[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
Yes, ‘Saha Nav’ translated the way the movement does gets used Both ways, over the meditator in suppressing criticism and protecting leaders. Used on and within the movement community and by the organization. Effectively these phrases work a cultural suppression of conscience in the community. Meditators won’t call out as they shy from being perceived or seen as ‘negative’ if facing or calling out bad behavior in the meditating community and people in leadership get away with poor moral behavior and/or bad performance. In the communal culture it promotes the ‘spiritual bypass’ both in meditators and our leadership. This is markable to find within conversations around the community as the # MeToo/Fairfield/TM. srijau@ writes: I don't wish to be naive but this could be taken the opposite of how you are.- don't denounce any fellow meditator or sidha rather than don't denounce those in power. In suppression of critical thinking.. While the MUM academic institution here as policy is trying to cultivate ‘critical thinking’ as a skill set in students it seems some otherwise are trying to suppress and castigate it putting up firewalls to input and critical thinking in process. A new poster has recently appeared more prominent on the Dome bulletin boards evidently urging the suppression of critical thinking as policy. Is suppression of ‘critical thinking’ working its way now in to the guidelines for membership in the meditation group? Added to the Saha Nav hymn already against negativity and denouement that is plainly posted in the Dome asana area it can seem our clearer thinkers about how things are going might really might come be in perceived inquisitional trouble with this new policy movement against critical thinking. Posted in the Dome, "3-18-18": “We are born only to bless, not to punish. This you should never forget. We should always see good things in others- very important. We are not in a position to criticize anyone. The existence of enemies means for us that our friendliness has not been sufficient enough.” -Maharishi The Saha Nav as TM translates it: Let us be together Let us eat togther Let us be vital together. Let us be radiating the truth, radiating the light of life. Never shall we denounce anyone, never entertain negativity. paraphrase as the more 'actual' translation: > Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; > may It nourish us both together; > May we work conjointly with great energy, > May our study be vigorous and effective; > May we not mutually dispute > or may we not hate any. > I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of that hymn. Thanks Cardm, : cardemaister no_reply wrote: > saha nau avatu . > > > > > > saha nau bhunaktu . > > > > > > saha viiryaM karavaavahai . > > > > > > tejasvi nau; > > > > > > adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak. > > > > > The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this: > > > > > > > > > > saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . > > > > > tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . > > > > > > > > > > That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav', > > > > > without any effect on the *semantic* level. > > > > > > > > > > > > > This seems to be the most accurate translation I could > > > > find quickly: > > > > > > > > Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together; > > > > May we work conjointly with great energy, > > > > May our study be vigorous and effective; > > > > May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). > > > > .. > > > > > "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time! > > > > > > Well then, no wonder. > > You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity > I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive > guideline for posting on FairfieldLife..or membership in the Dome. > Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL. You know, posting on FFL is > a privilege, not a right. 'We' should do more to protect that privilege. This > is a simple guideline that is very easily enforced. Could just revoke > someone's FFL or Dome membership when they violate it. For being negative > like that. > > Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so it comes up every > time. It's a uniform code of justice to attend to that we could all use and > our moderators and the course office could enforce. We'd all be better off > and the list and Domes a safer place to be. > > Sincerely, > -Buck > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > "Buck" > > > > > I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of that > > hymn. Thanks Cardm, > > > > Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; > > may It nourish us both together;
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
I don't wish to be naive but this could be taken the opposite of how you are.- don't denounce any fellow meditator or sidha rather than don't denounce those in power.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
In suppression of critical thinking.. While the MUM academic institution here as policy is trying to cultivate ‘critical thinking’ as a skill set in students it seems some otherwise are trying to suppress and castigate it putting up firewalls to input and critical thinking in process. A new poster has recently appeared more prominent on the Dome bulletin boards evidently urging the suppression of critical thinking as policy. Is suppression of ‘critical thinking’ working its way now in to the guidelines for membership in the meditation group? Added to the Saha Nav hymn already against negativity and denouement that is plainly posted in the Dome asana area it can seem our clearer thinkers about how things are going might really might come be in perceived inquisitional trouble with this new policy movement against critical thinking. Posted in the Dome, "3-18-18": “We are born only to bless, not to punish. This you should never forget. We should always see good things in others- very important. We are not in a position to criticize anyone. The existence of enemies means for us that our friendliness has not been sufficient enough.” -Maharishi The Saha Nav as TM translates it: Let us be together Let us eat togther Let us be vital together. Let us be radiating the truth, radiating the light of life. Never shall we denounce anyone, never entertain negativity. paraphrase as the more 'actual' translation: > Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; > may It nourish us both together; > May we work conjointly with great energy, > May our study be vigorous and effective; > May we not mutually dispute > or may we not hate any. > I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of that hymn. Thanks Cardm, : cardemaister no_reply wrote: > saha nau avatu . > > > > > > saha nau bhunaktu . > > > > > > saha viiryaM karavaavahai . > > > > > > tejasvi nau; > > > > > > adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak. > > > > > The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this: > > > > > > > > > > saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . > > > > > tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . > > > > > > > > > > That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav', > > > > > without any effect on the *semantic* level. > > > > > > > > > > > > > This seems to be the most accurate translation I could > > > > find quickly: > > > > > > > > Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together; > > > > May we work conjointly with great energy, > > > > May our study be vigorous and effective; > > > > May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). > > > > .. > > > > > "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time! > > > > > > Well then, no wonder. > > You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity > I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive > guideline for posting on FairfieldLife..or membership in the Dome. > Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL. You know, posting on FFL is > a privilege, not a right. 'We' should do more to protect that privilege. This > is a simple guideline that is very easily enforced. Could just revoke > someone's FFL or Dome membership when they violate it. For being negative > like that. > > Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so it comes up every > time. It's a uniform code of justice to attend to that we could all use and > our moderators and the course office could enforce. We'd all be better off > and the list and Domes a safer place to be. > > Sincerely, > -Buck > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > "Buck" > > > > > I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of that > > hymn. Thanks Cardm, > > > > Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; > > may It nourish us both together; > > May we work conjointly with great energy, > > May our study be vigorous and effective; > > May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cardemaister no_reply wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saha nau avatu . > > > > > > saha nau bhunaktu . > > > > > > saha viiryaM karavaavahai . > > > > > > tejasvi nau; > > > > > > adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak. > > > > > The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this: > > > > > > > > > > saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . > > > > > tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . > > > > > > > > > > That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav', > > > > > without any effect on the *semantic* level. > > > > > > > > > > > > > This seems to be the most accurate translation I could > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife.. Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL. You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right. We should do more to protect that privilege. This is a simple guideline that is very easily enforced. Coulld just revoke someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being negative like that. Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so it comes up every time. It's a uniform code of justice to attend to that we could all use and our moderators enforce. We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to be. Sincerely, -Buck Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute or may we not hate any. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of that hymn. Thanks Cardm, Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). cardemaister no_reply wrote: cardemaister no_reply wrote: Buck wrote: Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time! Well then, no wonder. saha nau avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi nau; adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak. The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this: saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav', without any effect on the *semantic* level. This seems to be the most accurate translation I could find quickly: Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). Oh, so that's the correct translation. For us meditators here, it reads really well substituting in `Unified Field. It's beautiful even if it is not the way Maharishi and Bevan used it. Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). May He protect (avatu) us both (nau [~now] accusative *dual*) together (saha); may He nourish (bhunaktu) us both (nau) together (saha); May we work (karavaavahai) conjointly (saha) with great energy (viiryam), May our study be (adhiitam [study] astu [may (it) be]) vigorous-and-effective (tejasvi); May we not (maa: 'we' in the verb -) mutually-dispute (vidviSaavahai) (or may we not hate any: vidviSaavahai). On 04/27/2013 02:30 AM, Michael Jackson wrote: So this means that you want everyone who posts on FFL to be pro and rah rah TM and be in the Domes? - Why not simply create your own yahoo group with yourself as the head guru and emperor and do it however you want? then you could boot anyone out that didn't suit you. Dear MJ and Bhairitu; really I am trying to accommodate you in council here. I see that of the two versions of the Saha Nav Hymn that the TM version is more severe. Of course the TM version is the one that has guided the TM movement for so long and see where it has gotten the TM community. The TM one seems more certain and inflexible than the actual translation of the hymn. Hence I propose the actual Saha Nav translation. For FFL I felt that the correct translation could be more accommodating to our needs here than the strict TM one and that the more proper or actual translation could better allow for a truth and reconciliation in our conversation here with mutual respect. #
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
So this means that you want everyone who posts on FFL to be pro and rah rah TM and be in the Domes? - Why not simply create your own yahoo group with yourself as the head guru and emperor and do it however you want? then you could boot anyone out that didn't suit you. From: Buck dhamiltony...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 4:00 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity Yes, I suggest we adopt this more correct Saha Nav Hymn as a code of conduct for posting on FairfieldLife. -Buck You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife.. Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL. You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right. We should do more to protect that privilege. This is a simple guideline that is very easily enforced. Coulld just revoke someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being negative like that. Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so it comes up every time. It's a uniform code of justice to attend to that we could all use and our moderators enforce. We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to be. Sincerely, -Buck Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute or may we not hate any. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of that hymn. Thanks Cardm, Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time! Well then, no wonder. saha nau avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi nau; adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak. The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this: saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav', without any effect on the *semantic* level. This seems to be the most accurate translation I could find quickly: Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). Oh, so that's the correct translation. For us meditators here, it reads really well substituting in `Unified Field. It's beautiful even if it is not the way Maharishi and Bevan used it. Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). May He protect (avatu) us both (nau [~now] accusative *dual*) together (saha); may He nourish (bhunaktu) us both (nau) together (saha); May we work (karavaavahai) conjointly (saha) with great energy (viiryam), May our study be (adhiitam [study] astu [may (it) be]) vigorous-and-effective (tejasvi); May we not (maa: 'we' in the verb -) mutually-dispute (vidviSaavahai) (or may we not hate any: vidviSaavahai).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
We've suggested that many a time to Buck. It falls on deaf ears (or blind eyes). And then he knows he'd probably be the only member. ;-) On 04/27/2013 02:30 AM, Michael Jackson wrote: So this means that you want everyone who posts on FFL to be pro and rah rah TM and be in the Domes? - Why not simply create your own yahoo group with yourself as the head guru and emperor and do it however you want? then you could boot anyone out that didn't suit you. From: Buck dhamiltony...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 4:00 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity Yes, I suggest we adopt this more correct Saha Nav Hymn as a code of conduct for posting on FairfieldLife. -Buck You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife.. Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL. You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right. We should do more to protect that privilege. This is a simple guideline that is very easily enforced. Coulld just revoke someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being negative like that. Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so it comes up every time. It's a uniform code of justice to attend to that we could all use and our moderators enforce. We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to be. Sincerely, -Buck Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute or may we not hate any. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of that hymn. Thanks Cardm, Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time! Well then, no wonder. saha nau avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi nau; adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak. The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this: saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav', without any effect on the *semantic* level. This seems to be the most accurate translation I could find quickly: Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). Oh, so that's the correct translation. For us meditators here, it reads really well substituting in `Unified Field. It's beautiful even if it is not the way Maharishi and Bevan used it. Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). May He protect (avatu) us both (nau [~now] accusative *dual*) together (saha); may He nourish (bhunaktu) us both (nau) together (saha); May we work (karavaavahai) conjointly (saha) with great energy (viiryam), May our study be (adhiitam [study] astu [may (it) be]) vigorous-and-effective (tejasvi); May we not (maa: 'we' in the verb -) mutually-dispute (vidviSaavahai) (or may we not hate any: vidviSaavahai).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: We've suggested that many a time to Buck. It falls on deaf ears (or blind eyes). And then he knows he'd probably be the only member. ;-) On 04/27/2013 02:30 AM, Michael Jackson wrote: So this means that you want everyone who posts on FFL to be pro and rah rah TM and be in the Domes? - Why not simply create your own yahoo group with yourself as the head guru and emperor and do it however you want? then you could boot anyone out that didn't suit you. Dear MJ and Bhairitu; really I am trying to accommodate you in council here. I see that of the two versions of the Saha Nav Hymn that the TM version is more severe. Of course the TM version is the one that has guided the TM movement for so long and see where it has gotten the TM community. The TM one seems more certain and inflexible than the actual translation of the hymn. Hence I propose the actual Saha Nav translation. For FFL I felt that the correct translation could be more accommodating to our needs here than the strict TM one and that the more proper or actual translation could better allow for a truth and reconciliation in our conversation here with mutual respect. -Buck From: Buck To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 4:00 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity Yes, I suggest we adopt this more correct Saha Nav Hymn as a code of conduct for posting on FairfieldLife. -Buck You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife.. Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL. You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right. We should do more to protect that privilege. This is a simple guideline that is very easily enforced. Coulld just revoke someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being negative like that. Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so it comes up every time. It's a uniform code of justice to attend to that we could all use and our moderators enforce. We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to be. Sincerely, -Buck Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute or may we not hate any. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of that hymn. Thanks Cardm, Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time! Well then, no wonder. saha nau avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi nau; adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak. The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this: saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav', without any effect on the *semantic* level. This seems to be the most accurate translation I could find quickly: Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). Oh, so that's the correct translation. For us meditators here, it reads really well substituting in `Unified Field. It's beautiful even if it is not the way Maharishi and Bevan used it. Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). May He protect (avatu) us both (nau [~now] accusative *dual*) together (saha); may He nourish (bhunaktu) us both (nau) together (saha); May we work (karavaavahai) conjointly (saha) with great energy (viiryam), May our study be (adhiitam [study] astu [may (it) be]) vigorous-and-effective (tejasvi); May we not (maa: 'we' in the verb -) mutually-dispute (vidviSaavahai) (or may we not hate any: vidviSaavahai).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: We've suggested that many a time to Buck. It falls on deaf ears (or blind eyes). And then he knows he'd probably be the only member. ;-) On 04/27/2013 02:30 AM, Michael Jackson wrote: So this means that you want everyone who posts on FFL to be pro and rah rah TM and be in the Domes? - Why not simply create your own yahoo group with yourself as the head guru and emperor and do it however you want? then you could boot anyone out that didn't suit you. Dear MJ and Bhairitu; really I am trying to accommodate you in council here. I see that of the two versions of the Saha Nav Hymn that the TM version is more severe. Of course the TM version is the one that has guided the TM movement for so long and see where it has gotten the TM community. The TM one seems more certain and inflexible than the actual translation of the hymn. Hence I propose the actual Saha Nav translation. For FFL I felt that the correct translation could be more accommodating to our needs here than the strict TM one and that the more proper or actual translation could better allow for a truth and reconciliation in our conversation here with mutual respect. Buck, there already is a group that is completely in tune with how you want FFL to be: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fairfield_Community_Kiosk/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
well, if you go by the never hate anyone part, then many of the poster here will have to go elsewhere. From: Buck dhamiltony...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 4:44 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: We've suggested that many a time to Buck. It falls on deaf ears (or blind eyes). And then he knows he'd probably be the only member. ;-) On 04/27/2013 02:30 AM, Michael Jackson wrote: So this means that you want everyone who posts on FFL to be pro and rah rah TM and be in the Domes? - Why not simply create your own yahoo group with yourself as the head guru and emperor and do it however you want? then you could boot anyone out that didn't suit you. Dear MJ and Bhairitu; really I am trying to accommodate you in council here. I see that of the two versions of the Saha Nav Hymn that the TM version is more severe. Of course the TM version is the one that has guided the TM movement for so long and see where it has gotten the TM community. The TM one seems more certain and inflexible than the actual translation of the hymn. Hence I propose the actual Saha Nav translation. For FFL I felt that the correct translation could be more accommodating to our needs here than the strict TM one and that the more proper or actual translation could better allow for a truth and reconciliation in our conversation here with mutual respect. -Buck From: Buck To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 4:00 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity Yes, I suggest we adopt this more correct Saha Nav Hymn as a code of conduct for posting on FairfieldLife. -Buck You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife.. Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL. You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right. We should do more to protect that privilege. This is a simple guideline that is very easily enforced. Coulld just revoke someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being negative like that. Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so it comes up every time. It's a uniform code of justice to attend to that we could all use and our moderators enforce. We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to be. Sincerely, -Buck Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute or may we not hate any. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of that hymn. Thanks Cardm, Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time! Well then, no wonder. saha nau avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi nau; adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak. The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this: saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav', without any effect on the *semantic* level. This seems to be the most accurate translation I could find quickly: Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). Oh, so that's the correct translation. For us meditators here, it reads really well substituting in `Unified Field. It's beautiful even if it is not the way Maharishi and Bevan used it. Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). May He protect (avatu) us both (nau [~now] accusative *dual*) together (saha); may He nourish (bhunaktu) us both (nau) together (saha); May we work (karavaavahai) conjointly (saha) with great energy (viiryam), May our study be (adhiitam
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
Looks kinds lonely over there, mostly Dick Mays - I think Buck likes it over here, having us apostates and meditation negative peoples to fuss at. From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 5:00 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: We've suggested that many a time to Buck. It falls on deaf ears (or blind eyes). And then he knows he'd probably be the only member. ;-) On 04/27/2013 02:30 AM, Michael Jackson wrote: So this means that you want everyone who posts on FFL to be pro and rah rah TM and be in the Domes? - Why not simply create your own yahoo group with yourself as the head guru and emperor and do it however you want? then you could boot anyone out that didn't suit you. Dear MJ and Bhairitu; really I am trying to accommodate you in council here. I see that of the two versions of the Saha Nav Hymn that the TM version is more severe. Of course the TM version is the one that has guided the TM movement for so long and see where it has gotten the TM community. The TM one seems more certain and inflexible than the actual translation of the hymn. Hence I propose the actual Saha Nav translation. For FFL I felt that the correct translation could be more accommodating to our needs here than the strict TM one and that the more proper or actual translation could better allow for a truth and reconciliation in our conversation here with mutual respect. Buck, there already is a group that is completely in tune with how you want FFL to be: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fairfield_Community_Kiosk/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: Looks kinds lonely over there, mostly Dick Mays - I think Buck likes it over here, having us apostates and meditation negative peoples to fuss at. Yeah, I think we should all join and liven the place up a bit. From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 5:00 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: We've suggested that many a time to Buck. It falls on deaf ears (or blind eyes). And then he knows he'd probably be the only member. ;-) On 04/27/2013 02:30 AM, Michael Jackson wrote: So this means that you want everyone who posts on FFL to be pro and rah rah TM and be in the Domes? - Why not simply create your own yahoo group with yourself as the head guru and emperor and do it however you want? then you could boot anyone out that didn't suit you. Dear MJ and Bhairitu; really I am trying to accommodate you in council here. I see that of the two versions of the Saha Nav Hymn that the TM version is more severe. Of course the TM version is the one that has guided the TM movement for so long and see where it has gotten the TM community. The TM one seems more certain and inflexible than the actual translation of the hymn. Hence I propose the actual Saha Nav translation. For FFL I felt that the correct translation could be more accommodating to our needs here than the strict TM one and that the more proper or actual translation could better allow for a truth and reconciliation in our conversation here with mutual respect. Buck, there already is a group that is completely in tune with how you want FFL to be: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fairfield_Community_Kiosk/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
Yes, I suggest we adopt this more correct Saha Nav Hymn as a code of conduct for posting on FairfieldLife. -Buck You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife.. Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL. You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right. We should do more to protect that privilege. This is a simple guideline that is very easily enforced. Coulld just revoke someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being negative like that. Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so it comes up every time. It's a uniform code of justice to attend to that we could all use and our moderators enforce. We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to be. Sincerely, -Buck Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute or may we not hate any. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of that hymn. Thanks Cardm, Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time! Well then, no wonder. saha nau avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi nau; adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak. The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this: saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav', without any effect on the *semantic* level. This seems to be the most accurate translation I could find quickly: Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). Oh, so that's the correct translation. For us meditators here, it reads really well substituting in `Unified Field. It's beautiful even if it is not the way Maharishi and Bevan used it. Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). May He protect (avatu) us both (nau [~now] accusative *dual*) together (saha); may He nourish (bhunaktu) us both (nau) together (saha); May we work (karavaavahai) conjointly (saha) with great energy (viiryam), May our study be (adhiitam [study] astu [may (it) be]) vigorous-and-effective (tejasvi); May we not (maa: 'we' in the verb -) mutually-dispute (vidviSaavahai) (or may we not hate any: vidviSaavahai).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@
wrote:
Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time!
Well then, no wonder.
saha nau avatu .
saha nau bhunaktu .
saha viiryaM karavaavahai .
tejasvi nau;
adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai .
Just for fun, 'karavaavahai' - if we got it right - seems
to be the 1st person *dual* (the two of us) aatmanepada (~
intransitive?) subjunctive mode form from the root 'kR' (karma,
shaM-kara, yogasthaH *kuru karmaaNi*, etc.).
According to Whitney, subjunctive was rather common
in the Vedic Sanskrit, but became rare in the later Classical
Sanskrit, and was mainly used as the so called first person
imperative form (let's?).
Some more fun:
The verb 'dviS' (and its prefixed forms, like 'vi-dviS') *might* be
related to the numeral 'dvi' (two), despitethat different kind of
sibilant (s = dental, S = retroflex):
1 dviS2 (nom. {dvi3T}) f. hatred, concr. hater, enemy (also m.); adj.
--- = seq.
2 dvis adv. twice ({*ahvas, ahvA}, or {ahvi} twice a day).
3 dviS, dveSTi, dviSTe1 ({dviSati} {-te}), pp. {dviSTa} (q.v.) [[,]]
hate, be hostile or a rival (w. acc., r. dat. or gen.). -- {pra}
dislike, hate, show enmity against (acc.). {vi} A.M. the same; M. also
hate each other mutually, be hostile towards one another. -- Cf.
{dviSa3nt, vidviSant, vidviSANa, vidviSTa}.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@ wrote: snip So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us, it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate attempt at deception or obfuscation. I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely differences in awareness account for whether a person believes there is *justification* for saying something they know to be false, but you really can't make much of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others. So true: Judy:(In a post where she repeatedly accused me of being unethical!) The only ploy Curtis has to rebut this uncomfortable fact is the claim, which he's made in other posts, that I brainwashed all of them into concurring with me, Definitely more of a consciously lying thing than just a difference in awareness. Right. I think you were consciously attempting to deceive and believed it was justified (just as Barry does when *he* attempts to perpetrate that deception): I agree that Judy has set the agenda for this angle and I have to give credit for her forceful personality that so many have taken up this perspective. (And yes I know it is possible that everyone just came to this conclusion independently, but I don't find this as likely.) That's Curtis, responding to a post in which Barry said: *No one else* ever had any doubts about Vaj's TM pedigree until she started her Gotta find a way to demonize Vaj so no one will believe him when he makes valid points campaign. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/302040 Well I think it is big of you to cop to your bulls especially in light of your post about how this would be a better place with less deception. As you have proven with this quote, your statement that I had accused you of brainwashing anyone was absurdly false and appreciate your coming clean providing the evidence for me. Oh, so it's a matter of quibbling over words, is it? Let me just play the tape of your answer to the many here who have tried that route with you. Let's just say it didn't go well for them, and yes, we are discussing the meaning of the words we are using in this written communication. Brainwashing is an attempt on my part to deceive, but it's entirely truthful that my being such a forceful personality that if others express a perspective similar to mine, it's most likely they adopted it from me rather than having come to it independently? Isn't that a bit, er, Clintonesque? Judy: (quoted from above) The only ploy Curtis has to rebut this uncomfortable fact is the claim, which he's made in other posts, that I brainwashed all of them into concurring with me, I never made that claim, you weren't just being Clintonesque, you were being Clinton on the TV pointing his finger. Brainwashing was your attempt to misquote me directly, stating that it was something I said, knowing it would seem more foolish than what I actually said. I called you on it and you produced the proof that I never said that. We'll get into the pesky meaning issue below. You want to argue with being characterized as a forceful personality here. Realy? On what grounds exactly? There is a specific context of who I was talking about which you are going to attempt to distort. We can deal with that below too. Sorta like it would have been absurdly false to contend that Clinton had sex with Lewinsky when all that had taken place was blowjobs? You know my delicate sensibilities are offended by such references. So the question is, why would you make such an absurd claim knowing that that actual quotes would come out eventually? Can you actually read the quote you gave, and state that it is proof of your statement that I have claimed that you brainwashed people here? Given that one of the two dictionary definitions of brainwashing is persuasion by propaganda or salesmanship, yes, I do believe so. And we can check the definition of salesmanship too: ability or effectiveness in selling or in presenting persuasively. So it would be perfectly acceptable in your view for me to say something like: Maharishi brainwashed his followers to believe that bouncing on their butts was the first stage of flying rather than the last stage of bouncing on their butts? Or perhaps: Maharishi, a well known expert brainwasher, was especially persuasive and effective in selling his TM ? We both know what you meant by the use of the term and it had nothing to do with the dictionary definition you found which lacks the depth of our own discussions distinguishing it (forcefulness)from
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@ wrote: snip So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us, it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate attempt at deception or obfuscation. I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely differences in awareness account for whether a person believes there is *justification* for saying something they know to be false, but you really can't make much of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others. So true: Judy:(In a post where she repeatedly accused me of being unethical!) The only ploy Curtis has to rebut this uncomfortable fact is the claim, which he's made in other posts, that I brainwashed all of them into concurring with me, Definitely more of a consciously lying thing than just a difference in awareness. Right. I think you were consciously attempting to deceive and believed it was justified (just as Barry does when *he* attempts to perpetrate that deception): I agree that Judy has set the agenda for this angle and I have to give credit for her forceful personality that so many have taken up this perspective. (And yes I know it is possible that everyone just came to this conclusion independently, but I don't find this as likely.) That's Curtis, responding to a post in which Barry said: *No one else* ever had any doubts about Vaj's TM pedigree until she started her Gotta find a way to demonize Vaj so no one will believe him when he makes valid points campaign. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/302040 Well I think it is big of you to cop to your bulls especially in light of your post about how this would be a better place with less deception. As you have proven with this quote, your statement that I had accused you of brainwashing anyone was absurdly false and appreciate your coming clean providing the evidence for me. So the question is, why would you make such an absurd claim knowing that that actual quotes would come out eventually? Can you actually read the quote you gave, and state that it is proof of your statement that I have claimed that you brainwashed people here? Personally I believe you were trying to make your writing more colorful through exaggeration and I can relate to that because I do that myself. The thing is you can't have it both ways. You can't give other people shit for doing exactly what you do. Calling my perception of your influence over some people here brainwashing actually is more entertaining. It is a re-frame that makes my point seem silly. It also relates to Robin's charge, which you seem to share that I take someone's writing into my own context. I believe that is what we all do here and believe that charge is unfair, especially in light of this example.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@... wrote: R ( snip)comes to mind. : ) Excellent point. Everything I said is for people who abide by the basics of the social contract and are not being malicious or going beyond the boundaries of whatever context they are in. (like the rules of this forum) And it is with such people that we find our ideals for freedom challenged. But up to that point I'd say the more diverse the merrier. And that certainly doesn't limit a person having preferences. But your point is important, there might be someone reading what I wrote and think it applied to people attempting to do harm, and that would be wrong. I guess I usually assume that posters here, with their long practice of the most powerful technique for developing mental potential (yea TM!) would not be that stupid. But your point is well taken, there might actually be someone that dim. Who knows how dim they would have been without TM huh? Oh and thanks for your kind concern, my name maliciously connected with slander has dropped below the top 10 of Google now that the proper boundaries for protecting posters here was applied, so time will heal this wound and I appreciate your sensitivity in this matter. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: The world would be the better place! First I don't cavil you. I point out your elitist triumphalism as a response to your expressions of it. Second, your better world involves more people who think as you do. That is the exact opposite of the world I enjoy just as it is. snip
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
saha nau avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi nau; adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . cardemaister: Just for fun, 'karavaavahai'... Recently in 1990, unverified reports of Sri Chakra Geoglyph appeared mysteriously as massive earth etching in dry bed of a lake east of Steens mountain about 70 miles south east of Burns, Oregon. Sri Yantra: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Yantra
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@ wrote: snip So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us, it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate attempt at deception or obfuscation. I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely differences in awareness account for whether a person believes there is *justification* for saying something they know to be false, but you really can't make much of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others. So true: Judy:(In a post where she repeatedly accused me of being unethical!) The only ploy Curtis has to rebut this uncomfortable fact is the claim, which he's made in other posts, that I brainwashed all of them into concurring with me, Definitely more of a consciously lying thing than just a difference in awareness. Right. I think you were consciously attempting to deceive and believed it was justified (just as Barry does when *he* attempts to perpetrate that deception): I agree that Judy has set the agenda for this angle and I have to give credit for her forceful personality that so many have taken up this perspective. (And yes I know it is possible that everyone just came to this conclusion independently, but I don't find this as likely.) That's Curtis, responding to a post in which Barry said: *No one else* ever had any doubts about Vaj's TM pedigree until she started her Gotta find a way to demonize Vaj so no one will believe him when he makes valid points campaign. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/302040 Well I think it is big of you to cop to your bulls especially in light of your post about how this would be a better place with less deception. As you have proven with this quote, your statement that I had accused you of brainwashing anyone was absurdly false and appreciate your coming clean providing the evidence for me. Oh, so it's a matter of quibbling over words, is it? Brainwashing is an attempt on my part to deceive, but it's entirely truthful that my being such a forceful personality that if others express a perspective similar to mine, it's most likely they adopted it from me rather than having come to it independently? Isn't that a bit, er, Clintonesque? Sorta like it would have been absurdly false to contend that Clinton had sex with Lewinsky when all that had taken place was blowjobs? So the question is, why would you make such an absurd claim knowing that that actual quotes would come out eventually? Can you actually read the quote you gave, and state that it is proof of your statement that I have claimed that you brainwashed people here? Given that one of the two dictionary definitions of brainwashing is persuasion by propaganda or salesmanship, yes, I do believe so. And we can check the definition of salesmanship too: ability or effectiveness in selling or in presenting persuasively. I have to give [Judy] credit for her forceful personality that so many have taken up this perspective. Seems awfully damn close to me. Closer even than the difference between onstage and in a private home, or between during seminars and not during seminars, don't you think? Personally I believe you were trying to make your writing more colorful through exaggeration and I can relate to that because I do that myself. The thing is you can't have it both ways. You can't give other people shit for doing exactly what you do. Find an example, please, of my having given you shit for an equivalent degree of exaggeration represented in this instance by brainwashing. Calling my perception of your influence over some people here brainwashing actually is more entertaining. It is a re-frame that makes my point seem silly. It was silly as you originally stated it, Curtis. Brainwashing isn't a re-frame, it's a term that's commonly used to refer to exactly what you described. But it's silly in terms of the extent of my influence, and it's even sillier when you look at the traffic about the specific issue of Vaj's TM credentials, both here and earlier on alt.m.t. It also relates to Robin's charge, which you seem to share that I take someone's writing into my own context. I believe that is what we all do here and believe that charge is unfair, especially in light of this example. Given the givens, I'd say this is a perfect example of your tendency to impose your own context even when it doesn't fit. Your attempt to make me responsible for others' distrust of Vaj is, in fact, the re-frame. Further, your
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Xeno, was 1980(below) when Maharishi started using the 'invincibility' language-ing? Maharishi said 1977 was to be the Year of Invincibility. http://www.globalcountry.org.uk/viewnewsletter.php?ID=20090723142634 He said 2008 would the Year of Invincibility - Global Raam Raj, and continued that theme until he died, I think.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
Nay, no, that is not true you guys, you cavil me. Turqb a CurtisDb you got me wrong. We'd be nothing without each other here. I have nothing but goodwill towards everyone here. Image two guys between meditation here (a laborer on the one hand and an intellectual on the other) coming out of Revelations Café in Fairfield crossing over to Paradiso Cafe arm-in-arm (may be it's even Buck and Turqb) shouting to themselves, chanting to one another in brotherly love, Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute May we not hate any. The world would be the better place! -Buck --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry, but since you nailed it I can get off with just a: what he said. Favorite line: Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife. Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL. We'll miss you. :-) Seriously, dude, what would you call all your endless posts denouncing Bevan and the Rajas? Negative is a RELATIVE concept, not an absolute one. I'd be willing to bet that any of the people you rail against would consider you and your Buck char- acter more than a little negative. And, from their point of view, they'd be correct, because to them negative means anything that criticizes or goes against what they believe to be true and correct. I thought that earlier you yourself were making the point that the injunction to never entertain nega- tivity and never denounce anyone was a two-edged sword that could be (and, as I remember you suggest- ing, was) used by the TMO to control minds and opinions. I agree with that earlier assessment, and feel that what you propose above is just another flavor of it. Who gets to decide what is negative and what is not? You? The mysterious we you refer to below? Not. Gonna. Happen. :-) You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right. We should do more to protect that privilege. This is a simple guideline that is very easily enforced. Coulld just revoke someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being negative like that. Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so it comes up every time. It's a uniform code of justice to attend to that we could all use and our moderators enforce. We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to be. I can think of no place on earth that would be a safer place to be with someone of the Buck mindset running it. Just sayin'. Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute or may we not hate any. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of that hymn. Thanks Cardm, Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute may we not hate any. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time! Well then, no wonder. saha nau avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi nau; adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak. The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this: saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav', without any effect on the *semantic* level. This seems to be the most accurate translation I could find quickly: Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together;
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Nay, no, that is not true you guys, you cavil me. Turqb a CurtisDb you got me wrong. We'd be nothing without each other here. I have nothing but goodwill towards everyone here. Image two guys between meditation here (a laborer on the one hand and an intellectual on the other) coming out of Revelations Café in Fairfield crossing over to Paradiso Cafe arm-in-arm (may be it's even Buck and Turqb) shouting to themselves, chanting to one another in brotherly love, Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute May we not hate any. The world would be the better place! -Buck Of course, this image would mean that Hell had just froze over considering that Turqb declines ever to come back to be with meditative Fairfield. But Om, the image gives hope. And just seeing it in mind brings some tears to mine eyes. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry, but since you nailed it I can get off with just a: what he said. Favorite line: Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife. Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL. We'll miss you. :-) Seriously, dude, what would you call all your endless posts denouncing Bevan and the Rajas? Negative is a RELATIVE concept, not an absolute one. I'd be willing to bet that any of the people you rail against would consider you and your Buck char- acter more than a little negative. And, from their point of view, they'd be correct, because to them negative means anything that criticizes or goes against what they believe to be true and correct. I thought that earlier you yourself were making the point that the injunction to never entertain nega- tivity and never denounce anyone was a two-edged sword that could be (and, as I remember you suggest- ing, was) used by the TMO to control minds and opinions. I agree with that earlier assessment, and feel that what you propose above is just another flavor of it. Who gets to decide what is negative and what is not? You? The mysterious we you refer to below? Not. Gonna. Happen. :-) You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right. We should do more to protect that privilege. This is a simple guideline that is very easily enforced. Coulld just revoke someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being negative like that. Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so it comes up every time. It's a uniform code of justice to attend to that we could all use and our moderators enforce. We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to be. I can think of no place on earth that would be a safer place to be with someone of the Buck mindset running it. Just sayin'. Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute or may we not hate any. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of that hymn. Thanks Cardm, Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute may we not hate any. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time! Well then, no wonder. saha nau avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi nau; adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak. The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this:
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Nay, no, that is not true you guys, you cavil me. Turqb a CurtisDb you got me wrong. We'd be nothing without each other here. I have nothing but goodwill towards everyone here. Image two guys between meditation here (a laborer on the one hand and an intellectual on the other) coming out of Revelations Café in Fairfield crossing over to Paradiso Cafe arm-in-arm (may be it's even Buck and Turqb) shouting to themselves, chanting to one another in brotherly love, Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute May we not hate any. The world would be the better place! -Buck Of course, this image would mean that Hell had just froze over considering that Turqb declines ever to come back to be with meditative Fairfield. But Om, the image gives hope. And just seeing it in mind brings some tears to mine eyes. Think now just how many grown old sons and daughters of meditation gone away like Turq and CurtisDb are wandering out there to come back! The prodigal children of TM. If they'd only come home. They should be beautiful when they'd come back and could get in to the domes, if they can. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry, but since you nailed it I can get off with just a: what he said. Favorite line: Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife. Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL. We'll miss you. :-) Seriously, dude, what would you call all your endless posts denouncing Bevan and the Rajas? Negative is a RELATIVE concept, not an absolute one. I'd be willing to bet that any of the people you rail against would consider you and your Buck char- acter more than a little negative. And, from their point of view, they'd be correct, because to them negative means anything that criticizes or goes against what they believe to be true and correct. I thought that earlier you yourself were making the point that the injunction to never entertain nega- tivity and never denounce anyone was a two-edged sword that could be (and, as I remember you suggest- ing, was) used by the TMO to control minds and opinions. I agree with that earlier assessment, and feel that what you propose above is just another flavor of it. Who gets to decide what is negative and what is not? You? The mysterious we you refer to below? Not. Gonna. Happen. :-) You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right. We should do more to protect that privilege. This is a simple guideline that is very easily enforced. Coulld just revoke someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being negative like that. Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so it comes up every time. It's a uniform code of justice to attend to that we could all use and our moderators enforce. We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to be. I can think of no place on earth that would be a safer place to be with someone of the Buck mindset running it. Just sayin'. Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute or may we not hate any. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of that hymn. Thanks Cardm, Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute may we not hate any. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Nay, no, that is not true you guys, you cavil me. Turqb a CurtisDb you got me wrong. We'd be nothing without each other here. I have nothing but goodwill towards everyone here. Image two guys between meditation here (a laborer on the one hand and an intellectual on the other) coming out of Revelations Café in Fairfield crossing over to Paradiso Cafe arm-in-arm (may be it's even Buck and Turqb) shouting to themselves, chanting to one another in brotherly love, Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute May we not hate any. The world would be the better place! -Buck Of course, this image would mean that Hell had just froze over considering that Turqb declines ever to come back to be with meditative Fairfield. But Om, the image gives hope. And just seeing it in mind brings some tears to mine eyes. Think now just how many grown old sons and daughters of meditation gone away like Turq and CurtisDb are wandering out there to come back! The prodigal children of TM. If they'd only come home. They should be beautiful when they'd come back and could get in to the domes, if they can. So my prayer is always and for whoever they be for the spiritual in everyone, Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together;. Yes it's a slog and difficult uphill climb for some, and some have even fallen down along the way. We can't deny that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry, but since you nailed it I can get off with just a: what he said. Favorite line: Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife. Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL. We'll miss you. :-) Seriously, dude, what would you call all your endless posts denouncing Bevan and the Rajas? Negative is a RELATIVE concept, not an absolute one. I'd be willing to bet that any of the people you rail against would consider you and your Buck char- acter more than a little negative. And, from their point of view, they'd be correct, because to them negative means anything that criticizes or goes against what they believe to be true and correct. I thought that earlier you yourself were making the point that the injunction to never entertain nega- tivity and never denounce anyone was a two-edged sword that could be (and, as I remember you suggest- ing, was) used by the TMO to control minds and opinions. I agree with that earlier assessment, and feel that what you propose above is just another flavor of it. Who gets to decide what is negative and what is not? You? The mysterious we you refer to below? Not. Gonna. Happen. :-) You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right. We should do more to protect that privilege. This is a simple guideline that is very easily enforced. Coulld just revoke someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being negative like that. Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so it comes up every time. It's a uniform code of justice to attend to that we could all use and our moderators enforce. We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to be. I can think of no place on earth that would be a safer place to be with someone of the Buck mindset running it. Just sayin'. Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute or may we not hate any. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of that hymn. Thanks Cardm, Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Nay, no, that is not true you guys, you cavil me. Turqb a CurtisDb you got me wrong. We'd be nothing without each other here. I have nothing but goodwill towards everyone here. Image two guys between meditation here (a laborer on the one hand and an intellectual on the other) coming out of Revelations Café in Fairfield crossing over to Paradiso Cafe arm-in-arm (may be it's even Buck and Turqb) shouting to themselves, chanting to one another in brotherly love, Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute May we not hate any. The world would be the better place! -Buck Of course, this image would mean that Hell had just froze over considering that Turqb declines ever to come back to be with meditative Fairfield. But Om, the image gives hope. And just seeing it in mind brings some tears to mine eyes. Think now just how many grown old sons and daughters of meditation gone away like Turq and CurtisDb are wandering out there to come back! The prodigal children of TM. If they'd only come home. They should be beautiful when they'd come back and could get in to the domes, if they can. So my prayer is always and for whoever they be for the spiritual in everyone, Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together;. Yes it's a slog and difficult uphill climb for some, and some have even fallen down along the way. We can't deny that. But I have hope for even better days with larger numbers again coming to meditation here, as the principle of The second element bringing Light to the subject. That is my experience with It. This is our fight here. To establish one code Universal, the physics of natural law in the Unified Field, come live it and enjoy It! Come to meditation. Don't let any negativity get in the way of It. Cast away your negative thinking and our bickering. We'll be nothing without each other here. We fight for the universal rights of human kind. We live to have one universal code of experience here on FFL and everywhere. With Great Love, -Buck in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry, but since you nailed it I can get off with just a: what he said. Favorite line: Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife. Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL. We'll miss you. :-) Seriously, dude, what would you call all your endless posts denouncing Bevan and the Rajas? Negative is a RELATIVE concept, not an absolute one. I'd be willing to bet that any of the people you rail against would consider you and your Buck char- acter more than a little negative. And, from their point of view, they'd be correct, because to them negative means anything that criticizes or goes against what they believe to be true and correct. I thought that earlier you yourself were making the point that the injunction to never entertain nega- tivity and never denounce anyone was a two-edged sword that could be (and, as I remember you suggest- ing, was) used by the TMO to control minds and opinions. I agree with that earlier assessment, and feel that what you propose above is just another flavor of it. Who gets to decide what is negative and what is not? You? The mysterious we you refer to below? Not. Gonna. Happen. :-) You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right. We should do more to protect that privilege. This is a simple guideline that is very easily enforced. Coulld just revoke someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being negative like that. Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so it comes up every time. It's a uniform code of justice to attend to that we could all use and our moderators enforce. We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to be. I can
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: The world would be the better place! First I don't cavil you. I point out your elitist triumphalism as a response to your expressions of it. Second, your better world involves more people who think as you do. That is the exact opposite of the world I enjoy just as it is. In my its already a better world you are happy as the pigs in shit who surround your little utopia (I hate to slander one of my favorite animals with an unfair and untrue characterization, the big agro-biz farms of Iowa are concentration camps for animals as intelligent as dogs, so it should be as UNHAPPY as a pig in shit). I am happy in the world I have chosen to live in. My world would not be improved one iota if I got a call from you tomorrow that started with the phrase hey Curtis old buddy, you were right about everything... If you decided to leave your pastoral existence and join me here to find your way outside your spiritual enclave, it wouldn't make a discernible blip on my happiness meter. Actually looking at it selfishly, I enjoy you where you are writing here as you do. I like to read different POVs, I already know my own. I don't share your desire to have us share thinking styles or conclusions. On more reflection, in my better world I guess I could do without the weird assumptive triumphalism as if you have figured out the ultimate secret of life and I have not. But that only wins by a smidgen. It keeps us from being true peers on the planet. I am happy to believe that you have found something of value to you and high five you for it. But I am not willing to assume an inferior position for my choices. I get it that you think you have found the secret of all life. Good on ya for that. But I believe it is childish to include that you KNOW beyond all doubt that you have done so. That surety smacks of immature religious clap trap that is so boringly common on this planet. Are you really s sure? Like the all the other super religious people who are s freak'n sure that they have THE WAY? I know plenty of religious people who don't take it to this obnoxious extreme, and can combine their faith with a little of the episemological humility that is my litmus test for people I can relate to. So if you want to share a brotherhood of man with me, look me in the eye as an equal with respect for my own choices. In my better world we could hang out on your farm, which would fascinate me, and spend the day with you turning me on to your life with livestock. I would delight in all the difficulties, the moral dilemmas, the it's so F'ing cold this morningness of it all. I could really dig your life and you could share that with me. And if you wanted to have a meditation before lunch I would happily join you in that too. But if after lunch, after talking to your lovely wife about her recipes for this and that, if you decided to lecture me on how important is is for me to go to the stinky domes and sit there with my eyes closed for hours doing what our dead guru flung out into the world in a half baked, winging it while getting paid, and making absurd ,bloviated claims about it, I would take my rent-a-car back to Cedar Rapids and get on my plane back home. Because men should not should on each other. They shouldn't musterbate in each others presence. Men who see each other as equals can still enjoy their own choices as superior for THEMSELVES. I don't think you should play blues or help me reform arts integrated education in our schools. It is my mission and I would be happy to hear that you were doing the same for Iowa schools, but I don't think you SHOULD do it if that is not what is your personal passion. Perhaps that is the real bottom line for me. I believe that we should follow what really matters to us. I loved being in the movement when it was my passion. But it isn't now and other things are. Is it still your passion? OK, go for it. Perhaps playing by the rules so you could actually get into the domes you love so much would be a start. But that is up to you. Perhaps your passion is to be the rebel guy who beats the establishment at its own game and gets to see saints (I would rather receive darshan from your livestock veterinarian.) and still go to the domes. Maybe if you get them to change their minds you will feel the same accomplishment I feel when I get a bunch of kids to use more figurative language in their writing by helping them write a blues song. Perhaps collectivism and individualism is really the basic value in play here. But you told me not to use your real name here so I am dealing with Buck. And Buck seems to think that he has found the secret of life, and I have not. But Buck doesn't know shit about my life and the passions that drive my creative life, the fulfillment it brings me, the lives I affect through my work. He just wants me to think more
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
Every time you post something like this Curtis, it makes me want to quietly join the audience during one of your street performances, for some reason I always think around King Street in Alexandria (??), and watch and listen to you play. Then of course I would step forward and schedule permitting, invite you for a beer or three. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: The world would be the better place! First I don't cavil you. I point out your elitist triumphalism as a response to your expressions of it. Second, your better world involves more people who think as you do. That is the exact opposite of the world I enjoy just as it is. In my its already a better world you are happy as the pigs in shit who surround your little utopia (I hate to slander one of my favorite animals with an unfair and untrue characterization, the big agro-biz farms of Iowa are concentration camps for animals as intelligent as dogs, so it should be as UNHAPPY as a pig in shit). I am happy in the world I have chosen to live in. My world would not be improved one iota if I got a call from you tomorrow that started with the phrase hey Curtis old buddy, you were right about everything... If you decided to leave your pastoral existence and join me here to find your way outside your spiritual enclave, it wouldn't make a discernible blip on my happiness meter. Actually looking at it selfishly, I enjoy you where you are writing here as you do. I like to read different POVs, I already know my own. I don't share your desire to have us share thinking styles or conclusions. On more reflection, in my better world I guess I could do without the weird assumptive triumphalism as if you have figured out the ultimate secret of life and I have not. But that only wins by a smidgen. It keeps us from being true peers on the planet. I am happy to believe that you have found something of value to you and high five you for it. But I am not willing to assume an inferior position for my choices. I get it that you think you have found the secret of all life. Good on ya for that. But I believe it is childish to include that you KNOW beyond all doubt that you have done so. That surety smacks of immature religious clap trap that is so boringly common on this planet. Are you really s sure? Like the all the other super religious people who are s freak'n sure that they have THE WAY? I know plenty of religious people who don't take it to this obnoxious extreme, and can combine their faith with a little of the episemological humility that is my litmus test for people I can relate to. So if you want to share a brotherhood of man with me, look me in the eye as an equal with respect for my own choices. In my better world we could hang out on your farm, which would fascinate me, and spend the day with you turning me on to your life with livestock. I would delight in all the difficulties, the moral dilemmas, the it's so F'ing cold this morningness of it all. I could really dig your life and you could share that with me. And if you wanted to have a meditation before lunch I would happily join you in that too. But if after lunch, after talking to your lovely wife about her recipes for this and that, if you decided to lecture me on how important is is for me to go to the stinky domes and sit there with my eyes closed for hours doing what our dead guru flung out into the world in a half baked, winging it while getting paid, and making absurd ,bloviated claims about it, I would take my rent-a-car back to Cedar Rapids and get on my plane back home. Because men should not should on each other. They shouldn't musterbate in each others presence. Men who see each other as equals can still enjoy their own choices as superior for THEMSELVES. I don't think you should play blues or help me reform arts integrated education in our schools. It is my mission and I would be happy to hear that you were doing the same for Iowa schools, but I don't think you SHOULD do it if that is not what is your personal passion. Perhaps that is the real bottom line for me. I believe that we should follow what really matters to us. I loved being in the movement when it was my passion. But it isn't now and other things are. Is it still your passion? OK, go for it. Perhaps playing by the rules so you could actually get into the domes you love so much would be a start. But that is up to you. Perhaps your passion is to be the rebel guy who beats the establishment at its own game and gets to see saints (I would rather receive darshan from your livestock veterinarian.) and still go to the domes. Maybe if you get them to change their minds you will feel the same accomplishment I feel when I get a bunch of kids to use more
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
I can easily imagine us both enjoying that Jim. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@... wrote: Every time you post something like this Curtis, it makes me want to quietly join the audience during one of your street performances, for some reason I always think around King Street in Alexandria (??), and watch and listen to you play. Then of course I would step forward and schedule permitting, invite you for a beer or three. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: The world would be the better place! First I don't cavil you. I point out your elitist triumphalism as a response to your expressions of it. Second, your better world involves more people who think as you do. That is the exact opposite of the world I enjoy just as it is. In my its already a better world you are happy as the pigs in shit who surround your little utopia (I hate to slander one of my favorite animals with an unfair and untrue characterization, the big agro-biz farms of Iowa are concentration camps for animals as intelligent as dogs, so it should be as UNHAPPY as a pig in shit). I am happy in the world I have chosen to live in. My world would not be improved one iota if I got a call from you tomorrow that started with the phrase hey Curtis old buddy, you were right about everything... If you decided to leave your pastoral existence and join me here to find your way outside your spiritual enclave, it wouldn't make a discernible blip on my happiness meter. Actually looking at it selfishly, I enjoy you where you are writing here as you do. I like to read different POVs, I already know my own. I don't share your desire to have us share thinking styles or conclusions. On more reflection, in my better world I guess I could do without the weird assumptive triumphalism as if you have figured out the ultimate secret of life and I have not. But that only wins by a smidgen. It keeps us from being true peers on the planet. I am happy to believe that you have found something of value to you and high five you for it. But I am not willing to assume an inferior position for my choices. I get it that you think you have found the secret of all life. Good on ya for that. But I believe it is childish to include that you KNOW beyond all doubt that you have done so. That surety smacks of immature religious clap trap that is so boringly common on this planet. Are you really s sure? Like the all the other super religious people who are s freak'n sure that they have THE WAY? I know plenty of religious people who don't take it to this obnoxious extreme, and can combine their faith with a little of the episemological humility that is my litmus test for people I can relate to. So if you want to share a brotherhood of man with me, look me in the eye as an equal with respect for my own choices. In my better world we could hang out on your farm, which would fascinate me, and spend the day with you turning me on to your life with livestock. I would delight in all the difficulties, the moral dilemmas, the it's so F'ing cold this morningness of it all. I could really dig your life and you could share that with me. And if you wanted to have a meditation before lunch I would happily join you in that too. But if after lunch, after talking to your lovely wife about her recipes for this and that, if you decided to lecture me on how important is is for me to go to the stinky domes and sit there with my eyes closed for hours doing what our dead guru flung out into the world in a half baked, winging it while getting paid, and making absurd ,bloviated claims about it, I would take my rent-a-car back to Cedar Rapids and get on my plane back home. Because men should not should on each other. They shouldn't musterbate in each others presence. Men who see each other as equals can still enjoy their own choices as superior for THEMSELVES. I don't think you should play blues or help me reform arts integrated education in our schools. It is my mission and I would be happy to hear that you were doing the same for Iowa schools, but I don't think you SHOULD do it if that is not what is your personal passion. Perhaps that is the real bottom line for me. I believe that we should follow what really matters to us. I loved being in the movement when it was my passion. But it isn't now and other things are. Is it still your passion? OK, go for it. Perhaps playing by the rules so you could actually get into the domes you love so much would be a start. But that is up to you. Perhaps your passion is to be the rebel guy who beats the establishment at its own game and gets to see saints (I would rather receive
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
Good post, Curtis. This may seem like a non-sequitur, but it reminds me of a historical tidbit about Japan. There is a segment of its history that from a Western POV is described in their history books as poor, isolated Japan becoming opened to ideas from the West, to its betterment. That same period is referred to in Japanese history books as the invasion of the barbarians. Why? Because Japanese society at the time may have been many things, but one thing it was above all else was tolerant. It was considered a *huge* affront to try to convert someone away from their beliefs and convince them that yours were superior. Spanish and Portuguese explorers, armed with their cadres of Catholic priests, arrived on Japan's shores and ignored this sensibility completely. Not only did they attempt to convert the heathens, they attempted to do so by force. For the Japanese, to conceive of doing this -- or to even want to -- was considered barbaric. I tend to agree with this description. In my view, no one on this planet has the market cornered on Truth. It's a planet full of individuals with individual opinions, none of which are inherently more superior than others. The people I get along with understand this, and adopt a laissez-faire attitude towards their interactions with others. They may believe, and believe firmly, in their particular POV or belief system, and present it *as opinion* for friendly discussion, but to feel that this POV or belief system can or should be debated, or that someone can or should be persuaded to adopt that POV? Barbaric then, barbaric now. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: The world would be the better place! First I don't cavil you. I point out your elitist triumphalism as a response to your expressions of it. Second, your better world involves more people who think as you do. That is the exact opposite of the world I enjoy just as it is. In my its already a better world you are happy as the pigs in shit who surround your little utopia (I hate to slander one of my favorite animals with an unfair and untrue characterization, the big agro-biz farms of Iowa are concentration camps for animals as intelligent as dogs, so it should be as UNHAPPY as a pig in shit). I am happy in the world I have chosen to live in. My world would not be improved one iota if I got a call from you tomorrow that started with the phrase hey Curtis old buddy, you were right about everything... If you decided to leave your pastoral existence and join me here to find your way outside your spiritual enclave, it wouldn't make a discernible blip on my happiness meter. Actually looking at it selfishly, I enjoy you where you are writing here as you do. I like to read different POVs, I already know my own. I don't share your desire to have us share thinking styles or conclusions. On more reflection, in my better world I guess I could do without the weird assumptive triumphalism as if you have figured out the ultimate secret of life and I have not. But that only wins by a smidgen. It keeps us from being true peers on the planet. I am happy to believe that you have found something of value to you and high five you for it. But I am not willing to assume an inferior position for my choices. I get it that you think you have found the secret of all life. Good on ya for that. But I believe it is childish to include that you KNOW beyond all doubt that you have done so. That surety smacks of immature religious clap trap that is so boringly common on this planet. Are you really s sure? Like the all the other super religious people who are s freak'n sure that they have THE WAY? I know plenty of religious people who don't take it to this obnoxious extreme, and can combine their faith with a little of the epistemological humility that is my litmus test for people I can relate to. So if you want to share a brotherhood of man with me, look me in the eye as an equal with respect for my own choices. In my better world we could hang out on your farm, which would fascinate me, and spend the day with you turning me on to your life with livestock. I would delight in all the difficulties, the moral dilemmas, the it's so F'ing cold this morningness of it all. I could really dig your life and you could share that with me. And if you wanted to have a meditation before lunch I would happily join you in that too. But if after lunch, after talking to your lovely wife about her recipes for this and that, if you decided to lecture me on how important is is for me to go to the stinky domes and sit there with my eyes closed for hours doing what our dead guru flung out into the world in a half baked, winging it while getting paid, and making absurd ,bloviated claims about it, I would take my
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
One difference in our views I think is that I am not espousing intellectual relativism. I actually do believe that my view of Maharihi's teaching is more right more accurate, better than Buck's. What I am advocating is a respect for each other personally given that difference. I can live with him feeling the same way about his view I just don't want to be bugged to convert. I'm sure my Muslim friends, in their heart or hearts believe that my godless life will lead to perdition ultimately. But as long as we can keep the topic on how to leaven whole wheat flat breads without ending up with coasters the consistency of shoe leather, we can enjoy each other's differences. I remember how interesting it was for me to understand the non evangelical nature of Theravada Buddhism when I asked my religiously devoted GF at the time if it bothered her that I was an atheist. She was genuinely puzzled and said how could it matter to me what you believe about God? Doing more research I realized that it is what you point out, whether or not followers are taught to proselytize that makes all the difference. I have the same problem with multi-level marketing. It turns casual conversations into business opportunities. I hate living that way. When I find myself in a conversation with a stranger, I want to go the Dale Carnegie route and find out what makes them light up in conversation because it is talking about something they love. The last thing I want to do is try to get the to love blues or something. I am looking for something that only they can give me and I have to get out of my own way to find it. I can't assume that the most fascinating aspect of this interaction is ME and my preferences! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Good post, Curtis. This may seem like a non-sequitur, but it reminds me of a historical tidbit about Japan. There is a segment of its history that from a Western POV is described in their history books as poor, isolated Japan becoming opened to ideas from the West, to its betterment. That same period is referred to in Japanese history books as the invasion of the barbarians. Why? Because Japanese society at the time may have been many things, but one thing it was above all else was tolerant. It was considered a *huge* affront to try to convert someone away from their beliefs and convince them that yours were superior. Spanish and Portuguese explorers, armed with their cadres of Catholic priests, arrived on Japan's shores and ignored this sensibility completely. Not only did they attempt to convert the heathens, they attempted to do so by force. For the Japanese, to conceive of doing this -- or to even want to -- was considered barbaric. I tend to agree with this description. In my view, no one on this planet has the market cornered on Truth. It's a planet full of individuals with individual opinions, none of which are inherently more superior than others. The people I get along with understand this, and adopt a laissez-faire attitude towards their interactions with others. They may believe, and believe firmly, in their particular POV or belief system, and present it *as opinion* for friendly discussion, but to feel that this POV or belief system can or should be debated, or that someone can or should be persuaded to adopt that POV? Barbaric then, barbaric now. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: The world would be the better place! First I don't cavil you. I point out your elitist triumphalism as a response to your expressions of it. Second, your better world involves more people who think as you do. That is the exact opposite of the world I enjoy just as it is. In my its already a better world you are happy as the pigs in shit who surround your little utopia (I hate to slander one of my favorite animals with an unfair and untrue characterization, the big agro-biz farms of Iowa are concentration camps for animals as intelligent as dogs, so it should be as UNHAPPY as a pig in shit). I am happy in the world I have chosen to live in. My world would not be improved one iota if I got a call from you tomorrow that started with the phrase hey Curtis old buddy, you were right about everything... If you decided to leave your pastoral existence and join me here to find your way outside your spiritual enclave, it wouldn't make a discernible blip on my happiness meter. Actually looking at it selfishly, I enjoy you where you are writing here as you do. I like to read different POVs, I already know my own. I don't share your desire to have us share thinking styles or conclusions. On more reflection, in my better world I guess I could do without the weird assumptive triumphalism as if you have figured
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
Nice Rap Curtis. I've got to wonder if Buck really wants to fly in the domes. I get the feeling that he sort of enjoys that the domes are out of reach. Plus, I don't see how you run a farm and be away for a couple hours in the early morning. I've always assumed farm chores are early morning, late afternoon intensive. And I know this from three or four of my customers who live in the country and have horses. I'm not sure that if you took away his main issue that he would be happy about it. It's sort of, for this reason, that I don't take much of what he says seriously. But I could be mistaken. This issues gives him some notoriety, if you want to call it that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Perhaps playing by the rules so you could actually get into the domes you love so much would be a start. But that is up to you. Perhaps your passion is to be the rebel guy who beats the establishment at its own game and gets to see saints (I would rather receive darshan from your livestock veterinarian.) and still go to the domes. Maybe if you get them to change their minds you will feel the same accomplishment I feel when I get a bunch of kids to use more figurative language in their writing by helping them write a blues song. Perhaps collectivism and individualism is really the basic value in play here. But you told me not to use your real name here so I am dealing with Buck. And Buck seems to think that he has found the secret of life, and I have not. But Buck doesn't know shit about my life and the passions that drive my creative life, the fulfillment it brings me, the lives I affect through my work. He just wants me to think more like him. Like every other I have the secret of life and you don't provincial perspective midget. I say, your loss, I am doing some cool stuff with my life too. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Nay, no, that is not true you guys, you cavil me. Turqb a CurtisDb you got me wrong. We'd be nothing without each other here. I have nothing but goodwill towards everyone here. Image two guys between meditation here (a laborer on the one hand and an intellectual on the other) coming out of Revelations Café in Fairfield crossing over to Paradiso Cafe arm-in-arm (may be it's even Buck and Turqb) shouting to themselves, chanting to one another in brotherly love, Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute May we not hate any. The world would be the better place! -Buck Of course, this image would mean that Hell had just froze over considering that Turqb declines ever to come back to be with meditative Fairfield. But Om, the image gives hope. And just seeing it in mind brings some tears to mine eyes. Think now just how many grown old sons and daughters of meditation gone away like Turq and CurtisDb are wandering out there to come back! The prodigal children of TM. If they'd only come home. They should be beautiful when they'd come back and could get in to the domes, if they can. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry, but since you nailed it I can get off with just a: what he said. Favorite line: Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife. Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL. We'll miss you. :-) Seriously, dude, what would you call all your endless posts denouncing Bevan and the Rajas? Negative is a RELATIVE concept, not an absolute one. I'd be willing to bet that any of the people you rail against would consider you and your Buck char- acter more than a little negative. And, from their point of view, they'd be correct, because to them negative means anything that criticizes or goes against what they believe to be true and correct. I thought that earlier you yourself were making the point that the injunction to never entertain nega- tivity and never denounce anyone was a two-edged sword that could be (and, as I remember you suggest- ing, was) used by the TMO to control minds and opinions. I agree with that earlier assessment, and feel that what you propose above is just another flavor of
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: One difference in our views I think is that I am not espousing intellectual relativism. I actually do believe that my view of Maharihi's teaching is more right more accurate, better than Buck's. Emily, are you reading this? These our threads here? Spiritual meditators vs what. Kind of like old warriors sparring. For sport? We all go back a ways, but for someone coming new in to this like you I should share this link with you just as context in some of what is going on here. It's epic. Even though this Gita is not Maharishi's translation or commentary, this is really well done and told. I think you should like this as a help in your studies to bring you up to speed on transcendental FFL here... http://www.learner.org/courses/worldlit/gita/watch/ really well done. A half hour and a good overview otherwise. Best Regards, -Buck in FF
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: The world would be the better place! First I don't cavil you. I point out your elitist triumphalism as a response to your expressions of it. Second, your better world involves more people who think as you do. That is the exact opposite of the world I enjoy just as it is. Ravi comes to mind. : ) In my its already a better world you are happy as the pigs in shit who surround your little utopia (I hate to slander one of my favorite animals with an unfair and untrue characterization, the big agro-biz farms of Iowa are concentration camps for animals as intelligent as dogs, so it should be as UNHAPPY as a pig in shit). I am happy in the world I have chosen to live in. My world would not be improved one iota if I got a call from you tomorrow that started with the phrase hey Curtis old buddy, you were right about everything... If you decided to leave your pastoral existence and join me here to find your way outside your spiritual enclave, it wouldn't make a discernible blip on my happiness meter. Actually looking at it selfishly, I enjoy you where you are writing here as you do. I like to read different POVs, I already know my own. I don't share your desire to have us share thinking styles or conclusions. As others have found it detrimental to type different. : ) On more reflection, in my better world I guess I could do without the weird assumptive triumphalism as if you have figured out the ultimate secret of life and I have not. But that only wins by a smidgen. It keeps us from being true peers on the planet. I am happy to believe that you have found something of value to you and high five you for it. But I am not willing to assume an inferior position for my choices. I get it that you think you have found the secret of all life. Good on ya for that. But I believe it is childish to include that you KNOW beyond all doubt that you have done so. That surety smacks of immature religious clap trap that is so boringly common on this planet. Are you really s sure? I think Ravi liked Buck's perceptions? : ) Like the all the other super religious people who are s freak'n sure that they have THE WAY? I know plenty of religious people who don't take it to this obnoxious extreme, and can combine their faith with a little of the episemological humility that is my litmus test for people I can relate to. The world is my family. : ) So if you want to share a brotherhood of man with me, look me in the eye as an equal with respect for my own choices. Yes, looking one ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c ) in the eye does help to have respect to another..sometimes. : ) In my better world Thought so. : ) we could hang out on your farm, which would fascinate me, and spend the day with you turning me on to your life with livestock. I would delight in all the difficulties, the moral dilemmas, the it's so F'ing cold this morningness of it all. I could really dig your life and you could share that with me. And if you wanted to have a meditation before lunch I would happily join you in that too. But if after lunch, after talking to your lovely wife (wife's recipes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c ) about her recipes for this and that, if you decided to lecture me on how important is is for me to go to the stinky domes and sit there with my eyes closed for hours doing what our dead guru flung out into the world in a half baked, winging it while getting paid, and making absurd ,bloviated claims about it, I would take my rent-a-car back to Cedar Rapids and get on my plane back home. Because men should not should on each other. O' Ravi! LOL They shouldn't musterbate in each others presence. Men who see each other as equals can still enjoy their own choices as superior for THEMSELVES. Yes, men as equals. : ) I don't think you should play blues or help me reform arts integrated education in our schools. It is my mission and I would be happy to hear that you were doing the same for Iowa schools, but I don't think you SHOULD do it if that is not what is your personal passion. Perhaps that is the real bottom line for me. I believe that we should follow what really matters to us. I loved being in the movement when it was my passion. But it isn't now and other things are. Is it still your passion? OK, go for it. Perhaps playing by the rules so you could actually get into the domes you love so much would be a start. But that is up to you. Perhaps your passion is to be the rebel guy who beats the establishment at its own game and gets to see saints (I would rather receive darshan from your livestock veterinarian.) Ba ba http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4PkMPAlMFo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
Alright. I'll listen to it :) Thank you for the instruction. From: Buck dhamiltony...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 4:56 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: One difference in our views I think is that I am not espousing intellectual relativism. I actually do believe that my view of Maharihi's teaching is more right more accurate, better than Buck's. Emily, are you reading this? These our threads here? Spiritual meditators vs what. Kind of like old warriors sparring. For sport? We all go back a ways, but for someone coming new in to this like you I should share this link with you just as context in some of what is going on here. It's epic. Even though this Gita is not Maharishi's translation or commentary, this is really well done and told. I think you should like this as a help in your studies to bring you up to speed on transcendental FFL here... http://www.learner.org/courses/worldlit/gita/watch/ really well done. A half hour and a good overview otherwise. Best Regards, -Buck in FF
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time! Well then, no wonder. saha nau avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi nau; adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak. The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this: saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav', without any effect on the *semantic* level. This seems to be the most accurate translation I could find quickly: Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). May He protect (avatu) us both (nau [~now] accusative *dual*) together (saha); may He nourish (bhunaktu) us both (nau) together (saha); May we work (karavaavahai) conjointly (saha) with great energy (viiryam), May our study be (adhiitam [study] astu [may (it) be]) vigorous-and-effective (tejasvi); May we not (maa: 'we' in the verb -) mutually-dispute (vidviSaavahai) (or may we not hate any: vidviSaavahai).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time! Well then, no wonder. saha nau avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi nau; adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak. The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this: saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav', without any effect on the *semantic* level. This seems to be the most accurate translation I could find quickly: Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). May He protect (avatu) us both (nau [~now] accusative *dual*) together (saha); may He nourish (bhunaktu) us both (nau) together (saha); May we work (karavaavahai) conjointly (saha) with great energy (viiryam), May our study be (adhiitam [study] astu [may (it) be]) vigorous-and-effective (tejasvi); May we not (maa: 'we' in the verb -) mutually-dispute (vidviSaavahai) (or may we not hate any: vidviSaavahai). Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanti_Mantra#Taittiriya_Upanishad
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time! Well then, no wonder. saha nau avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi nau; adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak. The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this: saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav', without any effect on the *semantic* level. This seems to be the most accurate translation I could find quickly: Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). May He protect (avatu) us both (nau [~now] accusative *dual*) together (saha); may He nourish (bhunaktu) us both (nau) together (saha); May we work (karavaavahai) conjointly (saha) with great energy (viiryam), May our study be (adhiitam [study] astu [may (it) be]) vigorous-and-effective (tejasvi); May we not (maa: 'we' in the verb -) mutually-dispute (vidviSaavahai) (or may we not hate any: vidviSaavahai). This looks correct! The word, never, is such a negative term and implies having to be negative to avoid negative. haha.. and the above seems more polite in thought. : )
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time! Well then, no wonder. saha nau avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi nau; adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak. The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this: saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav', without any effect on the *semantic* level. This seems to be the most accurate translation I could find quickly: Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). Oh, so that's the correct translation. For us meditators here, it reads really well substituting in `Unified Field. It's beautiful even if it is not the way Maharishi and Bevan used it. Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). May He protect (avatu) us both (nau [~now] accusative *dual*) together (saha); may He nourish (bhunaktu) us both (nau) together (saha); May we work (karavaavahai) conjointly (saha) with great energy (viiryam), May our study be (adhiitam [study] astu [may (it) be]) vigorous-and-effective (tejasvi); May we not (maa: 'we' in the verb -) mutually-dispute (vidviSaavahai) (or may we not hate any: vidviSaavahai).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of that hymn. Thanks Cardm, Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time! Well then, no wonder. saha nau avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi nau; adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak. The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this: saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav', without any effect on the *semantic* level. This seems to be the most accurate translation I could find quickly: Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). Oh, so that's the correct translation. For us meditators here, it reads really well substituting in `Unified Field. It's beautiful even if it is not the way Maharishi and Bevan used it. Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). May He protect (avatu) us both (nau [~now] accusative *dual*) together (saha); may He nourish (bhunaktu) us both (nau) together (saha); May we work (karavaavahai) conjointly (saha) with great energy (viiryam), May our study be (adhiitam [study] astu [may (it) be]) vigorous-and-effective (tejasvi); May we not (maa: 'we' in the verb -) mutually-dispute (vidviSaavahai) (or may we not hate any: vidviSaavahai).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife.. Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL. You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right. We should do more to protect that privilege. This is a simple guideline that is very easily enforced. Coulld just revoke someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being negative like that. Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so it comes up every time. It's a uniform code of justice to attend to that we could all use and our moderators enforce. We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to be. Sincerely, -Buck Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute or may we not hate any. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of that hymn. Thanks Cardm, Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time! Well then, no wonder. saha nau avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi nau; adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak. The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this: saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav', without any effect on the *semantic* level. This seems to be the most accurate translation I could find quickly: Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). Oh, so that's the correct translation. For us meditators here, it reads really well substituting in `Unified Field. It's beautiful even if it is not the way Maharishi and Bevan used it. Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). May He protect (avatu) us both (nau [~now] accusative *dual*) together (saha); may He nourish (bhunaktu) us both (nau) together (saha); May we work (karavaavahai) conjointly (saha) with great energy (viiryam), May our study be (adhiitam [study] astu [may (it) be]) vigorous-and-effective (tejasvi); May we not (maa: 'we' in the verb -) mutually-dispute (vidviSaavahai) (or may we not hate any: vidviSaavahai).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife. Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL. We'll miss you. :-) Seriously, dude, what would you call all your endless posts denouncing Bevan and the Rajas? Negative is a RELATIVE concept, not an absolute one. I'd be willing to bet that any of the people you rail against would consider you and your Buck char- acter more than a little negative. And, from their point of view, they'd be correct, because to them negative means anything that criticizes or goes against what they believe to be true and correct. I thought that earlier you yourself were making the point that the injunction to never entertain nega- tivity and never denounce anyone was a two-edged sword that could be (and, as I remember you suggest- ing, was) used by the TMO to control minds and opinions. I agree with that earlier assessment, and feel that what you propose above is just another flavor of it. Who gets to decide what is negative and what is not? You? The mysterious we you refer to below? Not. Gonna. Happen. :-) You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right. We should do more to protect that privilege. This is a simple guideline that is very easily enforced. Coulld just revoke someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being negative like that. Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so it comes up every time. It's a uniform code of justice to attend to that we could all use and our moderators enforce. We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to be. I can think of no place on earth that would be a safer place to be with someone of the Buck mindset running it. Just sayin'. Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute or may we not hate any. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of that hymn. Thanks Cardm, Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time! Well then, no wonder. saha nau avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi nau; adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak. The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this: saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav', without any effect on the *semantic* level. This seems to be the most accurate translation I could find quickly: Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). Oh, so that's the correct translation. For us meditators here, it reads really well substituting in `Unified Field. It's beautiful even if it is not the way Maharishi and Bevan used it. Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). May He protect (avatu) us both (nau [~now] accusative *dual*) together (saha); may He nourish (bhunaktu) us both (nau) together (saha); May we work (karavaavahai) conjointly (saha) with great energy (viiryam), May our study be (adhiitam [study] astu [may (it) be]) vigorous-and-effective (tejasvi); May we not (maa: 'we' in the verb -) mutually-dispute (vidviSaavahai) (or may we not hate any: vidviSaavahai).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry, but since you nailed it I can get off with just a: what he said. Favorite line: Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife. Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL. We'll miss you. :-) Seriously, dude, what would you call all your endless posts denouncing Bevan and the Rajas? Negative is a RELATIVE concept, not an absolute one. I'd be willing to bet that any of the people you rail against would consider you and your Buck char- acter more than a little negative. And, from their point of view, they'd be correct, because to them negative means anything that criticizes or goes against what they believe to be true and correct. I thought that earlier you yourself were making the point that the injunction to never entertain nega- tivity and never denounce anyone was a two-edged sword that could be (and, as I remember you suggest- ing, was) used by the TMO to control minds and opinions. I agree with that earlier assessment, and feel that what you propose above is just another flavor of it. Who gets to decide what is negative and what is not? You? The mysterious we you refer to below? Not. Gonna. Happen. :-) You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right. We should do more to protect that privilege. This is a simple guideline that is very easily enforced. Coulld just revoke someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being negative like that. Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so it comes up every time. It's a uniform code of justice to attend to that we could all use and our moderators enforce. We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to be. I can think of no place on earth that would be a safer place to be with someone of the Buck mindset running it. Just sayin'. Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute or may we not hate any. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of that hymn. Thanks Cardm, Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time! Well then, no wonder. saha nau avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi nau; adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak. The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this: saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav', without any effect on the *semantic* level. This seems to be the most accurate translation I could find quickly: Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). Oh, so that's the correct translation. For us meditators here, it reads really well substituting in `Unified Field. It's beautiful even if it is not the way Maharishi and Bevan used it. Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). May He protect (avatu) us both (nau [~now] accusative *dual*) together (saha); may He nourish (bhunaktu) us both (nau) together (saha); May we work (karavaavahai) conjointly (saha) with great energy (viiryam), May our study be (adhiitam [study] astu [may (it) be])
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife.. Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL. You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right. We should do more to protect that privilege. This is a simple guideline that is very easily enforced. Coulld just revoke someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being negative like that. Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so it comes up every time. It's a uniform code of justice to attend to that we could all use and our moderators enforce. We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to be. Sincerely, -Buck IOW, you want FFL to be run like the oh-so-successful FCK: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fairfield_Community_Kiosk/ Not gonna happen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry, but since you nailed it I can get off with just a: what he said. Favorite line: Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) You sure that's what Buck means? I wouldn't be in favor of legislating it, but IMHO FFL would be a better, more enjoyable place, and its discussions more interesting and productive, if we all would refrain from personal attacks against each other, if we could express our disagreements without being disagreeable, in Obama's phrase. Wouldn't hurt if we all made an effort to be as truthful as we possibly can, either. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife. Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL. We'll miss you. :-) Seriously, dude, what would you call all your endless posts denouncing Bevan and the Rajas? Negative is a RELATIVE concept, not an absolute one. I'd be willing to bet that any of the people you rail against would consider you and your Buck char- acter more than a little negative. And, from their point of view, they'd be correct, because to them negative means anything that criticizes or goes against what they believe to be true and correct. I thought that earlier you yourself were making the point that the injunction to never entertain nega- tivity and never denounce anyone was a two-edged sword that could be (and, as I remember you suggest- ing, was) used by the TMO to control minds and opinions. I agree with that earlier assessment, and feel that what you propose above is just another flavor of it. Who gets to decide what is negative and what is not? You? The mysterious we you refer to below? Not. Gonna. Happen. :-) You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right. We should do more to protect that privilege. This is a simple guideline that is very easily enforced. Coulld just revoke someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being negative like that. Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so it comes up every time. It's a uniform code of justice to attend to that we could all use and our moderators enforce. We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to be. I can think of no place on earth that would be a safer place to be with someone of the Buck mindset running it. Just sayin'. Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute or may we not hate any.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
Regarding being true to one's nature on here, is there any other choice? I was thinking about what the difference in self-structure is, between the person full of thoughts about who they are, and the person with a rested mind. I can picture my own experience as previously living within a sphere of totality of myself, with a big impenetrable nucleus at the center. So I was aware of everything around the nucleus, except the nucleus itself (which was a completely unsustainable state). Then, once it began to develop cracks and rapidly break apart, there became nothing left to hold onto. This distinction regarding our awareness is a crucial one in determining our personal truth, and that of others. I find that once the nucleus becomes known to us, it becomes easy to spot it in others, whether they are aware of it or not. The difference between having exploded one's nucleus and not is in the former case, we are oneness within. However if the tight nucleus of ego remains, we are constantly in a state of duality within ourselves, the known and the unknown, or the comfortable and uncomfortable. If someone is in a state of ignorance wrt their inner nature, then that person will see the world as completely different than someone with full knowledge of themselves. Two completely different worlds, even though outer experience may appear similar. So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us, it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate attempt at deception or obfuscation. Each type of person has their own awareness, one is complete and one is incomplete. Comparing the two is a futile exercise in apples and oranges. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry, but since you nailed it I can get off with just a: what he said. Favorite line: Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) You sure that's what Buck means? I wouldn't be in favor of legislating it, but IMHO FFL would be a better, more enjoyable place, and its discussions more interesting and productive, if we all would refrain from personal attacks against each other, if we could express our disagreements without being disagreeable, in Obama's phrase. Wouldn't hurt if we all made an effort to be as truthful as we possibly can, either. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife. Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL. We'll miss you. :-) Seriously, dude, what would you call all your endless posts denouncing Bevan and the Rajas? Negative is a RELATIVE concept, not an absolute one. I'd be willing to bet that any of the people you rail against would consider you and your Buck char- acter more than a little negative. And, from their point of view, they'd be correct, because to them negative means anything that criticizes or goes against what they believe to be true and correct. I thought that earlier you yourself were making the point that the injunction to never entertain nega- tivity and never denounce anyone was a two-edged sword that could be (and, as I remember you suggest- ing, was) used by the TMO to control minds and opinions. I agree with that earlier assessment, and feel that what you propose above is just another flavor of it. Who gets to decide what is negative and what is not? You? The mysterious we you refer to below? Not. Gonna. Happen. :-) You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right. We should do more to protect that privilege. This is a simple guideline that is very easily enforced. Coulld just revoke someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being negative like that. Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so it comes up every time. It's a uniform code of justice to attend to that we could all use and our moderators enforce. We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to be. I can think of no place on earth that would be a safer place to be with someone of the Buck mindset running it. Just sayin'. Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; may It nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute or may we not hate any.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@... wrote: Regarding being true to one's nature on here, is there any other choice? I was thinking about what the difference in self-structure is, between the person full of thoughts about who they are, and the person with a rested mind. I can picture my own experience as previously living within a sphere of totality of myself, with a big impenetrable nucleus at the center. So I was aware of everything around the nucleus, except the nucleus itself (which was a completely unsustainable state). Then, once it began to develop cracks and rapidly break apart, there became nothing left to hold onto. This distinction regarding our awareness is a crucial one in determining our personal truth, and that of others. I find that once the nucleus becomes known to us, it becomes easy to spot it in others, whether they are aware of it or not. The difference between having exploded one's nucleus and not is in the former case, we are oneness within. However if the tight nucleus of ego remains, we are constantly in a state of duality within ourselves, the known and the unknown, or the comfortable and uncomfortable. If someone is in a state of ignorance wrt their inner nature, then that person will see the world as completely different than someone with full knowledge of themselves. Two completely different worlds, even though outer experience may appear similar. So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us, it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate attempt at deception or obfuscation. I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely differences in awareness account for whether a person believes there is *justification* for saying something they know to be false, but you really can't make much of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others. Each type of person has their own awareness, one is complete and one is incomplete. Comparing the two is a futile exercise in apples and oranges. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry, but since you nailed it I can get off with just a: what he said. Favorite line: Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) You sure that's what Buck means? I wouldn't be in favor of legislating it, but IMHO FFL would be a better, more enjoyable place, and its discussions more interesting and productive, if we all would refrain from personal attacks against each other, if we could express our disagreements without being disagreeable, in Obama's phrase. Wouldn't hurt if we all made an effort to be as truthful as we possibly can, either. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife. Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL. We'll miss you. :-) Seriously, dude, what would you call all your endless posts denouncing Bevan and the Rajas? Negative is a RELATIVE concept, not an absolute one. I'd be willing to bet that any of the people you rail against would consider you and your Buck char- acter more than a little negative. And, from their point of view, they'd be correct, because to them negative means anything that criticizes or goes against what they believe to be true and correct. I thought that earlier you yourself were making the point that the injunction to never entertain nega- tivity and never denounce anyone was a two-edged sword that could be (and, as I remember you suggest- ing, was) used by the TMO to control minds and opinions. I agree with that earlier assessment, and feel that what you propose above is just another flavor of it. Who gets to decide what is negative and what is not? You? The mysterious we you refer to below? Not. Gonna. Happen. :-) You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right. We should do more to protect that privilege. This is a simple guideline that is very easily enforced. Coulld just revoke someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being negative like that. Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so it comes up every time. It's a uniform code of justice to attend to that we could all use and our moderators enforce. We'd all be
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
Aha Renie the TMO songwriter beside Rick Archer have many nice innocent memories of a long gone era- so cute -thanks See how children in the K-2 kindergarten (4 years old!) chant Saha Nav Avatu at the MCEE Maharishi Centre for Educational Excellence in Lambakheda Bhopal India now http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6cjZYTei3Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6cjZYTei3Y MMY amusingly with many blissful giggles likes to describe it as: â various degrees of happiness enjoyed by the different beings in creationâ --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Doug, this is the translation, as I remember it. It's not at all like anything, I've googled. For whatever reason, this is how Maharishi wanted us to understand the translation. IMO Maharishi's translation has less to do with the actual meaning of the Sanskrit words and more to do with the intention he wanted to convey on the feeling level of one's experience. Let us be together Let us eat together Let us be radiating the light of truth together Never shall we denounce anyone Never entertain negativity I found the correct translation of Saha Nav Avatu I tried to recall: Let us be together Let us eat together Let us be vital together Let us be radiating truth, radiating the light of life never shall we denounce anyone never entertain negativity. Saha nav avatu, Saha nau bhunaktu Saha viryam karavavahai Tejasvi nav adhitam astu, Ma vidvishavahai http://reniepraver.com/home/ Other version to listen to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEbvC19vu5c http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEbvC19vu5c Breathing instruction how to chant (remember the intimate connection between syllables. Lower jaw is first syllable or former form, upper jaw is next syllable or next form) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdVj37f6B1Mfeature=endscreen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdVj37f6B1Mfeature=endscreen âOm. May Brahman (the one divine Self in all) protect us both (student and teacher); May Brahman nourish us both; may we both acquire energy (by this education); May we never? quarrel? Om, Peace Peace, Peace.â http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFoiMFTaFFU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFoiMFTaFFU oá¹ saha nÄvavatu saha nau bhunaktu saha vÄ«ryaá¹ karavÄvahai tejasvinÄvadhÄ«tamastu mÄ vidviá¹£Ävahai oá¹ ÅÄntiḥ ÅÄntiḥ ÅÄntiḥ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=Wl2CagOL7T4#t=1\ 10s http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=Wl2CagOL7T4#t=\ 110s http://tinyurl.com/74tj593 http://tinyurl.com/74tj593 This is a chant used by the teacher and the students for a better transfer of learning, to foster togetherness and the attitudes required for the successful transfer of such learning. OM Let both of us protect each other together. May both of us enjoy together. May both of us work together. Let our study become radiant, let there be no hatred between us. OM Peace, Peace, Peace. from the Cd: Mantram - Chants of India, produced by George Harrison Forgive me:Too late to go into translation and Sanskrit lesson or discussion --maybe another stroke of blissful togetherness ..later... BTW Buck s Message #302922 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/302922 Windham's poem: Broad is the road that leads to death http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl2CagOL7T4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl2CagOL7T4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Fm1bJuiIg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Fm1bJuiIg based on Matthew 7:13 (Jesus is saying that choosing Him is neither the popular nor the easy way!)Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. + Isaiah 35:8 http://bible.cc/isaiah/35-8.htm And a highway will be there; it will be called the Way of Holiness. The unclean will not journey on it; it will be for those who walk in that Way; wicked fools will not go about on it The beginning of a life of Jesu discipleship (the gate) and the process of discipleship (the way) are both restrictive and both involve persecution.(!--so be nice to Buck ) Not sure is this a reference to his Dome -page-dilemma seeing -on the broad road to hell- different saints not choosing MMY narrow road??only or vice versa- tiresome [:D] John Oxenham wrote about that(in original old style)... âTo every man there openeth A way and ways and a way; And the high soul treads the high way, And the low soul gropes the low; And in between on the misty flats The rest drift to and fro; But to every man there openeth A high way and a low; And every man decideth The way his soul shall go.â anonym What poor, despised company Of travelers are these, That walk in yonder narrow way, Along that rugged maze? Why, they are of a royal line, All children of a King: Heirs of immortal crowns divine, And loud for joy they sing. But some of them seem
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@ wrote: Regarding being true to one's nature on here, is there any other choice? I was thinking about what the difference in self-structure is, between the person full of thoughts about who they are, and the person with a rested mind. I can picture my own experience as previously living within a sphere of totality of myself, with a big impenetrable nucleus at the center. So I was aware of everything around the nucleus, except the nucleus itself (which was a completely unsustainable state). Then, once it began to develop cracks and rapidly break apart, there became nothing left to hold onto. This distinction regarding our awareness is a crucial one in determining our personal truth, and that of others. I find that once the nucleus becomes known to us, it becomes easy to spot it in others, whether they are aware of it or not. The difference between having exploded one's nucleus and not is in the former case, we are oneness within. However if the tight nucleus of ego remains, we are constantly in a state of duality within ourselves, the known and the unknown, or the comfortable and uncomfortable. If someone is in a state of ignorance wrt their inner nature, then that person will see the world as completely different than someone with full knowledge of themselves. Two completely different worlds, even though outer experience may appear similar. So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us, it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate attempt at deception or obfuscation. I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely differences in awareness account for whether a person believes there is *justification* for saying something they know to be false, but you really can't make much of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others. So true: Judy:(In a post where she repeatedly accused me of being unethical!) The only ploy Curtis has to rebut this uncomfortable fact is the claim, which he's made in other posts, that I brainwashed all of them into concurring with me, Definitely more of a consciously lying thing than just a difference in awareness. Each type of person has their own awareness, one is complete and one is incomplete. Comparing the two is a futile exercise in apples and oranges. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry, but since you nailed it I can get off with just a: what he said. Favorite line: Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) You sure that's what Buck means? I wouldn't be in favor of legislating it, but IMHO FFL would be a better, more enjoyable place, and its discussions more interesting and productive, if we all would refrain from personal attacks against each other, if we could express our disagreements without being disagreeable, in Obama's phrase. Wouldn't hurt if we all made an effort to be as truthful as we possibly can, either. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife. Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL. We'll miss you. :-) Seriously, dude, what would you call all your endless posts denouncing Bevan and the Rajas? Negative is a RELATIVE concept, not an absolute one. I'd be willing to bet that any of the people you rail against would consider you and your Buck char- acter more than a little negative. And, from their point of view, they'd be correct, because to them negative means anything that criticizes or goes against what they believe to be true and correct. I thought that earlier you yourself were making the point that the injunction to never entertain nega- tivity and never denounce anyone was a two-edged sword that could be (and, as I remember you suggest- ing, was) used by the TMO to control minds and opinions. I agree with that earlier assessment, and feel that what you propose above is just another flavor of it. Who gets to decide what is negative and what is not? You? The mysterious we you refer to below? Not. Gonna. Happen. :-) You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right. We should do more to
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
Aha Renie the TMO songwriter beside Rick Archer have many nice innocent memories of a long gone era- so cute -thanks See how children in the K-2 kindergarten (4 years old!) chant Saha Nav Avatu at the MCEE Maharishi Centre for Educational Excellence in Lambakheda Bhopal India now http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6cjZYTei3Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6cjZYTei3Y MMY amusingly with many blissful giggles likes to describe it as: â various degrees of happiness enjoyed by the different beings in creationâ --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Doug, this is the translation, as I remember it. It's not at all like anything, I've googled. For whatever reason, this is how Maharishi wanted us to understand the translation. IMO Maharishi's translation has less to do with the actual meaning of the Sanskrit words and more to do with the intention he wanted to convey on the feeling level of one's experience. Let us be together Let us eat together Let us be radiating the light of truth together Never shall we denounce anyone Never entertain negativity I found the correct translation of Saha Nav Avatu I tried to recall: Let us be together Let us eat together Let us be vital together Let us be radiating truth, radiating the light of life never shall we denounce anyone never entertain negativity. Saha nav avatu, Saha nau bhunaktu Saha viryam karavavahai Tejasvi nav adhitam astu, Ma vidvishavahai http://reniepraver.com/home/ Other version to listen to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEbvC19vu5c http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEbvC19vu5c Breathing instruction how to chant (remember the intimate connection between syllables. Lower jaw is first syllable or former form, upper jaw is next syllable or next form) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdVj37f6B1Mfeature=endscreen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdVj37f6B1Mfeature=endscreen âOm. May Brahman (the one divine Self in all) protect us both (student and teacher); May Brahman nourish us both; may we both acquire energy (by this education); May we never? quarrel? Om, Peace Peace, Peace.â http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFoiMFTaFFU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFoiMFTaFFU oá¹ saha nÄvavatu saha nau bhunaktu saha vÄ«ryaá¹ karavÄvahai tejasvinÄvadhÄ«tamastu mÄ vidviá¹£Ävahai oá¹ ÅÄntiḥ ÅÄntiḥ ÅÄntiḥ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=Wl2CagOL7T4#t=1\ 10s http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=Wl2CagOL7T4#t=\ 110s http://tinyurl.com/74tj593 http://tinyurl.com/74tj593 This is a chant used by the teacher and the students for a better transfer of learning, to foster togetherness and the attitudes required for the successful transfer of such learning. OM Let both of us protect each other together. May both of us enjoy together. May both of us work together. Let our study become radiant, let there be no hatred between us. OM Peace, Peace, Peace. from the Cd: Mantram - Chants of India, produced by George Harrison Forgive me:Too late to go into translation and Sanskrit lesson or discussion --maybe another stroke of blissful togetherness ..later... BTW Buck s Message #302922 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/302922 Windham's poem: Broad is the road that leads to death http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07NMeF9PHTs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07NMeF9PHTs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Fm1bJuiIg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Fm1bJuiIg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZNT_H5DxlI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Fm1bJuiIg based on Matthew 7:13 (Jesus is saying that choosing Him is neither the popular nor the easy way!)Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. + Isaiah 35:8 http://bible.cc/isaiah/35-8.htm And a highway will be there; it will be called the Way of Holiness. The unclean will not journey on it; it will be for those who walk in that Way; wicked fools will not go about on it The beginning of a life of Jesu discipleship (the gate) and the process of discipleship (the way) are both restrictive and both involve persecution.(!--so be nice to Buck ) Not sure is this a reference to his Dome -page-dilemma seeing -on the broad road to hell- different saints not choosing MMY narrow road??only or vice versa- tiresome [:D] John Oxenham wrote about that(in original old style)... âTo every man there openeth A way and ways and a way; And the high soul treads the high way, And the low soul gropes the low; And in between on the misty flats The rest drift to and fro; But to every man there openeth A high way and a low; And every man decideth The way his soul shall go.â anonym What poor, despised company Of travelers are these, That walk in yonder narrow way, Along that rugged maze? Why, they are of a royal line, All children of a
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@ wrote: snip So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us, it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate attempt at deception or obfuscation. I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely differences in awareness account for whether a person believes there is *justification* for saying something they know to be false, but you really can't make much of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others. So true: Judy:(In a post where she repeatedly accused me of being unethical!) The only ploy Curtis has to rebut this uncomfortable fact is the claim, which he's made in other posts, that I brainwashed all of them into concurring with me, Definitely more of a consciously lying thing than just a difference in awareness. Right. I think you were consciously attempting to deceive and believed it was justified (just as Barry does when *he* attempts to perpetrate that deception): I agree that Judy has set the agenda for this angle and I have to give credit for her forceful personality that so many have taken up this perspective. (And yes I know it is possible that everyone just came to this conclusion independently, but I don't find this as likely.) That's Curtis, responding to a post in which Barry said: *No one else* ever had any doubts about Vaj's TM pedigree until she started her Gotta find a way to demonize Vaj so no one will believe him when he makes valid points campaign. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/302040
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
The Narrow Door Luke 13:22-30 Years ago, before Korea was divided, a theological professor from Yale visited a mission in northern Korea. He wanted to preach in a country church, so the mission sent him with a missionary interpreter to a rural Korean village. The professor began his sermon, âAll thought is divided into two categories, the concrete and the abstract.â The Korean interpreter looked at the tiny congregation sitting with eager attention on the floor of the little churchâtoothless grandmothers, barefoot schoolboysâand made a quick decision. âDear friends,â he translated, âI have come all the way from America to tell you about the Lord Jesus Christ.â From that point on, the sermon was firmly in the interpreterâs hands (Samuel Moffet, Christianity Today [11/14/94], p. 55).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@ wrote: Regarding being true to one's nature on here, is there any other choice? I was thinking about what the difference in self-structure is, between the person full of thoughts about who they are, and the person with a rested mind. I can picture my own experience as previously living within a sphere of totality of myself, with a big impenetrable nucleus at the center. So I was aware of everything around the nucleus, except the nucleus itself (which was a completely unsustainable state). Then, once it began to develop cracks and rapidly break apart, there became nothing left to hold onto. This distinction regarding our awareness is a crucial one in determining our personal truth, and that of others. I find that once the nucleus becomes known to us, it becomes easy to spot it in others, whether they are aware of it or not. The difference between having exploded one's nucleus and not is in the former case, we are oneness within. However if the tight nucleus of ego remains, we are constantly in a state of duality within ourselves, the known and the unknown, or the comfortable and uncomfortable. If someone is in a state of ignorance wrt their inner nature, then that person will see the world as completely different than someone with full knowledge of themselves. Two completely different worlds, even though outer experience may appear similar. So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us, it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate attempt at deception or obfuscation. I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely differences in awareness account for whether a person believes there is *justification* for saying something they know to be false, but you really can't make much of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others. So true: Judy:(In a post where she repeatedly accused me of being unethical!) The only ploy Curtis has to rebut this uncomfortable fact is the claim, which he's made in other posts, that I brainwashed all of them into concurring with me, Definitely more of a consciously lying thing than just a difference in awareness. Hi, I agree that sometimes people consciously lie to conform to an idea of themselves which they wish to project. What I don't agree with is that there is any other intent except an attempt at continued self-deception, in lieu of self knowledge.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely differences in awareness account for whether a person believes there is *justification* for saying something they know to be false, but you really can't make much of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others. Thanks Judy. Yes, of course you are right about deliberate deception being a reality. However, the thing I have been thinking about is how if someone is ignorant of their true nature, their attempts to deceive others are based on an attempt to find peace within themselves, strengthening a reality that substitutes for true self knowledge. Even though the deception appears designed for others, it is really an attempt to compensate for a lack of comprehension of one's motives, feelings and reactions. The edifice for others is purposefully built, but not primarily for the others. It is built to reflect a comfortable story that substitutes for self-knowledge. This being the case, until someone knows themselves, the only other choice is to be what you are calling dishonest. Everything is done in support of the ego. It is the nature of the beast. How can someone be true to a part of themselves they know little to nothing about? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@ wrote: Regarding being true to one's nature on here, is there any other choice? I was thinking about what the difference in self-structure is, between the person full of thoughts about who they are, and the person with a rested mind. I can picture my own experience as previously living within a sphere of totality of myself, with a big impenetrable nucleus at the center. So I was aware of everything around the nucleus, except the nucleus itself (which was a completely unsustainable state). Then, once it began to develop cracks and rapidly break apart, there became nothing left to hold onto. This distinction regarding our awareness is a crucial one in determining our personal truth, and that of others. I find that once the nucleus becomes known to us, it becomes easy to spot it in others, whether they are aware of it or not. The difference between having exploded one's nucleus and not is in the former case, we are oneness within. However if the tight nucleus of ego remains, we are constantly in a state of duality within ourselves, the known and the unknown, or the comfortable and uncomfortable. If someone is in a state of ignorance wrt their inner nature, then that person will see the world as completely different than someone with full knowledge of themselves. Two completely different worlds, even though outer experience may appear similar. So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us, it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate attempt at deception or obfuscation. I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely differences in awareness account for whether a person believes there is *justification* for saying something they know to be false, but you really can't make much of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others. Each type of person has their own awareness, one is complete and one is incomplete. Comparing the two is a futile exercise in apples and oranges. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry, but since you nailed it I can get off with just a: what he said. Favorite line: Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) You sure that's what Buck means? I wouldn't be in favor of legislating it, but IMHO FFL would be a better, more enjoyable place, and its discussions more interesting and productive, if we all would refrain from personal attacks against each other, if we could express our disagreements without being disagreeable, in Obama's phrase. Wouldn't hurt if we all made an effort to be as truthful as we possibly can, either. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife. Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL. We'll miss you. :-) Seriously, dude, what would you call all your endless posts denouncing Bevan and the Rajas? Negative is a RELATIVE concept, not an absolute one. I'd be willing to bet that any of the people you rail against would consider you and
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@... wrote: Aha Renie the TMO songwriter beside Rick Archer have many nice innocent memories of a long gone era- so cute -thanks See how children in the K-2 kindergarten (4 years old!) chant Saha Nav Avatu at the MCEE Maharishi Centre for Educational Excellence in Lambakheda Bhopal India now http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6cjZYTei3Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6cjZYTei3Y Beautiful, thanks for posting this ! MMY amusingly with many blissful giggles likes to describe it as: â various degrees of happiness enjoyed by the different beings in creationâ
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@ wrote: snip So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us, it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate attempt at deception or obfuscation. I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely differences in awareness account for whether a person believes there is *justification* for saying something they know to be false, but you really can't make much of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others. So true: Judy:(In a post where she repeatedly accused me of being unethical!) The only ploy Curtis has to rebut this uncomfortable fact is the claim, which he's made in other posts, that I brainwashed all of them into concurring with me, Definitely more of a consciously lying thing than just a difference in awareness. Right. I think you were consciously attempting to deceive and believed it was justified (just as Barry does when *he* attempts to perpetrate that deception): I agree that Judy has set the agenda for this angle and I have to give credit for her forceful personality that so many have taken up this perspective. (And yes I know it is possible that everyone just came to this conclusion independently, but I don't find this as likely.) That's Curtis, responding to a post in which Barry said: *No one else* ever had any doubts about Vaj's TM pedigree until she started her Gotta find a way to demonize Vaj so no one will believe him when he makes valid points campaign. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/302040 I should add: Yes, I know it is possible that Curtis just *forgot* what he'd said to Barry (in which case he wasn't attempting to deceive here by insinuating that *I* had been lying when I wrote the post he quotes), but I don't find this as likely. He made that post to Barry on January 17, only a little over 10 days ago. (Barry, if he were interested in his own credibility, would also have to explain how I managed the feat he describes of imbuing so many people with doubt about Vaj's TM pedigree given Barry's repeated assertions that hardly anyone reads my posts. Curtis is concerned enough with his own credibility that he at least tries to avoid having one of his attempted deceits contradict another.) My grandmother--not a religious person but a highly ethical one--used to quote a Bible verse (Isaiah, I think): Be sure your sins will find you out.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time! Well then, no wonder. saha nau avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi nau; adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . Just for fun, 'karavaavahai' - if we got it right - seems to be the 1st person *dual* (the two of us) aatmanepada (~ intransitive?) subjunctive mode form from the root 'kR' (karma, shaM-kara, yogasthaH *kuru karmaaNi*, etc.). According to Whitney, subjunctive was rather common in the Vedic Sanskrit, but became rare in the later Classical Sanskrit, and was mainly used as the so called first person imperative form (let's?).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@... wrote: I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely differences in awareness account for whether a person believes there is *justification* for saying something they know to be false, but you really can't make much of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others. Thanks Judy. Yes, of course you are right about deliberate deception being a reality. However, the thing I have been thinking about is how if someone is ignorant of their true nature, their attempts to deceive others are based on an attempt to find peace within themselves, strengthening a reality that substitutes for true self knowledge. Even though the deception appears designed for others, it is really an attempt to compensate for a lack of comprehension of one's motives, feelings and reactions. The edifice for others is purposefully built, but not primarily for the others. It is built to reflect a comfortable story that substitutes for self-knowledge. This being the case, until someone knows themselves, the only other choice is to be what you are calling dishonest. Everything is done in support of the ego. It is the nature of the beast. How can someone be true to a part of themselves they know little to nothing about? I tend to agree with this. The ego is a kind of mis-perception of experience, it really is not some kind of entity, it is more like a bad habit that has to be untrained, but seeing through the ego requires waking up, seeing that our whole conceptual world is a fabrication, a lie we never knew existed, a lie whose depth can take the breath away when exposed. One does not really suspect how twisted one's thought and action is until one sees through this. And seeing through this is for most just the beginning of being able to unravel self-deception. Being 'spiritual' often results in one set of self-deceptive lies being substituted for former ones. Not a big difference. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@ wrote: Regarding being true to one's nature on here, is there any other choice? I was thinking about what the difference in self-structure is, between the person full of thoughts about who they are, and the person with a rested mind. I can picture my own experience as previously living within a sphere of totality of myself, with a big impenetrable nucleus at the center. So I was aware of everything around the nucleus, except the nucleus itself (which was a completely unsustainable state). Then, once it began to develop cracks and rapidly break apart, there became nothing left to hold onto. This distinction regarding our awareness is a crucial one in determining our personal truth, and that of others. I find that once the nucleus becomes known to us, it becomes easy to spot it in others, whether they are aware of it or not. The difference between having exploded one's nucleus and not is in the former case, we are oneness within. However if the tight nucleus of ego remains, we are constantly in a state of duality within ourselves, the known and the unknown, or the comfortable and uncomfortable. If someone is in a state of ignorance wrt their inner nature, then that person will see the world as completely different than someone with full knowledge of themselves. Two completely different worlds, even though outer experience may appear similar. So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us, it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate attempt at deception or obfuscation. I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely differences in awareness account for whether a person believes there is *justification* for saying something they know to be false, but you really can't make much of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others. Each type of person has their own awareness, one is complete and one is incomplete. Comparing the two is a futile exercise in apples and oranges. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry, but since you nailed it I can get off with just a: what he said. Favorite line: Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) You sure that's what Buck means? I wouldn't be in favor of legislating it, but IMHO FFL would be a better, more enjoyable place, and its discussions more interesting and productive, if we all would refrain from personal attacks against each other, if we could express our disagreements without
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@... wrote: I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely differences in awareness account for whether a person believes there is *justification* for saying something they know to be false, but you really can't make much of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others. Thanks Judy. Yes, of course you are right about deliberate deception being a reality. However, the thing I have been thinking about is how if someone is ignorant of their true nature, their attempts to deceive others are based on an attempt to find peace within themselves, strengthening a reality that substitutes for true self knowledge. Maybe this is what I had in mind with regard to justification of deceit, but in different words? IOW, deceit may enable one to find a measure of peace (short-lived though it may be), as long as one is able to justify it to oneself. Even though the deception appears designed for others, it is really an attempt to compensate for a lack of comprehension of one's motives, feelings and reactions. The edifice for others is purposefully built, but not primarily for the others. It is built to reflect a comfortable story that substitutes for self-knowledge. I can buy this. This being the case, until someone knows themselves, the only other choice is to be what you are calling dishonest. Everything is done in support of the ego. It is the nature of the beast. How can someone be true to a part of themselves they know little to nothing about? Well, yes, but even among those who don't know themselves in the sense you're talking about, some are more prone to deliberate deceit than others, no? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@ wrote: Regarding being true to one's nature on here, is there any other choice? I was thinking about what the difference in self-structure is, between the person full of thoughts about who they are, and the person with a rested mind. I can picture my own experience as previously living within a sphere of totality of myself, with a big impenetrable nucleus at the center. So I was aware of everything around the nucleus, except the nucleus itself (which was a completely unsustainable state). Then, once it began to develop cracks and rapidly break apart, there became nothing left to hold onto. This distinction regarding our awareness is a crucial one in determining our personal truth, and that of others. I find that once the nucleus becomes known to us, it becomes easy to spot it in others, whether they are aware of it or not. The difference between having exploded one's nucleus and not is in the former case, we are oneness within. However if the tight nucleus of ego remains, we are constantly in a state of duality within ourselves, the known and the unknown, or the comfortable and uncomfortable. If someone is in a state of ignorance wrt their inner nature, then that person will see the world as completely different than someone with full knowledge of themselves. Two completely different worlds, even though outer experience may appear similar. So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us, it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate attempt at deception or obfuscation. I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely differences in awareness account for whether a person believes there is *justification* for saying something they know to be false, but you really can't make much of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others. Each type of person has their own awareness, one is complete and one is incomplete. Comparing the two is a futile exercise in apples and oranges. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry, but since you nailed it I can get off with just a: what he said. Favorite line: Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) You sure that's what Buck means? I wouldn't be in favor of legislating it, but IMHO FFL would be a better, more enjoyable place, and its discussions more interesting and productive, if we all would refrain from personal attacks against each other, if we could express our disagreements without being disagreeable, in Obama's phrase. Wouldn't hurt if we all made an effort to be as truthful as we possibly can, either. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
Well, yes, but even among those who don't know themselves in the sense you're talking about, some are more prone to deliberate deceit than others, no? I see a parallel relationship between the amount of deception a person perpetuates and the cynical nature of their being. Someone who has essentially given up on any further development for themselves will practice more self deception. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@ wrote: I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely differences in awareness account for whether a person believes there is *justification* for saying something they know to be false, but you really can't make much of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others. Thanks Judy. Yes, of course you are right about deliberate deception being a reality. However, the thing I have been thinking about is how if someone is ignorant of their true nature, their attempts to deceive others are based on an attempt to find peace within themselves, strengthening a reality that substitutes for true self knowledge. Maybe this is what I had in mind with regard to justification of deceit, but in different words? IOW, deceit may enable one to find a measure of peace (short-lived though it may be), as long as one is able to justify it to oneself. Even though the deception appears designed for others, it is really an attempt to compensate for a lack of comprehension of one's motives, feelings and reactions. The edifice for others is purposefully built, but not primarily for the others. It is built to reflect a comfortable story that substitutes for self-knowledge. I can buy this. This being the case, until someone knows themselves, the only other choice is to be what you are calling dishonest. Everything is done in support of the ego. It is the nature of the beast. How can someone be true to a part of themselves they know little to nothing about? Well, yes, but even among those who don't know themselves in the sense you're talking about, some are more prone to deliberate deceit than others, no? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@ wrote: Regarding being true to one's nature on here, is there any other choice? I was thinking about what the difference in self-structure is, between the person full of thoughts about who they are, and the person with a rested mind. I can picture my own experience as previously living within a sphere of totality of myself, with a big impenetrable nucleus at the center. So I was aware of everything around the nucleus, except the nucleus itself (which was a completely unsustainable state). Then, once it began to develop cracks and rapidly break apart, there became nothing left to hold onto. This distinction regarding our awareness is a crucial one in determining our personal truth, and that of others. I find that once the nucleus becomes known to us, it becomes easy to spot it in others, whether they are aware of it or not. The difference between having exploded one's nucleus and not is in the former case, we are oneness within. However if the tight nucleus of ego remains, we are constantly in a state of duality within ourselves, the known and the unknown, or the comfortable and uncomfortable. If someone is in a state of ignorance wrt their inner nature, then that person will see the world as completely different than someone with full knowledge of themselves. Two completely different worlds, even though outer experience may appear similar. So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us, it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate attempt at deception or obfuscation. I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely differences in awareness account for whether a person believes there is *justification* for saying something they know to be false, but you really can't make much of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others. Each type of person has their own awareness, one is complete and one is incomplete. Comparing the two is a futile exercise in apples and oranges. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry, but since you nailed it I can get off with just a: what he said. Favorite line: Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) You sure that's what Buck
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
Yep, two completely different worlds, one clear and transparent, the other twisted externally to satisfy an internal need. Never the twain shall meet. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@ wrote: I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely differences in awareness account for whether a person believes there is *justification* for saying something they know to be false, but you really can't make much of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others. Thanks Judy. Yes, of course you are right about deliberate deception being a reality. However, the thing I have been thinking about is how if someone is ignorant of their true nature, their attempts to deceive others are based on an attempt to find peace within themselves, strengthening a reality that substitutes for true self knowledge. Even though the deception appears designed for others, it is really an attempt to compensate for a lack of comprehension of one's motives, feelings and reactions. The edifice for others is purposefully built, but not primarily for the others. It is built to reflect a comfortable story that substitutes for self-knowledge. This being the case, until someone knows themselves, the only other choice is to be what you are calling dishonest. Everything is done in support of the ego. It is the nature of the beast. How can someone be true to a part of themselves they know little to nothing about? I tend to agree with this. The ego is a kind of mis-perception of experience, it really is not some kind of entity, it is more like a bad habit that has to be untrained, but seeing through the ego requires waking up, seeing that our whole conceptual world is a fabrication, a lie we never knew existed, a lie whose depth can take the breath away when exposed. One does not really suspect how twisted one's thought and action is until one sees through this. And seeing through this is for most just the beginning of being able to unravel self-deception. Being 'spiritual' often results in one set of self-deceptive lies being substituted for former ones. Not a big difference. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@ wrote: Regarding being true to one's nature on here, is there any other choice? I was thinking about what the difference in self-structure is, between the person full of thoughts about who they are, and the person with a rested mind. I can picture my own experience as previously living within a sphere of totality of myself, with a big impenetrable nucleus at the center. So I was aware of everything around the nucleus, except the nucleus itself (which was a completely unsustainable state). Then, once it began to develop cracks and rapidly break apart, there became nothing left to hold onto. This distinction regarding our awareness is a crucial one in determining our personal truth, and that of others. I find that once the nucleus becomes known to us, it becomes easy to spot it in others, whether they are aware of it or not. The difference between having exploded one's nucleus and not is in the former case, we are oneness within. However if the tight nucleus of ego remains, we are constantly in a state of duality within ourselves, the known and the unknown, or the comfortable and uncomfortable. If someone is in a state of ignorance wrt their inner nature, then that person will see the world as completely different than someone with full knowledge of themselves. Two completely different worlds, even though outer experience may appear similar. So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us, it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate attempt at deception or obfuscation. I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely differences in awareness account for whether a person believes there is *justification* for saying something they know to be false, but you really can't make much of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others. Each type of person has their own awareness, one is complete and one is incomplete. Comparing the two is a futile exercise in apples and oranges. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry, but since you nailed it I can get off with just a: what he said. Favorite line: Call the media. Buck has just suggested that Fairfield Life be run the way the TMO is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
yeah it is an all or nothing scenario. No one is ever a little bit awake, just as no one is a little bit pregnant. Once the curtain goes up, or falls down, the reality experienced from that moment on is as different from the previously ego based justification, as day is from night. Even though I might have sensory experiences outside my ordinary spectrum as a result of meditation, they are not really spiritual experiences, because the ego will always see them in terms of itself. As long as the ego is running the show, there is no chance of comprehending a spiritual existence. It is like being on the wrong side of a two way mirror. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@... wrote: Yep, two completely different worlds, one clear and transparent, the other twisted externally to satisfy an internal need. Never the twain shall meet. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@ wrote: I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely differences in awareness account for whether a person believes there is *justification* for saying something they know to be false, but you really can't make much of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others. Thanks Judy. Yes, of course you are right about deliberate deception being a reality. However, the thing I have been thinking about is how if someone is ignorant of their true nature, their attempts to deceive others are based on an attempt to find peace within themselves, strengthening a reality that substitutes for true self knowledge. Even though the deception appears designed for others, it is really an attempt to compensate for a lack of comprehension of one's motives, feelings and reactions. The edifice for others is purposefully built, but not primarily for the others. It is built to reflect a comfortable story that substitutes for self-knowledge. This being the case, until someone knows themselves, the only other choice is to be what you are calling dishonest. Everything is done in support of the ego. It is the nature of the beast. How can someone be true to a part of themselves they know little to nothing about? I tend to agree with this. The ego is a kind of mis-perception of experience, it really is not some kind of entity, it is more like a bad habit that has to be untrained, but seeing through the ego requires waking up, seeing that our whole conceptual world is a fabrication, a lie we never knew existed, a lie whose depth can take the breath away when exposed. One does not really suspect how twisted one's thought and action is until one sees through this. And seeing through this is for most just the beginning of being able to unravel self-deception. Being 'spiritual' often results in one set of self-deceptive lies being substituted for former ones. Not a big difference. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@ wrote: Regarding being true to one's nature on here, is there any other choice? I was thinking about what the difference in self-structure is, between the person full of thoughts about who they are, and the person with a rested mind. I can picture my own experience as previously living within a sphere of totality of myself, with a big impenetrable nucleus at the center. So I was aware of everything around the nucleus, except the nucleus itself (which was a completely unsustainable state). Then, once it began to develop cracks and rapidly break apart, there became nothing left to hold onto. This distinction regarding our awareness is a crucial one in determining our personal truth, and that of others. I find that once the nucleus becomes known to us, it becomes easy to spot it in others, whether they are aware of it or not. The difference between having exploded one's nucleus and not is in the former case, we are oneness within. However if the tight nucleus of ego remains, we are constantly in a state of duality within ourselves, the known and the unknown, or the comfortable and uncomfortable. If someone is in a state of ignorance wrt their inner nature, then that person will see the world as completely different than someone with full knowledge of themselves. Two completely different worlds, even though outer experience may appear similar. So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us, it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate attempt at deception or obfuscation. I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely differences in
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@... wrote: yeah it is an all or nothing scenario. No one is ever a little bit awake, just as no one is a little bit pregnant. Once the curtain goes up, or falls down, the reality experienced from that moment on is as different from the previously ego based justification, as day is from night. Even though I might have sensory experiences outside my ordinary spectrum as a result of meditation, they are not really spiritual experiences, because the ego will always see them in terms of itself. As long as the ego is running the show, there is no chance of comprehending a spiritual existence. It is like being on the wrong side of a two way mirror. Oh, that's a great metaphor!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
I calls em as I sees em.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@ wrote: yeah it is an all or nothing scenario. No one is ever a little bit awake, just as no one is a little bit pregnant. Once the curtain goes up, or falls down, the reality experienced from that moment on is as different from the previously ego based justification, as day is from night. Even though I might have sensory experiences outside my ordinary spectrum as a result of meditation, they are not really spiritual experiences, because the ego will always see them in terms of itself. As long as the ego is running the show, there is no chance of comprehending a spiritual existence. It is like being on the wrong side of a two way mirror. Oh, that's a great metaphor!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
Based on your reply and some other evidence - lol, I am beginning to think Sistahs generally awaken more quietly than Dudes? Probably related to your direct link to the creation process, aka babies, and our making a bigger deal out of any analogues to that we can find. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@ wrote: yeah it is an all or nothing scenario. No one is ever a little bit awake, just as no one is a little bit pregnant. Once the curtain goes up, or falls down, the reality experienced from that moment on is as different from the previously ego based justification, as day is from night. Even though I might have sensory experiences outside my ordinary spectrum as a result of meditation, they are not really spiritual experiences, because the ego will always see them in terms of itself. As long as the ego is running the show, there is no chance of comprehending a spiritual existence. It is like being on the wrong side of a two way mirror. Oh, that's a great metaphor!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@... wrote: Based on your reply and some other evidence - lol, I am beginning to think Sistahs generally awaken more quietly than Dudes? Probably related to your direct link to the creation process, aka babies, and our making a bigger deal out of any analogues to that we can find. :-) Well, I wasn't going to mention it, but... ;-) One is either pregnant or not pregnant, but once one *becomes* pregnant, it does take awhile for the pregnancy to bear fruit, as it were. Perhaps for men it's more like being born. I've said here before that my own progress, while lacking flashy experiences and distinct transitions, has seemed to be one of gradually increasing transparency. That's why your two-way mirror metaphor appealed to me: it's as if I'm increasingly able to see through the one-way side of the mirror. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@ wrote: yeah it is an all or nothing scenario. No one is ever a little bit awake, just as no one is a little bit pregnant. Once the curtain goes up, or falls down, the reality experienced from that moment on is as different from the previously ego based justification, as day is from night. Even though I might have sensory experiences outside my ordinary spectrum as a result of meditation, they are not really spiritual experiences, because the ego will always see them in terms of itself. As long as the ego is running the show, there is no chance of comprehending a spiritual existence. It is like being on the wrong side of a two way mirror. Oh, that's a great metaphor!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@ wrote: Based on your reply and some other evidence - lol, I am beginning to think Sistahs generally awaken more quietly than Dudes? Probably related to your direct link to the creation process, aka babies, and our making a bigger deal out of any analogues to that we can find. :-) Well, I wasn't going to mention it, but... ;-) ** LOL One is either pregnant or not pregnant, but once one *becomes* pregnant, it does take awhile for the pregnancy to bear fruit, as it were. Perhaps for men it's more like being born. I've said here before that my own progress, while lacking flashy experiences and distinct transitions, has seemed to be one of gradually increasing transparency. That's why your two-way mirror metaphor appealed to me: it's as if I'm increasingly able to see through the one-way side of the mirror. ** Its interesting - because my experience of waking up was much more dramatic, literally like giving birth to myself. There has been and continues to be certainly mucho integration after the fact, however the transition itself was more abrupt than I suppose it may be for a woman. I have heard about the gradual awakening, which is more my wife's style, and couldn't understand it, until I had gained some distance from my own initial Sunset Boulevard experience. Yes, the ability to see right through others is gained; clarity, what a concept. However, by seeing the now obvious, I have learned that it never gives me the right to state such a thing about someone else, unless it is with the other's permission. Funny how that works. I worked out the power/responsibility direct relationship awhile ago, and am learning that it scales... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, futur.musik futur.musik@ wrote: yeah it is an all or nothing scenario. No one is ever a little bit awake, just as no one is a little bit pregnant. Once the curtain goes up, or falls down, the reality experienced from that moment on is as different from the previously ego based justification, as day is from night. Even though I might have sensory experiences outside my ordinary spectrum as a result of meditation, they are not really spiritual experiences, because the ego will always see them in terms of itself. As long as the ego is running the show, there is no chance of comprehending a spiritual existence. It is like being on the wrong side of a two way mirror. Oh, that's a great metaphor!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: this is the translation, as I remember it. It's not at all like anything, I've googled. For whatever reason, this is how Maharishi wanted us to understand the translation. IMO Maharishi's translation has less to do with the actual meaning of the Sanskrit words and more to do with the intention he wanted to convey on the feeling level of one's experience. Let us be together Let us eat together Let us be radiating the light of truth together Never shall we denounce anyone Never entertain negativity Thanks, those last two inserted lines are also the kind of culture that dictators and autocrats would use to get away with all kinds of ruthless crime and abuse. Means to ends. It also explains a lot about the nature of the TM movement culture in context. Doug, I have no idea what you're talking about. The last two lines explains nothing about the nature of TM culture. If you're trying to make a case that never entertain negativity is a plot to control TMers so that the TMO can get away with ruthless crime and abuse, you're making a conspiratorial mountain out of a mole hill. I too am thinking this showed up later in the 19What culture of dictators are you talking about? 70's. I don't remember it before then. Bevan, Neil Patterson and the Wilsons displaced and took over the reins from elders of the kinder-more-gentler old movement around then and this version of Saha nav recited even by real TB'ers today makes for a clear way of dealing with communication that is not essentially 'top-down'. It is risky any other direction than top-down. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Om, you Sanskrit scholars here, did this get transliterated right? Thanks in advance, -Buck Saha Nav Avatu Saha Nav Bhunaktu Saha Viryam Narava Yanhai Tejasvi Na Vadhitam A Stu Ma Vidisavahai Sanskrit scholars here, what does this prayer translate to? Anybody know? The translation that the TM movement recites is a couple of lines longer than the stanza has. The two added lines don't seem to go with the stanza. When did this come about and first come to be used? I have in front of me someone's hand written note card with this that references 1/8/81 MIU 2nd Christmas WPA
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: this is the translation, as I remember it. It's not at all like anything, I've googled. For whatever reason, this is how Maharishi wanted us to understand the translation. IMO Maharishi's translation has less to do with the actual meaning of the Sanskrit words and more to do with the intention he wanted to convey on the feeling level of one's experience. Let us be together Let us eat together Let us be radiating the light of truth together Never shall we denounce anyone Never entertain negativity Thanks, those last two inserted lines are also the kind of culture that dictators and autocrats would use to get away with all kinds of ruthless crime and abuse. Means to ends. It also explains a lot about the nature of the TM movement culture in context. Doug, I have no idea what you're talking about. The last two lines explains nothing about the nature of TM culture. If you're trying to make a case that never entertain negativity is a plot to control TMers so that the TMO can get away with ruthless crime and abuse, you're making a conspiratorial mountain out of a mole hill. Raunchy, I would suggest that ruthless crime and abuse may be Buck just being hyperbolic again. *On the other hand*, you have just told us how you were basically brain- washed with these phrases, having been told to repeat them over and over several times daily, while doing long program and thus in a somewhat fragile and suggestible mental state. And *to this day* you seem to find it nearly impossible to entertain negativity or denounce anyone if that someone is Maharishi or associated with the TMO. While Buck's theory may seem far-fetched, if anyone is the proof of the theory, t'would seem to be you. Scientists might suggest that if you spend years repeating to yourself over and over and over that it's bad to think negatively or denounce actual negative people when you encounter them, you might just lose the ability to do so. You literally brainwash yourself into being *unable* to do so. At least if the negative things are associated with the org that taught you what to chant. If it's someone *outside* that org that you feel negatively about and want to denounce, you seem to have no problems doing that. So I think you can relax in that you were successful only in *partially* brainwashing yourself. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: this is the translation, as I remember it. It's not at all like anything, I've googled. For whatever reason, this is how Maharishi wanted us to understand the translation. IMO Maharishi's translation has less to do with the actual meaning of the Sanskrit words and more to do with the intention he wanted to convey on the feeling level of one's experience. Let us be together Let us eat together Let us be radiating the light of truth together Never shall we denounce anyone Never entertain negativity Thanks, those last two inserted lines are also the kind of culture that dictators and autocrats would use to get away with all kinds of ruthless crime and abuse. Means to ends. It also explains a lot about the nature of the TM movement culture in context. Doug, I have no idea what you're talking about. The last an lines explains nothing about the nature of TM culture. If you're trying to make a case that never entertain negativity is a plot to control TMers so that the TMO can get away with ruthless crime and abuse, you're making a conspiratorial mountain out of a mole hill. Raunchy, I would suggest that ruthless crime and abuse may be Buck just being hyperbolic again. *On the other hand*, you have just told us how you were basically brain- washed with these phrases, having been told to repeat them over and over several times daily, while doing long program and thus in a somewhat fragile and suggestible mental state. And *to this day* you seem to find it nearly impossible to entertain negativity or denounce anyone if that someone is Maharishi or associated with the TMO. While Buck's theory may seem far-fetched, if anyone is the proof of the theory, t'would seem to be you. Scientists might suggest that if you spend years repeating to yourself over and over and over that it's bad to think negatively or denounce actual negative people when you encounter them, you might just lose the ability to do so. You literally brainwash yourself into being *unable* to do so. I have plenty to complain about the TMO and I have done so. The one thing I will never complain about or denounce are the blessings of TM in my life. For this, I am forever grateful to Maharishi. Never denounce anyone obviously does not refer to the TMO or Maharishi or make one weak in thinking for oneself. The prayer focuses one's attention on being uplifting, kind and truthful with others, something you should try someday, should you ever manage to deprogram yourself from compulsively denouncing TMers, of course. :-) At least if the negative things are associated with the org that taught you what to chant. If it's someone *outside* that org that you feel negatively about and want to denounce, you seem to have no problems doing that. So I think you can relax in that you were successful only in *partially* brainwashing yourself. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
Thanks for writing this Ranchy. It is archival in perspective and explains a lot by context. Saha Nav Avatu Never shall we denounce anyone. Never entertain negativity. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Om, you Sanskrit scholars here, did this get transliterated right? Thanks in advance, -Buck Saha Nav Avatu Saha Nav Bhunaktu Saha Viryam Narava Yanhai Tejasvi Na Vadhitam A Stu Ma Vidisavahai Sanskrit scholars here, what does this prayer translate to? Anybody know? The translation that the TM movement recites is a couple of lines longer than the stanza has. The two added lines don't seem to go with the stanza. When did this come about and first come to be used? I have in front of me someone's hand written note card with this that references 1/8/81 MIU 2nd Christmas WPA It seems the two added lines are, Never shall we denounce anyone Never entertain negativity. Where did these come from? Anybody know the context that these were coined and tacked these on? Before completion of the domes, when the women did program in the field house, I vaguely remember learning Saha Nav Avatu some time between October '79 when I first arrived from Amherst and the following late summer when we formed Vedic Atoms. Most of the people who came from Amherst were old-time TM teachers. I had been on the Rhode Island Ideal Society Campaign the year before. When Amherst came along, I felt like I had become one of Maharishi's foot-soldiers being deployed where ever he needed me. Our mission from Amherst was to continue creating coherence at MIU. Between arriving at MIU from Amherst and the Vedic Atom, we started reciting Saha Nav Avatu aloud before program. Also, hearing a recitation of Jaimini Sutras became part of our morning program, which included two full rounds, morning and evening. Looking back on it, I think Maharishi started the Vedic Atom program to ready us for the Mother Divine and Purusha programs that started after Vedic Atom ended Fall '81. We had been on the Atom about two months when, Maharishi invited us to his Vedic Science course in India. We arrived November 7, 1980 on the evening of Diwali. I was in India four months, rounding, seeing Maharishi almost everyday, and all the while, the Atom continued to strip away layer upon layer of my ego. By the time the Vedic Atom ended, I had been doing long program for almost 2-1/2 years. When I had an opportunity to join Mother Divine after the Atom, I declined. I decided I'd had enough of being flat broke. I googled Vedic Atom to see if I could find an answer to your question. I found a link to FFLife. I read the first paragraph of a post about the Atom and thought, Wow! Someone had an experience of the Atom just like mine. Well, it was mine. I'd completely forgotten that I had written about the Atom. http://www.mail-archive.com/fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com/msg163058.html I don't know if this helped answer your question, but it has certainly stirred a few old memories. Anyway, thanks for the memories.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
I don't know if this helped answer your question, but it has certainly stirred a few old memories. Anyway, thanks for the memories. Yep. As device back in the 1960's and 70's when the movement was a simpler place Maharishi would stay almost entirely out of every ones ethical conundrums by responding to almost every ethical questioning, Never do that which you know to be wrong., and leave it at that. As the late 1970's then 80's went along he seemed to drop off with this stock as any standard and then would just point to scientific charts about meditators having improved moral reasoning at best, and made himself even less available for questioning. Of course evidently a lot of other things were going on that not many of us knew about then. Om Oz. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Thanks for writing this (below) Ranchy. It is archival in perspective and explains a lot by context. Saha Nav Avatu Never shall we denounce anyone. Never entertain negativity. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Om, you Sanskrit scholars here, did this get transliterated right? Thanks in advance, -Buck Saha Nav Avatu Saha Nav Bhunaktu Saha Viryam Narava Yanhai Tejasvi Na Vadhitam A Stu Ma Vidisavahai Sanskrit scholars here, what does this prayer translate to? Anybody know? The translation that the TM movement recites is a couple of lines longer than the stanza has. The two added lines don't seem to go with the stanza. When did this come about and first come to be used? I have in front of me someone's hand written note card with this that references 1/8/81 MIU 2nd Christmas WPA It seems the two added lines are, Never shall we denounce anyone Never entertain negativity. Where did these come from? Anybody know the context that these were coined and tacked these on? Before completion of the domes, when the women did program in the field house, I vaguely remember learning Saha Nav Avatu some time between October '79 when I first arrived from Amherst and the following late summer when we formed Vedic Atoms. Most of the people who came from Amherst were old-time TM teachers. I had been on the Rhode Island Ideal Society Campaign the year before. When Amherst came along, I felt like I had become one of Maharishi's foot-soldiers being deployed where ever he needed me. Our mission from Amherst was to continue creating coherence at MIU. Between arriving at MIU from Amherst and the Vedic Atom, we started reciting Saha Nav Avatu aloud before program. Also, hearing a recitation of Jaimini Sutras became part of our morning program, which included two full rounds, morning and evening. Looking back on it, I think Maharishi started the Vedic Atom program to ready us for the Mother Divine and Purusha programs that started after Vedic Atom ended Fall '81. We had been on the Atom about two months when, Maharishi invited us to his Vedic Science course in India. We arrived November 7, 1980 on the evening of Diwali. I was in India four months, rounding, seeing Maharishi almost everyday, and all the while, the Atom continued to strip away layer upon layer of my ego. By the time the Vedic Atom ended, I had been doing long program for almost 2-1/2 years. When I had an opportunity to join Mother Divine after the Atom, I declined. I decided I'd had enough of being flat broke. I googled Vedic Atom to see if I could find an answer to your question. I found a link to FFLife. I read the first paragraph of a post about the Atom and thought, Wow! Someone had an experience of the Atom just like mine. Well, it was mine. I'd completely forgotten that I had written about the Atom. http://www.mail-archive.com/fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com/msg163058.html I don't know if this helped answer your question, but it has certainly stirred a few old memories. Anyway, thanks for the memories.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Om, you Sanskrit scholars here, did this get transliterated right? Thanks in advance, -Buck Saha Nav Avatu Saha Nav Bhunaktu Viryam Narava Yanai Tejasvi Na Vadhitam A Stv Ma Vidisavahai Here's ITRANS 5.1 from Sanskrit Documents ( Taittiriiya upanishad; http://sanskritdocuments.org/): saha nAvavatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha vIryaM karavAvahai . tejasvi nAvadhItamastu mA vidviShAvahai . Without sandhi it *might* be something like this (long vowels in[?] double-letters and retroflex sibilant in[?] S instead of Sh ): saha nau[1]; avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi nau; adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . 1. In Sanskrit, 'au' represents the original(?) Indo-European 'aau' -- that's why it in sandhi sometimes changes to 'aav'; the o-sound represents the original(?) 'au' (~as in English 'how'; aum - om).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time! Well then, no wonder. saha nau avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi nau; adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Om, you Sanskrit scholars here, did this get transliterated right? Thanks in advance, -Buck Saha Nav Avatu Saha Nav Bhunaktu Viryam Narava Yanai Tejasvi Na Vadhitam A Stv Ma Vidisavahai Here's ITRANS 5.1 from Sanskrit Documents ( Taittiriiya upanishad; http://sanskritdocuments.org/): saha nAvavatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha vIryaM karavAvahai . tejasvi nAvadhItamastu mA vidviShAvahai . Without sandhi it *might* be something like this (long vowels in[?] double-letters and retroflex sibilant in[?] S instead of Sh ): saha nau[1]; avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi nau; adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . 1. In Sanskrit, 'au' represents the original(?) Indo-European 'aau' -- that's why it in sandhi sometimes changes to 'aav'; the o-sound represents the original(?) 'au' (~as in English 'how'; aum - om).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
It's one of the things I really like about FairfieldLife is that people show up 'who were there' and render the story more directly. -Buck --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Thanks for writing this Ranchy. It is archival in perspective and explains a lot by context. Saha Nav Avatu Never shall we denounce anyone. Never entertain negativity. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Om, you Sanskrit scholars here, did this get transliterated right? Thanks in advance, -Buck Saha Nav Avatu Saha Nav Bhunaktu Saha Viryam Narava Yanhai Tejasvi Na Vadhitam A Stu Ma Vidisavahai Sanskrit scholars here, what does this prayer translate to? Anybody know? The translation that the TM movement recites is a couple of lines longer than the stanza has. The two added lines don't seem to go with the stanza. When did this come about and first come to be used? I have in front of me someone's hand written note card with this that references 1/8/81 MIU 2nd Christmas WPA It seems the two added lines are, Never shall we denounce anyone Never entertain negativity. Where did these come from? Anybody know the context that these were coined and tacked these on? Before completion of the domes, when the women did program in the field house, I vaguely remember learning Saha Nav Avatu some time between October '79 when I first arrived from Amherst and the following late summer when we formed Vedic Atoms. Most of the people who came from Amherst were old-time TM teachers. I had been on the Rhode Island Ideal Society Campaign the year before. When Amherst came along, I felt like I had become one of Maharishi's foot-soldiers being deployed where ever he needed me. Our mission from Amherst was to continue creating coherence at MIU. Between arriving at MIU from Amherst and the Vedic Atom, we started reciting Saha Nav Avatu aloud before program. Also, hearing a recitation of Jaimini Sutras became part of our morning program, which included two full rounds, morning and evening. Looking back on it, I think Maharishi started the Vedic Atom program to ready us for the Mother Divine and Purusha programs that started after Vedic Atom ended Fall '81. We had been on the Atom about two months when, Maharishi invited us to his Vedic Science course in India. We arrived November 7, 1980 on the evening of Diwali. I was in India four months, rounding, seeing Maharishi almost everyday, and all the while, the Atom continued to strip away layer upon layer of my ego. By the time the Vedic Atom ended, I had been doing long program for almost 2-1/2 years. When I had an opportunity to join Mother Divine after the Atom, I declined. I decided I'd had enough of being flat broke. I googled Vedic Atom to see if I could find an answer to your question. I found a link to FFLife. I read the first paragraph of a post about the Atom and thought, Wow! Someone had an experience of the Atom just like mine. Well, it was mine. I'd completely forgotten that I had written about the Atom. http://www.mail-archive.com/fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com/msg163058.html I don't know if this helped answer your question, but it has certainly stirred a few old memories. Anyway, thanks for the memories.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
A lot of the old actors around this now have either left, died or hole up somewhere; but, it would be interesting to hear what those people who pulled the levers were thinking to drain Earl Kaplan's money out of accounts that had been set-aside to pay for things even as he was up front there presenting at podiums giving and getting hundred million dollar donations for Maharishi. There were some guys on Purusha and around the President's office who would be really interesting to hear from as to what they were thinking as the pawns effectively stole millions at a time from Kaplan. As they say in Congress, you go along to get along ...To have place. Never shall we denounce anyone. Never entertain negativity. The under-world code of silence, these guys at that level are soldiers though and we'll likely never hear their story from them. However, I do hope somebody gets to collect it sometime some how though. I would suppose that would be at the Prime Minister's wake. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: It's one of the things I really like about FairfieldLife is that people show up 'who were there' and render the story more directly. -Buck --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Thanks for writing this Ranchy. It is archival in perspective and explains a lot by context. Saha Nav Avatu Never shall we denounce anyone. Never entertain negativity. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Om, you Sanskrit scholars here, did this get transliterated right? Thanks in advance, -Buck Saha Nav Avatu Saha Nav Bhunaktu Saha Viryam Narava Yanhai Tejasvi Na Vadhitam A Stu Ma Vidisavahai Sanskrit scholars here, what does this prayer translate to? Anybody know? The translation that the TM movement recites is a couple of lines longer than the stanza has. The two added lines don't seem to go with the stanza. When did this come about and first come to be used? I have in front of me someone's hand written note card with this that references 1/8/81 MIU 2nd Christmas WPA It seems the two added lines are, Never shall we denounce anyone Never entertain negativity. Where did these come from? Anybody know the context that these were coined and tacked these on? Before completion of the domes, when the women did program in the field house, I vaguely remember learning Saha Nav Avatu some time between October '79 when I first arrived from Amherst and the following late summer when we formed Vedic Atoms. Most of the people who came from Amherst were old-time TM teachers. I had been on the Rhode Island Ideal Society Campaign the year before. When Amherst came along, I felt like I had become one of Maharishi's foot-soldiers being deployed where ever he needed me. Our mission from Amherst was to continue creating coherence at MIU. Between arriving at MIU from Amherst and the Vedic Atom, we started reciting Saha Nav Avatu aloud before program. Also, hearing a recitation of Jaimini Sutras became part of our morning program, which included two full rounds, morning and evening. Looking back on it, I think Maharishi started the Vedic Atom program to ready us for the Mother Divine and Purusha programs that started after Vedic Atom ended Fall '81. We had been on the Atom about two months when, Maharishi invited us to his Vedic Science course in India. We arrived November 7, 1980 on the evening of Diwali. I was in India four months, rounding, seeing Maharishi almost everyday, and all the while, the Atom continued to strip away layer upon layer of my ego. By the time the Vedic Atom ended, I had been doing long program for almost 2-1/2 years. When I had an opportunity to join Mother Divine after the Atom, I declined. I decided I'd had enough of being flat broke. I googled Vedic Atom to see if I could find an answer to your question. I found a link to FFLife. I read the first paragraph of a post about the Atom and thought, Wow! Someone had an experience of the Atom just like mine. Well, it was mine. I'd completely forgotten that I had written about the Atom. http://www.mail-archive.com/fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com/msg163058.html I don't know if this helped answer your question, but it has certainly stirred a few old memories. Anyway, thanks for the memories.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Thanks for writing this Ranchy. It is archival in perspective and explains a lot by context. Saha Nav Avatu Never shall we denounce anyone. Never entertain negativity. Tell that to the Turq :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time! Well then, no wonder. saha nau avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi nau; adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak. The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this: saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav', without any effect on the *semantic* level. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Om, you Sanskrit scholars here, did this get transliterated right? Thanks in advance, -Buck Saha Nav Avatu Saha Nav Bhunaktu Viryam Narava Yanai Tejasvi Na Vadhitam A Stv Ma Vidisavahai Here's ITRANS 5.1 from Sanskrit Documents ( Taittiriiya upanishad; http://sanskritdocuments.org/): saha nAvavatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha vIryaM karavAvahai . tejasvi nAvadhItamastu mA vidviShAvahai . Without sandhi it *might* be something like this (long vowels in[?] double-letters and retroflex sibilant in[?] S instead of Sh ): saha nau[1]; avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai . tejasvi nau; adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . 1. In Sanskrit, 'au' represents the original(?) Indo-European 'aau' -- that's why it in sandhi sometimes changes to 'aav'; the o-sound represents the original(?) 'au' (~as in English 'how'; aum - om).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: Doug, this is the translation, as I remember it. It's not at all like anything, I've googled. For whatever reason, this is how Maharishi wanted us to understand the translation. IMO Maharishi's translation has less to do with the actual meaning of the Sanskrit words and more to do with the intention he wanted to convey on the feeling level of one's experience. Let us be together Let us eat together Let us be radiating the light of truth together Never shall we denounce anyone Never entertain negativity I found the correct translation of Saha Nav Nvatu I tried to recall: Let us be together Let us eat together Let us be vital together Let us be radiating truth, radiating the light of life never shall we denounce anyone never entertain negativity. Saha nav avatu, Saha nau bhunaktu Saha viryam karavavahai Tejasvi nav adhitam astu, Ma vidvishavahai. http://reniepraver.com/home/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: Doug, this is the translation, as I remember it. It's not at all like anything, I've googled. For whatever reason, this is how Maharishi wanted us to understand the translation. IMO Maharishi's translation has less to do with the actual meaning of the Sanskrit words and more to do with the intention he wanted to convey on the feeling level of one's experience. Let us be together Let us eat together Let us be radiating the light of truth together Never shall we denounce anyone Never entertain negativity I found the correct translation of Saha Nav Avatu I tried to recall: Let us be together Let us eat together Let us be vital together Let us be radiating truth, radiating the light of life never shall we denounce anyone never entertain negativity. Saha nav avatu, Saha nau bhunaktu Saha viryam karavavahai Tejasvi nav adhitam astu, Ma vidvishavahai http://reniepraver.com/home/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
Thanks for finding that! It has been lifetimes since I heard it, and seems like a nice one to keep around. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Doug, this is the translation, as I remember it. It's not at all like anything, I've googled. For whatever reason, this is how Maharishi wanted us to understand the translation. IMO Maharishi's translation has less to do with the actual meaning of the Sanskrit words and more to do with the intention he wanted to convey on the feeling level of one's experience. Let us be together Let us eat together Let us be radiating the light of truth together Never shall we denounce anyone Never entertain negativity I found the correct translation of Saha Nav Avatu I tried to recall: Let us be together Let us eat together Let us be vital together Let us be radiating truth, radiating the light of life never shall we denounce anyone never entertain negativity. Saha nav avatu, Saha nau bhunaktu Saha viryam karavavahai Tejasvi nav adhitam astu, Ma vidvishavahai http://reniepraver.com/home/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Om, you Sanskrit scholars here, did this get transliterated right? Thanks in advance, -Buck Saha Nav Avatu Saha Nav Bhunaktu Saha Viryam Narava Yanhai Tejasvi Na Vadhitam A Stu Ma Vidisavahai Sanskrit scholars here, what does this prayer translate to? Anybody know?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Om, you Sanskrit scholars here, did this get transliterated right? Thanks in advance, -Buck Saha Nav Avatu Saha Nav Bhunaktu Saha Viryam Narava Yanhai Tejasvi Na Vadhitam A Stu Ma Vidisavahai Sanskrit scholars here, what does this prayer translate to? Anybody know? The translation that the TM movement recites is a couple of lines longer than the stanza has. The two added lines don't seem to go with the stanza. When did this come about and first come to be used? I have in front of me someone's hand written note card with this that references 1/8/81 MIU 2nd Christmas WPA
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Om, you Sanskrit scholars here, did this get transliterated right? Thanks in advance, -Buck Saha Nav Avatu Saha Nav Bhunaktu Saha Viryam Narava Yanhai Tejasvi Na Vadhitam A Stu Ma Vidisavahai Sanskrit scholars here, what does this prayer translate to? Anybody know? The translation that the TM movement recites is a couple of lines longer than the stanza has. The two added lines don't seem to go with the stanza. When did this come about and first come to be used? I have in front of me someone's hand written note card with this that references 1/8/81 MIU 2nd Christmas WPA It seems the two added lines are, Never shall we denounce anyone Never entertain negativity. Where did these come from? Anybody know the context that these were coined and tacked these on?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Om, you Sanskrit scholars here, did this get transliterated right? Thanks in advance, -Buck Saha Nav Avatu Saha Nav Bhunaktu Saha Viryam Narava Yanhai Tejasvi Na Vadhitam A Stu Ma Vidisavahai Sanskrit scholars here, what does this prayer translate to? Anybody know? The translation that the TM movement recites is a couple of lines longer than the stanza has. The two added lines don't seem to go with the stanza. When did this come about and first come to be used? I have in front of me someone's hand written note card with this that references 1/8/81 MIU 2nd Christmas WPA It seems the two added lines are, Never shall we denounce anyone Never entertain negativity. Where did these come from? Anybody know the context that these were coined and tacked these on? Before completion of the domes, when the women did program in the field house, I vaguely remember learning Saha Nav Avatu some time between October '79 when I first arrived from Amherst and the following late summer when we formed Vedic Atoms. Most of the people who came from Amherst were old-time TM teachers. I had been on the Rhode Island Ideal Society Campaign the year before. When Amherst came along, I felt like I had become one of Maharishi's foot-soldiers being deployed where ever he needed me. Our mission from Amherst was to continue creating coherence at MIU. Between arriving at MIU from Amherst and the Vedic Atom, we started reciting Saha Nav Avatu aloud before program. Also, hearing a recitation of Jaimini Sutras became part of our morning program, which included two full rounds, morning and evening. Looking back on it, I think Maharishi started the Vedic Atom program to ready us for the Mother Divine and Purusha programs that started after Vedic Atom ended Fall '81. We had been on the Atom about two months when, Maharishi invited us to his Vedic Science course in India. We arrived November 7, 1980 on the evening of Diwali. I was in India four months, rounding, seeing Maharishi almost everyday, and all the while, the Atom continued to strip away layer upon layer of my ego. By the time the Vedic Atom ended, I had been doing long program for almost 2-1/2 years. When I had an opportunity to join Mother Divine after the Atom, I declined. I decided I'd had enough of being flat broke. I googled Vedic Atom to see if I could find an answer to your question. I found a link to FFLife. I read the first paragraph of a post about the Atom and thought, Wow! Someone had an experience of the Atom just like mine. Well, it was mine. I'd completely forgotten that I had written about the Atom. http://www.mail-archive.com/fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com/msg163058.html I don't know if this helped answer your question, Doug, but it has certainly stirred a few old memories. Anyway, thanks for the memories.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
Doug, this is the translation, as I remember it. It's not at all like anything, I've googled. For whatever reason, this is how Maharishi wanted us to understand the translation. IMO Maharishi's translation has less to do with the actual meaning of the Sanskrit words and more to do with the intention he wanted to convey on the feeling level of one's experience. Let us be together Let us eat together Let us be radiating the light of truth together Never shall we denounce anyone Never entertain negativity --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Om, you Sanskrit scholars here, did this get transliterated right? Thanks in advance, -Buck Saha Nav Avatu Saha Nav Bhunaktu Saha Viryam Narava Yanhai Tejasvi Na Vadhitam A Stu Ma Vidisavahai Sanskrit scholars here, what does this prayer translate to? Anybody know? The translation that the TM movement recites is a couple of lines longer than the stanza has. The two added lines don't seem to go with the stanza. When did this come about and first come to be used? I have in front of me someone's hand written note card with this that references 1/8/81 MIU 2nd Christmas WPA
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: this is the translation, as I remember it. It's not at all like anything, I've googled. For whatever reason, this is how Maharishi wanted us to understand the translation. IMO Maharishi's translation has less to do with the actual meaning of the Sanskrit words and more to do with the intention he wanted to convey on the feeling level of one's experience. Let us be together Let us eat together Let us be radiating the light of truth together Never shall we denounce anyone Never entertain negativity Thanks, those last two inserted lines are also the kind of culture that dictators and autocrats would use to get away with all kinds of ruthless crime and abuse. Means to ends. It also explains a lot about the nature of the TM movement culture in context. I too am thinking this showed up later in the 1970's. I don't remember it before then. Bevan, Neil Patterson and the Wilsons displaced and took over the reins from elders of the kinder-more-gentler old movement around then and this version of Saha nav recited even by real TB'ers today makes for a clear way of dealing with communication that is not essentially 'top-down'. It is risky any other direction than top-down. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Om, you Sanskrit scholars here, did this get transliterated right? Thanks in advance, -Buck Saha Nav Avatu Saha Nav Bhunaktu Saha Viryam Narava Yanhai Tejasvi Na Vadhitam A Stu Ma Vidisavahai Sanskrit scholars here, what does this prayer translate to? Anybody know? The translation that the TM movement recites is a couple of lines longer than the stanza has. The two added lines don't seem to go with the stanza. When did this come about and first come to be used? I have in front of me someone's hand written note card with this that references 1/8/81 MIU 2nd Christmas WPA
