[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

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

[srijau]

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

[dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

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
> > > > fin

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

> 
> 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"  >
> > 
> > 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.
 > 
> #

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  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 
> 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"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  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

[Michael Jackson]

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 
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"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  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

[Michael Jackson]

well, if you go by the never hate anyone part, then many of the poster here 
will have to go elsewhere.




 From: Buck 
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  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"  >>>
> >>> 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  wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  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

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  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

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  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"  >>>
> >>> 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  wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  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 vidviSaavaha

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[Bhairitu]

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 
> 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" >>
>>> 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  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  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

[Michael Jackson]

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 
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"  >
> > 
> > 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  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  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

[Buck]

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"  >
> > 
> > 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  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  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

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  
> > > > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > 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)
 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 bo

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister 
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 .
> > > >
> > >
>
> 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

[jpgillam]

--- 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

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  
> > > > wrote:
> > 
> > > > > 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 impo

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[Richard J. Williams]

> > > > 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

[curtisdeltablues]

-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  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"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  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. 
> >
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
> 
> > > > 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.














>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[Emily Reyn]

Alright.  I'll listen to it :)  Thank you for the instruction.  



 From: Buck 
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"  
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

[obbajeeba]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  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  baaa

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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

[seventhray1]

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"
 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"
 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 
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 entert

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[curtisdeltablues]

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  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"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  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

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[turquoiseb]

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"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  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 cla

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[curtisdeltablues]

I can easily imagine us both enjoying that Jim.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  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 pas

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[futur.musik]

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"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  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 accompl

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  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

[Buck]

> 
> > 
> > --- 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" 
> > > >  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  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 v

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[Buck]

> 
> --- 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" 
> > >  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  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 effectiv

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[Buck]

--- 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" 
> >  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  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"  > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 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 st

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[Buck]

--- 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"  
> 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  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"  > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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  
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> > > > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[Buck]

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"  
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  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"  > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 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  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  
> > > > > > 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 kar

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[futur.musik]

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

[authfriend]

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

[futur.musik]

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

[futur.musik]

I calls em as I sees em.:-)

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

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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

[futur.musik]

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"  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"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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"  wrote:
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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 dishones

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[futur.musik]

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" 
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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"  wrote:
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry,
> > > > > > but since you 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[futur.musik]

"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"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry,
> > > > > > but since you nailed it I

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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"  wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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.
> > > > 
> > > > Woul

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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"  wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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 p

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  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 . 
> > > 
> > 

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

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
> 
> > > > 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

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  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:
> 
> ” various degrees of happiness enjoyed by the different beings in
> creation”

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[futur.musik]

"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"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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  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 deno

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[futur.musik]

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

[merudanda]

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,
  “All thought is divided into two categories, the concrete and
the abstract.”
The Korean interpreter looked at the tiny congregation sitting
with eager attention on the floor of the little churchâ€"toothless
grandmothers, barefoot schoolboysâ€"and made a quick decision.
“Dear friends,” he translated, “I have come all the
way from
America to tell you about the Lord Jesus Christ.”  From that
point
on, the sermon was firmly in the interpreter’s hands
  (Samuel Moffet, Christianity Today [11/14/94], p. 55).

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:

> > > 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

[merudanda]

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



MMY amusingly "with many  blissful giggles "likes to describe it as:

” various degrees of happiness enjoyed by the different beings in
creation”


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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


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=NdVj37f6B1M&feature=endscreen


“Om. 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.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFoiMFTaFFU



oṃ saha nāvavatu
saha nau bhunaktu
saha vīryaṃ karavāvahai
tejasvināvadhītamastu mā vidviṣāvahai
oṃ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Wl2CagOL7T4#t=1\
10s


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=u4Fm1bJuiIg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZNT_H5DxlI
  

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   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)...


“To 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.”

anonym


"What poor, despised company
Of travelers are these,
That walk in yonder narrow way,
Along that 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[curtisdeltablues]

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

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[merudanda]

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



MMY amusingly "with many  blissful giggles "likes to describe it as:

” various degrees of happiness enjoyed by the different beings in
creation”


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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


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=NdVj37f6B1M&feature=endscreen


“Om. 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.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFoiMFTaFFU



oṃ saha nāvavatu
saha nau bhunaktu
saha vīryaṃ karavāvahai
tejasvināvadhītamastu mā vidviṣāvahai
oṃ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Wl2CagOL7T4#t=1\
10s


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=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   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)...


“To 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.”

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

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[authfriend]

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

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[futur.musik]

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

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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  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.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[Alex Stanley]

--- 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.  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

[curtisdeltablues]

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  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"  > >
> > > 
> > > 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  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  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 mut

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[turquoiseb]

--- 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"  >
> > 
> > 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  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  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

[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" 
> 
> 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  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  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

[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).
  


 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  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

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  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

[obbajeeba]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  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).
> 
>  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

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  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).
> 
>  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

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  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).

 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

[futur.musik]

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

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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

[cardemaister]

--- 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.



> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  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
> > > 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

[nablusoss1008]

--- 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.


Tell that to the Turq :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[Buck]

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"  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

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[Buck]

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"  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

[Buck]

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  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
> > 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

[cardemaister]

--- 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
> 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

[Buck]

>
> 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"  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

[Buck]

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"  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

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[raunchydog]

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"  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

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  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

[Buck]

> 
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- 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

[Buck]

>
> 
> 
> --- 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

[Buck]

--- 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?