was as the Maharaja of his own personal kingdom. He had personal doctors at his beck and call both Ayurvedic and Western, the guy was interested in every area of quality of life. I don't know why you would say he wasn't interested in his quality of life. I was not, of course, talking about that kind of externals; nor, obviously, were you when you suggested he may have had longevity, but he didn't have quality of life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: I can give credit for my whole TM experience making me a more interesting person in general. To go so counter-culture for so long certainly helped me be open to the current life choices that bring my life's fulfillment today. And the teaching and lecturing was fantastic training that would have been hard to get any other way at that age. But I still think that most of what constitutes my current mental state involves the things I have been doing in the last 21 years since I stopped TM. But who really knows with all the variables in our lives. I certainly couldn't count it out as a factor. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Did you ever wonder whether it might have been all that meditation time that now enables you to be in this state? Sure. I'll bet my years of meditation had an effect on how my mind works today. But I have to give good neuro- transmitter genetics, fitness level,hours of performance and growing older the biggest credit for my current state of mind today. Those are the variables that changed years after I stopped meditating. And I am in a much better place mentally and physically than I was in 1989 when I stopped meditating. So to give meditation more than a passing mention at this point of my life, I would have to still buy into Maharishi's whole model of consciousness development. Heaven forfend...! Actually, I don't see why you'd have to buy into any of the stuff you've said you object to. And I was thinking of the various items you mention all working together with the effects of meditation to result in the state you describe. In my understanding, that's entirely consistent with the way TM could be expected to work (not necessarily for everyone, but perhaps for people with good neurotransmitter genetics and fitness levels after enough experience of performing and sufficient technical competence). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip The first is what do what I'll to call trans-personal unitive experiences mean? There are so many roads to these experiences it is probably wrong to lump them together but I will because for me they are more similar than different. First it was drugs, then meditation, then drugs again, then my musical performances that got me into a state of mind that has the qualities of being connected by pure love to everyone and everything. (Little poetic bullshit slipped in but bare with me please!) I understand the fascination because these elevated states can be an end in themselves in terms of pleasure. Because I perform regularly I pretty much walk around most of the time with that Tim Leary grin on my face feeling the vibes. I am happier that now I get paid for getting into that state than when it took lots of meditation time Did you ever wonder whether it might have been all that meditation time that now enables you to be in this state?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I was not, of course, talking about that kind of externals; nor, obviously, were you when you suggested he may have had longevity, but he didn't have quality of life. Yes I got off on a tangent. He had legions of doctors for his health. I suspect he lost the ability to make good health choices because of the Maharaja lifestyle. He was famously anti-exercise and it showed. He cared about his health as long as it didn't involve effort or restrictions much like most modern rich people. Right, this is what I meant--more like a workaholic CEO lifestyle than that of a maharaja, though, with certain cultural adjustments. Having doctors at your beck and call doesn't do much for your quality of life if you don't take their advice. My guess is he was willing to trade his physical well-being day to day for the time and effort that maintaining it would have taken from working for his movement goals (whether you consider that altruistic or egotistical).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip The first is what do what I'll to call trans-personal unitive experiences mean? There are so many roads to these experiences it is probably wrong to lump them together but I will because for me they are more similar than different. First it was drugs, then meditation, then drugs again, then my musical performances that got me into a state of mind that has the qualities of being connected by pure love to everyone and everything. (Little poetic bullshit slipped in but bare with me please!) I understand the fascination because these elevated states can be an end in themselves in terms of pleasure. Because I perform regularly I pretty much walk around most of the time with that Tim Leary grin on my face feeling the vibes. I am happier that now I get paid for getting into that state than when it took lots of meditation time Did you ever wonder whether it might have been all that meditation time that now enables you to be in this state?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, metoostill metoost...@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: When I bought into Maharishi's deal I was 16 years old. I was recruited right in my own private high school, with the adults asleep at the wheel. So given the naivete of youth, I have nothing to be ashamed of. And in the big picture of my recreational options at the time I am grateful for the clean-cut version Maharishi offered me, despite the snake oil promises. He fulfilled some needs for me at that stage of my life and I am grateful. So you are mischaracterizing my position in what you are calling my complaint. Maharishi IMO is wrong about human consciousness. And so is Jerry. They are preaching an old way of thinking that is the equivalent of taking a fairy tale seriously and literally. They are inflating the nature of the mental changes meditation brings into a claim that it allows you to understand the ultimate reality of life. And this is exactly what it feels like (I now get the ultimate reality), subjectively, to have some of these experiences and mental changes, whether due to cultivating it thru meditation or yoga, darshan, or just having it happen. So it is understandable that for eons people, including MMY, thought this was what was going on-finally knowing the ultimate reality of life. With all the new brain research in the last 15 years or so, you have to question the whole meditation experiences model, and maybe think that those experiences are simply and only brain changes that make you feel really good and enlightened. That is the big question now - which is it and what could ever prove that consciousness or the soul lives on independent of the brain. Some people here on FFL (I think Dr. Pete) have claimed that the whole idea that the brain creates consciousness is backward; they say with great conviction, based on their own experiences, that consciousness independent of the brain and its style of functioning gives rise to it all. I have no experiences to know that, so I am moving toward your position, reluctantly. The magical thinking can be comforting (I think whether you find comfort in religion and spirituality and magical thinking is plainly a genetic thing, not a function of intellect or wisdom) to many. This ridiculously inflated claim is bogus. So it isn't a question of being wiser than anyone to notice this. Most of the people in the world (with the exception of a tiny, tiny, diminishing group) have come to the same conclusion about Maharishi. The term wisdom should have a higher bar than recognizing a Hindu Televangelist just as someone shouldn't be praised for rejecting a guy like Benny Hinn. It isn't that deep or that subtle. Curtis: IMO one of the better and more self reflective posts I have seen here, thanks for that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 waybac...@... wrote: And this is exactly what it feels like (I now get the ultimate reality), subjectively, to have some of these experiences and mental changes, whether due to cultivating it thru meditation or yoga, darshan, or just having it happen. So it is understandable that for eons people, including MMY, thought this was what was going on-finally knowing the ultimate reality of life. With all the new brain research in the last 15 years or so, you have to question the whole meditation experiences model, and maybe think that those experiences are simply and only brain changes that make you feel really good and enlightened. That is the big question now - which is it and what could ever prove that consciousness or the soul lives on independent of the brain. Some people here on FFL (I think Dr. Pete) have claimed that the whole idea that the brain creates consciousness is backward; they say with great conviction, based on their own experiences, that consciousness independent of the brain and its style of functioning gives rise to it all. I have no experiences to know that, so I am moving toward your position, reluctantly. The magical thinking can be comforting (I think whether you find comfort in religion and spirituality and magical thinking is plainly a genetic thing, not a function of intellect or wisdom) to many. Thanks for the thoughtful response. Many jumping off points for discussion. The first is what do what I'll to call trans-personal unitive experiences mean? There are so many roads to these experiences it is probably wrong to lump them together but I will because for me they are more similar than different. First it was drugs, then meditation, then drugs again, then my musical performances that got me into a state of mind that has the qualities of being connected by pure love to everyone and everything. (Little poetic bullshit slipped in but bare with me please!) I understand the fascination because these elevated states can be an end in themselves in terms of pleasure. Because I perform regularly I pretty much walk around most of the time with that Tim Leary grin on my face feeling the vibes. I am happier that now I get paid for getting into that state than when it took lots of meditation time or I had to pay someone for something unmentionable. But I don't spend time seeking the state as an end in itself, it is just the best awareness platform to perform in for me. And for me it feels a lot better interacting with people in this state than sitting in my room next to a picture of an old bearded man in a Santa suit that turned from red to orange from too many washings perhaps? The main thing is that you can live in these states of mind without assigning the meaning to them that traditional systems do. And I just don't buy that anyone is experiencing that consciousness is really independent of the brain since their brain is still functioning. Same is true for near death experiences, near is not death. So we need to learn more about all these experiences from whatever source they come from. But accepting the content of what they feel like as fact seems like a lazy route to truth. Your final point about the lack of connection between intelligence and wisdom and magical thinking is a good one that puzzles me a lot. My only point is that we DON'T know these things that are being claimed. I am advocating epistemological humility concerning these claims. Yet there are so many people who run rings around me intellectually who firmly believe that it is reasonable for them to assert that Jesus died for our sins, that they KNOW this as the most important fact of their life. People who in every other area of their lives can tell when they have good evidence for a belief and when it is shaky make the most preposterous leap I can imagine with surety and confidence. It is a mystery. I think it is because we are such emotional creatures that this area of knowledge is kept separate from the the part of their reasoning that they use to tell when a car salesman is feeding them a line. But having been a car salesman myself, I know that very bright people often get overwhelmed with the few things our conscious mind can handle and pull the buying trigger on emotion in the end. So if religious claims feel right, they avoid much rigorous evaluation. And without the forced need for me to do it when I left TM and had to rebuild my epistemology I'm not sure I would have ever shaken out my beliefs as an adult and re-examined them. This is one of the most valuable things I got from getting into and getting out of the movement. I was forced to ask myself, why do I believe what I believe. And do I really have good evidence to support those beliefs. Not too many beliefs made the cut. And on any given week I will discover some form of bullshit creeping in through
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: And this is exactly what it feels like (I now get the ultimate reality), subjectively, to have some of these experiences and mental changes, whether due to cultivating it thru meditation or yoga, darshan, or just having it happen. So it is understandable that for eons people, including MMY, thought this was what was going on-finally knowing the ultimate reality of life. With all the new brain research in the last 15 years or so, you have to question the whole meditation experiences model, and maybe think that those experiences are simply and only brain changes that make you feel really good and enlightened. That is the big question now - which is it and what could ever prove that consciousness or the soul lives on independent of the brain. Some people here on FFL (I think Dr. Pete) have claimed that the whole idea that the brain creates consciousness is backward; they say with great conviction, based on their own experiences, that consciousness independent of the brain and its style of functioning gives rise to it all. I have no experiences to know that, so I am moving toward your position, reluctantly. The magical thinking can be comforting (I think whether you find comfort in religion and spirituality and magical thinking is plainly a genetic thing, not a function of intellect or wisdom) to many. Thanks for the thoughtful response. Many jumping off points for discussion. The first is what do what I'll to call trans-personal unitive experiences mean? There are so many roads to these experiences it is probably wrong to lump them together but I will because for me they are more similar than different. First it was drugs, then meditation, then drugs again, then my musical performances that got me into a state of mind that has the qualities of being connected by pure love to everyone and everything. (Little poetic bullshit slipped in but bare with me please!) I understand the fascination because these elevated states can be an end in themselves in terms of pleasure. Because I perform regularly I pretty much walk around most of the time with that Tim Leary grin on my face feeling the vibes. I am happier that now I get paid for getting into that state than when it took lots of meditation time or I had to pay someone for something unmentionable. But I don't spend time seeking the state as an end in itself, it is just the best awareness platform to perform in for me. And for me it feels a lot better interacting with people in this state than sitting in my room next to a picture of an old bearded man in a Santa suit that turned from red to orange from too many washings perhaps? Music is such a fine producer of that elevated state, especially for the performer. I still get it somewhat when I take the time to meditate. I really feel it from yoga class, even dance and aerobic exercise. Whatever it signifies, if anything, I know that I am nicer and kinder when I have recently tapped into it. The main thing is that you can live in these states of mind without assigning the meaning to them that traditional systems do. And I just don't buy that anyone is experiencing that consciousness is really independent of the brain since their brain is still functioning. Same is true for near death experiences, near is not death. So we need to learn more about all these experiences from whatever source they come from. But accepting the content of what they feel like as fact seems like a lazy route to truth. Agreed entirely. I have always assumed that lots of normal, nonmeditator people experience this, maybe more often than your typical meditator. It seems that neurologists can replicate some of these spiritual experiences in the lab, just by putting headphones or other equipment on people and stimulating particular regions of the brian - feelings of being one with the universe, unbounded, etc. And Even if someone could perform a siddhi for all to witness - like flying - it wouldn't mean anything more than that the human brain and nervous system can fundtion in such a way that this is possible. It is still not proof of anything immortal or beyond the brain. Your final point about the lack of connection between intelligence and wisdom and magical thinking is a good one that puzzles me a lot. My only point is that we DON'T know these things that are being claimed. I am advocating epistemological humility concerning these claims. Yet there are so many people who run rings around me intellectually who firmly believe that it is reasonable for them to assert that Jesus died for our sins, that they KNOW this as the most important fact of their life. People who in every other area of their lives can tell when they
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfr...@... wrote: snip Judy, I doubt that guilt stopped him in the mid 70s. (When did MMY EVER express guilt over anything he did?) People don't always talk about their feelings of guilt, especially if they're Big Deals, and most especially if they're supposed to be Holy. I suspect that, as you say, more pragmatic matters of age, had more to do with it, along with the sheer hassle and risk involved. Could be, but if he'd been dealing with the hassle and risk for that long, I'm not sure why it would suddenly become too much for him. And you don't often hear of reformed philanderers. As to age, he was barely 60 in the mid-'70s, right? I'm not attached to any particular theory. It's just mysterious to me that he stopped.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Well, we don't really know much about that part of the storythe how and why he stopped. I have been told that Jemmima Pittman, one of the long time insiders close to MMY, was aware of what had been going on and was concerned, NOT for the gals involved, but for the potential trouble it could cause MMY if word got out. Keep in mind though that this last part is just speculation on my part, based on something that was passed on to me a long time ago. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: snip Judy, I doubt that guilt stopped him in the mid 70s. (When did MMY EVER express guilt over anything he did?) People don't always talk about their feelings of guilt, especially if they're Big Deals, and most especially if they're supposed to be Holy. I suspect that, as you say, more pragmatic matters of age, had more to do with it, along with the sheer hassle and risk involved. Could be, but if he'd been dealing with the hassle and risk for that long, I'm not sure why it would suddenly become too much for him. And you don't often hear of reformed philanderers. As to age, he was barely 60 in the mid-'70s, right? I'm not attached to any particular theory. It's just mysterious to me that he stopped.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
I was wondering if maybe somebody laid down the law to him. But boy, I have trouble imagining the scene. Could some insider have threatened him with exposure if he didn't quit? They'd really have had to have him over a barrel for that to work, I should think. Waitaminnit. He had diabetes, right? That could account for it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfr...@... wrote: Well, we don't really know much about that part of the storythe how and why he stopped. I have been told that Jemmima Pittman, one of the long time insiders close to MMY, was aware of what had been going on and was concerned, NOT for the gals involved, but for the potential trouble it could cause MMY if word got out. Keep in mind though that this last part is just speculation on my part, based on something that was passed on to me a long time ago. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: snip Judy, I doubt that guilt stopped him in the mid 70s. (When did MMY EVER express guilt over anything he did?) People don't always talk about their feelings of guilt, especially if they're Big Deals, and most especially if they're supposed to be Holy. I suspect that, as you say, more pragmatic matters of age, had more to do with it, along with the sheer hassle and risk involved. Could be, but if he'd been dealing with the hassle and risk for that long, I'm not sure why it would suddenly become too much for him. And you don't often hear of reformed philanderers. As to age, he was barely 60 in the mid-'70s, right? I'm not attached to any particular theory. It's just mysterious to me that he stopped.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 8:15 PM, authfriend jst...@panix.com wrote: Could be, but if he'd been dealing with the hassle and risk for that long, I'm not sure why it would suddenly become too much for him. And you don't often hear of reformed philanderers. As to age, he was barely 60 in the mid-'70s, right? He was diabetic. Diabetes is a model for accelerated aging, with all the glycation going on. The capillaries, veins, arteries stiffen and thicken. ED is a major problem of diabetics even at an early age. -- I received an Oklahoma Guarantee when I signed up for the sidhis. If the sidhis didn't work, I merely had to return the unused portion and the TMO would return the unused portion of my money.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Well surelater on his own health caught up with him. I'm not sure if the diabetes was a factor until the late 70s or early 80s. I certainly did not hear anything about it when I was around. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: I was wondering if maybe somebody laid down the law to him. But boy, I have trouble imagining the scene. Could some insider have threatened him with exposure if he didn't quit? They'd really have had to have him over a barrel for that to work, I should think. Waitaminnit. He had diabetes, right? That could account for it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Well, we don't really know much about that part of the storythe how and why he stopped. I have been told that Jemmima Pittman, one of the long time insiders close to MMY, was aware of what had been going on and was concerned, NOT for the gals involved, but for the potential trouble it could cause MMY if word got out. Keep in mind though that this last part is just speculation on my part, based on something that was passed on to me a long time ago. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: snip Judy, I doubt that guilt stopped him in the mid 70s. (When did MMY EVER express guilt over anything he did?) People don't always talk about their feelings of guilt, especially if they're Big Deals, and most especially if they're supposed to be Holy. I suspect that, as you say, more pragmatic matters of age, had more to do with it, along with the sheer hassle and risk involved. Could be, but if he'd been dealing with the hassle and risk for that long, I'm not sure why it would suddenly become too much for him. And you don't often hear of reformed philanderers. As to age, he was barely 60 in the mid-'70s, right? I'm not attached to any particular theory. It's just mysterious to me that he stopped.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfr...@... wrote: Did I miss something? Why are we assuming he wasn't down and dialing till the end? He, like many smart guys, may have just gotten better at it. And a person deeply involved in the movement (I'm not mentioning any names but we all know some World Gov Ladies) would rather die than give up the MASTER'S secrets.) Of course contrary to all the perfect health immortality bullshit, he was a sick old man long before his time. But if I have one more woman approach me after a show and tell me about their flaccid lingum husband after the age of 55 I'm gunna put a gun in my mouth. Use it or lose it guys, that's all I'm say'n. Well surelater on his own health caught up with him. I'm not sure if the diabetes was a factor until the late 70s or early 80s. I certainly did not hear anything about it when I was around. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I was wondering if maybe somebody laid down the law to him. But boy, I have trouble imagining the scene. Could some insider have threatened him with exposure if he didn't quit? They'd really have had to have him over a barrel for that to work, I should think. Waitaminnit. He had diabetes, right? That could account for it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Well, we don't really know much about that part of the storythe how and why he stopped. I have been told that Jemmima Pittman, one of the long time insiders close to MMY, was aware of what had been going on and was concerned, NOT for the gals involved, but for the potential trouble it could cause MMY if word got out. Keep in mind though that this last part is just speculation on my part, based on something that was passed on to me a long time ago. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: snip Judy, I doubt that guilt stopped him in the mid 70s. (When did MMY EVER express guilt over anything he did?) People don't always talk about their feelings of guilt, especially if they're Big Deals, and most especially if they're supposed to be Holy. I suspect that, as you say, more pragmatic matters of age, had more to do with it, along with the sheer hassle and risk involved. Could be, but if he'd been dealing with the hassle and risk for that long, I'm not sure why it would suddenly become too much for him. And you don't often hear of reformed philanderers. As to age, he was barely 60 in the mid-'70s, right? I'm not attached to any particular theory. It's just mysterious to me that he stopped.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: When I bought into Maharishi's deal I was 16 years old. I was recruited right in my own private high school, with the adults asleep at the wheel. So given the naivete of youth, I have nothing to be ashamed of. And in the big picture of my recreational options at the time I am grateful for the clean-cut version Maharishi offered me, despite the snake oil promises. He fulfilled some needs for me at that stage of my life and I am grateful. So you are mischaracterizing my position in what you are calling my complaint. Maharishi IMO is wrong about human consciousness. And so is Jerry. They are preaching an old way of thinking that is the equivalent of taking a fairy tale seriously and literally. They are inflating the nature of the mental changes meditation brings into a claim that it allows you to understand the ultimate reality of life. This ridiculously inflated claim is bogus. So it isn't a question of being wiser than anyone to notice this. Most of the people in the world (with the exception of a tiny, tiny, diminishing group) have come to the same conclusion about Maharishi. The term wisdom should have a higher bar than recognizing a Hindu Televangelist just as someone shouldn't be praised for rejecting a guy like Benny Hinn. It isn't that deep or that subtle. Curtis: IMO one of the better and more self reflective posts I have seen here, thanks for that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, metoostill metoost...@... wrote: Curtis: IMO one of the better and more self reflective posts I have seen here, thanks for that. Much appreciated, thanks! -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: When I bought into Maharishi's deal I was 16 years old. I was recruited right in my own private high school, with the adults asleep at the wheel. So given the naivete of youth, I have nothing to be ashamed of. And in the big picture of my recreational options at the time I am grateful for the clean-cut version Maharishi offered me, despite the snake oil promises. He fulfilled some needs for me at that stage of my life and I am grateful. So you are mischaracterizing my position in what you are calling my complaint. Maharishi IMO is wrong about human consciousness. And so is Jerry. They are preaching an old way of thinking that is the equivalent of taking a fairy tale seriously and literally. They are inflating the nature of the mental changes meditation brings into a claim that it allows you to understand the ultimate reality of life. This ridiculously inflated claim is bogus. So it isn't a question of being wiser than anyone to notice this. Most of the people in the world (with the exception of a tiny, tiny, diminishing group) have come to the same conclusion about Maharishi. The term wisdom should have a higher bar than recognizing a Hindu Televangelist just as someone shouldn't be praised for rejecting a guy like Benny Hinn. It isn't that deep or that subtle. Curtis: IMO one of the better and more self reflective posts I have seen here, thanks for that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:It took me many years to shed all the presumptions Maharishi had filled my head with. My hats fit much more comfortably now that I have joined the sea of ordinary humanity. Curtis, You are not an ordinary human. Just sayin'... I've met a few humans, and you are no Jack Human. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Doug, with all due respect, Curtis recently put you in your place re the use of the word science. Not, Curtisdeltablue was looking for proof like he studies his philosophical theories and everyone knows science doesn't work that way. Devoid the nature of spiritual experience so in to his head then, it didn't need responding to. Was self-evident. But he was having a good rant of assumption too. I enjoyed that. Sorry for him though that he don't have more experience with this all as it seems what he really wants to think about a lot. Or then again en lieu of spiritual experience as he argues for his own theories saying, But it isn't hard science so take what is useful and leave the rest. (where have I heard this before?) I hope his saying it that way might also be fruitful for his searching in POV mentation. He may stumble upon It yet. I wish him the best of luck with his POV research. -Buck in Fairfield --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: One can only hope that it is not like the things that Doug/Buck expresses here. His elitism and his disdain for non-meditators is as loathsome in its way as the TMO's obvious disdain for non-TBs. Also, as Joe points out, I think Doug would not only say that the goal of any such initiative would not only be to encourage as many people to meditate as possible, but to use any means necessary to *force* them to meditate. whether they want to or not. Turq, thanks for noticing the distinction. However you're asserting a mighty large assumption about the supposed elitism. Naah, anyone who can think can be spiritual. Whether pure or impure. It's the science which says that everyone ought to meditate. Should meditate. As effective spiritual practice. That's the science. Doug, with all due respect, Curtis recently put you in your place re the use of the word science. You shame the word by even uttering it, and clearly have no earthly idea what it means. To you science means finding some plausible (to idiots) way of describing me believing claptrap that doesn't make it sound like claptrap. There IS no real science behind TM. Not yet, anyway. You just like to pretend there is because that makes it look less like you are just believing fairy stories told to you by a charlatan, fairy stories you have used to guide your lifestyle since the day you first heard them, without ever questioning whether they were true or not. You use the word science as a way of saying, See...look at these pretty charts...the fairy stories told to me *must* have been true...look at the pretty charts...so I don't ever *have* to look into the fairy stories to see if they are true. Om dear Turq, so you're arguing two large assumptions. That all the science is bad and denying people's experience. Two large assumptions. Too bad you and Curtis left so early. I'll add your names to the sankulp anyway. Peace be with you. -Buck Would simply be good for everyone's benefit to facilitate human brain development that way. There is simply no evidence that this is true. The most that can be said scientifically is that some -- very, very few given the general population -- seem to have found some benefit in meditation. That simply cannot be expanded to Everyone should meditate except by wannabe tyrants. However, I am comfortable now with Keith, Jerry, Hagelin, David Lynch, Roth and them capable types figuring it out for a teaching TM movement. I notice that you don't include *yourself* in that list of people responsible to figure this out. I assume that you wouldn't be one of the people on the front lines doing the teaching, possibly at your own expense, either. Put up or shut up. If you think TM should be taught more, GO OUT AND TEACH IT. You don't need no rehabilitated TM movement to allow you to do that. You're just hiding behind the demonization of people you blame for the TMO's demise and the oh-so-hopeful idealization of the people you hope will save it, SO THAT YOU
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Regarding the period of MMY's known sexual activity, it's fairly clear that it spans a period going back to the early 60s up until perhaps 1975 or '76. Joyce Collin Smith in her book Call No Man Master makes reference to MMY starting the habit of taking young female disciples into his room at the London Center in the early 60s and locking the door. It was noticed because up until that time, he had let it be known that his door was always open and that disciples were welcome to visit. That stopped once the door locking with young females started. Judy, I doubt that guilt stopped him in the mid 70s. (When did MMY EVER express guilt over anything he did?) I suspect that, as you say, more pragmatic matters of age, had more to do with it, along with the sheer hassle and risk involved. There's another incident that a few of us here are aware of that would shock many to their very toes. This one would have been around 1970. But that one must remain quiet unless the person involved ever decides to speak up publicly about it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip For that matter, someone who's been sheltered from normal social relationships with the opposite sex for as long as MMY was isn't likely to think about it either. Large assumption perhaps. Did he start his activity in the 70's? or the 50's? Or, as nabulous said, he did not comment even if Purusha took a getaway weekend. Maybe he could relate. Could be, but all the stories are from the '70s, as far as I'm aware. And in any case, even if he did mess around earlier, it still wasn't in a normal social context. It's a mug's game to try to figure out how MMY felt about anything, but I'm really curious. From what I've read, it seems the dilly-dallying took place during a specific period--I have the impression it was a decade or less--and then stopped. Your typical philanderer *doesn't* stop. So why did MMY? Conscience? The pragmatic aspects? Why the philanderer image? philander, to have casual or illicit sexual relations with a woman or with many women Sounds on the nose to me. Its surprising to me that many here seem to have this rogue image of the man -- it was all exploitive -- little red riding hood and the big bad wolf. Perhaps. But so many other possibilities. While some will differ, those are not the qualities I found in the man. But I explicitly drew a contrast with the *typical* philanderer. Did you miss that? And as far as age, there were some quite attractive mid-30's women around. (and some school marms -- its not a universal observation) Would mid 30's cosmopolitan European women have been OK? Maybe not so bad, but not really OK if they were disciples, again because of the power differential. The difference in authority and power between MMY and the women, however, is another issue That's the biggie, IMHO. It really changes the consensuality equation. It would with any powerful man who holds a lot of authority over a younger woman, but *especially* with a supposedly enlightened spiritual teacher and a disciple. I used to think along those lines. But I don't now. One can paint a picture of and image power sex, but I don't see it. I don't see him forcing himself on anyone, using power as a coercive threat. Neither do I, nor was that what any of the stories I read suggested--to the contrary. But that's just the point, a powerful man often doesn't *have* to do any overt coercing. Coercion is implicit in the power differential, at least to the extent that, as I said, it changes the consensuality equation so it's no longer balanced; it isn't a level playing field. As I have said, its quite plausible to me that it was more the inverse of that, if anything -- but I don't think anyone was forcing anyone. What was he saying -- if going down the former road I am am going to withhold enlightenment to you if you don't do me? And as I have said, I didn't see anything in the various stories that suggested he did anything along those lines, although it's very common in similar stories about other gurus. I have been shaken by relations -- particularly those that went south. Basket case for a bit. The world is full of stories of men and women having a rough patch when or as relations end. Most people understand this when entering relations. I think you might want to read some of the clinical literature on how these kinds of relationships--i.e., with a guru/authority figure--affect the women involved. It just doesn't work the same way, especially if the guru is viewed as holy/enlightened. snip How did J or others think it was going to end? To be the Mrs MMY? To be a consort for 30 years in the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 waybac...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: If Tm is in straits now, It's not, and Judith's book rings true, Who cares ? it may take a toll on the TMO as people get really upset or at least filled with doubts. They won't and why should they ? Only small fish, and non-meditators like I understand you are get upset by small things. Nabby, 1. I am a long-time meditator, a teacher of TM in fact I Did'nt know that. 2. I have suspected for many many many years that the stuff purportedly in Judith's book is true - even way before the topic was brought up here on FFL And ? What's your point ? 3. Yet I still think TM is powerful and do it and am eternally grateful to Maharishi for so much Nice. He saved this this planet from self-destruction ofcourse. 4. So, it has been a struggle to integrate, or maybe not at times, the conflicting viewpoints Where is the conflict ? Some people enjoy each others company mentally, physically or both, nothing wrong with that. 5. The big question remains: who really is the true believer, the devotee, in all this - the person who denies things they don't want to know or refuses to consider anything negative? Why is sex negative ? or the person who tries to deal with the information they find difficult to accept? I don't have the answer to this, but I do wonder just how true believers will respond to some info that is not so light. I still don't understand your problem.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: One can only hope that it is not like the things that Doug/Buck expresses here. His elitism and his disdain for non-meditators is as loathsome in its way as the TMO's obvious disdain for non-TBs. Also, as Joe points out, I think Doug would not only say that the goal of any such initiative would not only be to encourage as many people to meditate as possible, but to use any means necessary to *force* them to meditate. whether they want to or not. Turq, thanks for noticing the distinction. However you're asserting a mighty large assumption about the supposed elitism. Naah, anyone who can think can be spiritual. Whether pure or impure. It's the science which says that everyone ought to meditate. Should meditate. As effective spiritual practice. That's the science. Doug, with all due respect, Curtis recently put you in your place re the use of the word science. You shame the word by even uttering it, and clearly have no earthly idea what it means. To you science means finding some plausible (to idiots) way of describing me believing claptrap that doesn't make it sound like claptrap. There IS no real science behind TM. Not yet, anyway. You just like to pretend there is because that makes it look less like you are just believing fairy stories told to you by a charlatan, fairy stories you have used to guide your lifestyle since the day you first heard them, without ever questioning whether they were true or not. You use the word science as a way of saying, See...look at these pretty charts...the fairy stories told to me *must* have been true...look at the pretty charts...so I don't ever *have* to look into the fairy stories to see if they are true. Would simply be good for everyone's benefit to facilitate human brain development that way. There is simply no evidence that this is true. The most that can be said scientifically is that some -- very, very few given the general population -- seem to have found some benefit in meditation. That simply cannot be expanded to Everyone should meditate except by wannabe tyrants. However, I am comfortable now with Keith, Jerry, Hagelin, David Lynch, Roth and them capable types figuring it out for a teaching TM movement. I notice that you don't include *yourself* in that list of people responsible to figure this out. I assume that you wouldn't be one of the people on the front lines doing the teaching, possibly at your own expense, either. Put up or shut up. If you think TM should be taught more, GO OUT AND TEACH IT. You don't need no rehabilitated TM movement to allow you to do that. You're just hiding behind the demonization of people you blame for the TMO's demise and the oh-so-hopeful idealization of the people you hope will save it, SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. I'm being tough on your because of your act here on FFL, Doug. I'm pretty sure that some if not all of it *IS* an act. But it's a *pussy* act, a *lazy-assed* act, and at times an *insultingly* elitist act. I'm really tired of it. Certainly NOT everyone needs to be at the table, especially not old has-been meditation quitters who did not go the whole way nor just necessarily a bunch of god-damned mood-making pencil-neck TM-TB'ers without merit neither. Please explain to us why YOU are not one of these quitters, Doug. When was the last time YOU taught TM to anyone? When was the last time YOU did any of the things you say the TMO should be doing? I'm thinking that the hypocrite factor around here just went up a notch or two. This is large work to be done that needs some delegating. Godspeed to them fighting the good fight in the middle for us all. While I sit here in front of a computer writing elitist bullshit to a forum of maybe 2000 people worldwide, doing NOTHING myself. Yeah, right. Jai Adi Shankara, Jai Bullshit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_re...@... wrote: I am interested to understand why people find it difficult to accept. Perhaps a bit jaw dropping at first. But after the first really!?, why is it particularly odd or difficult to digest? And I suppose, its a relevant questions: should a teacher be entitled to a private life? Entitled to some parts of life that are of no business to students or anyone else. I never heard MMY say he was celibate. Why should he? Other than when he was Bal Bramachari Mahesh. And then he changed his name. Which is a pretty big clue in itself. A practice useful for a student is not necessarily still useful for an adult. BINGO ! Like many of us, he may have not have gone out of his way to correct some peoples misperceptions. Actually he spent all day doing that -- misperceptions about the path. But it could have been an infinite job to try to straighten people out in every area of his and their lives. He did not work at that level. His magnanimity was boundless. If someone close to Him, even a Purusha, would run away with a girl for a few days He would not comment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: One can only hope that it is not like the things that Doug/Buck expresses here. His elitism and his disdain for non-meditators is as loathsome in its way as the TMO's obvious disdain for non-TBs. Also, as Joe points out, I think Doug would not only say that the goal of any such initiative would not only be to encourage as many people to meditate as possible, but to use any means necessary to *force* them to meditate. whether they want to or not. Turq, thanks for noticing the distinction. However you're asserting a mighty large assumption about the supposed elitism. Naah, anyone who can think can be spiritual. Whether pure or impure. It's the science which says that everyone ought to meditate. Should meditate. As effective spiritual practice. That's the science. Doug, with all due respect, Curtis recently put you in your place re the use of the word science. You shame the word by even uttering it, and clearly have no earthly idea what it means. To you science means finding some plausible (to idiots) way of describing me believing claptrap that doesn't make it sound like claptrap. There IS no real science behind TM. Not yet, anyway. You just like to pretend there is because that makes it look less like you are just believing fairy stories told to you by a charlatan, fairy stories you have used to guide your lifestyle since the day you first heard them, without ever questioning whether they were true or not. You use the word science as a way of saying, See...look at these pretty charts...the fairy stories told to me *must* have been true...look at the pretty charts...so I don't ever *have* to look into the fairy stories to see if they are true. Om dear Turq, so you're arguing two large assumptions. That all the science is bad and denying people's experience. Two large assumptions. You REALLY don't know when to STFU, do you, Doug? :-) First, I do *not* assume that *all* of the TM science is bad or so fatally flawed as to be meaningless. Just 95% of it. Second, I do not for a moment consider people's exper- ience to fall into the realm of science. You obviously do. That just underscores your complete misunderstanding of the word science. Too bad you and Curtis left so early. Here's the classic Doug/Buck elitism again. What a load of self-serving, I-am-important-and-you-are-not crap. I'll add your names to the sankulp anyway. Peace be with you. Oh, you mean the sankulp that you probably consider scientific? Piss be on you, too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: If Tm is in straits now, It's not, and Judith's book rings true, Who cares ? it may take a toll on the TMO as people get really upset or at least filled with doubts. They won't and why should they ? Only small fish, and non-meditators like I understand you are get upset by small things. Nabby, 1. I am a long-time meditator, a teacher of TM in fact I Did'nt know that. 2. I have suspected for many many many years that the stuff purportedly in Judith's book is true - even way before the topic was brought up here on FFL And ? What's your point ? 3. Yet I still think TM is powerful and do it and am eternally grateful to Maharishi for so much Nice. He saved this this planet from self-destruction ofcourse. 4. So, it has been a struggle to integrate, or maybe not at times, the conflicting viewpoints Where is the conflict ? Some people enjoy each others company mentally, physically or both, nothing wrong with that. 5. The big question remains: who really is the true believer, the devotee, in all this - the person who denies things they don't want to know or refuses to consider anything negative? Why is sex negative ? or the person who tries to deal with the information they find difficult to accept? I don't have the answer to this, but I do wonder just how true believers will respond to some info that is not so light. I still don't understand your problem. It's not really a problem that I have - at least not anymore. Now I get it - MMY seemed to be a monk but was not able to be a celibate monk. When I first heard of the affairs in the 70's, I actually got dizzy and sick to my stomach - kind of the way a person would if they heard that their revered and trusted and beloved father actually had another family than yours somewhere and had had another secret life with another wife and children for some years.That's what it felt like. It is not the sex that is wrong, or having children that is wrong or having a family that is wrong. It is the sense of being lied to, even if only by omission of information. But MMY was living one monkish life on the outside (could only wear silk, had to sit on a deerskin, could not touch anyone for fear of energy contamination), and apparently not that life in private. He was not what most of us thought he was - a celibate monk. He said he was a monk and we all assumed celibate went with that. So, it takes some time to adjust to this kind of information when you first hear of it. It can leave a lingering sense of cynicism about things spiritual, which is a shame. We were young, naive, devoted, and new to this whole world of eastern gurus. For those soon to be hearing about this for the first time from Judith's book, things could be really rocky for a while. That is my point. Hopefully, being adults with lots of life experience by now will ease the blow.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 waybac...@... wrote: snip I also think an important consideration is how the women he was with felt about it all. If they were willing and eager and felt ok about, then that goes a long way to making it ok. I'd guess most were willing and eager to start with, but with these kinds of relationships it's usually the development and especially the denouement that causes pain, at the time and sometimes for many years afterward. When you're young, you tend not to think too much about how what you see as a big adventure is all going to turn out. For that matter, someone who's been sheltered from normal social relationships with the opposite sex for as long as MMY was isn't likely to think about it either. It's a mug's game to try to figure out how MMY felt about anything, but I'm really curious. From what I've read, it seems the dilly-dallying took place during a specific period--I have the impression it was a decade or less--and then stopped. Your typical philanderer *doesn't* stop. So why did MMY? Conscience? The pragmatic aspects? The difference in authority and power between MMY and the women, however, is another issue That's the biggie, IMHO. It really changes the consensuality equation. It would with any powerful man who holds a lot of authority over a younger woman, but *especially* with a supposedly enlightened spiritual teacher and a disciple. One thing I *haven't* encountered, that I can recall-- somebody correct me if I'm wrong--in any of the stories that *is* a feature of many similar stories about other gurus is the promotion by the guru of the idea that having sex with him is going to further the woman's spiritual evolution. (Of course, that's an assumption the women may have adopted on their own.) The sense I get of the overall picture is that MMY was just pathetically *naive* about the whole business. He knew it had to be kept quiet, but other than that, he really didn't know what he was doing, especially emotionally, or have any idea of the possible psychological repercussions, on the women or himself. (why not a woman saint more his own age?). That would have been tremendously difficult to arrange, given the box he'd put himself in. And it would probably have been even harder to keep quiet than fooling around with selected disciples. I look forward to reading what Judith has to say about how she felt about it, how it affected her then and as the years passed. Me too. But based on her Web site, I have to wonder about conflicts of interest skewing the tale.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 waybac...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: If Tm is in straits now, It's not, and Judith's book rings true, Who cares ? it may take a toll on the TMO as people get really upset or at least filled with doubts. They won't and why should they ? Only small fish, and non-meditators like I understand you are get upset by small things. Nabby, 1. I am a long-time meditator, a teacher of TM in fact I Did'nt know that. 2. I have suspected for many many many years that the stuff purportedly in Judith's book is true - even way before the topic was brought up here on FFL And ? What's your point ? 3. Yet I still think TM is powerful and do it and am eternally grateful to Maharishi for so much Nice. He saved this this planet from self-destruction ofcourse. 4. So, it has been a struggle to integrate, or maybe not at times, the conflicting viewpoints Where is the conflict ? Some people enjoy each others company mentally, physically or both, nothing wrong with that. 5. The big question remains: who really is the true believer, the devotee, in all this - the person who denies things they don't want to know or refuses to consider anything negative? Why is sex negative ? or the person who tries to deal with the information they find difficult to accept? I don't have the answer to this, but I do wonder just how true believers will respond to some info that is not so light. I still don't understand your problem. snip He was not what most of us thought he was - a celibate monk. He said he was a monk and we all assumed celibate went with that. Good old projection. Nothing wrong with that, happens all the time. snip
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
No, actually was was looking how to promote TM, found a guy named Don Draper of Sterling Cooper Advertising. And Don quickly brought him up to speed about life in america. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 shukr...@... wrote: yes he wanted to get married like any regular Maharishi and have 3.5 kids and a Kamadhenu in the Vaastu but he had to keep putting it off and putting it off --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote: snip I am interested to understand why people find it difficult to accept. Perhaps a bit jaw dropping at first. But after the first really!?, why is it particularly odd or difficult to digest? And I suppose, its a relevant questions: should a teacher be entitled to a private life? Entitled to some parts of life that are of no business to students or anyone else. I never heard MMY say he was celibate. Why should he? Other than when he was Bal Bramachari Mahesh. And then he changed his name. Which is a pretty big clue in itself. A practice useful for a student is not necessarily still useful for an adult. Like many of us, he may have not have gone out of his way to correct some peoples misperceptions. Actually he spent all day doing that -- misperceptions about the path. But it could have been an infinite job to try to straighten people out in every area of his and their lives. You're leaving one aspect of it out, that he allegedly had these affairs with female followers. That really isn't OK, because of the power differential; it's exploitative at best, predatory at worst, even if it was nominally consensual. And the age difference was substantial, by all accounts. Not arguing, but the women may have been -- I think were in many cases -- leveraging the situation. A lot of the woman around him may have had nice doe eyes, but they were hardly naive or unworldly. Some were downright manipulative, Some quite sophisticated temptresses. Some were quite the man eaters. And you didn't usually get to be around maharishi without some street smarts. There were a lot of people edging in. Lots of elbowing. Girls just off the turnip truck were not among them. I sense that once the word got around among an inner circle of women, some were bending over backwards to be the It girl -- and made it clear to him. And some men and women leaders were bonking their brains out with underlings. Down to checkers or asana demonstrators scoring with their students. And there was a lot of sex going on at courses among participants. Particularly beginnings and endings. MIU had professors and staff were dating much younger students. His actions were not outside the norm of the TMO or the times. As far as age difference, no one bats an eye at George Clooney or others when the age difference between he and his dates is 20-30 years. George Burns was iconic in this regard. Or any number of celebrities. I saw the other day Mr Big (Chris Noth) was dating someone 25-30 years younger. About the same age difference in the case of discussion. As far as other avenues, i suppose he could have gone down to the local bar in Mallorca or Suisse -- do a few shots, talk up some women. (hey, you into unity?) But that would seem more unseemly. Professional women I suppose were an option. But frankly, it seems a lot more wholesome to be with women that loved him and he loved them. I don't have any problem in the abstract with him getting his rocks off, but this was a rotten way to go about it. He didn't have a lot of options given the way he had things set up; he didn't have access to mature women who weren't his followers. But if he had sexual needs, he ought to have figured out some way to manage them that didn't involve dewy-eyed devotees. Or just accept that it was something he was going to have to deny himself. If it weren't for his choice of sexual outlets, I'd agree with what you say 100 percent.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: snip I also think an important consideration is how the women he was with felt about it all. If they were willing and eager and felt ok about, then that goes a long way to making it ok. I'd guess most were willing and eager to start with, but with these kinds of relationships it's usually the development and especially the denouement that causes pain, at the time and sometimes for many years afterward. When you're young, you tend not to think too much about how what you see as a big adventure is all going to turn out. Yes the young have it hard. Even some in their 40's don't think too much about how its going to turn out -- and get sucked into the adventure, the falling down the rabbit hole, the magical mystery tour -- thats a big part of relations. For that matter, someone who's been sheltered from normal social relationships with the opposite sex for as long as MMY was isn't likely to think about it either. Large assumption perhaps. Did he start his activity in the 70's? or the 50's? Or, as nabulous said, he did not comment even if Purusha took a getaway weekend. Maybe he could relate. It's a mug's game to try to figure out how MMY felt about anything, but I'm really curious. From what I've read, it seems the dilly-dallying took place during a specific period--I have the impression it was a decade or less--and then stopped. Your typical philanderer *doesn't* stop. So why did MMY? Conscience? The pragmatic aspects? Why the philanderer image? Its surprising to me that many here seem to have this rogue image of the man -- it was all exploitive -- little red riding hood and the big bad wolf. Perhaps. But so many other possibilities. While some will differ, those are not the qualities I found in the man. And as far as age, there were some quite attractive mid-30's women around. (and some school marms -- its not a universal observation) Would mid 30's cosmopolitan European women have been OK? The difference in authority and power between MMY and the women, however, is another issue That's the biggie, IMHO. It really changes the consensuality equation. It would with any powerful man who holds a lot of authority over a younger woman, but *especially* with a supposedly enlightened spiritual teacher and a disciple. I used to think along those lines. But I don't now. One can paint a picture of and image power sex, but I don't see it. I don't see him forcing himself on anyone, using power as a coercive threat. As I have said, its quite plausible to me that it was more the inverse of that, if anything -- but I don't think anyone was forcing anyone. What was he saying -- if going down the former road I am am going to withhold enlightenment to you if you don't do me? One woman J. in particular was shaken by the thing as recounted by skin boys (who have their own shaking out when replaced -- not all leave happily -- and projecting their disgruntlement on others a bit is not unfathomable.) Judith it appears was not, but her book will say. I have been shaken by relations -- particularly those that went south. Basket case for a bit. The world is full of stories of men and women having a rough patch when or as relations end. Most people understand this when entering relations. Its a part of life. And even if naive -- then an affair with Biff in hte room next door at the TTC may have greatly shaken her. Indeed, I wish I could wave a magic wand and proclaim No more hurt from relations. No More! poof! but -- thats not life. Thats a fairy tale. How did J or others think it was going to end? To be the Mrs MMY? To be a consort for 30 years in the palace? Raise a family? I believe that is a naive, condescending and simplistic view of her. How did she say, or other say, the affairs started? I may not remember the details -- but I don't recall coercion or pressure. I recall an eager girl thinking this was great. While some appear to have seen a lot of naive country girls just off the turnip truck around him -- I did not -- but I hardly saw everything / everywhere. There were some deeply devoted types -- maybe those were seen as turnip girls -- however, I see a large distinction between naivity and devotion. Others I saw were sophisticated women -- even if 22 -- though a lot were in mid to later 20's as I recall. This was the 70's not the 50's -- that I saw. (though it would not be a shock if there was such activity in the 50's I have heard some inklings of that.) One thing I *haven't* encountered, that I can recall-- somebody correct me if I'm wrong--in any of the stories that *is* a feature of many similar stories about other gurus is the promotion by the guru of the idea that having sex with him is going to further the woman's spiritual evolution. (Of course, that's an assumption the
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com wrote: Posts I asked Buck to remind us of: Today in the domes, you have left yourself with some TSR people who are generally well made people of means. Beyond a partial group of well made is another group of folks who are well employed. By any demographics you want to choose, both of these groups are minorities in our larger group of meditators. It's obvious that Jesus had it wrong. The Hindu version of things is correct: blessed are the rich for they have good karma and they have chosen the proper path in life. Interesting how the Raj, the Rukmapura peons cater to the rich, have this rich sort of polish about them yet they themselves can't afford dome fees. I well remember a yahoo who posted here years ago who asserted a certain blessedness because through proper application of the sidhis and choice of a career, he was prosperous and IRRC, he was very proud of his income, which level of which he alluded to herein, and the fact that he took a month or two at the Raj to take care of a prostate problem. No one challenged him back then. But the forum was full with the likes of the psychologist in Boca Raton (very wealthy town) and Rudra Joe, who once got fired from a restaurant for feeding the staff the restaurant's foi gras and truffles. Looks like activism waxes and wanes here on FairfieldRife. -- Are you better off now than you were 4 trillion dollars ago?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
Wanna bet I never get a decent straight answer out of him? And who could grill this old fart successfully? No onecuz he's practiced every answer -- just as we had our answers for first lectures all prepared. He's an old man. He's taken a stance, and he's not going to budge out of it for the likes of me. There's zero profit in the scenario for any party -- what do I get?a merit badge for yelling at someone? Hell, even here when I put up the list and asked for suggestions, there was almost a group yawn. And now what, you want me to beat on an old guy so that I, what?, tarnish my already rusted through image here? I viewed his recent videos and there's just not a hint of him being willing to take a step back or explain his part in the whole fiasco. I loved the guy, but he can't simply walk back into the movement spotlight without some 'splainin' to do. No movement leader has ever not once not one god damned time stood up and spoke the real truth to any of us. Who here thinks I should put on my best bastard hat and wail on beloved old Jerry? As much as I'd love the true answers to my questions, for me to expect them for free when the cost to the TMO and presumably Jerry's reputation is so large to cede that ground, would be like me walking into an already swung fist. Creating the list was good work for me though...got me clear about the couple dozen issues that were begging for my attention, and almost any of them, if I had answered them truthfully way back when, should have had me leaving the movement on the spot, but n, I had to cut the movement break after break after break So, um no Jerry, you don't knock on my door and ask for another one. Again, St. Paul? -- come to Fairfield, do an open lecture and take questions -- anything less is cowardly and manipulative and certainly a tell that no real interaction or exchange is being offered. Do this in Fairfield, and I drive the six hours to attend. Even on the basis of him saying he's enlightened, we deserve to ask him why the fuck his holy voice was muted so ruthlessly and yet he never cosmically even did a double take enough to hang in there for our sakes and fight the good fight against his ouster. And, he didn't do the siddhi program, right? Yet here he's being trotted out to do what? Sell us mercury laced medicine? Promise we're all so close to enlightenment now? Jerry, I didn't ask, cuz you wouldn't tell. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote: right...it's all vile; the Movement will self-destruct since there's almost nothing worth saving. But I still like TM. That will survive;...and I still like Jerry inspite of his drinking the Kool Aid. Go ahead...call him. I dare you. If so, get back with the outcome. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: yifuxero I didn't chicken out; I saw that I would get nowhere and saved myself the shame of trying to get an old dog to admit to his tricks knowing full well that that simply wouldn't happen. Do you actually want me to call him and have at him with the dark vibe he deserves for being a part of such a low integrity organization and his continuing support of it? I will, but you'll warn him to not pick up the phone, right? He could've answered medoesn't do email -- what a fucking lame assed excuse. It's not my job to prove him wrong, but it sure is his job to prove himself a person of integrity by at least admitting that the issues that he's so ignored for 30 fucking years actually matter and should be handled. This isn't about appeasing me, it's about answering to whole generations of the faithful about the vile shit the movement has hidden at any cost from us. And, and, and now only now he's coming back at us? Fuck that shit! Give him a crown and a robe and let him join the power mongers openly instead of letting himself be schlepped around by the movement in some desperate and obvious ploy to re-ignite a market they killed long long ago. By resorting to the using of a favorite puppet of Maharishi they've found at the back of the closet and dusted off for us, what more proof do we need of the cynical approach the TMO is taking to their tottering and shaky about-to-be-most-sincerely-dead movement? I'm fucking pissed -- I had a wonderful movement, and a wonderful guru, and it was all a sham for money and I was a complete fool. Pissed at myself, firstly, yes, but only a titch less pissed at the TMO and Jerry too. Let's see Jerry start his lectures with explaining all the hijinks and the actual cash flows to Girish and how he can turn a blind eye to the immorality of B and H as they maraud the marriages. And you, yifuxero, explain yourself for why you're trying to protect this old codger. Doesn't seem like the 5 - 8 years concepts fulfilled
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip For that matter, someone who's been sheltered from normal social relationships with the opposite sex for as long as MMY was isn't likely to think about it either. Large assumption perhaps. Did he start his activity in the 70's? or the 50's? Or, as nabulous said, he did not comment even if Purusha took a getaway weekend. Maybe he could relate. Could be, but all the stories are from the '70s, as far as I'm aware. And in any case, even if he did mess around earlier, it still wasn't in a normal social context. It's a mug's game to try to figure out how MMY felt about anything, but I'm really curious. From what I've read, it seems the dilly-dallying took place during a specific period--I have the impression it was a decade or less--and then stopped. Your typical philanderer *doesn't* stop. So why did MMY? Conscience? The pragmatic aspects? Why the philanderer image? philander, to have casual or illicit sexual relations with a woman or with many women Sounds on the nose to me. Its surprising to me that many here seem to have this rogue image of the man -- it was all exploitive -- little red riding hood and the big bad wolf. Perhaps. But so many other possibilities. While some will differ, those are not the qualities I found in the man. But I explicitly drew a contrast with the *typical* philanderer. Did you miss that? And as far as age, there were some quite attractive mid-30's women around. (and some school marms -- its not a universal observation) Would mid 30's cosmopolitan European women have been OK? Maybe not so bad, but not really OK if they were disciples, again because of the power differential. The difference in authority and power between MMY and the women, however, is another issue That's the biggie, IMHO. It really changes the consensuality equation. It would with any powerful man who holds a lot of authority over a younger woman, but *especially* with a supposedly enlightened spiritual teacher and a disciple. I used to think along those lines. But I don't now. One can paint a picture of and image power sex, but I don't see it. I don't see him forcing himself on anyone, using power as a coercive threat. Neither do I, nor was that what any of the stories I read suggested--to the contrary. But that's just the point, a powerful man often doesn't *have* to do any overt coercing. Coercion is implicit in the power differential, at least to the extent that, as I said, it changes the consensuality equation so it's no longer balanced; it isn't a level playing field. As I have said, its quite plausible to me that it was more the inverse of that, if anything -- but I don't think anyone was forcing anyone. What was he saying -- if going down the former road I am am going to withhold enlightenment to you if you don't do me? And as I have said, I didn't see anything in the various stories that suggested he did anything along those lines, although it's very common in similar stories about other gurus. I have been shaken by relations -- particularly those that went south. Basket case for a bit. The world is full of stories of men and women having a rough patch when or as relations end. Most people understand this when entering relations. I think you might want to read some of the clinical literature on how these kinds of relationships--i.e., with a guru/authority figure--affect the women involved. It just doesn't work the same way, especially if the guru is viewed as holy/enlightened. snip How did J or others think it was going to end? To be the Mrs MMY? To be a consort for 30 years in the palace? Raise a family? I believe that is a naive, condescending and simplistic view of her. Gee, you're really not reading what I write. I'm suggesting they weren't thinking that far ahead. I sure didn't when I was their age, and I got myself into some messes as a result (fortunately not of this type). snip One thing I *haven't* encountered, that I can recall-- somebody correct me if I'm wrong--in any of the stories that *is* a feature of many similar stories about other gurus is the promotion by the guru of the idea that having sex with him is going to further the woman's spiritual evolution. (Of course, that's an assumption the women may have adopted on their own.) If so, then those women were out for themselves -- or I guess themSelves. My guess is some of them may actually have felt sorry for him. Or that may even have been his pitch--It's so lonesome here at the top... snip The sense I get of the overall picture is that MMY was just pathetically *naive* about the whole business. He knew it had to be kept quiet, but other than that, he really didn't know what he was doing, especially emotionally, or have any idea of the possible psychological repercussions,
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 8:25 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1! He was not what most of us thought he was - a celibate monk. He said he was a monk and we all assumed celibate went with that. Good old projection. Nothing wrong with that, happens all the time. Interesting admission by Nabby. Aren't monks celibate by definition?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 8:25 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis Coming St. Paul, MN May 1! He was not what most of us thought he was - a celibate monk. He said he was a monk and we all assumed celibate went with that. Good old projection on your side. Nothing wrong with that, happens all the time. Interesting admission by Nabby. Aren't monks celibate by definition? We are free to create any definition we like. A monk will perhaps not desire sex beacuse he has more serious spiritual matters to attend, but if it comes along and is positive, why not ? On Purusha there where no written rules in this regard.
