Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Vaj]

On Jun 3, 2009, at 2:24 AM, emptybill wrote:
And Bill thanks for trying to elevate me to guru, but you have no  
clue what my credentials and authorizations are, because I've never  
discussed them with. So stop spreading lies about what you think my  
credentials and authorizations might be. It's just a childish  
uptight game you're playing.



Well gosh Vaj. You mean you're not a nath-guru?

But that can't be true 'cuz your disciple Kaladevi told me she  
received teachings and initiation from you and that you were a real  
nath-acharya. I think you're just being too modest. You really  
don't want to present yourself that way because you would be  
embarrassed by all the accolades.



 I just spoke to Kala. You're lying again Bill.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[emptybill]

Vaj:



And Bill thanks for trying to elevate me to guru, but you have no clue
what my credentials and authorizations are, because I've never discussed
them with. So stop spreading lies about what you think my credentials
and authorizations might be. It's just a childish uptight game you're
playing.


Well gosh Vaj. You mean you're not a nath-guru?

But that can't be true 'cuz your disciple Kaladevi told me she received
teachings and initiation from you and that you were a real nath-acharya.
I think you're just being too modest. You really don't want to present
yourself that way because you would be embarrassed by all the accolades.

However, it is nice to know how tight you are with the Shankaracharyas.
Did the US government allow the Indian constabulary to depose you in the
murder case against Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati and his junior
partner? Since you are so close to the "Shanks" that would make sense.

That would also explain why you attacked that poor naive pandit here on
FFL.Can't have too many pandits on the same forum can we? Especially if
there might be some Tamil religious politics intertwined. You are a
pandit aren't you? Why else would those mighty guys you call your
"Shanks" consort with you?

Let's see ... since you have an American body that must mean they
recognize that you are actually a maha-tantrika reborn here to lead us
dumb westerners from darkness to light. Yeah, that's it ... tamaso ma
jyotir gamaya … et al. That would explain why, according to your
disciple Kaladevi, we are just too ignorant to know how eminent you are
on the high altars of the Natha-duta lineage.

Oh, by the way, so sorry for your Tigers. Those Theravada soldiers in
Sri Lanka just didn't seem to project the level of compassion you've so
often embraced here on FFL. They just killed those Tamil Tigers without
even reading them the Satipatthana Sutta first. Must have been jungle
karma from old leftover tantrika mantras... courtesy of that
multi-headed rakshasa – Ravana, enemy of Lord Ram.

By the way, since you also have mutiple heads, I'm wondering if maybe
that's your secret too. Let's see - as a pandit that would make you a
Brahma-Rakshasa.

Now that I think about it ... gosh  ...  I better be more careful.

Gulp Gulp, sweat sweat ... thank you, thank you, O' Brahma-Rakshasa Vaj
for not obliterating me with your maha-astra mantras - once and for all
doing away with me, just because you could. Of course, I know that's not
your only reason, since doing that might scare away your admirers here
FFL. Gosh that too just shows your keen wisdom.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 2, 2009, at 1:21 PM, emptybill wrote:
>
> > No doubt,  just for Vaj, they must have brushed off AdiShankara's
> > disagreement with Pancharatra theology as discussed in his
> > Brahmasutra Bhasya. Thus his now it can be told  - this is more
> > insider revelation that only Vaj-duta would claim.
>
> I think the easiest "inside" claim for Shankara being primarily a
> Vashnavite is that his core works, the ones the most will agree were
> actually written by him, not merely attributed to him, proclaim saguna
> Brahman as synonymous with narayana or vasudeva! ;-)
>
> Dead give away if you ask me! That's of course not to say that he
> didn't have Smarta leanings as well. Of course he did.
>
> And Bill thanks for trying to elevate me to guru, but you have no clue
what my credentials and authorizations are, because I've never discussed
them with. So stop spreading lies about what you think my credentials
and authorizations might be. It's just a childish uptight  game you're
playing.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Richard J. Williams]

> ...this is more insider revelation that only 
> Vaj-duta would claim.
> 
Vaj wrote:
> It's just a childish uptight game you're playing.
>
Vaj, why not just read a book on Indian history?
Vishnuism in India came a long time after the 
establishment of the Shivaite sect, and after 
Shankaracyarya. It's only later, after the Gupta 
period, that Vishnuism merged with Krishnaism and 
became popular. The formation of Shiva traditions 
occurred during the period from 200 BC to 100 AD. 

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

Most of the Shankaracharya order are now Tantrics 
and worship the Sri Vidya, not Vishnu or Krishna. 

"...most in the Shankaracharya tradition practice 
samaya sri vidya and accept that he wrote several 
tantric texts including Saundaryalahari, etc, 
etc." - James Duffy

Read more:

Subject: Auspicious Wisdom
From: Willytex
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental, 
alt.yoga, alt.meditation, 
alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
Date: September 7, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/qs7w4b 

Subject: Shankara's Tantra Adwaita
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental, 
alt.yoga
Date: July 4, 2008 12:45 pm
http://tinyurl.com/of4mxb

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Vaj]

On Jun 2, 2009, at 1:21 PM, emptybill wrote:

No doubt,  just for Vaj, they must have brushed off Adi-Shankara's  
disagreement with Pancharatra theology as discussed in his  
Brahmasutra Bhasya. Thus his now it can be told  - this is more  
insider revelation that only Vaj-duta would claim.


I think the easiest "inside" claim for Shankara being primarily a  
Vashnavite is that his core works, the ones the most will agree were  
actually written by him, not merely attributed to him, proclaim saguna  
Brahman as synonymous with narayana or vasudeva! ;-)


Dead give away if you ask me! That's of course not to say that he  
didn't have Smarta leanings as well. Of course he did.


And Bill thanks for trying to elevate me to guru, but you have no clue  
what my credentials and authorizations are, because I've never  
discussed them with. So stop spreading lies about what you think my  
credentials and authorizations might be. It's just a childish uptight  
game you're playing.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Randy Meltzer]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>
> Vaj is basically giving the story line doled out by the Frenchman Alain
> Danielou. Since he claims to be a Nath guru he can just repeat it
> endlessly.
> 
> As his posts show, Vaj-duta once again professes to be an insider -
> tight with the "Shanks" as he loves call them. No doubt he must possess
> insider knowledge which they alone gave him (ie. that they are really
> Vaishnava-s in disguise).
> 
> No doubt,  just for Vaj, they must have brushed off Adi-Shankara's
> disagreement with Pancharatra theology as discussed in his Brahmasutra
> Bhasya. Thus his now it can be told  - this is more insider revelation
> that only Vaj-duta would claim.
> 
> If we look at Vaishnava sampradayas and the theologies they espouse,
> especially Pancharatra theology and yoga, we will see their fundamental
> difference from the advaita lineages.
> 
> The advaita lineage founded by Adi-Shankara institued multiple deva
> worship in many forms - principally Saura, Shaiva, Shakta, Vaishnava,
> Ganapatya and in the South, Kartikkeya.
> 
> That doesn't make any of them sectarian Vaishnava, Shakta or Shaiva. All
> of these sectarian lineages take their authority from Shaiva Agamas and
> Tantras and the Vaishnavas from the Pancharatra Samhitas. It is
> completely different sourcing.
> 
> Sorry you have to waste so much time with his endless claims of insider
> knowledge. Vaj is a hack parading as an american nath-guru and advanced
> dzogchenpa. Mostly he just makes this stuff up.

Hey emptybill, thanks for this
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Jun 1, 2009, at 1:23 AM, Randy Meltzer wrote:
> >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
> > >> Vaj,
> > > Again you make the statement that the tradition is not Shaivite.
> > > On what basis are you saying this? Have you been to Jyotir Math?
> > > Have you been to Guru Dev's ashram in Allahabad?
> > > It would seem not.  Because if you had been there, it would be
> > > obvious.  Even the sandalwood tilak on Guru Dev's face is shaivite
> > > style, not vaishnavite.  The vaishnavites always wear their tilak
> > > in a vertical style.  Shaivaites always horizontal.
> > > Where did you specifically find out that the shankaracharya order
> > > is vaishnavite?  Please mention specifics?
> > > Bhaja Govindam is not a good argument.  In India many people sing
> > > that.
> > > Next, you will be telling me that the Kedarnath temple in the
> > > Himalayas is a Vaishnavite temple.
> > > And the again I will state for the record that Shankara is a name
> > > of Shiva.  Anyone in India knows that. But perhaps you are right
> > > and I am wrong.  I guess my 16 trips there taught me nothing.
> >
> > Yes, I did say it again. I'm not going to lie. But at the same time,
> > I've seen the same thing with numerous people associated with Vedic
> > and puritanical Hindu movements.
> >
> > I spent a good amount of time involved with the Shankarcharya of the
> > south and got to observe the inner workings close enough that I'm
> > familiar with their workings. The Smartas are very inclusive, so they
> > do not reject Shiva but they are not a Shaivite line. Being basically
> > Brahmin, they have their version of history, told from their point of
> > view.
> >
> > Yes, Shankara is a adjective of Shiva and some people do even
> > consider Shankara an incarnation of Shiva. Of course some Shaivite
> > lines also consider him a demon and destroyer. There are even tantric
> > works attributed to Shankara which believers believe to actually be
> > by Adi-Shankara. Historians however recognize that these come from a
> > later date than Adi-Shankara.
> >
> > What some people aren't aware of is that orgs like the Shankaracharya
> > while essentially deriving from Upanshadic thought and the Vedas,
> > they also amalgamated a certain number of other sects which was part
> > of a trend whereby older sects were brought into the newer Vedic
> > ones. Really by the time of Shankara, the amalgamation of what was
> > left of Vedic religion had already developed a symbiotic relationship
> > with earlier forms of ecstatic religion like Shaivism. For that
> > reason you can go to many Hindu temples and for one purpose they'll
> > do a Vedic rite, for another they'll do a tantric one. But it's a
> > sanitized, ritualized presentation of Shiva set in a puritanical
> > religion.
> >
> > The original Shaivite gnosis was an ecstatic religion of the
> > countryside, on the fringes of society. It's most recent revival
> > would have been around time of Christ with the Shaivite saint
> > Lakulisha who was considered the 28th avatar of Shiva. His followers
> > considered him the last of the avatars mentioned in the Puranas. Most
> > of these lines were oral, that is they were not written down and if
> > they did, most existed in Dravidian languages.
> >
> > The Shaiva gnosis of Lakulisha was to last about a thousand y

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[emptybill]

Vaj is basically giving the story line doled out by the Frenchman Alain
Danielou. Since he claims to be a Nath guru he can just repeat it
endlessly.

As his posts show, Vaj-duta once again professes to be an insider -
tight with the "Shanks" as he loves call them. No doubt he must possess
insider knowledge which they alone gave him (ie. that they are really
Vaishnava-s in disguise).

No doubt,  just for Vaj, they must have brushed off Adi-Shankara's
disagreement with Pancharatra theology as discussed in his Brahmasutra
Bhasya. Thus his now it can be told  - this is more insider revelation
that only Vaj-duta would claim.

If we look at Vaishnava sampradayas and the theologies they espouse,
especially Pancharatra theology and yoga, we will see their fundamental
difference from the advaita lineages.

The advaita lineage founded by Adi-Shankara institued multiple deva
worship in many forms - principally Saura, Shaiva, Shakta, Vaishnava,
Ganapatya and in the South, Kartikkeya.

That doesn't make any of them sectarian Vaishnava, Shakta or Shaiva. All
of these sectarian lineages take their authority from Shaiva Agamas and
Tantras and the Vaishnavas from the Pancharatra Samhitas. It is
completely different sourcing.

Sorry you have to waste so much time with his endless claims of insider
knowledge. Vaj is a hack parading as an american nath-guru and advanced
dzogchenpa. Mostly he just makes this stuff up.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2009, at 1:23 AM, Randy Meltzer wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
> >> Vaj,
> > Again you make the statement that the tradition is not Shaivite.
> > On what basis are you saying this? Have you been to Jyotir Math?
> > Have you been to Guru Dev's ashram in Allahabad?
> > It would seem not.  Because if you had been there, it would be
> > obvious.  Even the sandalwood tilak on Guru Dev's face is shaivite
> > style, not vaishnavite.  The vaishnavites always wear their tilak
> > in a vertical style.  Shaivaites always horizontal.
> > Where did you specifically find out that the shankaracharya order
> > is vaishnavite?  Please mention specifics?
> > Bhaja Govindam is not a good argument.  In India many people sing
> > that.
> > Next, you will be telling me that the Kedarnath temple in the
> > Himalayas is a Vaishnavite temple.
> > And the again I will state for the record that Shankara is a name
> > of Shiva.  Anyone in India knows that. But perhaps you are right
> > and I am wrong.  I guess my 16 trips there taught me nothing.
>
> Yes, I did say it again. I'm not going to lie. But at the same time,
> I've seen the same thing with numerous people associated with Vedic
> and puritanical Hindu movements.
>
> I spent a good amount of time involved with the Shankarcharya of the
> south and got to observe the inner workings close enough that I'm
> familiar with their workings. The Smartas are very inclusive, so they
> do not reject Shiva but they are not a Shaivite line. Being basically
> Brahmin, they have their version of history, told from their point of
> view.
>
> Yes, Shankara is a adjective of Shiva and some people do even
> consider Shankara an incarnation of Shiva. Of course some Shaivite
> lines also consider him a demon and destroyer. There are even tantric
> works attributed to Shankara which believers believe to actually be
> by Adi-Shankara. Historians however recognize that these come from a
> later date than Adi-Shankara.
>
> What some people aren't aware of is that orgs like the Shankaracharya
> while essentially deriving from Upanshadic thought and the Vedas,
> they also amalgamated a certain number of other sects which was part
> of a trend whereby older sects were brought into the newer Vedic
> ones. Really by the time of Shankara, the amalgamation of what was
> left of Vedic religion had already developed a symbiotic relationship
> with earlier forms of ecstatic religion like Shaivism. For that
> reason you can go to many Hindu temples and for one purpose they'll
> do a Vedic rite, for another they'll do a tantric one. But it's a
> sanitized, ritualized presentation of Shiva set in a puritanical
> religion.
>
> The original Shaivite gnosis was an ecstatic religion of the
> countryside, on the fringes of society. It's most recent revival
> would have been around time of Christ with the Shaivite saint
> Lakulisha who was considered the 28th avatar of Shiva. His followers
> considered him the last of the avatars mentioned in the Puranas. Most
> of these lines were oral, that is they were not written down and if
> they did, most existed in Dravidian languages.
>
> The Shaiva gnosis of Lakulisha was to last about a thousand years. A
> period of invasions by the Hun and the adherents of Islam put a stop
> to Shaivisms expansions. The Brahmans for a long, long time
> represented the dominant intellectual class began to gradually take
> over the various philosophical and scientific conceptions of the
> Sh

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[authfriend]

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

> The "facts" are that you guys are arguing 
> about whether an obscure religious sect
> worships one imaginary deity or another.
> From the outside, without being a part of
> that obscure religious sect.

The Shankaracharya order, of course, is hardly "an
obscure religious sect." And as Vaj points out, the
issue is much less a matter of which deity is
worshiped as it is of basic principles and
organizational style--roughly akin to the difference
between Protestant and Catholic in that regard.

In other words, in his anxiety to come up with a
putdown, Barry once again trips over his ignorance.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Vaj]

On Jun 2, 2009, at 2:58 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:

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


On Jun 1, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Randy Meltzer wrote:


Thanks Vaj for saying that. I am not here to do the
"pile on Vaj" thing. Its just when you make statements
like "the shankaracharya order is Vaishnavite" and my
experience is s the oposite I had to chime in.


I couldn't agree more, Randy...every time Vaj
or anyone else makes a dumb-ass
statement like that I just want to punch them.
The "shankaracharya order is Vaishnavite" indeed!


 And yes, I did have a small axe to grind about you as
someone pointed out in a previous post, because I felt
your comments in the past about my experiences were
disrespectful.  In any case, its nothing personal.
Just trying to keep the facts staight


Yes, the facts about the shankaracharya order being
Vaishnavite or not is as clear-cut as crystal, and how
anybody could miss that is beyond me. Thanks for clearing
all that up!


The "facts" are that you guys are arguing
about whether an obscure religious sect
worships one imaginary deity or another.
From the outside, without being a part of
that obscure religious sect.


I think that's only a small part of it. We're not talking about  
whether or these people hang out in airports singing teary-eyed  
bhajans to Lord Krishna.


The point has more to do with the style of organization we're dealing  
with. In the west we might say an organization is "patriarchal" and  
that invokes a certain sense of how the org operates compared to,  
say, a matriarchal one. Similarly calling an order or line  
Vaishnavite invokes a certain idea as to what type of org it is:  
puritanical, priests--lots of priests, few or no priestesses, large  
draw from the merchant and Brahmin classes, big emphasis on ritual by  
priests, purity-freaks, separation of men and women: men on top,  
women on the bottom, no sex on ashram grounds, etc. Vaishnavism is  
meant, in this context, to invoke the type of org we're dealing with  
and less so a preference for a specific deity, although often (as in  
this case) the orgs primordial guru will be Vishnu or a form of VIshnu.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Vaj]

On Jun 1, 2009, at 11:46 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
Well lets see.  I have been to Guru Dev's ashram in Allahabad 4  
times. The last time was this past April, but Vasudevanandaji was  
not there so it was pretty quiet.  I just walked around a bit.
There is a beautiful altar in the middle of the courtyard of the  
ashram that has a statue of Adi Shankara and one of Guru Dev and a  
pair of Guru Dev's sandals that have been bronzed.  I believe they  
do puja to the altar every morning.  On previous occasions I have  
met with Vasudevananda in his meeting room, which is the same room  
and has the same seat that Guru Dev sat on and the energy in there  
has always been palpable.  Vasudevanandaji has always been very low  
key, pretty relaxed and would answer any questions (not that I  
really had any) and was always appreciative that we were with MMY.
Jyotir math was also very nice and not much going on.  There a few  
monks who are disciples of vasudevanandaji and very welcoming.  I  
attended evening puja to Vasudevanandaji sandals that were there  
and it was lovely. The monks asked me to stay for a few weeks,  
which I had no time to do, but it was nice that they asked.

Both ashrams seemed very traditional ashram like.  Not at all TM like.

I plan on visiting Kanchipuram in the fall.



Take pictures please!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert"  wrote:
>
>   (snip)
> > 
> > Not content with the "Robert, my direct memories 
> > of my awful past lives piss on your psychic's
> > recounting of your own awful past lives" posturing,
> > now emptybill...
>
>  (snip)
> I'm sorry you didn't appreciate 'My Past Life Story'...Turq...
> Perhaps if I draw a tatoo of it, and put in a nice female 
> ass..then you might be a lot interested?

Robert,

I give your "past life story" or remembrance
*exactly* the same credence I give my own. That
is, a pleasant fantasy that one will never know
the truth of, but helps to pass the time and
make it more amusing.

I was poking fun at EmptyBill's suggestion that
because he could (presumably) remember his own 
past lives and you had to be told about yours
by a psyhic, his were "better" and thus he was
"better" than you. I found *that* laughable,
not your attachment to who you think you were
in the past.

You're starting to really get into the Judy thang,
perceiving attacks where none are intended, or
even imagined. It could be something you've picked
up from FFL. Or maybe it's a past life thang.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> On Jun 1, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Randy Meltzer wrote:
> 
> > Thanks Vaj for saying that. I am not here to do the 
> > "pile on Vaj" thing. Its just when you make statements 
> > like "the shankaracharya order is Vaishnavite" and my 
> > experience is s the oposite I had to chime in.
> 
> I couldn't agree more, Randy...every time Vaj
> or anyone else makes a dumb-ass
> statement like that I just want to punch them.
> The "shankaracharya order is Vaishnavite" indeed!
> 
> >  And yes, I did have a small axe to grind about you as 
> > someone pointed out in a previous post, because I felt 
> > your comments in the past about my experiences were 
> > disrespectful.  In any case, its nothing personal.  
> > Just trying to keep the facts staight
> 
> Yes, the facts about the shankaracharya order being 
> Vaishnavite or not is as clear-cut as crystal, and how 
> anybody could miss that is beyond me. Thanks for clearing 
> all that up!

The "facts" are that you guys are arguing 
about whether an obscure religious sect
worships one imaginary deity or another.
>From the outside, without being a part of
that obscure religious sect.

I understand that it's fun for you, and is
as good a way to pass the incarnation as
any, I guess, but I'm reminded of the 
sociologist who postulated that beings a
few centuries from now are going to find
American shopping malls and not know what 
the hell to make of them. 

They are obviously centers to which large
numbers of people flocked on a regular 
basis. In other societies this is synonymous
with churches and other centers of religious
or spiritual activity. So these future soc-
iologists are going to decide that shopping
malls were the churches of America.

And who or what did the people worship in 
these huge churches? Deities named Calvin 
Klein and Hugo Boss and (genuflecting before 
speaking His holy name) Versace. 

These sociologists will spend hours arguing
about which of these gods the long-dead 
people of America worshipped *most*, and
which was the "ultimate" god of the shopping 
malls the one that the religious order was
founded to worship.

And, obviously, it's Hugo Boss, right? The
name says it all.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Randy Meltzer]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>Well lets see.  I have been to Guru Dev's ashram in Allahabad 4 times. The 
>last time was this past April, but Vasudevanandaji was not there so it was 
>pretty quiet.  I just walked around a bit.
There is a beautiful altar in the middle of the courtyard of the ashram that 
has a statue of Adi Shankara and one of Guru Dev and a pair of Guru Dev's 
sandals that have been bronzed.  I believe they do puja to the altar every 
morning.  On previous occasions I have met with Vasudevananda in his meeting 
room, which is the same room and has the same seat that Guru Dev sat on and the 
energy in there has always been palpable.  Vasudevanandaji has always been very 
low key, pretty relaxed and would answer any questions (not that I really had 
any) and was always appreciative that we were with MMY.
Jyotir math was also very nice and not much going on.  There a few monks who 
are disciples of vasudevanandaji and very welcoming.  I attended evening puja 
to Vasudevanandaji sandals that were there and it was lovely. The monks asked 
me to stay for a few weeks, which I had no time to do, but it was nice that 
they asked.
Both ashrams seemed very traditional ashram like.  Not at all TM like.

I plan on visiting Kanchipuram in the fall.
> 
> On Jun 1, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> Depends on a number of things really Lurk. A big one for me is 'what
> >> do I perceive as their underlying intention?'. Another is 'is this
> >> just another "pile on" post? I'm not a fan of digital rugby. Do I
> >> have enough time and is it worth it? It's also good to feel people
> >> are interested in responding to the topic, not just shooting off some
> >> obtuse remark.
> >>
> >> For any of these reasons I may decide not to waste my time.
> >>
> >> Randy seems like a guy interested in actually having an intelligent
> >> conversation and he's had some interesting things to share as well.
> >
> > Thanks Vaj for saying that.  I am not here to do the "pile on Vaj"  
> > thing.  Its just when you make statements like "the shankaracharya  
> > order is Vaishnavite" and my experience is s the oposite I had  
> > to chime in.  And yes, I did have a small axe to grind about you as  
> > someone pointed out in a previous post, because I felt your comments  
> > in the past about my experiences were disrespectful.   In any case,  
> > its nothing personal.  Just trying to keep the facts staight
> 
> 
> I think the crux of the issue Randy is that you saw Shiva worship  
> going on at the Maths and so assumed the lineage was Shaivite (even  
> though it's not), but it's more accurate to say the Smartas had a very  
> all-embracing view of Hinduism, and that's also probably why  
> Shankara's line was so incredibly popular, eventually helping to dowse  
> Buddhism's spread (although I'm sure the invasions also helped create  
> a surge in Hindu nationalism and an appreciation of Hinduism's own  
> diversity). They later even integrated Shakta practices, so it's  
> rather profound what they did.
> 
> I was hoping now that you've shared that you've been to a number of  
> the Maths, you'd also share some of your experiences there. Seriously.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Robert]

  (snip)
> 
> Not content with the "Robert, my direct memories 
> of my awful past lives piss on your psychic's
> recounting of your own awful past lives" posturing,
> now emptybill...
 (snip)
I'm sorry you didn't appreciate 'My Past Life Story'...Turq...
Perhaps if I draw a tatoo of it, and put in a nice female ass..then you might 
be a lot interested?
But, I'm really not here, to wet your stick...sorry.

'My Past Life Story' is something I worked on very hard, and life was taken 
from me, at the height of my powers, on someone's whim.

We all get whims.
But do we need to be neutered, need to kill, murder and rape, in order to get 
our rocks off?

Is it good to act or write on those kinds of whims, Turq.?

I know once you're in the Mafia, you can't get out...
But, if we pray for you, perhaps you will be able too...
Faith. Yes We Can!

R.G.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 1, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Randy Meltzer wrote:

Thanks Vaj for saying that.  I am not here to do the "pile on Vaj"  
thing.  Its just when you make statements like "the shankaracharya  
order is Vaishnavite" and my experience is s the oposite I had  
to chime in.


I couldn't agree more, Randy...every time Vaj
or anyone else makes a dumb-ass
statement like that I just want to punch them.
The "shankaracharya order is Vaishnavite" indeed!

 And yes, I did have a small axe to grind about you as someone  
pointed out in a previous post, because I felt your comments in the  
past about my experiences were disrespectful.   In any case, its  
nothing personal.  Just trying to keep the facts staight


Yes, the facts about the shankaracharya order being Vaishnavite
or not is as clear-cut as crystal, and how anybody could miss
that is beyond me.  Thanks for clearing all that up!

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[lurkernomore20002000]

FWIW, I thought the Vajster gave a pretty good replay to emptybill.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
> wrote:
> >
> >  "Randy Meltzer"  wrote:
> >  
> > > Any comments Vaj?
> > 
> > I have noticed sometimes at this point the call gets dropped.
> 
> Lurk, do *you* "stay on the line" when the
> person on the other end clearly has his dick
> out of his pants waving it around and saying,
> "Can you match this, bozo?"
> 
> I don't know about you, but I tend to get a
> little tired of the heavy breathing on the
> other end of the line and hang up.  :-)
> 
> Then again, I am unimpressed with real academics
> in the field of spirituality, and even less so
> with "armchair academics" who play "dueling
> sources" in what are clearly oneupsmanship ego
> games. Your mileage may vary. If it does, I hope
> that the "payoff" you're waiting for...uh...
> measures up.  :-)
> 
> "Hell hath not seen nor heaven created the one 
> who can prevail against me!"
> - Don Quixote, after his windmill escapade
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Vaj]

On Jun 1, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote:

>>
>> Depends on a number of things really Lurk. A big one for me is 'what
>> do I perceive as their underlying intention?'. Another is 'is this
>> just another "pile on" post? I'm not a fan of digital rugby. Do I
>> have enough time and is it worth it? It's also good to feel people
>> are interested in responding to the topic, not just shooting off some
>> obtuse remark.
>>
>> For any of these reasons I may decide not to waste my time.
>>
>> Randy seems like a guy interested in actually having an intelligent
>> conversation and he's had some interesting things to share as well.
>
> Thanks Vaj for saying that.  I am not here to do the "pile on Vaj"  
> thing.  Its just when you make statements like "the shankaracharya  
> order is Vaishnavite" and my experience is s the oposite I had  
> to chime in.  And yes, I did have a small axe to grind about you as  
> someone pointed out in a previous post, because I felt your comments  
> in the past about my experiences were disrespectful.   In any case,  
> its nothing personal.  Just trying to keep the facts staight


I think the crux of the issue Randy is that you saw Shiva worship  
going on at the Maths and so assumed the lineage was Shaivite (even  
though it's not), but it's more accurate to say the Smartas had a very  
all-embracing view of Hinduism, and that's also probably why  
Shankara's line was so incredibly popular, eventually helping to dowse  
Buddhism's spread (although I'm sure the invasions also helped create  
a surge in Hindu nationalism and an appreciation of Hinduism's own  
diversity). They later even integrated Shakta practices, so it's  
rather profound what they did.

I was hoping now that you've shared that you've been to a number of  
the Maths, you'd also share some of your experiences there. Seriously.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Randy Meltzer]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On May 31, 2009, at 9:26 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
> 
> >  "Randy Meltzer"  wrote:
> >
> >> Any comments Vaj?
> >>
> >
> > I have noticed sometimes at this point the call gets dropped.
> 
> 
> Depends on a number of things really Lurk. A big one for me is 'what  
> do I perceive as their underlying intention?'. Another is 'is this  
> just another "pile on" post? I'm not a fan of digital rugby. Do I  
> have enough time and is it worth it? It's also good to feel people  
> are interested in responding to the topic, not just shooting off some  
> obtuse remark.
> 
> For any of these reasons I may decide not to waste my time.
> 
> Randy seems like a guy interested in actually having an intelligent  
> conversation and he's had some interesting things to share as well.

Thanks Vaj for saying that.  I am not here to do the "pile on Vaj" thing.  Its 
just when you make statements like "the shankaracharya order is Vaishnavite" 
and my experience is s the oposite I had to chime in.  And yes, I did have 
a small axe to grind about you as someone pointed out in a previous post, 
because I felt your comments in the past about my experiences were 
disrespectful.   In any case, its nothing personal.  Just trying to keep the 
facts staight
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Randy Meltzer]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On May 31, 2009, at 9:26 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
> 
> >  "Randy Meltzer"  wrote:
> >
> >> Any comments Vaj?
> >>
> >
> > I have noticed sometimes at this point the call gets dropped.
> 
> 
> Depends on a number of things really Lurk. A big one for me is 'what  
> do I perceive as their underlying intention?'. Another is 'is this  
> just another "pile on" post? I'm not a fan of digital rugby. Do I  
> have enough time and is it worth it? It's also good to feel people  
> are interested in responding to the topic, not just shooting off some  
> obtuse remark.
> 
> For any of these reasons I may decide not to waste my time.
> 
> Randy seems like a guy interested in actually having an intelligent  
> conversation and he's had some interesting things to share as well.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Richard J. Williams]

> > Yes, Shankara is a adjective of Shiva and 
> > some people do even consider Shankara an 
> > incarnation of Shiva.
> >
cardemaister wrote: 
> FWIW, 'shiva' also is originally an adjective, 
> synonymous with 'shaMkara'...
>
So, 'Mahesh' means 'Shiva', and 'Shiva' means 
'Sankara', all adjectives.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Vaj]

On May 31, 2009, at 9:26 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:


 "Randy Meltzer"  wrote:


Any comments Vaj?



I have noticed sometimes at this point the call gets dropped.



Depends on a number of things really Lurk. A big one for me is 'what  
do I perceive as their underlying intention?'. Another is 'is this  
just another "pile on" post? I'm not a fan of digital rugby. Do I  
have enough time and is it worth it? It's also good to feel people  
are interested in responding to the topic, not just shooting off some  
obtuse remark.


For any of these reasons I may decide not to waste my time.

Randy seems like a guy interested in actually having an intelligent  
conversation and he's had some interesting things to share as well.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
>> 
> Yes, Shankara is a adjective of Shiva and some people do even  
> consider Shankara an incarnation of Shiva.

FWIW, 'shiva' also is originally an adjective, synonymous
with 'shaMkara'...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine 
wrote:
>
> On Jun 1, 2009, at 1:17 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
>
> > Lurk, do *you* "stay on the line" when the
> > person on the other end clearly has his dick
> > out of his pants waving it around and saying,
> > "Can you match this, bozo?"
> >
> > I don't know about you, but I tend to get a
> > little tired of the heavy breathing on the
> > other end of the line and hang up.  :-)
> >
> > Then again, I am unimpressed with real academics
> > in the field of spirituality, and even less so
> > with "armchair academics" who play "dueling
> > sources" in what are clearly oneupsmanship ego
> > games. Your mileage may vary. If it does, I hope
> > that the "payoff" you're waiting for...uh...
> > measures up.  :-)
> >
> > "Hell hath not seen nor heaven created the one
> > who can prevail against me!"
> > - Don Quixote, after his windmill escapade
>
> "You gotta know when to hold up,
> know when to fold up..."
> -Kenny Rogers, probably after
> knocking back a few

  [http://dietrichthrall.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/mosquito.jpg]

http://dietrichthrall.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/mosquito.jpg
  ,
for those who can't see it.  :-)

  [http://www.freewebs.com/mosquilla/mosquitogibtoon3.gif]
http://www.freewebs.com/mosquilla/mosquitogibtoon3.gif

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 1, 2009, at 1:17 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


Lurk, do *you* "stay on the line" when the
person on the other end clearly has his dick
out of his pants waving it around and saying,
"Can you match this, bozo?"

I don't know about you, but I tend to get a
little tired of the heavy breathing on the
other end of the line and hang up.  :-)

Then again, I am unimpressed with real academics
in the field of spirituality, and even less so
with "armchair academics" who play "dueling
sources" in what are clearly oneupsmanship ego
games. Your mileage may vary. If it does, I hope
that the "payoff" you're waiting for...uh...
measures up.  :-)

"Hell hath not seen nor heaven created the one
who can prevail against me!"
- Don Quixote, after his windmill escapade


"You gotta know when to hold up,
know when to fold up..."
-Kenny Rogers, probably after
knocking back a few

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Richard J. Williams]

Vaj wrote:
> Because the guru-parampara originates with 
> Narayana and Shankara was a Vaishnavite...
>
In the Adwaita parampara, the term Narayana 
means, 'man', that is, the Transcendental Person, 
the Purusha.

"...Sankara, who is regarded as an incarnation 
of Siva."

Adwaita Vedanta:
http://tinyurl.com/y3343z

> Have you read Shankara's Bhaja Govindam?
> 
"Among the independent philosophical treatises, 
only Upades'asa-hasri- is accepted as authentic 
by modern academic scholars." 

Adi Shankara:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[authfriend]

Let's remind ourselves of how this dispute over
whether the Shankaracharya order is Vaishnavite
or Shivaite began (in post #220372):

-
[Marek wrote:]
> Like Judy pointed out, it's totally common for 
> Indian devotees to extol assumed enlightened saints 
> and gurus with over the top honorifics, and the 
> idea that one of Maharishi's early followers gave 
> him that designation out of their own reverence and 
> pride.

[Vaj responded:]
While that is a possibility and worth investigating 
further, if you examine Sanskrit-Hindu literature, 
esp. in Vaishnavite groups like the Shankaracharya, 
you'll see it's typical to have a sannyasi name as 
the primary title, with additions to this name given 
by the guru (e.g. Yogananda's guru gave him the title 
"Paramahamsa" indicating that he believed him to 
belong to a certain class of yogins, a paramahamsa).
You can see this trend going back as into the middle 
ages. A list of many other Hindu commercial gurus 
reveals this same pattern. While honorifics like 'His 
Holiness' may be added out of devotion to one's guru, 
in Mahesh's instance we definitely know this was not 
the case.
-

Now look at Vaj's tortured defense of his position.
As strained as it is, even if it were *valid*, it
wouldn't provide any additional support for Vaj's
extremely shaky claim that MMY was somehow dishonest
to allow his followers to refer to him as "Maharishi."


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 1, 2009, at 1:23 AM, Randy Meltzer wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >> Vaj,
> > Again you make the statement that the tradition is not Shaivite.
> > On what basis are you saying this? Have you been to Jyotir Math?   
> > Have you been to Guru Dev's ashram in Allahabad?
> > It would seem not.  Because if you had been there, it would be  
> > obvious.  Even the sandalwood tilak on Guru Dev's face is shaivite  
> > style, not vaishnavite.  The vaishnavites always wear their tilak  
> > in a vertical style.  Shaivaites always horizontal.
> > Where did you specifically find out that the shankaracharya order  
> > is vaishnavite?  Please mention specifics?
> > Bhaja Govindam is not a good argument.  In India many people sing  
> > that.
> > Next, you will be telling me that the Kedarnath temple in the  
> > Himalayas is a Vaishnavite temple.
> > And the again I will state for the record that Shankara is a name  
> > of Shiva.  Anyone in India knows that. But perhaps you are right  
> > and I am wrong.  I guess my 16 trips there taught me nothing.
> 
> Yes, I did say it again. I'm not going to lie. But at the same time,  
> I've seen the same thing with numerous people associated with Vedic  
> and puritanical Hindu movements.
> 
> I spent a good amount of time involved with the Shankarcharya of the  
> south and got to observe the inner workings close enough that I'm  
> familiar with their workings. The Smartas are very inclusive, so they  
> do not reject Shiva but they are not a Shaivite line. Being basically  
> Brahmin, they have their version of history, told from their point of  
> view.
> 
> Yes, Shankara is a adjective of Shiva and some people do even  
> consider Shankara an incarnation of Shiva. Of course some Shaivite  
> lines also consider him a demon and destroyer. There are even tantric  
> works attributed to Shankara which believers believe to actually be  
> by Adi-Shankara. Historians however recognize that these come from a  
> later date than Adi-Shankara.
> 
> What some people aren't aware of is that orgs like the Shankaracharya  
> while essentially deriving from Upanshadic thought and the Vedas,  
> they also amalgamated a certain number of other sects which was part  
> of a trend whereby older sects were brought into the newer Vedic  
> ones. Really by the time of Shankara, the amalgamation of what was  
> left of Vedic religion had already developed a symbiotic relationship  
> with earlier forms of ecstatic religion like Shaivism. For that  
> reason you can go to many Hindu temples and for one purpose they'll  
> do a Vedic rite, for another they'll do a tantric one. But it's a  
> sanitized, ritualized presentation of Shiva set in a puritanical  
> religion.
> 
> The original Shaivite gnosis was an ecstatic religion of the  
> countryside, on the fringes of society. It's most recent revival  
> would have been around time of Christ with the Shaivite saint  
> Lakulisha who was considered the 28th avatar of Shiva. His followers  
> considered him the last of the avatars mentioned in the Puranas. Most  
> of these lines were oral, that is they were not written down and if  
> they did, most existed in Dravidian languages.
> 
> The Shaiva gnosis of Lakulisha was to last about a thousand years. A  
> period of invasions by the Hun and the adherents of Islam put a stop  
> to Shaivisms expansions. The Brahmans for a long, long time  
> represented the dominant intellectual class began to gradually take 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Vaj]

On Jun 1, 2009, at 1:23 AM, Randy Meltzer wrote:


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

Vaj,

Again you make the statement that the tradition is not Shaivite.
On what basis are you saying this? Have you been to Jyotir Math?   
Have you been to Guru Dev's ashram in Allahabad?
It would seem not.  Because if you had been there, it would be  
obvious.  Even the sandalwood tilak on Guru Dev's face is shaivite  
style, not vaishnavite.  The vaishnavites always wear their tilak  
in a vertical style.  Shaivaites always horizontal.
Where did you specifically find out that the shankaracharya order  
is vaishnavite?  Please mention specifics?
Bhaja Govindam is not a good argument.  In India many people sing  
that.
Next, you will be telling me that the Kedarnath temple in the  
Himalayas is a Vaishnavite temple.
And the again I will state for the record that Shankara is a name  
of Shiva.  Anyone in India knows that. But perhaps you are right  
and I am wrong.  I guess my 16 trips there taught me nothing.


Yes, I did say it again. I'm not going to lie. But at the same time,  
I've seen the same thing with numerous people associated with Vedic  
and puritanical Hindu movements.


I spent a good amount of time involved with the Shankarcharya of the  
south and got to observe the inner workings close enough that I'm  
familiar with their workings. The Smartas are very inclusive, so they  
do not reject Shiva but they are not a Shaivite line. Being basically  
Brahmin, they have their version of history, told from their point of  
view.


Yes, Shankara is a adjective of Shiva and some people do even  
consider Shankara an incarnation of Shiva. Of course some Shaivite  
lines also consider him a demon and destroyer. There are even tantric  
works attributed to Shankara which believers believe to actually be  
by Adi-Shankara. Historians however recognize that these come from a  
later date than Adi-Shankara.


What some people aren't aware of is that orgs like the Shankaracharya  
while essentially deriving from Upanshadic thought and the Vedas,  
they also amalgamated a certain number of other sects which was part  
of a trend whereby older sects were brought into the newer Vedic  
ones. Really by the time of Shankara, the amalgamation of what was  
left of Vedic religion had already developed a symbiotic relationship  
with earlier forms of ecstatic religion like Shaivism. For that  
reason you can go to many Hindu temples and for one purpose they'll  
do a Vedic rite, for another they'll do a tantric one. But it's a  
sanitized, ritualized presentation of Shiva set in a puritanical  
religion.


The original Shaivite gnosis was an ecstatic religion of the  
countryside, on the fringes of society. It's most recent revival  
would have been around time of Christ with the Shaivite saint  
Lakulisha who was considered the 28th avatar of Shiva. His followers  
considered him the last of the avatars mentioned in the Puranas. Most  
of these lines were oral, that is they were not written down and if  
they did, most existed in Dravidian languages.


The Shaiva gnosis of Lakulisha was to last about a thousand years. A  
period of invasions by the Hun and the adherents of Islam put a stop  
to Shaivisms expansions. The Brahmans for a long, long time  
represented the dominant intellectual class began to gradually take  
over the various philosophical and scientific conceptions of the  
Shaivites. Utilizing a crafty exegesis, this essentially Vaishnavite  
Brahmanism(puritanical, hierarchical city religion), dominated by a  
wealthy merchant class, tried to connect Shaivism to a mythical vedism.


So that how Puritanical Vaishnavite leaning hierarchical city  
religions incorporated ecstatic occult fringe religions into their  
growing power base. Or I should say, that's it in a nut shell, given  
off the cuff. It's the classic story of the religion of the city vs.  
the religion of the countryside. The city-merchant class, Vaishnavite  
puritanical ones take on the "pagans", borrow their techniques and  
rites, putting them into their own new language, Sanskrit, and then  
suppress and destroy the original source documents. From the time of  
Shankara and to the present a religion emerged, named Vaishnavism,  
based mostly on Jainism but linked to the cult of Vishnu. Many Jains  
converted to this new Vaishnavite religion and it grew greatly in  
popularity during the time of the invasions. Many of the popular  
ideas associated with India: reincarnation, karma and Vedanta, come  
from this Vaishnavizing-Jainist trend.


Of course if you hear this story from the Brahmin side, you'll likely  
get a very different story, but it sounds like the one you probably  
already heard.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>
> Randy
> 
> Good to have someone else questioning Vaj's BS. 
> 
> This guy postures himself here as an american  natha-guru and buddhist 
> dzogchenpa. However, his simplistic identification of Narayana (as the source 
> of the tm puja) with the vaishnava sampradaya shows an amazing ignorance. 
> 
> In reality this guy is just another american spiritual hack who makes error 
> after error in his claims. He has been on this forum for four or five years. 
> He is here because he wants to "critique" (read denigrate) maharishi's 
> accomplishments and maharishi's personality. 
> 
> What he brings to the forum is a quite partial intellectual knowledge of 
> Buddhism, some nomenclature from Swami Rama's lineage, claims of initiation 
> into the Nath sampradaya and many other speculations he has generated from 
> his reading. 
> 
> As you probably know Shankara instituted five form of deity worship, later 
> amplified into six: Surya, Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti, Ganapati and Skanda. He 
> viewed and taught all as faces (identities) of Parameshvara Saguna Brahman. 
> 
> What Vaj is saying is that sectarian Shaiva-s trace their lineage from Shiva 
> and sectarian Vaishnava trace their lineage from a form of Vishnu-Krishna. 
> Vaj is therefore claiming that those Dashanami lineages of Adi-Shankara who 
> view Narayana as the source-origin of their sampradaya must be Vaishnava by 
> definition.
> This is a gross blunder confirming him to be just another cheap hack.
> 
> So if you are wondering -  "why he is here?
> He is here because: 
> 
> 1.FFL provides him with a large forum to display his ponderous claims to 
> esoterica.
> 
> 2.Most people here are not deeply conversant with other Asian meditative 
> traditions much less Western spiritual traditions. Thus he can present 
> himself as a pontiff. 
> 
> His main problem is that there are a few people here on the forum having both 
> knowledge and experience in other meditative traditions. However, the 
> unfortunate reality is that they don't always have time to follow his many 
> threads and negative comments. If his employer only knew how much time he 
> spends on ffl each day they would probably fire him on the spot. 
> 
> So, as a consequence, our good buddy Vajra-duta gets a free pass most of the 
> time. 
> 
> Please join us if you can and keep this rabid skunk under some kind  of 
> control by questioning and examining his every claim and assertion. 
> Odious-vajra-duta had proved to not only to be rabid but also dishonest. We 
> need help maintaining some type of vigilance here. 

BINGO

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
>
>  "Randy Meltzer"  wrote:
>  
> > Any comments Vaj?
> 
> I have noticed sometimes at this point the call gets dropped.

Lurk, do *you* "stay on the line" when the
person on the other end clearly has his dick
out of his pants waving it around and saying,
"Can you match this, bozo?"

I don't know about you, but I tend to get a
little tired of the heavy breathing on the
other end of the line and hang up.  :-)

Then again, I am unimpressed with real academics
in the field of spirituality, and even less so
with "armchair academics" who play "dueling
sources" in what are clearly oneupsmanship ego
games. Your mileage may vary. If it does, I hope
that the "payoff" you're waiting for...uh...
measures up.  :-)

"Hell hath not seen nor heaven created the one 
who can prevail against me!"
- Don Quixote, after his windmill escapade

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>
> Randy
> 
> Good to have someone else questioning Vaj's BS. 
> 
> This guy postures himself here as an american natha-guru 
> and buddhist dzogchenpa. However, his simplistic identi-
> fication of Narayana (as the source of the tm puja) with 
> the vaishnava sampradaya shows an amazing ignorance. 

Not content with the "Robert, my direct memories 
of my awful past lives piss on your psychic's
recounting of your own awful past lives" posturing,
now emptybill trots out the olde standard "My 
spiritual dick is longer than Vaj's spiritual
dick because I've read more books of other people's
seeings, and better books at that" routine.

If it helps to make this future past life as awful 
as the last one in your future memories, Bill :-), 
I think what when you get into this stuff both of 
you come off like posturing dweebs caught in what 
seems to be an eternal game of oneupsmanship.

In other words, no matter what the content of a
dispute between the two of you, it always boils
down to "My spiritual dick is longer than your
spiritual dick." How boring. To his credit, Vaj
tends to recognize the nature of such contests and
exit from them quickly, before you can turn them 
into a meaningless Steinist 100-post exercise
in dick-measuring.

You both could be debating the relative merits 
and batting statistics of your preferred baseball
teams and it would be the same dick-size contest
and with the same vibe IMO. Not being a sports 
fan, I find such dick-size contests boring. Not
being given to measuring my own spiritual experi-
ence by how many books about *other people's 
spiritual experiences* I've read, I find your
pseudo-academic harrangues against Vaj equally
boring. 

The only difference I will present between the two
of you is that Vaj occasionally presents some stuff
*for its benefit for the potential seeker* -- a
technique that might be of interest, a book or 
research project that some might find interesting,
etc. To date I do not remember ever having seen you 
do this on this forum. You seem limited *to* dick-
size contests and Vaj-demonization. Got any other
plays in your playbook?

In other words, Vaj seems to occasionally transcend
the "bash TM" thang and post some knowledge *just
for knowledge's sake*. I have never seen you do so.
You post stuff only to show your superiority to
someone you want to put down. Which do you think
reflects more highly on your respective spiritual
paths and backgrounds?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>
> 
> I feel the same way as Judy about vajraduta.
> 
> 
> Vaj is free to speak as he wishes. However his ex-cathedra
> pronouncements become more shrill with every challenge to his veracity.
> 
> I personally know 35-year meditating american scholars of sankhya- yoga.
> I also know tibetan scholar-yogins of Vajrayana, Mahamudra and Dzogchen.
> They are masters of the most advanced meditation practices in those
> traditions of sadhana.
> 
> They do not speak as he speaks. They do not act as he acts. Rather, his
> is a classic hack demeanor - something which has embarrassed even some
> of the genuine meditating Buddhists here on FFL.
> 
> Sorry to sound so harsh but above all he comes off as an envious little
> ego tormented by his insignificance. Not much else to know.
> However, vigilance is still important, especially since he is determined
> to invalidate people's meditation practice here on the forum.
> 

Thanks emptybill. I'm so glad you're calling Vaj out on the specifics of his 
B.S. He stinks up the place every time he tries to invalidate TMers. No one 
tries to invalidate his practice. I don't care what he practices. I can't even 
figure out exactly what he DOES practice. So I REALLY don't care. He can talk 
about Buddhists and mood-make equanimity or pontificate all he wants. But I do 
take exception every time he LIES, misrepresents TM or tries to quash TMers. 
His addiction to denigrating TMers and mean spirited intention only reveals the 
pettiness of an impoverished soul.

> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Meltzer"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> > >Hey empty bill
> >
> > Thanks for your words of encouragement.  I have already had a previous
> run in with Mr. Vaj.  When I said in a previous post that as far as I am
> concerned, I have experienced pretty much everything Maharishi promised
> that I would, Mr. Vaj could not accept that and said that I only think I
> have experienced something, but in fact he was arguing that in his mind
> I really have not.
> > The arrogance was sickening.  How can Vaj know what you or I or anyone
> for that matter have experienced.
> > I don't have a problem with him or anyone else being anti TM or
> antiMaharishi.  To each his own.  But I do have problem when someone
> invalidates me with no basis of anything to invalidate on.
> >
> > Any comments Vaj?
> >
> > > Randy
> > >
> > > Good to have someone else questioning Vaj's BS.
> > >
> > > This guy postures himself here as an american  natha-guru and
> buddhist dzogchenpa. However, his simplistic identification of Narayana
> (as the source of the tm puja) with the vaishnava sampradaya shows an
> amazing ignorance.
> > >
> > > In reality this guy is just another american spiritual hack who
> makes error after error in his claims. He has been on this forum for
> four or five years. He is here because he wants to "critique" (read
> denigrate) maharishi's accomplishments and maharishi's personality.
> > >
> > > What he brings to the forum is a quite partial intellectual
> knowledge of Buddhism, some nomenclature from Swami Rama's lineage,
> claims of initiation into the Nath sampradaya and many other
> speculations he has generated from his reading.
> > >
> > > As you probably know Shankara instituted five form of deity worship,
> later amplified into six: Surya, Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti, Ganapati and
> Skanda. He viewed and taught all as faces (identities) of Parameshvara
> Saguna Brahman.
> > >
> > > What Vaj is saying is that sectarian Shaiva-s trace their lineage
> from Shiva and sectarian Vaishnava trace their lineage from a form of
> Vishnu-Krishna. Vaj is therefore claiming that those Dashanami lineages
> of Adi-Shankara who view Narayana as the source-origin of their
> sampradaya must be Vaishnava by definition.
> > > This is a gross blunder confirming him to be just another cheap
> hack.
> > >
> > > So if you are wondering -  "why he is here?
> > > He is here because:
> > >
> > > 1. FFL provides him with a large forum to display his ponderous
> claims to esoterica.
> > >
> > > 2. Most people here are not deeply conversant with other Asian
> meditative traditions much less Western spiritual traditions. Thus he
> can present himself as a pontiff.
> > >
> > > His main problem is that there are a few people here on the forum
> having both knowledge and experience in other meditative traditions.
> However, the unfortunate reality is that they don't always have time to
> follow his many threads and negative comments. If his employer only knew
> how much time he spends on ffl each day they would probably fire him on
> the spot.
> > >
> > > So, as a consequence, our good buddy Vajra-duta gets a free pass
> most of the time.
> > >
> > > Please join us if you can and keep this rabid skunk under some kind 
> of control by questioning and examining his every claim and assertion.
> Odious-vajra-

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Randy Meltzer]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>Vaj,
Again you make the statement that the tradition is not Shaivite.
On what basis are you saying this? Have you been to Jyotir Math?  Have you been 
to Guru Dev's ashram in Allahabad?  
It would seem not.  Because if you had been there, it would be obvious.  Even 
the sandalwood tilak on Guru Dev's face is shaivite style, not vaishnavite.  
The vaishnavites always wear their tilak in a vertical style.  Shaivaites 
always horizontal.
Where did you specifically find out that the shankaracharya order is 
vaishnavite?  Please mention specifics?
Bhaja Govindam is not a good argument.  In India many people sing that.
Next, you will be telling me that the Kedarnath temple in the Himalayas is a 
Vaishnavite temple.
And the again I will state for the record that Shankara is a name of Shiva.  
Anyone in India knows that. But perhaps you are right and I am wrong.  I guess 
my 16 trips there taught me nothing.

> 
> On May 31, 2009, at 7:20 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"   
> > wrote:
> >> Hey empty bill
> >
> > Thanks for your words of encouragement.  I have already had a  
> > previous run in with Mr. Vaj.  When I said in a previous post that  
> > as far as I am concerned, I have experienced pretty much everything  
> > Maharishi promised that I would, Mr. Vaj could not accept that and  
> > said that I only think I have experienced something, but in fact he  
> > was arguing that in his mind I really have not.
> > The arrogance was sickening.  How can Vaj know what you or I or  
> > anyone for that matter have experienced.
> 
> I think we've had this discussion before R. And as before I'll tell  
> you reread what I had said. "I'm glad it works for you and it's great  
> that you enjoy your experiences--and no you're not first
> person to acknowledge problems, nor will you be the last." I don't  
> know what else you want me to say. It's useless to say anything if  
> people don't want to hear.
> 
> I get a kick out of the Empty Bill anti-Vaj posts, he's very creative  
> in his mixture or lies and facts. Hopefully you can spot the lies.  
> He's been on a vendetta ever since I nailed him on some BS he was  
> pulling.
> 
> > I don't have a problem with him or anyone else being anti TM or  
> > antiMaharishi.  To each his own.  But I do have problem when someone  
> > invalidates me with no basis of anything to invalidate on.
> >
> > Any comments Vaj?
> 
> Just see the above.
> 
> I find it interesting the need for people to demonize others when a  
> controversial topic comes up. You never know exactly what will hit the  
> nerve of certain people. Apparently finding out their tradition is not  
> Shaivite is one of them--although I have to admit, I was shocked when  
> I had found I had been mislead, as it was a misunderstanding I once  
> held as well. This is actually an old topic here, at one time we had a  
> number of people who had had the same experience. But I suspect the  
> openmindedness of the Smartas does appeal to many people, so that's  
> the up side of all this IMO.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal  wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 5:50 PM, shukra69  wrote:
> > Don't think he has an employer to worry about , he would be self employed 
> > at a Colorado Shamballa center or selling paraphenalia
> > http://www.odiyana.com/contact_us.php
> >
> 
> But Vaj says that he has to be very careful to conceal his identity
> because he's in the past received death threats from TM people.  

[snip]

I'd put about as much credibility in Vaj's claim as I would in Maharishi's 
statements that the CIA had infiltrated the TMO.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal  wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 5:50 PM, shukra69  wrote:
> > Don't think he has an employer to worry about , he would be self employed 
> > at a Colorado Shamballa center or selling paraphenalia
> > http://www.odiyana.com/contact_us.php
> >
> 
> But Vaj says that he has to be very careful to conceal his identity
> because he's in the past received death threats from TM people.  This
> implies that he has been perceived as a great threat against things
> TM.   Perhaps more of Vaj's self-puffery?
>

Gee, L.Shaddai, it doesn't sound like you believe Vaj. I wonder why? Has he 
ever given details about the nature of the alleged death threats or identified 
the TM perps, or is he vague about that too? Oh, well, it's probably just 
another whopper. You can't expect much from a lying rug. Once it's tacked down, 
it stays pretty much the same.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[I am the eternal]

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 5:50 PM, shukra69  wrote:
> Don't think he has an employer to worry about , he would be self employed at 
> a Colorado Shamballa center or selling paraphenalia
> http://www.odiyana.com/contact_us.php
>

But Vaj says that he has to be very careful to conceal his identity
because he's in the past received death threats from TM people.  This
implies that he has been perceived as a great threat against things
TM.   Perhaps more of Vaj's self-puffery?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Nelson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
> >
> > Randy
> > 
> > Good to have someone else questioning Vaj's BS. 
> 
> > Please join us if you can and keep this rabid skunk
> > under some kind  of control by questioning and examining
> > his every claim and assertion. Odious-vajra-duta had
> > proved to not only to be rabid but also dishonest. We
> > need help maintaining some type of vigilance here.
> 
> Second the motion. A few of us here who have no
> basis of knowledge to challenge his pronouncements
> on other traditions have found him to be grossly
> dishonest in areas we *do* know about, including
> (but by no means limited to) misrepresenting what
> has been said on this forum in the past. Naturally
> this has given us good reason to suspect that his
> discourses on other traditions that contrast TM
> with them unfavorably may not be clean as the
> driven snow either.
> 
> Like Randy, I have no problem with someone being
> critical of TM or MMY or the TMO. I do have a 
> problem with dishonest and unfair criticism of TM/
> MMY/the TMO (or of anything else, for that matter).
> 
> Life is tough enough when everyone is being as
> honest, sincere, and fair as they possibly can be.
> There's no excuse for making it even tougher.
>
  Great observation- should have it framed.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[authfriend]

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

> I get a kick out of the Empty Bill anti-Vaj posts,
> he's very creative in his mixture or lies and facts.
> Hopefully you can spot the lies. He's been on a
> vendetta ever since I nailed him on some BS he was  
> pulling.

> I find it interesting the need for people to demonize
> others when a controversial topic comes up.

Not, of course, that Vaj would ever demonize anybody.
Or lie about them, or falsely accuse *them* of lying.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Vaj]

On May 31, 2009, at 7:20 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote:

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

Hey empty bill


Thanks for your words of encouragement.  I have already had a  
previous run in with Mr. Vaj.  When I said in a previous post that  
as far as I am concerned, I have experienced pretty much everything  
Maharishi promised that I would, Mr. Vaj could not accept that and  
said that I only think I have experienced something, but in fact he  
was arguing that in his mind I really have not.
The arrogance was sickening.  How can Vaj know what you or I or  
anyone for that matter have experienced.


I think we've had this discussion before R. And as before I'll tell  
you reread what I had said. "I'm glad it works for you and it's great  
that you enjoy your experiences--and no you're not first
person to acknowledge problems, nor will you be the last." I don't  
know what else you want me to say. It's useless to say anything if  
people don't want to hear.


I get a kick out of the Empty Bill anti-Vaj posts, he's very creative  
in his mixture or lies and facts. Hopefully you can spot the lies.  
He's been on a vendetta ever since I nailed him on some BS he was  
pulling.


I don't have a problem with him or anyone else being anti TM or  
antiMaharishi.  To each his own.  But I do have problem when someone  
invalidates me with no basis of anything to invalidate on.


Any comments Vaj?


Just see the above.

I find it interesting the need for people to demonize others when a  
controversial topic comes up. You never know exactly what will hit the  
nerve of certain people. Apparently finding out their tradition is not  
Shaivite is one of them--although I have to admit, I was shocked when  
I had found I had been mislead, as it was a misunderstanding I once  
held as well. This is actually an old topic here, at one time we had a  
number of people who had had the same experience. But I suspect the  
openmindedness of the Smartas does appeal to many people, so that's  
the up side of all this IMO.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[emptybill]

I feel the same way as Judy about vajraduta.


Vaj is free to speak as he wishes. However his ex-cathedra
pronouncements become more shrill with every challenge to his veracity.

I personally know 35-year meditating american scholars of sankhya- yoga.
I also know tibetan scholar-yogins of Vajrayana, Mahamudra and Dzogchen.
They are masters of the most advanced meditation practices in those
traditions of sadhana.

They do not speak as he speaks. They do not act as he acts. Rather, his
is a classic hack demeanor - something which has embarrassed even some
of the genuine meditating Buddhists here on FFL.

Sorry to sound so harsh but above all he comes off as an envious little
ego tormented by his insignificance. Not much else to know.
However, vigilance is still important, especially since he is determined
to invalidate people's meditation practice here on the forum.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Meltzer"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> >Hey empty bill
>
> Thanks for your words of encouragement.  I have already had a previous
run in with Mr. Vaj.  When I said in a previous post that as far as I am
concerned, I have experienced pretty much everything Maharishi promised
that I would, Mr. Vaj could not accept that and said that I only think I
have experienced something, but in fact he was arguing that in his mind
I really have not.
> The arrogance was sickening.  How can Vaj know what you or I or anyone
for that matter have experienced.
> I don't have a problem with him or anyone else being anti TM or
antiMaharishi.  To each his own.  But I do have problem when someone
invalidates me with no basis of anything to invalidate on.
>
> Any comments Vaj?
>
> > Randy
> >
> > Good to have someone else questioning Vaj's BS.
> >
> > This guy postures himself here as an american  natha-guru and
buddhist dzogchenpa. However, his simplistic identification of Narayana
(as the source of the tm puja) with the vaishnava sampradaya shows an
amazing ignorance.
> >
> > In reality this guy is just another american spiritual hack who
makes error after error in his claims. He has been on this forum for
four or five years. He is here because he wants to "critique" (read
denigrate) maharishi's accomplishments and maharishi's personality.
> >
> > What he brings to the forum is a quite partial intellectual
knowledge of Buddhism, some nomenclature from Swami Rama's lineage,
claims of initiation into the Nath sampradaya and many other
speculations he has generated from his reading.
> >
> > As you probably know Shankara instituted five form of deity worship,
later amplified into six: Surya, Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti, Ganapati and
Skanda. He viewed and taught all as faces (identities) of Parameshvara
Saguna Brahman.
> >
> > What Vaj is saying is that sectarian Shaiva-s trace their lineage
from Shiva and sectarian Vaishnava trace their lineage from a form of
Vishnu-Krishna. Vaj is therefore claiming that those Dashanami lineages
of Adi-Shankara who view Narayana as the source-origin of their
sampradaya must be Vaishnava by definition.
> > This is a gross blunder confirming him to be just another cheap
hack.
> >
> > So if you are wondering -  "why he is here?
> > He is here because:
> >
> > 1. FFL provides him with a large forum to display his ponderous
claims to esoterica.
> >
> > 2. Most people here are not deeply conversant with other Asian
meditative traditions much less Western spiritual traditions. Thus he
can present himself as a pontiff.
> >
> > His main problem is that there are a few people here on the forum
having both knowledge and experience in other meditative traditions.
However, the unfortunate reality is that they don't always have time to
follow his many threads and negative comments. If his employer only knew
how much time he spends on ffl each day they would probably fire him on
the spot.
> >
> > So, as a consequence, our good buddy Vajra-duta gets a free pass
most of the time.
> >
> > Please join us if you can and keep this rabid skunk under some kind 
of control by questioning and examining his every claim and assertion.
Odious-vajra-duta had proved to not only to be rabid but also dishonest.
We need help maintaining some type of vigilance here.
> >
> > PS: By the way, as far as Bhaja Govindam is concerned, Govinda was
the name of Shankara's guru, who was also a direct disciple of the
famous advaita teacher Gaudapada.
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On May 31, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote:
> > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Yes I have read Bhaja Govindam.  Shankara is famous for being
an
> > > >> advaita teacher but also having the ability to have the
devotional
> > > >> aspect of bhakti.  Just because he refers to Govinda in that
> > > >> treatise does not make him a vaishnavite.  And just because
> > > >> Narayana is mentioned in the tradition does not mak

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>
> Randy
> 
> Good to have someone else questioning Vaj's BS. 

> Please join us if you can and keep this rabid skunk
> under some kind  of control by questioning and examining
> his every claim and assertion. Odious-vajra-duta had
> proved to not only to be rabid but also dishonest. We
> need help maintaining some type of vigilance here.

Second the motion. A few of us here who have no
basis of knowledge to challenge his pronouncements
on other traditions have found him to be grossly
dishonest in areas we *do* know about, including
(but by no means limited to) misrepresenting what
has been said on this forum in the past. Naturally
this has given us good reason to suspect that his
discourses on other traditions that contrast TM
with them unfavorably may not be clean as the
driven snow either.

Like Randy, I have no problem with someone being
critical of TM or MMY or the TMO. I do have a 
problem with dishonest and unfair criticism of TM/
MMY/the TMO (or of anything else, for that matter).

Life is tough enough when everyone is being as
honest, sincere, and fair as they possibly can be.
There's no excuse for making it even tougher.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[lurkernomore20002000]

 "Randy Meltzer"  wrote:
 
> Any comments Vaj?
> 

I have noticed sometimes at this point the call gets dropped.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Randy Meltzer]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>Hey empty bill

Thanks for your words of encouragement.  I have already had a previous run in 
with Mr. Vaj.  When I said in a previous post that as far as I am concerned, I 
have experienced pretty much everything Maharishi promised that I would, Mr. 
Vaj could not accept that and said that I only think I have experienced 
something, but in fact he was arguing that in his mind I really have not.
The arrogance was sickening.  How can Vaj know what you or I or anyone for that 
matter have experienced.
I don't have a problem with him or anyone else being anti TM or antiMaharishi.  
To each his own.  But I do have problem when someone invalidates me with no 
basis of anything to invalidate on.

Any comments Vaj?

> Randy
> 
> Good to have someone else questioning Vaj's BS. 
> 
> This guy postures himself here as an american  natha-guru and buddhist 
> dzogchenpa. However, his simplistic identification of Narayana (as the source 
> of the tm puja) with the vaishnava sampradaya shows an amazing ignorance. 
> 
> In reality this guy is just another american spiritual hack who makes error 
> after error in his claims. He has been on this forum for four or five years. 
> He is here because he wants to "critique" (read denigrate) maharishi's 
> accomplishments and maharishi's personality. 
> 
> What he brings to the forum is a quite partial intellectual knowledge of 
> Buddhism, some nomenclature from Swami Rama's lineage, claims of initiation 
> into the Nath sampradaya and many other speculations he has generated from 
> his reading. 
> 
> As you probably know Shankara instituted five form of deity worship, later 
> amplified into six: Surya, Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti, Ganapati and Skanda. He 
> viewed and taught all as faces (identities) of Parameshvara Saguna Brahman. 
> 
> What Vaj is saying is that sectarian Shaiva-s trace their lineage from Shiva 
> and sectarian Vaishnava trace their lineage from a form of Vishnu-Krishna. 
> Vaj is therefore claiming that those Dashanami lineages of Adi-Shankara who 
> view Narayana as the source-origin of their sampradaya must be Vaishnava by 
> definition.
> This is a gross blunder confirming him to be just another cheap hack.
> 
> So if you are wondering -  "why he is here?
> He is here because: 
> 
> 1.FFL provides him with a large forum to display his ponderous claims to 
> esoterica.
> 
> 2.Most people here are not deeply conversant with other Asian meditative 
> traditions much less Western spiritual traditions. Thus he can present 
> himself as a pontiff. 
> 
> His main problem is that there are a few people here on the forum having both 
> knowledge and experience in other meditative traditions. However, the 
> unfortunate reality is that they don't always have time to follow his many 
> threads and negative comments. If his employer only knew how much time he 
> spends on ffl each day they would probably fire him on the spot. 
> 
> So, as a consequence, our good buddy Vajra-duta gets a free pass most of the 
> time. 
> 
> Please join us if you can and keep this rabid skunk under some kind  of 
> control by questioning and examining his every claim and assertion. 
> Odious-vajra-duta had proved to not only to be rabid but also dishonest. We 
> need help maintaining some type of vigilance here. 
> 
> PS: By the way, as far as Bhaja Govindam is concerned, Govinda was the name 
> of Shankara's guru, who was also a direct disciple of the famous advaita 
> teacher Gaudapada. 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > On May 31, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote:
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Yes I have read Bhaja Govindam.  Shankara is famous for being an  
> > >> advaita teacher but also having the ability to have the devotional  
> > >> aspect of bhakti.  Just because he refers to Govinda in that  
> > >> treatise does not make him a vaishnavite.  And just because  
> > >> Narayana is mentioned in the tradition does not make him one either
> > > Have you been to Guru Dev's ashram in Allahabad?  There are no  
> > > Krishna/Vishnu images there.  There is however a huge shiva lingam  
> > > in the middle of the ashram.  No self respecting Vaishnavite would a  
> > > shiva lingam without a vishnu or krishna statue.
> > > And have you been to Jyotir math?  No Vishnu images there either.
> > >
> > > The point is you know nothing of the tradition of which you claim to  
> > > speak.  Everything about the shankaracharya tradition is shaivite.
> > >
> > > Anyone else what to chime on this other than Vaj.  I am open to  
> > > someone else who is knowledgable to comment on this.  Vaj thinks he  
> > > knows something about this, but I don't believe he does.
> > 
> > 
> > You are correct, all the Maths do perform Shiva-lingam worship. It is  
> > common to see the admixture of Vedic ritual and tantric and it is  
> > common to see Shiva-ling

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[shukra69]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>
> Randy
> 
> Good to have someone else questioning Vaj's BS. 
> 
> This guy postures himself here as an american  natha-guru and buddhist 
> dzogchenpa. However, his simplistic identification of Narayana (as the source 
> of the tm puja) with the vaishnava sampradaya shows an amazing ignorance. 
> 
> In reality this guy is just another american spiritual hack who makes error 
> after error in his claims. He has been on this forum for four or five years. 
> He is here because he wants to "critique" (read denigrate) maharishi's 
> accomplishments and maharishi's personality. 
> 
> What he brings to the forum is a quite partial intellectual knowledge of 
> Buddhism, some nomenclature from Swami Rama's lineage, claims of initiation 
> into the Nath sampradaya and many other speculations he has generated from 
> his reading. 
> 
> As you probably know Shankara instituted five form of deity worship, later 
> amplified into six: Surya, Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti, Ganapati and Skanda. He 
> viewed and taught all as faces (identities) of Parameshvara Saguna Brahman. 
> 
> What Vaj is saying is that sectarian Shaiva-s trace their lineage from Shiva 
> and sectarian Vaishnava trace their lineage from a form of Vishnu-Krishna. 
> Vaj is therefore claiming that those Dashanami lineages of Adi-Shankara who 
> view Narayana as the source-origin of their sampradaya must be Vaishnava by 
> definition.
> This is a gross blunder confirming him to be just another cheap hack.
> 
> So if you are wondering -  "why he is here?
> He is here because: 
> 
> 1.FFL provides him with a large forum to display his ponderous claims to 
> esoterica.
> 
> 2.Most people here are not deeply conversant with other Asian meditative 
> traditions much less Western spiritual traditions. Thus he can present 
> himself as a pontiff. 
> 
> His main problem is that there are a few people here on the forum having both 
> knowledge and experience in other meditative traditions. However, the 
> unfortunate reality is that they don't always have time to follow his many 
> threads and negative comments. If his employer only knew how much time he 
> spends on ffl each day they would probably fire him on the spot. 

Don't think he has an employer to worry about , he would be self employed at a 
Colorado Shamballa center or selling paraphenalia 
http://www.odiyana.com/contact_us.php


> 
> So, as a consequence, our good buddy Vajra-duta gets a free pass most of the 
> time. 
> 
> Please join us if you can and keep this rabid skunk under some kind  of 
> control by questioning and examining his every claim and assertion. 
> Odious-vajra-duta had proved to not only to be rabid but also dishonest. We 
> need help maintaining some type of vigilance here. 
> 
> PS: By the way, as far as Bhaja Govindam is concerned, Govinda was the name 
> of Shankara's guru, who was also a direct disciple of the famous advaita 
> teacher Gaudapada. 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > On May 31, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote:
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Yes I have read Bhaja Govindam.  Shankara is famous for being an  
> > >> advaita teacher but also having the ability to have the devotional  
> > >> aspect of bhakti.  Just because he refers to Govinda in that  
> > >> treatise does not make him a vaishnavite.  And just because  
> > >> Narayana is mentioned in the tradition does not make him one either
> > > Have you been to Guru Dev's ashram in Allahabad?  There are no  
> > > Krishna/Vishnu images there.  There is however a huge shiva lingam  
> > > in the middle of the ashram.  No self respecting Vaishnavite would a  
> > > shiva lingam without a vishnu or krishna statue.
> > > And have you been to Jyotir math?  No Vishnu images there either.
> > >
> > > The point is you know nothing of the tradition of which you claim to  
> > > speak.  Everything about the shankaracharya tradition is shaivite.
> > >
> > > Anyone else what to chime on this other than Vaj.  I am open to  
> > > someone else who is knowledgable to comment on this.  Vaj thinks he  
> > > knows something about this, but I don't believe he does.
> > 
> > 
> > You are correct, all the Maths do perform Shiva-lingam worship. It is  
> > common to see the admixture of Vedic ritual and tantric and it is  
> > common to see Shiva-lingams in the Maths. It sounds to me like you're  
> > confusing the fact that Shiva lingam worship is ubiquitous within  
> > Vedic ritual with the line being a Shaivite one.
> > 
> > When I was initiated into a Shaivite sampradaya the origin of the line  
> > was Adi-shiva, not Narayana.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[emptybill]

Randy

Good to have someone else questioning Vaj's BS. 

This guy postures himself here as an american  natha-guru and buddhist 
dzogchenpa. However, his simplistic identification of Narayana (as the source 
of the tm puja) with the vaishnava sampradaya shows an amazing ignorance. 

In reality this guy is just another american spiritual hack who makes error 
after error in his claims. He has been on this forum for four or five years. He 
is here because he wants to "critique" (read denigrate) maharishi's 
accomplishments and maharishi's personality. 

What he brings to the forum is a quite partial intellectual knowledge of 
Buddhism, some nomenclature from Swami Rama's lineage, claims of initiation 
into the Nath sampradaya and many other speculations he has generated from his 
reading. 

As you probably know Shankara instituted five form of deity worship, later 
amplified into six: Surya, Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti, Ganapati and Skanda. He 
viewed and taught all as faces (identities) of Parameshvara Saguna Brahman. 

What Vaj is saying is that sectarian Shaiva-s trace their lineage from Shiva 
and sectarian Vaishnava trace their lineage from a form of Vishnu-Krishna. Vaj 
is therefore claiming that those Dashanami lineages of Adi-Shankara who view 
Narayana as the source-origin of their sampradaya must be Vaishnava by 
definition.
This is a gross blunder confirming him to be just another cheap hack.

So if you are wondering -  "why he is here?
He is here because: 

1.  FFL provides him with a large forum to display his ponderous claims to 
esoterica.

2.  Most people here are not deeply conversant with other Asian meditative 
traditions much less Western spiritual traditions. Thus he can present himself 
as a pontiff. 

His main problem is that there are a few people here on the forum having both 
knowledge and experience in other meditative traditions. However, the 
unfortunate reality is that they don't always have time to follow his many 
threads and negative comments. If his employer only knew how much time he 
spends on ffl each day they would probably fire him on the spot. 

So, as a consequence, our good buddy Vajra-duta gets a free pass most of the 
time. 

Please join us if you can and keep this rabid skunk under some kind  of control 
by questioning and examining his every claim and assertion. Odious-vajra-duta 
had proved to not only to be rabid but also dishonest. We need help maintaining 
some type of vigilance here. 

PS: By the way, as far as Bhaja Govindam is concerned, Govinda was the name of 
Shankara's guru, who was also a direct disciple of the famous advaita teacher 
Gaudapada. 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On May 31, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >
> >> Yes I have read Bhaja Govindam.  Shankara is famous for being an  
> >> advaita teacher but also having the ability to have the devotional  
> >> aspect of bhakti.  Just because he refers to Govinda in that  
> >> treatise does not make him a vaishnavite.  And just because  
> >> Narayana is mentioned in the tradition does not make him one either
> > Have you been to Guru Dev's ashram in Allahabad?  There are no  
> > Krishna/Vishnu images there.  There is however a huge shiva lingam  
> > in the middle of the ashram.  No self respecting Vaishnavite would a  
> > shiva lingam without a vishnu or krishna statue.
> > And have you been to Jyotir math?  No Vishnu images there either.
> >
> > The point is you know nothing of the tradition of which you claim to  
> > speak.  Everything about the shankaracharya tradition is shaivite.
> >
> > Anyone else what to chime on this other than Vaj.  I am open to  
> > someone else who is knowledgable to comment on this.  Vaj thinks he  
> > knows something about this, but I don't believe he does.
> 
> 
> You are correct, all the Maths do perform Shiva-lingam worship. It is  
> common to see the admixture of Vedic ritual and tantric and it is  
> common to see Shiva-lingams in the Maths. It sounds to me like you're  
> confusing the fact that Shiva lingam worship is ubiquitous within  
> Vedic ritual with the line being a Shaivite one.
> 
> When I was initiated into a Shaivite sampradaya the origin of the line  
> was Adi-shiva, not Narayana.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[authfriend]

Wasn't Shankara supposed to have been an incarnation
of Shiva?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Meltzer"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> 
> >Yes I have read Bhaja Govindam.  Shankara is famous for being an advaita 
> >teacher but also having the ability to have the devotional aspect of bhakti. 
> > Just because he refers to Govinda in that treatise does not make him a 
> >vaishnavite.  And just because Narayana is mentioned in the tradition does 
> >not make him one either
> Have you been to Guru Dev's ashram in Allahabad?  There are no Krishna/Vishnu 
> images there.  There is however a huge shiva lingam in the middle of the 
> ashram.  No self respecting Vaishnavite would a shiva lingam without a vishnu 
> or krishna statue.
> And have you been to Jyotir math?  No Vishnu images there either.
> 
> The point is you know nothing of the tradition of which you claim to speak.  
> Everything about the shankaracharya tradition is shaivite.
> 
> Anyone else what to chime on this other than Vaj.  I am open to someone else 
> who is knowledgable to comment on this.  Vaj thinks he knows something about 
> this, but I don't believe he does.
> > 
> > On May 31, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Randy Meltzer wrote:
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > >> Vaj,
> > > What makes you think that the shankaracharya tradition is a  
> > > "vaishnavite" group?
> > 
> > Because the guru-parampara originates with Narayana and Shankara was a  
> > Vaishnavite.
> > 
> > Have you read Shankara's Bhaja Govindam?
> > 
> > > The shankaracharya order has always been a shiva tradition, not a  
> > > Vishnu tradition (vaishnavites are vishnu/krishna followers).
> > > Its obvious even from the name.  Shankara is a name of shiva, not  
> > > vishnu.
> > 
> > Shankara just means "do gooder" or "one who does good". It is an  
> > adjective used for Shiva.
> > 
> > > For someone who presents himself on this forum as being  
> > > knowledgeable about this stuff, at least get your facts straight.
> > 
> > You don't sound very familiar with Shaivism.
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Vaj]

On May 31, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote:


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

Yes I have read Bhaja Govindam.  Shankara is famous for being an  
advaita teacher but also having the ability to have the devotional  
aspect of bhakti.  Just because he refers to Govinda in that  
treatise does not make him a vaishnavite.  And just because  
Narayana is mentioned in the tradition does not make him one either
Have you been to Guru Dev's ashram in Allahabad?  There are no  
Krishna/Vishnu images there.  There is however a huge shiva lingam  
in the middle of the ashram.  No self respecting Vaishnavite would a  
shiva lingam without a vishnu or krishna statue.

And have you been to Jyotir math?  No Vishnu images there either.

The point is you know nothing of the tradition of which you claim to  
speak.  Everything about the shankaracharya tradition is shaivite.


Anyone else what to chime on this other than Vaj.  I am open to  
someone else who is knowledgable to comment on this.  Vaj thinks he  
knows something about this, but I don't believe he does.



You are correct, all the Maths do perform Shiva-lingam worship. It is  
common to see the admixture of Vedic ritual and tantric and it is  
common to see Shiva-lingams in the Maths. It sounds to me like you're  
confusing the fact that Shiva lingam worship is ubiquitous within  
Vedic ritual with the line being a Shaivite one.


When I was initiated into a Shaivite sampradaya the origin of the line  
was Adi-shiva, not Narayana. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Meltzer"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> 
> >Yes I have read Bhaja Govindam.  Shankara is famous for being an advaita 
> >teacher but also having the ability to have the devotional aspect of bhakti. 
> > Just because he refers to Govinda in that treatise does not make him a 
> >vaishnavite.  And just because Narayana is mentioned in the tradition does 
> >not make him one either
> Have you been to Guru Dev's ashram in Allahabad?  There are no Krishna/Vishnu 
> images there.  There is however a huge shiva lingam in the middle of the 
> ashram.  No self respecting Vaishnavite would a shiva lingam without a vishnu 
> or krishna statue.
> And have you been to Jyotir math?  No Vishnu images there either.
> 
> The point is you know nothing of the tradition of which you claim to speak.  
> Everything about the shankaracharya tradition is shaivite.
> 
> Anyone else what to chime on this other than Vaj.  I am open to someone else 
> who is knowledgable to comment on this.  Vaj thinks he knows something about 
> this, but I don't believe he does.

Don't get excited by the ignorance of this "Vaj" charachter. He is "all hats, 
no cattle". 
Full of hot air, just like the Turkey, the other "Buddhist" very busy posting 
here.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Randy Meltzer]

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

>Yes I have read Bhaja Govindam.  Shankara is famous for being an advaita 
>teacher but also having the ability to have the devotional aspect of bhakti.  
>Just because he refers to Govinda in that treatise does not make him a 
>vaishnavite.  And just because Narayana is mentioned in the tradition does not 
>make him one either
Have you been to Guru Dev's ashram in Allahabad?  There are no Krishna/Vishnu 
images there.  There is however a huge shiva lingam in the middle of the 
ashram.  No self respecting Vaishnavite would a shiva lingam without a vishnu 
or krishna statue.
And have you been to Jyotir math?  No Vishnu images there either.

The point is you know nothing of the tradition of which you claim to speak.  
Everything about the shankaracharya tradition is shaivite.

Anyone else what to chime on this other than Vaj.  I am open to someone else 
who is knowledgable to comment on this.  Vaj thinks he knows something about 
this, but I don't believe he does.
> 
> On May 31, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Randy Meltzer wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >> Vaj,
> > What makes you think that the shankaracharya tradition is a  
> > "vaishnavite" group?
> 
> Because the guru-parampara originates with Narayana and Shankara was a  
> Vaishnavite.
> 
> Have you read Shankara's Bhaja Govindam?
> 
> > The shankaracharya order has always been a shiva tradition, not a  
> > Vishnu tradition (vaishnavites are vishnu/krishna followers).
> > Its obvious even from the name.  Shankara is a name of shiva, not  
> > vishnu.
> 
> Shankara just means "do gooder" or "one who does good". It is an  
> adjective used for Shiva.
> 
> > For someone who presents himself on this forum as being  
> > knowledgeable about this stuff, at least get your facts straight.
> 
> You don't sound very familiar with Shaivism.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Vaj]

On May 31, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Randy Meltzer wrote:


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

Vaj,
What makes you think that the shankaracharya tradition is a  
"vaishnavite" group?


Because the guru-parampara originates with Narayana and Shankara was a  
Vaishnavite.


Have you read Shankara's Bhaja Govindam?

The shankaracharya order has always been a shiva tradition, not a  
Vishnu tradition (vaishnavites are vishnu/krishna followers).
Its obvious even from the name.  Shankara is a name of shiva, not  
vishnu.


Shankara just means "do gooder" or "one who does good". It is an  
adjective used for Shiva.


For someone who presents himself on this forum as being  
knowledgeable about this stuff, at least get your facts straight.


You don't sound very familiar with Shaivism.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[shukra69]

Likewise the comment about "twice born" , it is not only Brahmins that are 
"twice born"

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Meltzer"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >Vaj,
> What makes you think that the shankaracharya tradition is a "vaishnavite" 
> group?
> The shankaracharya order has always been a shiva tradition, not a Vishnu 
> tradition (vaishnavites are vishnu/krishna followers).
> Its obvious even from the name.  Shankara is a name of shiva, not vishnu.
> For someone who presents himself on this forum as being knowledgeable about 
> this stuff, at least get your facts straight.
> > 
> > On May 30, 2009, at 6:43 PM, Marek Reavis wrote:
> > 
> > >  Like Judy pointed out, it's totally common for Indian devotees to  
> > > extol assumed enlightened saints and gurus with over the top  
> > > honorifics, and the idea that one of Maharishi's early followers  
> > > gave him that designation out of their own reverence and pride.
> > 
> > While that is a possibility and worth investigating further, if you  
> > examine Sanskrit-Hindu literature, esp. in Vaishnavite groups like the  
> > Shankaracharya, you'll see it's typical to have a sannyasi name as the  
> > primary title, with additions to this name given by the guru (e.g.  
> > Yogananda's guru gave him the title "Paramahamsa" indicating that he  
> > believed him to belong to a certain class of yogins, a paramahamsa).  
> > You can see this trend going back as into the middle ages. A list of  
> > many other Hindu commercial gurus reveals this same pattern. While  
> > honorifics like 'His Holiness' may be added out of devotion to one's  
> > guru, in Mahesh's instance we definitely know this was not the case.
> > 
> > It's important to distinguish between honorifics, like 'His Holiness',  
> > and order or ordination names, titles indicating attainment and titles  
> > indicating a certain skill ("yogi").
> > 
> > In Mahesh's instance, he had the problem of being in the Shank. Order  
> > as an assistant and wanting to launch himself into the guru biz.  
> > What's a non-twice-born Hindu to do? After all he could not become a  
> > swami. You have someone confer a title on you or you make up one  
> > yourself. Usually the one conferring the title is the guru. And we do  
> > know SBS never conferred any titles on Mahesh.
> > 
> > I guess the important here is if someone was dishonest from the get  
> > go, what does that tell us?
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Randy Meltzer]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>Vaj,
What makes you think that the shankaracharya tradition is a "vaishnavite" group?
The shankaracharya order has always been a shiva tradition, not a Vishnu 
tradition (vaishnavites are vishnu/krishna followers).
Its obvious even from the name.  Shankara is a name of shiva, not vishnu.
For someone who presents himself on this forum as being knowledgeable about 
this stuff, at least get your facts straight.
> 
> On May 30, 2009, at 6:43 PM, Marek Reavis wrote:
> 
> >  Like Judy pointed out, it's totally common for Indian devotees to  
> > extol assumed enlightened saints and gurus with over the top  
> > honorifics, and the idea that one of Maharishi's early followers  
> > gave him that designation out of their own reverence and pride.
> 
> While that is a possibility and worth investigating further, if you  
> examine Sanskrit-Hindu literature, esp. in Vaishnavite groups like the  
> Shankaracharya, you'll see it's typical to have a sannyasi name as the  
> primary title, with additions to this name given by the guru (e.g.  
> Yogananda's guru gave him the title "Paramahamsa" indicating that he  
> believed him to belong to a certain class of yogins, a paramahamsa).  
> You can see this trend going back as into the middle ages. A list of  
> many other Hindu commercial gurus reveals this same pattern. While  
> honorifics like 'His Holiness' may be added out of devotion to one's  
> guru, in Mahesh's instance we definitely know this was not the case.
> 
> It's important to distinguish between honorifics, like 'His Holiness',  
> and order or ordination names, titles indicating attainment and titles  
> indicating a certain skill ("yogi").
> 
> In Mahesh's instance, he had the problem of being in the Shank. Order  
> as an assistant and wanting to launch himself into the guru biz.  
> What's a non-twice-born Hindu to do? After all he could not become a  
> swami. You have someone confer a title on you or you make up one  
> yourself. Usually the one conferring the title is the guru. And we do  
> know SBS never conferred any titles on Mahesh.
> 
> I guess the important here is if someone was dishonest from the get  
> go, what does that tell us?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Richard J. Williams]

Vaj wrote:
> (e.g.  Yogananda's guru gave him the title 
> "Paramahamsa" indicating that he believed him 
> to belong to a certain class of yogins, a 
> paramahamsa)...  
>
According to my sources, Yogananda got the name
'Yogananada' from his master, Sri Yukestwar, but 
he got the honorific 'Paramahamsa' from his own
devotees.

Read more:

'Autobiography of a Yogi'
by Paramahamsa Yogananda
SRF Press, 1955

> Usually the one conferring the title is the 
> guru... 
>
Apparently this is not always the case. Swami 
Muktananda did not receive any name from his 
guru, Nityananda.

Read more:

'Play of Consciousness:'
A Spiritual Autobiography
by Swami Muktananda
SYM Publications, 1994

> And we do know SBS never conferred any titles 
> on Mahesh...
>
Apparently SBS conferred the title 'Brahmacharya'
on Mahesh.

Read more:

'The way to Maharishi's Himalayas'
by Elsa Dragemark

'The Maharishi: The Biography'
by Paul Mason

> I guess the important here is if someone was 
> dishonest from the get go, what does that tell 
> us?
>
So, what's your real name?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[authfriend]

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

> While honorifics like 'His Holiness' may be added out
> of devotion to one's guru, in Mahesh's instance we
> definitely know this was not the case.

We do?

> It's important to distinguish between honorifics, like
> 'His Holiness', and order or ordination names, titles
> indicating attainment and titles indicating a certain
> skill ("yogi").

"Maharishi" appears to be an honorific. It's certainly
not an order or ordination name, nor one referring to
lineage. It seems to be, as I suggested earlier, a title
accorded by followers to "freelancers," teachers who have
struck out on their own and delineated a new path. That's
how Ramana Maharshi acquired the honorific, after all.

> In Mahesh's instance, he had the problem of being in
> the Shank. Order as an assistant and wanting to launch
> himself into the guru biz. What's a non-twice-born Hindu
> to do? After all he could not become a swami. You have
> someone confer a title on you or you make up one 
> yourself. Usually the one conferring the title is the
> guru. And we do know SBS never conferred any titles on
> Mahesh.
> 
> I guess the important here is if someone was dishonest
> from the get go, what does that tell us?

We still have the problem of Ramana Maharshi, though,
don't we? Do you want to maintain he was dishonest?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Richard J. Williams]

Vaj wrote:
> Sorry to be a stickler but you're assuming 
> it's honorific without any evidence to 
> support that. All we truly know is that it's 
> an alias (esp. since it's not the actual 
> name on his passport).
>
Sort of like 'Vaj'? LOL!

But his given name, by all accounts, was
'Mahesh' which means 'Shiva, so the nickname
'Maharishi' simply explains the given name 
- Marshy - they are one and the same name.

Lord Shiva is the Adi Shankara, so that
indicates that Mahesh is the reincarnation
of God. Yogis don't usually go by birth 
names.

> What would be helpful is to see a transcript 
> of the alleged Cochlin interview or to hear 
> an MP3 of a recording!
>
Helpful to whom? Marek understands the honorific
name, Vaj can't, or won't. Yet Vaj is supposedly
the cultic expert. Go figure.

"According to Jay Randolph Coplin, the name
"Mahesh" indicated that the Maharishi came 
from a Hindu family that worshipped Shiva. 
Cynthia Ann Humes writes that his family was 
of the Kayastha (scribal) caste. Contrary to 
some reports, caste rules allow the honorific 
terms "yogi" or "maharishi" to be applied to 
those of the Kayastha caste..." - Wikepedia

Read more:

'Gurus In America'
by Cynthia Ann Humes and Thomas A. Forsthoefel
State University of New York Press, 2005

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Vaj]

On May 30, 2009, at 6:43 PM, Marek Reavis wrote:

 Like Judy pointed out, it's totally common for Indian devotees to  
extol assumed enlightened saints and gurus with over the top  
honorifics, and the idea that one of Maharishi's early followers  
gave him that designation out of their own reverence and pride.


While that is a possibility and worth investigating further, if you  
examine Sanskrit-Hindu literature, esp. in Vaishnavite groups like the  
Shankaracharya, you'll see it's typical to have a sannyasi name as the  
primary title, with additions to this name given by the guru (e.g.  
Yogananda's guru gave him the title "Paramahamsa" indicating that he  
believed him to belong to a certain class of yogins, a paramahamsa).  
You can see this trend going back as into the middle ages. A list of  
many other Hindu commercial gurus reveals this same pattern. While  
honorifics like 'His Holiness' may be added out of devotion to one's  
guru, in Mahesh's instance we definitely know this was not the case.


It's important to distinguish between honorifics, like 'His Holiness',  
and order or ordination names, titles indicating attainment and titles  
indicating a certain skill ("yogi").


In Mahesh's instance, he had the problem of being in the Shank. Order  
as an assistant and wanting to launch himself into the guru biz.  
What's a non-twice-born Hindu to do? After all he could not become a  
swami. You have someone confer a title on you or you make up one  
yourself. Usually the one conferring the title is the guru. And we do  
know SBS never conferred any titles on Mahesh.


I guess the important here is if someone was dishonest from the get  
go, what does that tell us?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"  
wrote:
>
> babajii wrote:
> > ...they are so into titles it's not even funny...
> > 
> You mean titles like 'babajii'?
> 
> LOL!
>
Yeah, Babaji's a good one...heck anyone can claim he's Babaji...

One I really like though,  is the Marque of De Sade!

R.G.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On May 30, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Marek Reavis wrote:
> 
> > Not necessarily, but that's not the point.  However he got the  
> > honorific, Maharishi certainly felt it was appropriate and never  
> > demurred.  Many agreed with him and lots didn't.
> 
> Sorry to be a stickler but you're assuming it's honorific without any  
> evidence to support that. All we truly know is that it's an alias  
> (esp. since it's not the actual name on his passport). What would be  
> helpful is to see a transcript of the alleged Cochlin interview or to  
> hear an MP3 of a recording!
>
Do you want us to call you The Maharishi, Vaj?

Ok, Maharishi Vaj., from the Great State of Maine...
Where the rain, stays, mostly on the plain...
R.g.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> 
> On May 30, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Marek Reavis wrote:
> 
> > Not necessarily, but that's not the point.  However
> > he got the honorific, Maharishi certainly felt it
> > was appropriate and never demurred.  Many agreed
> > with him and lots didn't.
> 
> Sorry to be a stickler but you're assuming it's honorific
> without any evidence to support that.

An honorific as opposed to *what*? What else could
it be?

> All we truly know is that it's an alias 

It's obviously not something MMY made up (Ramana
Maharshi, Maharishi Patanjali, etc.).
 
> (esp. since it's not the actual name on his passport).
> What would be helpful is to see a transcript of the
> alleged Cochlin interview or to hear an MP3 of a
> recording!

Unbelievable. (And it's Coplin, not "Cochlin." I guess
you just forgot his name after having read all that
recent Coplin material on the Web.)

The note I posted from his dissertation contains a
transcript of Vasudevanda's response to Coplin's
question about how MMY got the title "Maharishi."

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Marek Reavis]

You're right, I am assuming that someone other than Maharishi himself actually 
called him that first, and not that he introduced himself as a maharishi.  That 
being said, I'm not arguing that it was some authority or math that first 
honored him with that.  Like Judy pointed out, it's totally common for Indian 
devotees to extol assumed enlightened saints and gurus with over the top 
honorifics, and the idea that one of Maharishi's early followers gave him that 
designation out of their own reverence and pride.

But you may be correct, too, and that Maharishi assumed that appelation 
entirely on his own initiative.

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On May 30, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Marek Reavis wrote:
> 
> > Not necessarily, but that's not the point.  However he got the  
> > honorific, Maharishi certainly felt it was appropriate and never  
> > demurred.  Many agreed with him and lots didn't.
> 
> Sorry to be a stickler but you're assuming it's honorific without any  
> evidence to support that. All we truly know is that it's an alias  
> (esp. since it's not the actual name on his passport). What would be  
> helpful is to see a transcript of the alleged Cochlin interview or to  
> hear an MP3 of a recording!
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[authfriend]

I just uploaded the Coplin dissertation material to
the Files section. It's under Miscellaneous Writings.

I can't figure out how to make the system send an
announcement to the group, so perhaps someone could
tell Vaj, as he claims not to read my posts.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> 
> On May 29, 2009, at 10:59 PM, Marek Reavis wrote:
> 
> > Jay Randolph Coplin, in his dissertation on the
> > history of the SRM, writes that in an interview
> > with the then-Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math,
> > Vasudevananda (the successor to Guru Dev's
> > successor, Shantanand, and predecessor of the
> > current Shankaracharya, Vishnudevananda, in
> > Shantanand's line) -- Vasudevananda told Coplin  
> > that it was the Jyotir Math Peeth, itself, that
> > bestowed the title "Maharishi".
> 
> Interesting, nothing I've read by Coplin recently
> includes that

And your recent reading of Coplin was what, exactly?

Because it seems he's never actually published anything,
you see.

Obviously you never bothered to read the chapters from
his dissertation on the Web.

Note 49, chapter 3:

This is given by the titles "Maharishi Bala 
Brahmachari Mahesh Yogi Maharaj" by which he was 
addressed at the Spiritual Development Conference in 
Cochin (1955). When asked about the sources of 
Maharishi's status designations, the Shankaracharya 
of Jyotir Math replied, "From his sadhana(discipline 
for spiritual growth). Given by the society. He 
followed the teachings, sadhana, devoted completely 
to Guru Dev's teachings. He became equal in sorrow 
and pain and happiness. Thus the people realized him, 
that he has achieved the qualities of a Maharishi. It 
is an honor by the pitha(matha), and by the society." 
(Interview of June 11, 1983, at Joshimath)

, nor  
> does it appear to be mentioned in any official movement
> history. Being a hardcore TB, I consider Coplin a
> questionable source.

Naturally!

 It also seems  
> questionable for a low caste person in the Shankaracharya.

According to the New York Times, the titles "Maharishi"
and "Yogi" are indeed given to persons of Maharishi's
caste.

 
> It would be interesting to see this manuscript.
> I've notice a number of questionable claims from
> Coplin on the web.

Really? What claims were these, Vaj, that you "notice"
on the Web?

> It's curious that the manuscript can be found nowhere.

Ah, but it can. Just, apparently, not by you.

> Perhaps someone could post it to the files section?

It's under Miscellaneous Writings.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Vaj]

On May 30, 2009, at 5:31 PM, sparaig wrote:


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



On May 30, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Marek Reavis wrote:


The only thing I ever heard Maharishi say about it was that "people"
started using it, and he didn't object.



Exactly. So someone must be lying.




Has it ever occurred to you that you have substituted one  
Fundamentalist

World View for another?



Has it occurred to you I'm laughing or smiling my ass off as I'm  
writing!


I actually find the psychological and psycho-sexual ramifications of  
spiritual leaders who take grandiose titles themselves, have numerous  
product lines named after them, absurd titles lauded on them by their  
students (in the absence of any major outside recognition or objective  
validity) and huge phallic buildings built/planned in 'their  
honor' (yet control freashishly designed by them) to be really just SO  
interesting in a weird Kim Jong-Il sorta way. :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On May 30, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Marek Reavis wrote:
> 
> > The only thing I ever heard Maharishi say about it was that "people"  
> > started using it, and he didn't object.
> 
> 
> Exactly. So someone must be lying.
>


Has it ever occurred to you that you have substituted one Fundamentalist
World View for another?



L

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Vaj]

On May 30, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Marek Reavis wrote:

Not necessarily, but that's not the point.  However he got the  
honorific, Maharishi certainly felt it was appropriate and never  
demurred.  Many agreed with him and lots didn't.


Sorry to be a stickler but you're assuming it's honorific without any  
evidence to support that. All we truly know is that it's an alias  
(esp. since it's not the actual name on his passport). What would be  
helpful is to see a transcript of the alleged Cochlin interview or to  
hear an MP3 of a recording!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Marek Reavis]

Not necessarily, but that's not the point.  However he got the honorific, 
Maharishi certainly felt it was appropriate and never demurred.  Many agreed 
with him and lots didn't.

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On May 30, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Marek Reavis wrote:
> 
> > The only thing I ever heard Maharishi say about it was that "people"  
> > started using it, and he didn't object.
> 
> 
> Exactly. So someone must be lying.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Richard J. Williams]

> > It also raises the question of all the 
> > other titles like "The world's foremost 
> > scientist in the field of consciousness". 
> > Are appellations like these from Mahesh 
> > or from his disciples? I would assume his  
> > disciples, but ones does start to wonder. 
> > At a certain point, a person would start 
> > sounding like any number of whacky 
> > dictators the world has seen.
> >
Robert wrote:
> This sounds like the conversation Pontious 
> Pilot had with Jesus...
>
It sure does, Robert. Are you related to that
other guy, 'Robert the Bruce'? Now that's a 
real title, but what does it mean? I once had
a long dialog with a TMer scientist named 
'Steve Ralph' - he had two first names, and 
one of them was his last name. Go figure.

> So, who gave you this title: 'King of the 
> Jews'...
> 'Could you prove to me that you are the 
> 'King'...Obviously not!
> So, we have to crucify you now, sorry!
> 
> Maharishi is known as Maharishi, around 
> the globe...However you think he got the 
> name, that is what he is known by...
> The name means what he was, a great sage.
> There is nothing dubious about the name.
> He is Maharishi and Maharishi is him.
> 
> Why do you put so much faith in institutions...
> Just because an institution puts a title on 
> someone, what does it mean?
> Hitler had the title of Der Fuhrer.
> Bush had the title of President...
> See the point...
> What do titles really mean, anyway...
> Aren't they all just name of things...
> inventions...
> 
> Who cares about titles anyway...
> I certainly don't.
> It's what's behind the title that counts...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"  
wrote:
>
> babajii wrote:
> > ...they are so into titles it's not even funny...
> > 
> You mean titles like 'babajii'?
> 
> LOL!
>
Yes, exactly...
I chose the name, not that I made it up...I heard it before...
But, after a while, if I really start believing I'm Babajii, then others around 
me, will start calling me Babajii, and then, if I start performing some 
miracles, the word will get out, that I am 'The Babajii'...
See how it works..

It's all in the mind!

Last time around, I think I chose the name: Hanussen.
Look it up!
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Richard J. Williams]

babajii wrote:
> ...they are so into titles it's not even funny...
> 
You mean titles like 'babajii'?

LOL!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Robert]

 (snip)
> It also raises the question of all the other titles like "The world's  
> foremost scientist in the field of consciousness".  
 (snip)
These titles have more to do with Bevan and John...they are so into titles it's 
not even funny...
Bevan especially likes titles...
For some reason, Beaver, I mean Bevan put Maharishi under a hypnotic spell, 
some time after Maharishi's heart attack...
He made Maharishi completely dependent on him for everything, in Maharishi 
weakened state...
I am not sure, how or why this happened, except to say, that there's always a 
bug in the system somewhere...
I think in Australia they call it 'Gremlins!'...
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[authfriend]

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

> I think you're missing the point. Is it a self-serving
> title, coming from the ego, or one given by the guru or
> some institution? Unfortunately, without any official
> announcement in the historical record we're forced to 
> assume the former.

Actually, no, we're not "forced to assume" any such
thing. What we're "forced to assume" is that we don't
know for sure. If we're honest, we're "forced to assume"
that one possibility is that Jyotir Math started
referring to him as "Maharishi," as per Coplin's account;
or that his followers did, and it caught on; or that
Jyotir Math decided to go along with what his followers
were calling him.

It doesn't appear that "Maharishi" is a title that is
ever conferred by the guru or an institution, so one
of the two possibilities Vaj is willing to acknowledge
is invalid anyway. And that there are no "official"
records of a title that wouldn't have been officially
bestowed certainly doesn't constitute a basis for the
assumption that it must have been ego.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On May 30, 2009, at 12:01 PM, sparaig wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >>
> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"   
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Like you, I've only read the few chapters of Coplin's
> >>> dissertation that appear in a google search.  I'd like
> >>> to read the rest, too.
> >>>
> >>> And these titles, like referring to Guru Dev as "His
> >>> Divinity", all seem to be purely honorific.  I hadn't
> >>> heard about the use of maharishi as a "pathfinder"
> >>> title, but I agree that it's appropriate should that
> >>> be so.
> >>
> >> The flip side may be that, as I suggested, it would
> >> indicate he wasn't claiming either an "official"
> >> spiritual rank or to be the successor in a *lineage*
> >> per se. I'd bet such subtleties would be fairly obvious
> >> to Indians familiar with the spiritual-title game.
> >>
> >
> > I seem to recall that in MMY's explanation for why MIU had
> > an "M" in it, that he referred to a "rishi" as someone who
> > was enlightened, and a "maharishi" as someone who could
> > teach others to be enlightened, and that therefore, the
> > name was to refer to the goal of the school (and maybe as
> > an hommage to all [other?] maharishis throughout the ages).
> 
> 
> I think you're missing the point. Is it a self-serving title, coming  
> from the ego, or one given by the guru or some institution?  
> Unfortunately, without any official announcement in the historical  
> record we're forced to assume the former. And certainly for someone  
> without any spiritual accomplishment prior, it seems even more  
> suspect, esp. say when compared to a spiritual giant like Ramana  
> Maharishi who had a long history of spiritual accomplishment prior.  
> Since we know the other aliases, "Yogi" and "His Holiness" were self- 
> assumed, it's further support for a self-aggrandizing person taking  
> lofty titles. A more honest one might read "Mahesh Varma, meditation  
> teacher, philosopher, businessman and former secretary of Swami  
> Brahamananda Saraswati".
> 
> It also raises the question of all the other titles like "The world's  
> foremost scientist in the field of consciousness". Are appellations  
> like these from Mahesh or from his disciples? I would assume his  
> disciples, but ones does start to wonder. At a certain point, a person  
> would start sounding like any number of whacky dictators the world has  
> seen.
>
This sounds like the conversation Pontious Pilot had with Jesus...
So, who gave you this title: 'King of the Jews'...
'Could you prove to me that you are the 'King'...
Obviously not!
So, we have to crucify you now, sorry!

Maharishi is known as Maharishi, around the globe...
However you think he got the name, that is what he is known by...
The name means what he was, a great sage.
There is nothing dubious about the name.
He is Maharishi and Maharishi is him.

Why do you put so much faith in institutions...
Just because an institution puts a title on someone, what does it mean?
Hitler had the title of Der Fuhrer.
Bush had the title of President...
See the point...
What do titles really mean, anyway...
Aren't they all just name of things...inventions...

Who cares about titles anyway...
I certainly don't.
It's what's behind the title that counts...
R.g.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Vaj]

On May 30, 2009, at 12:01 PM, sparaig wrote:


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


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"   
wrote:


Like you, I've only read the few chapters of Coplin's
dissertation that appear in a google search.  I'd like
to read the rest, too.

And these titles, like referring to Guru Dev as "His
Divinity", all seem to be purely honorific.  I hadn't
heard about the use of maharishi as a "pathfinder"
title, but I agree that it's appropriate should that
be so.


The flip side may be that, as I suggested, it would
indicate he wasn't claiming either an "official"
spiritual rank or to be the successor in a *lineage*
per se. I'd bet such subtleties would be fairly obvious
to Indians familiar with the spiritual-title game.



I seem to recall that in MMY's explanation for why MIU had
an "M" in it, that he referred to a "rishi" as someone who
was enlightened, and a "maharishi" as someone who could
teach others to be enlightened, and that therefore, the
name was to refer to the goal of the school (and maybe as
an hommage to all [other?] maharishis throughout the ages).



I think you're missing the point. Is it a self-serving title, coming  
from the ego, or one given by the guru or some institution?  
Unfortunately, without any official announcement in the historical  
record we're forced to assume the former. And certainly for someone  
without any spiritual accomplishment prior, it seems even more  
suspect, esp. say when compared to a spiritual giant like Ramana  
Maharishi who had a long history of spiritual accomplishment prior.  
Since we know the other aliases, "Yogi" and "His Holiness" were self- 
assumed, it's further support for a self-aggrandizing person taking  
lofty titles. A more honest one might read "Mahesh Varma, meditation  
teacher, philosopher, businessman and former secretary of Swami  
Brahamananda Saraswati".


It also raises the question of all the other titles like "The world's  
foremost scientist in the field of consciousness". Are appellations  
like these from Mahesh or from his disciples? I would assume his  
disciples, but ones does start to wonder. At a certain point, a person  
would start sounding like any number of whacky dictators the world has  
seen.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Vaj]

On May 30, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Marek Reavis wrote:

> The only thing I ever heard Maharishi say about it was that "people"  
> started using it, and he didn't object.


Exactly. So someone must be lying.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> >
> > Like you, I've only read the few chapters of Coplin's
> > dissertation that appear in a google search.  I'd like
> > to read the rest, too.
> > 
> > And these titles, like referring to Guru Dev as "His
> > Divinity", all seem to be purely honorific.  I hadn't
> > heard about the use of maharishi as a "pathfinder"
> > title, but I agree that it's appropriate should that
> > be so.
> 
> The flip side may be that, as I suggested, it would
> indicate he wasn't claiming either an "official"
> spiritual rank or to be the successor in a *lineage*
> per se. I'd bet such subtleties would be fairly obvious
> to Indians familiar with the spiritual-title game.
>

I seem to recall that in MMY's explanation for why MIU had 
an "M" in it, that he referred to a "rishi" as someone who
was enlightened, and a "maharishi" as someone who could
teach others to be enlightened, and that therefore, the
name was to refer to the goal of the school (and maybe as
an hommage to all [other?] maharishis throughout the ages).


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Richard J. Williams]

Vaj wrote:
> In fact the Shankaracharya of the south didn't 
> even know who he was...
> 
You are incorrect, Vaj. According to Paul van 
Owen, the Shankaracharya of Sringeri knew 
exactly who the Marshy was:

"He also emphatically confirmed that in his 
opinion - and in the opinion of Shringeri Matha 
- Shrî Shantânanda Sarasvatî had been the lawful 
and respected Pîthapati of Jyotirmath. In their 
view Shrî Shantânanda Sarasvatî had been a 
disciple of Shrî Shantânanda Sarasvatî, maybe 
even a rather disobedient and naughty disciple..." 

Read more:

From: Willytex
Subject: Report of a visit to the Shankaracharya
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: June 8 2005 
http://tinyurl.com/2usju3

> I've notice a number of questionable claims 
> from Coplin on the web...
>
The questionable claims come from your own 
Shankaracharya Guru, Vaj; 

'Sri Jayendra Saraswati cannot be regarded as a 
Sankaracharya at all, because the Kanchi math
is not one of the four peethas constituted by 
Adi Sankaracharya. It is only a shakha (branch) 
of the Sringeri peetham.'" 

Read more:

From: Willytex
Subject: A South Indian Bigman
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: March 17, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/nkq9fn

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Richard J. Williams]

Marek wrote:
> Vaj, I've got no idea whether Coplin's 
> comment is true, but it's the only thing 
> I've ever read that explained the origin 
> of the title for Maharishi.  And it's not 
> inconceivable that the honorific was 
> given, in part at least, to reward 
> Maharishi for his support (political 
> and monetary) of the Shankaracharya 
> lineage of Shantanand...
> 
"According to Jay Randolph Coplin, the name 
"Mahesh" indicated that the Maharishi came from 
a Hindu family that worshipped Shiva. Cynthia 
Ann Humes writes that his family was of the 
Kayastha (scribal) caste. Contrary to some 
reports, caste rules allow the honorific terms 
"yogi" or "maharishi" to be applied to those of 
the Kayastha caste..." - Wikepedia

Read more:

'Gurus In America'
by Cynthia Ann Humes and Thomas A. Forsthoefel 
State University of New York Press, 2005

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Meltzer"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >Hey Vaj, 
> I would like to respond to your comment in this post about the "bought" 
> shankaracharyas.  Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am assumming that 
> you mean that the Shantinand-VishnuDevand-Vasudevananda line has been somehow 
> manipulated by Maharishi by money he has given them.  I can not speak for 
> Shantinand or Vishnu Devanand but I do know that Vasudevanand was not 
> "bought" by Maharishi.
> Deepak Chopra did a course in India back in 1998 or so and Vasudevanad was 
> invited and attended.  Deepak told me that Maharishi did not want 
> Vasudevanand to attend, but he went away, saying to Maharishi, "You are a 
> good yogi, but I do what I want!".  Deepak also told me that Maharishi does 
> give Vasudevanand some money, but it is very little.  I have no idea about 
> the finacial arrangements now.
> I am sure you will have your own spin on this story based on your knowledge 
> and experience of the Shankaracharyas, but I thought I would just put this 
> out there for you and everyone else.

Good idea indeed. 
But why on earth do you believe that this trickster "Vaj" knows anything about 
the Shankaracharya traditions beyond what he has Googeled ? He never learned TM 
and does not even understand the basic dynamics of that technique.

He is a simple "Buddhist". And a Maharishi/Shankara hater on a mission. That's 
all. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Randy Meltzer]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>Hey Vaj, 
I would like to respond to your comment in this post about the "bought" 
shankaracharyas.  Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am assumming that you 
mean that the Shantinand-VishnuDevand-Vasudevananda line has been somehow 
manipulated by Maharishi by money he has given them.  I can not speak for 
Shantinand or Vishnu Devanand but I do know that Vasudevanand was not "bought" 
by Maharishi.
Deepak Chopra did a course in India back in 1998 or so and Vasudevanad was 
invited and attended.  Deepak told me that Maharishi did not want Vasudevanand 
to attend, but he went away, saying to Maharishi, "You are a good yogi, but I 
do what I want!".  Deepak also told me that Maharishi does give Vasudevanand 
some money, but it is very little.  I have no idea about the finacial 
arrangements now.
I am sure you will have your own spin on this story based on your knowledge and 
experience of the Shankaracharyas, but I thought I would just put this out 
there for you and everyone else.
> 
> On May 29, 2009, at 10:59 PM, Marek Reavis wrote:
> 
> > Jay Randolph Coplin, in his dissertation on the history of the SRM,  
> > writes that in an interview with the then-Shankaracharya of Jyotir  
> > Math, Vasudevananda (the successor to Guru Dev's successor,  
> > Shantanand, and predecessor of the current Shankaracharya,  
> > Vishnudevananda, in Shantanand's line) -- Vasudevananda told Coplin  
> > that it was the Jyotir Math Peeth, itself, that bestowed the title  
> > "Maharishi".
> 
> 
> Interesting, nothing I've read by Coplin recently includes that, nor  
> does it appear to be mentioned in any official movement history. Being  
> a hardcore TB, I consider Coplin a questionable source. It also seems  
> questionable for a low caste person in the Shankaracharya. It also  
> goes against the fact that some Shankaracharyas refused to call him  
> Maharishi, instead referring to him simply as "Mahesh". I suspect this  
> probably came from one of the "bought" Shankaracharyas. Given that the  
> people I've met at the Shankaracharya considered MMY some sort of  
> demon who was destined for hell, I have to question the utter  
> disparity. With no independent source to verify this, I'd have to  
> consider the assertion "TB tinkering" or just tinkering from the  
> broken and embattled lineage of the north. Certainly the most  
> reputable remaining Math, Srinigiri, doesn't recognize him. In fact  
> the Shankaracharya of the south didn't even know who he was and  
> commented that his mind seemed like a supermarket. None of the silence  
> and bliss he loved to brag about.
> 
> It would be interesting to see this manuscript. I've notice a number  
> of questionable claims from Coplin on the web. It's curious that the  
> manuscript can be found nowhere. Perhaps someone could post it to the  
> files section?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
>
> Like you, I've only read the few chapters of Coplin's
> dissertation that appear in a google search.  I'd like
> to read the rest, too.
> 
> And these titles, like referring to Guru Dev as "His
> Divinity", all seem to be purely honorific.  I hadn't
> heard about the use of maharishi as a "pathfinder"
> title, but I agree that it's appropriate should that
> be so.

The flip side may be that, as I suggested, it would
indicate he wasn't claiming either an "official"
spiritual rank or to be the successor in a *lineage*
per se. I'd bet such subtleties would be fairly obvious
to Indians familiar with the spiritual-title game.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Marek Reavis]

Vaj, I've got no idea whether Coplin's comment is true, but it's the only thing 
I've ever read that explained the origin of the title for Maharishi.  And it's 
not inconceivable that the honorific was given, in part at least, to reward 
Maharishi for his support (political and monetary) of the Shankaracharya 
lineage of Shantanand.

The only thing I ever heard Maharishi say about it was that "people" started 
using it, and he didn't object.

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On May 29, 2009, at 10:59 PM, Marek Reavis wrote:
> 
> > Jay Randolph Coplin, in his dissertation on the history of the SRM,  
> > writes that in an interview with the then-Shankaracharya of Jyotir  
> > Math, Vasudevananda (the successor to Guru Dev's successor,  
> > Shantanand, and predecessor of the current Shankaracharya,  
> > Vishnudevananda, in Shantanand's line) -- Vasudevananda told Coplin  
> > that it was the Jyotir Math Peeth, itself, that bestowed the title  
> > "Maharishi".
> 
> 
> Interesting, nothing I've read by Coplin recently includes that, nor  
> does it appear to be mentioned in any official movement history. Being  
> a hardcore TB, I consider Coplin a questionable source. It also seems  
> questionable for a low caste person in the Shankaracharya. It also  
> goes against the fact that some Shankaracharyas refused to call him  
> Maharishi, instead referring to him simply as "Mahesh". I suspect this  
> probably came from one of the "bought" Shankaracharyas. Given that the  
> people I've met at the Shankaracharya considered MMY some sort of  
> demon who was destined for hell, I have to question the utter  
> disparity. With no independent source to verify this, I'd have to  
> consider the assertion "TB tinkering" or just tinkering from the  
> broken and embattled lineage of the north. Certainly the most  
> reputable remaining Math, Srinigiri, doesn't recognize him. In fact  
> the Shankaracharya of the south didn't even know who he was and  
> commented that his mind seemed like a supermarket. None of the silence  
> and bliss he loved to brag about.
> 
> It would be interesting to see this manuscript. I've notice a number  
> of questionable claims from Coplin on the web. It's curious that the  
> manuscript can be found nowhere. Perhaps someone could post it to the  
> files section?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Marek Reavis]

Like you, I've only read the few chapters of Coplin's dissertation that appear 
in a google search.  I'd like to read the rest, too.

And these titles, like referring to Guru Dev as "His Divinity", all seem to be 
purely honorific.  I hadn't heard about the use of maharishi as a "pathfinder" 
title, but I agree that it's appropriate should that be so.

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> >
> > Jay Randolph Coplin, in his dissertation on the history of the SRM, writes 
> > that in an interview with the then-Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, 
> > Vasudevananda (the successor to Guru Dev's successor, Shantanand, and 
> > predecessor of the current Shankaracharya, Vishnudevananda, in Shantanand's 
> > line) -- Vasudevananda told Coplin that it was the Jyotir Math Peeth, 
> > itself, that bestowed the title "Maharishi".  
> > 
> > Whether that happened before or after Maharishi began teaching in southern 
> > India wasn't written.  It may have been an after-the-fact recognition by 
> > the Jyotir Math organization, or it may have actually been given shortly 
> > after Guru Dev died when Shantanand first ascended the seat.
> > 
> > Ramana Maharishi's elevation to maharishi-hood was based on one person's 
> > insistence that it was the appropriate appellation for him, Ganapati Muni.  
> > All this stuff is made up anyway.
> 
> According to the chap who edited the book Collected
> Works of Ramana Maharshi--not sure if this is the
> same person you're talking about--the title Maharishi
> is traditionally bestowed by followers on those who
> are perceived to have inaugurated a new path. But
> it's a sort of courtesy title rather than some
> official indication of spiritual rank, as I
> understand it.
> 
> If that's all true, it would seem to have been an
> entirely appropriate appellation for MMY. It was
> an indication that he was a freelancer, so to
> speak.
> 
> Marek, is Coplin's dissertation available in full
> anywhere, do you know? There are a few chapters from
> it on the Web, but I'd love to read the rest of it.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Vaj]

On May 29, 2009, at 10:59 PM, Marek Reavis wrote:

> Jay Randolph Coplin, in his dissertation on the history of the SRM,  
> writes that in an interview with the then-Shankaracharya of Jyotir  
> Math, Vasudevananda (the successor to Guru Dev's successor,  
> Shantanand, and predecessor of the current Shankaracharya,  
> Vishnudevananda, in Shantanand's line) -- Vasudevananda told Coplin  
> that it was the Jyotir Math Peeth, itself, that bestowed the title  
> "Maharishi".


Interesting, nothing I've read by Coplin recently includes that, nor  
does it appear to be mentioned in any official movement history. Being  
a hardcore TB, I consider Coplin a questionable source. It also seems  
questionable for a low caste person in the Shankaracharya. It also  
goes against the fact that some Shankaracharyas refused to call him  
Maharishi, instead referring to him simply as "Mahesh". I suspect this  
probably came from one of the "bought" Shankaracharyas. Given that the  
people I've met at the Shankaracharya considered MMY some sort of  
demon who was destined for hell, I have to question the utter  
disparity. With no independent source to verify this, I'd have to  
consider the assertion "TB tinkering" or just tinkering from the  
broken and embattled lineage of the north. Certainly the most  
reputable remaining Math, Srinigiri, doesn't recognize him. In fact  
the Shankaracharya of the south didn't even know who he was and  
commented that his mind seemed like a supermarket. None of the silence  
and bliss he loved to brag about.

It would be interesting to see this manuscript. I've notice a number  
of questionable claims from Coplin on the web. It's curious that the  
manuscript can be found nowhere. Perhaps someone could post it to the  
files section?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
>
> Jay Randolph Coplin, in his dissertation on the history of the SRM, writes 
> that in an interview with the then-Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, 
> Vasudevananda (the successor to Guru Dev's successor, Shantanand, and 
> predecessor of the current Shankaracharya, Vishnudevananda, in Shantanand's 
> line) -- Vasudevananda told Coplin that it was the Jyotir Math Peeth, itself, 
> that bestowed the title "Maharishi".  
> 
> Whether that happened before or after Maharishi began teaching in southern 
> India wasn't written.  It may have been an after-the-fact recognition by the 
> Jyotir Math organization, or it may have actually been given shortly after 
> Guru Dev died when Shantanand first ascended the seat.
> 
> Ramana Maharishi's elevation to maharishi-hood was based on one person's 
> insistence that it was the appropriate appellation for him, Ganapati Muni.  
> All this stuff is made up anyway.

According to the chap who edited the book Collected
Works of Ramana Maharshi--not sure if this is the
same person you're talking about--the title Maharishi
is traditionally bestowed by followers on those who
are perceived to have inaugurated a new path. But
it's a sort of courtesy title rather than some
official indication of spiritual rank, as I
understand it.

If that's all true, it would seem to have been an
entirely appropriate appellation for MMY. It was
an indication that he was a freelancer, so to
speak.

Marek, is Coplin's dissertation available in full
anywhere, do you know? There are a few chapters from
it on the Web, but I'd love to read the rest of it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Marek Reavis]

Jay Randolph Coplin, in his dissertation on the history of the SRM, writes that 
in an interview with the then-Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, Vasudevananda (the 
successor to Guru Dev's successor, Shantanand, and predecessor of the current 
Shankaracharya, Vishnudevananda, in Shantanand's line) -- Vasudevananda told 
Coplin that it was the Jyotir Math Peeth, itself, that bestowed the title 
"Maharishi".  

Whether that happened before or after Maharishi began teaching in southern 
India wasn't written.  It may have been an after-the-fact recognition by the 
Jyotir Math organization, or it may have actually been given shortly after Guru 
Dev died when Shantanand first ascended the seat.

Ramana Maharishi's elevation to maharishi-hood was based on one person's 
insistence that it was the appropriate appellation for him, Ganapati Muni.  All 
this stuff is made up anyway.

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On May 29, 2009, at 12:46 PM, Jason wrote:
> 
> >   I want to know who gave him the title *Maharishi* .??
> >
> > Why does he put his bald head in all the org's emblems.??
> >
> > I think he was a good meditation teacher, but a very poor  
> > Philosophy teacher.!!
> >
> > Paradoxicaly, I know many good philosophy teachers who are  
> > poor meditation teachers.!!
> >
> 
> 
> All his titles are self-proclaimed.
> 
> The movement spiel is that people heard a rumor at one of his early  
> lectures in Southern India that a maharishi was coming from the  
> Himalayas, i.e. probably suggested by some forward materials for the  
> lecture. After that, he just assumed the name himself. According to  
> one of the Shanks. he also added the yogi and was never actually  
> trained as a yogi (thus the asana course made my a gym teacher). Joyce  
> Collin-Smith, an early secretary, actually caught him adding "His  
> Holiness" to his other aliases.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Robert]

 (snip)
Hasn't everyone on here, chosen a name for themselves?
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On May 29, 2009, at 12:46 PM, Jason wrote:
> 
> >   I want to know who gave him the title *Maharishi* .??
> >
> > Why does he put his bald head in all the org's emblems.??
> >
> > I think he was a good meditation teacher, but a very poor  
> > Philosophy teacher.!!
> >
> > Paradoxicaly, I know many good philosophy teachers who are  
> > poor meditation teachers.!!
> >
> 
> 
> All his titles are self-proclaimed.
> 
> The movement spiel is that people heard a rumor at one of his early  
> lectures in Southern India that a maharishi was coming from the  
> Himalayas, i.e. probably suggested by some forward materials for the  
> lecture. After that, he just assumed the name himself. According to  
> one of the Shanks. he also added the yogi and was never actually  
> trained as a yogi (thus the asana course made my a gym teacher). Joyce  
> Collin-Smith, an early secretary, actually caught him adding "His  
> Holiness" to his other aliases.
>

Nothing wrong with realizing you are on your Soul's Mission...
And you choose a name for yourself...
Many actors in Hollywood...do that!
Many people who take the stage, do that!

Perhaps Maharishi knew that he was Socrates, in a past life...
And he knew, that he had to go out, and reach as many people as possible...
Because he had been waiting many centuries to return to the earth sphere, and 
resume teaching, where he left off, last time around...

The CIA, didn't get him this time around...
But those same people gave death to Socrates, in his day...
Same story, isn't it?
R.G.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Vaj]

On May 29, 2009, at 12:46 PM, Jason wrote:


  I want to know who gave him the title *Maharishi* .??

Why does he put his bald head in all the org's emblems.??

I think he was a good meditation teacher, but a very poor  
Philosophy teacher.!!


Paradoxicaly, I know many good philosophy teachers who are  
poor meditation teachers.!!





All his titles are self-proclaimed.

The movement spiel is that people heard a rumor at one of his early  
lectures in Southern India that a maharishi was coming from the  
Himalayas, i.e. probably suggested by some forward materials for the  
lecture. After that, he just assumed the name himself. According to  
one of the Shanks. he also added the yogi and was never actually  
trained as a yogi (thus the asana course made my a gym teacher). Joyce  
Collin-Smith, an early secretary, actually caught him adding "His  
Holiness" to his other aliases.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Richard J. Williams]

emptybill wrote:
> Why don't you just ask for validating proof
> - as in tradition, text and translation and 
> page? 
> 
Good idea, Bill!

The Tathagata has the eye transcendent wisdom.

Diamond Sutra:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Sutra

Thus shall you think of this fleeting world:
A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream,
A flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream.

Vajracchedikaprajnaparamitasutra: 
http://tinyurl.com/kjaez3

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[emptybill]

Will Tex,

There is no end to Vaj's bs. Why don't you just ask for validating proof
- as in tradition, text and translation and page? Just allowing him to 
name some Sanskrit texts allows him to keep up the bs.

Vaj is no Sanskrit pandita - remember how he added his own words into
direct quotes? After being challeged on it he just waited a week or so
and then continued with the same jilted quote. Vaj is an intellectual
scammer. Don't let him slide.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
>
> On May 29, 2009, at 12:46 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote:
>
> >>> Yeah, compared to S.N. Goenka, the Marshy is a
> >>> sheer genius at meditation! There's a lot of
> >>> difference between transcendental meditation
> >>> and mood-making with concentration on various
> >>> human body parts.
> >>>
> > Vaj wrote:
> >> Similar techniques are found in the Shankaracharya
> >> Advaita tradition. They can also be found in
> >> Patanjali, the Shaiva tantras and the Puranas!
> >> They are also taught in the mantra traditions of
> >> Hindu tantrism.
> >>
> > So, we are agreed - TM is very similar to the Adwaita
> > meditation of the Shankaracharya, Patanjali, and in
> > the Indian Tantras and Purana. I always thought so -
> > thanks for providing this information. So, the
> > Shankaracharya, Patanjali, and the Indian Tantriks
> > all practiced TM.
>
>
> No Willy, they practiced Vipassana-like practices, not TM.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Vaj]

On May 29, 2009, at 12:46 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote:


Yeah, compared to S.N. Goenka, the Marshy is a
sheer genius at meditation! There's a lot of
difference between transcendental meditation
and mood-making with concentration on various
human body parts.


Vaj wrote:

Similar techniques are found in the Shankaracharya
Advaita tradition. They can also be found in
Patanjali, the Shaiva tantras and the Puranas!
They are also taught in the mantra traditions of
Hindu tantrism.


So, we are agreed - TM is very similar to the Adwaita
meditation of the Shankaracharya, Patanjali, and in
the Indian Tantras and Purana. I always thought so -
thanks for providing this information. So, the
Shankaracharya, Patanjali, and the Indian Tantriks
all practiced TM.



No Willy, they practiced Vipassana-like practices, not TM.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Richard J. Williams]

> > Yeah, compared to S.N. Goenka, the Marshy is a
> > sheer genius at meditation! There's a lot of
> > difference between transcendental meditation
> > and mood-making with concentration on various
> > human body parts.
> >
Vaj wrote:
> Similar techniques are found in the Shankaracharya 
> Advaita tradition. They can also be found in 
> Patanjali, the Shaiva tantras and the Puranas! 
> They are also taught in the mantra traditions of 
> Hindu tantrism.
>
So, we are agreed - TM is very similar to the Adwaita
meditation of the Shankaracharya, Patanjali, and in
the Indian Tantras and Purana. I always thought so - 
thanks for providing this information. So, the 
Shankaracharya, Patanjali, and the Indian Tantriks 
all practiced TM. 

But it's a fact that there's no 'vipassana' in the 
Buddhist or Hindu scriptures. Apparently the Buddha
practiced TM or dhyana or something similar - not 
some kind of dualistic 'mindfullness' mind control
invented by the Theravadins.

> It also appears you never learned the TM checking 
> procedure.
> 
Sure I did - in fact, I helped Charles Lutes and 
the Marshy compose the 'checking points'. I've been 
a TM Spiritual Guide for over forty years.

> The Marshy had a great beard and looked great in 
> expensive silk,
>
He sure did! The Marshy looked like the real thing.
If a yogi lives in the Himalayas, comes out of the
Himalayas, and looks like a Himalayan Yogi, then he
probably IS a Himalayan Yogi of some kind.

> but IMO he sucked as yogi. 
>
But you probably spent, what, less than a minute or
two, with the Yogi face-to-face, and you've probably
never been inside the Yogi's bedroom or sat outside
his door. That's not very impressive, Vaj. You've
probably never been on a TTC, a CCP, or an AT.

> Why else would someone with "yogi" added onto  
> their name have a gym teacher design their 
> hatha-yoga asanas? 
>
Most gym teachers in India are experts at 
hatha-yoga. And there must be thousands of 
hatha-yoga gym teachers all over India. According 
to my sources, B.K.S. Iyenger used to teach 
hatha-yoga in a gym.

> Pretty silly Willy. Pretty silly. 
>
Maybe you're the silly one, after reading your 
comment about the gym teacher. LOL! In many
cases I'd rather learn hath-yoga from a gym
teacher instead of some crabby old hermit in the
Upper Kashi who only speaks Hindi. 

> Just because someone dresses like a saint doesn't 
> make them one and just because someone 
> self-proclaims themselves a yogi doesn't make 
> them one. 
> 
Do all Indian 'saints' wear dhotis - maybe so. But 
I knew an Indian saint that only wore a loin cloth,
who taught hatha-yoga in a big gym in downtown
Poona.

> Nor does fooling Paul McCartney, Ringo and 
> Donovan.
>
Maybe so, but the Marshy also 'fooled around' with 
the saint, Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, for over 
thirteen years. He also fooled around with Swami 
Laksmanjoo, the famous Kashmiri Tantric; not to 
mention the Sri Anandamayima and the current 
Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath.

> Heck, I thought Ringo was smarter than that!
>
Ringo was smart enough to go to the Marshy's yoga 
camp!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is Enlightenment?" - MMY

[Jason]

    I want to know who gave him the title *Maharishi* .??

    Why does he put his bald head in all the org's emblems.??

    I think he was a good meditation teacher, but a very poor Philosophy 
teacher.!!

    Paradoxicaly, I know many good philosophy teachers who are poor 
meditation teachers.!!

--- On Thu, 5/28/09, Vaj  wrote:
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Marshy: All Hat, No Cattle; was "What is 
Enlightenment?" - MMY
Date: Thursday, May 28, 2009, 2:48 PM

 
Silly Willy. Perhaps you weren't listening earlier. Similar techniques 
are found in the Shankaracharya Advaita tradition. They can also be 
found in Patanjali, the Shaiva tantras and the Puranas! They are also 
taught in the mantra traditions of Hindu tantrism. It also appears you 
never learned the TM checking procedure.

The Marshy had a great beard and looked great in expensive silk, but 
IMO he sucked as yogi. Why else would someone with "yogi" added onto 
their name have a gym teacher design their hatha-yoga asanas? Pretty 
silly Willy. Pretty silly. Just because someone dresses like a saint 
doesn't make them one and just because someone self-proclaims 
themselves a yogi doesn't make them one. Nor does fooling Paul 
McCartney, Ringo and Donovan.

Heck, I thought Ringo was smarter than that!

Marshy's just all hat and no cattle if you ask me! But I'm sure he'd 
try to sell you one just the same. A Vedic one. ;-)

  *