Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
biosoundbill wrote: Hi Bhairitu, As far As the `M' and `NG' endings go, I don't really know which ones are the most powerful. My TM mantra ends in `NG,' but I know lots of people who were given `M' ending mantras. I often feel that MMY used both just to make up a bigger pool of mantras. eg:- there are so many versions of Sarasvati's bija! I never got an advanced technique, and often wonder how anyone could meditate effortlessly on a longer mantra? Do you for example meditate effortlessly on Om ing kling brihaspataye namah, or is this effortless way of meditating unique to TM? According to Guru Dev no householder should meditate on `OM' alone, but men can meditate on `Om' as part of a longer mantra, where as Ladies should replace the `Om' with `Shree' Namaste, Billy As far as endings go I don't think MMY made up anything. He was following some obscure tradition. There are some traditions that utilize both endings. Yes there are many mantras for each deity. That's why you have those 1000 names of Visnu, 1000 names of Kali, etc sutras. :) Once you learn a long mantra it comes just as easily as a short one. One can even meditate effortlessly on Gayatri once learned. But on long mantras some teachers in this day in age since we have the technology have people listening to them on cassette or even MP3 players. :) Most Indians will tell you that it is not good to meditate on Om alone though you can use it temporarily to calm vata but extended use may actually make vata worse. Ram may be better for vata imbalances. However mantra rules change from tradition to tradition and India is a large country with many, many traditions. Jai Ma, Bhairitu
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
Thanks Bhairitu, I guess at the end of the day learning TM is a very good way of learning to meditate effortlessly. It has certainly become a big business, and one is never quite sure as to whether MMY's motives are noble or otherwise! Once one has the technique, it makes sense to me that one should be working with energy that's missing in their lives, rather than meditating with just that one bija for the rest of one's life, despite the claims from some Gurus that one stay with one mantra only! Namaste, Billy --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: biosoundbill wrote: Hi Bhairitu, As far As the `M' and `NG' endings go, I don't really know which ones are the most powerful. My TM mantra ends in `NG,' but I know lots of people who were given `M' ending mantras. I often feel that MMY used both just to make up a bigger pool of mantras. eg:- there are so many versions of Sarasvati's bija! I never got an advanced technique, and often wonder how anyone could meditate effortlessly on a longer mantra? Do you for example meditate effortlessly on Om ing kling brihaspataye namah, or is this effortless way of meditating unique to TM? According to Guru Dev no householder should meditate on `OM' alone, but men can meditate on `Om' as part of a longer mantra, where as Ladies should replace the `Om' with `Shree' Namaste, Billy As far as endings go I don't think MMY made up anything. He was following some obscure tradition. There are some traditions that utilize both endings. Yes there are many mantras for each deity. That's why you have those 1000 names of Visnu, 1000 names of Kali, etc sutras. :) Once you learn a long mantra it comes just as easily as a short one. One can even meditate effortlessly on Gayatri once learned. But on long mantras some teachers in this day in age since we have the technology have people listening to them on cassette or even MP3 players. :) Most Indians will tell you that it is not good to meditate on Om alone though you can use it temporarily to calm vata but extended use may actually make vata worse. Ram may be better for vata imbalances. However mantra rules change from tradition to tradition and India is a large country with many, many traditions. Jai Ma, Bhairitu
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
biosoundbill wrote: Thanks Bhairitu, I guess at the end of the day learning TM is a very good way of learning to meditate effortlessly. It has certainly become a big business, and one is never quite sure as to whether MMY's motives are noble or otherwise! Once one has the technique, it makes sense to me that one should be working with energy that's missing in their lives, rather than meditating with just that one bija for the rest of one's life, despite the claims from some Gurus that one stay with one mantra only! Namaste, Billy Some traditions believe that only one mantra will create an imbalance and that balancing mantras should be given.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
Comment below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: biosoundbill wrote: Thanks Bhairitu, I guess at the end of the day learning TM is a very good way of learning to meditate effortlessly. It has certainly become a big business, and one is never quite sure as to whether MMY's motives are noble or otherwise! Once one has the technique, it makes sense to me that one should be working with energy that's missing in their lives, rather than meditating with just that one bija for the rest of one's life, despite the claims from some Gurus that one stay with one mantra only! Namaste, Billy Some traditions believe that only one mantra will create an imbalance and that balancing mantras should be given. **end** I have a friend in the East Bay who is originally from Trinidad Tobago, a hindu and Shaivite but his father is a Kali priest (now retired) and he grew up within that priestly tradition. He had a small, personal temple (originally a garage) and frequently when I visited with him and his family we'd go there to meditate and he'd always offer prayers beforehand, both in Hindi and English, sometimes a lingam puja. One thing I noticed was that when he was doing the Hindi prayers and chants, he'd end each line with the anusvara (or bindu) -ng. It didn't matter whether the word was a vowel of consonant ending, he always morphed it into -ng. It seemed to function like the drone of the sruti-box in Indian music or the drone of the tambura and really seemed to charge the environment. Good vibes. Marek
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
I'm no longer involved with the TM movement, but I still have lots of friends that are still in it. I was at a TM party recently, and clearly felt that most of them can't think for themselves, and are very ungrounded! I often wonder if this is because of all those years of meditating on a pure bija mantra! Check this link - http://books.google.com/books?id=78HRnC_- 1SICpg=PA96lpg=PA96dq=bija+mantra+are+pure+energysource=webots=g rTOmWNq7Ysig=PnbUYgD2KbWyQym5VkYd9ankmCo#PPA97,M1 In Chopra's technique each mantra has `Om' at the beginning and `Namah' at the end, with your personal syllable in the middle. Namaste, Billy --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: biosoundbill wrote: Thanks Bhairitu, I guess at the end of the day learning TM is a very good way of learning to meditate effortlessly. It has certainly become a big business, and one is never quite sure as to whether MMY's motives are noble or otherwise! Once one has the technique, it makes sense to me that one should be working with energy that's missing in their lives, rather than meditating with just that one bija for the rest of one's life, despite the claims from some Gurus that one stay with one mantra only! Namaste, Billy Some traditions believe that only one mantra will create an imbalance and that balancing mantras should be given.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
biosoundbill wrote: I'm no longer involved with the TM movement, but I still have lots of friends that are still in it. I was at a TM party recently, and clearly felt that most of them can't think for themselves, and are very ungrounded! I often wonder if this is because of all those years of meditating on a pure bija mantra! Check this link - http://books.google.com/books?id=78HRnC_- 1SICpg=PA96lpg=PA96dq=bija+mantra+are+pure+energysource=webots=g rTOmWNq7Ysig=PnbUYgD2KbWyQym5VkYd9ankmCo#PPA97,M1 In Chopra's technique each mantra has `Om' at the beginning and `Namah' at the end, with your personal syllable in the middle. Namaste, Billy What book is it? Your link won't work and using your search terms I get two pages of books but none with that ID. If mantras aren't balanced then indeed people can become ungrounded though the original 20 minutes twice a day being a light practice might not cause that at least for about 80% of practitioners. Agni mantras usually aren't used for the public but Shiva and Shanti mantras are okay. Every mantra has a certain resonance and will cause the mind and body to respond in a certain way. A good guru makes sure that the mantra (and additional mantras) are right for the aspirant.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
The Yoga of Sound by Russill Paul Google Tantric Deity Bija Mantras Shakti yoga It's the last result on page 1 - The Yoga of Sound: Healing Enlightenment Through the Sacred ... - Google Books Result Read from p91 to 97 Namaste, Billy --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: biosoundbill wrote: I'm no longer involved with the TM movement, but I still have lots of friends that are still in it. I was at a TM party recently, and clearly felt that most of them can't think for themselves, and are very ungrounded! I often wonder if this is because of all those years of meditating on a pure bija mantra! Check this link - http://books.google.com/books?id=78HRnC_- 1SICpg=PA96lpg=PA96dq=bija+mantra+are+pure+energysource=webots=g rTOmWNq7Ysig=PnbUYgD2KbWyQym5VkYd9ankmCo#PPA97,M1 In Chopra's technique each mantra has `Om' at the beginning and `Namah' at the end, with your personal syllable in the middle. Namaste, Billy What book is it? Your link won't work and using your search terms I get two pages of books but none with that ID. If mantras aren't balanced then indeed people can become ungrounded though the original 20 minutes twice a day being a light practice might not cause that at least for about 80% of practitioners. Agni mantras usually aren't used for the public but Shiva and Shanti mantras are okay. Every mantra has a certain resonance and will cause the mind and body to respond in a certain way. A good guru makes sure that the mantra (and additional mantras) are right for the aspirant.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 mainstream20016@ wrote: Curtis, this is addressed to you and I'm sure you will respond, but.may I ? Trinity3, why would you doubt that he doesn't feel independent of unconscious processes, and that he uses them (uncoscious processes) for his art ? It seems that Curtis is fully one with the creative expressions from their inception, through their expression through his art, in his case blues music performance. The concept of control of the process was introduced by your question, and isn't what he asserts. He seems to be a fully enlightened artist, at one with the first creative impulse, through its relative expression of his own voice, guitar, and physical expression. Expanding the range of awareness of the conscious mind to percieve the first impulses of creativity is what FFLers have been doing naturally for a very long time. -Mainstream Mainstream, maybe I am doing injustice to Curtis, I am certainly not doubting his creative process. Its simply my understanding of atheism as a philosophy of life. Religion, any religion certainly questions the independence of our mind /ego (while I am aware that Christianity makes it a special point that God gave man freedom of decision - not my belief) and makes it dependent on another entity, atheism asserts us that we alone are in control of our lives. At least thats what I have understood it to mean until now. Of course, everyone is aware of 'limitations' we all have,imposed to us by nature. But there is a fundamental belief that we are ourself in charge of what we believe in, that we with our mind can logically understand life and should reject irrationality. In fact religion is seen as 'irrational' by atheists, which implies that they believe in a rational understanding of life. IOW they regard ratio higher than feelings or experiences (as Curtis is never tired to point out that he regards the same mystical experiences many of us share in a different way and strips them of any religious meaning they could have.) In fact he tries to understand them rationally only, as I believe. Thus he places ratio highest, and I always understood this to mean a place where intellect is 'in control' t3rinity, you have a polar opposite view from atheism regarding the authorship of any person's thoughts. While atheism denies the existence of God, you attribute all thoughts to God - Even the thoughts of atheists' that deny God's existence!! Yes. Why do you believe that humans do not have free will ? The question I would have is: Who has the free will? Very much, what we consider ourselves to be, is just a bundle of desires impressions, reactions etc. This is how most people define themselves. They say: this is who I am. And why? Because I wanted it that way. Research shows that most of what we want and think are rationalizations, and that decisions are formed in the brain a split second before we become aware of it! What we do, and what we say why we do something are two separate issues! If you call that entity, who decides for you, life or God, or if it is simply the result of eternally cycling material processes is not my point here. My point is the illussiory character of our selves. I put the decision making into 'Gods' hand as this is a convenient term most people can relate to. I don't mean to prove the existence of a God by denying free-will. Rather I point out that an atheist has unproven belief systems, he is hardly aware of: His belief in a separate ego and his own decision-making. An atheist in short believes in himself being in charge through his ratio. Is the concept of free will too removed from the belief that God authors all ? What if God authored free will ? How would that concept fit for you ? Its Christianity. Doesn't fit for me. Why do you decide the way you decide? Why do you think the way you think, and why do others think differently than you? Then if you decide the wrong way, you have to go to eternal hell, that's the conclusion of religious free will. According to Christianities free will Curtis is doomed because he is an atheist. According to my theory of determination its simlpy a phase in his evolutionary development, and there is no guilt only different levels of understanding, and different mental and spiritual capacities. Chose what you like ;-)Everyone obviously thinks his way of thinking to be the best. But thoughts are just things that flow in the atmosphere, and we pick them up according to a feeling of resonance. That simply is there. You are not doing it, it simply happens. So there is no guilt or sin, there is just an evolutionary development. Understanding happens, its not something you can do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
Michael (t3rinity), this is part of a really excellent group of discussion threads that you are participating in with Turq, Mainstream, Curtis, etc.; thanks bunches for it. The points you articulate resonate with my experience, feelings, and (I guess) beliefs. Hope to drop in later with something more valuable than just appreciation, but don't stop now. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 mainstream20016@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 mainstream20016@ wrote: Curtis, this is addressed to you and I'm sure you will respond, but.may I ? Trinity3, why would you doubt that he doesn't feel independent of unconscious processes, and that he uses them (uncoscious processes) for his art ? It seems that Curtis is fully one with the creative expressions from their inception, through their expression through his art, in his case blues music performance. The concept of control of the process was introduced by your question, and isn't what he asserts. He seems to be a fully enlightened artist, at one with the first creative impulse, through its relative expression of his own voice, guitar, and physical expression. Expanding the range of awareness of the conscious mind to percieve the first impulses of creativity is what FFLers have been doing naturally for a very long time. -Mainstream Mainstream, maybe I am doing injustice to Curtis, I am certainly not doubting his creative process. Its simply my understanding of atheism as a philosophy of life. Religion, any religion certainly questions the independence of our mind /ego (while I am aware that Christianity makes it a special point that God gave man freedom of decision - not my belief) and makes it dependent on another entity, atheism asserts us that we alone are in control of our lives. At least thats what I have understood it to mean until now. Of course, everyone is aware of 'limitations' we all have,imposed to us by nature. But there is a fundamental belief that we are ourself in charge of what we believe in, that we with our mind can logically understand life and should reject irrationality. In fact religion is seen as 'irrational' by atheists, which implies that they believe in a rational understanding of life. IOW they regard ratio higher than feelings or experiences (as Curtis is never tired to point out that he regards the same mystical experiences many of us share in a different way and strips them of any religious meaning they could have.) In fact he tries to understand them rationally only, as I believe. Thus he places ratio highest, and I always understood this to mean a place where intellect is 'in control' t3rinity, you have a polar opposite view from atheism regarding the authorship of any person's thoughts. While atheism denies the existence of God, you attribute all thoughts to God - Even the thoughts of atheists' that deny God's existence!! Yes. Why do you believe that humans do not have free will ? The question I would have is: Who has the free will? Very much, what we consider ourselves to be, is just a bundle of desires impressions, reactions etc. This is how most people define themselves. They say: this is who I am. And why? Because I wanted it that way. Research shows that most of what we want and think are rationalizations, and that decisions are formed in the brain a split second before we become aware of it! What we do, and what we say why we do something are two separate issues! If you call that entity, who decides for you, life or God, or if it is simply the result of eternally cycling material processes is not my point here. My point is the illussiory character of our selves. I put the decision making into 'Gods' hand as this is a convenient term most people can relate to. I don't mean to prove the existence of a God by denying free-will. Rather I point out that an atheist has unproven belief systems, he is hardly aware of: His belief in a separate ego and his own decision-making. An atheist in short believes in himself being in charge through his ratio. Is the concept of free will too removed from the belief that God authors all ? What if God authored free will ? How would that concept fit for you ? Its Christianity. Doesn't fit for me. Why do you decide the way you decide? Why do you think the way you think, and why do others think differently than you? Then if you decide the wrong way, you have to go to eternal hell, that's the conclusion of religious free will. According to Christianities free will Curtis is doomed because he is an atheist. According to my theory
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also it is very non-traditional to not use Om (omkara) with the mantra. Which is even a greater controversy since MMY got the idea that it causes poverty but look at all the Indian millionaires who practice traditional mantras with Om in them. You conviniently skip the shakti and blessing from the teacher and his traditiohn behind any matra. And you may well choose to ignore a teachers instruction/advice if you want, thats your choice. Personally I have not met 1 (and I have met many) millionar or billionar for that matter in India that have practiced meditation with Om. Chanting it here and there in Temples (which they often visit) or at their pujatables in their homes yes indeed. But quiet meditation using OM - never. No I didn't conveniently skip that because I'm discussing the mantras and not their method of transmission. That's another subject which I have also written about in the last few days. Do you understand why I used planetary mantras? I would say you don't know many or maybe any Indian billionaires then. My guru has a client who is an Indian billionaire. Most wealthy Hindus who do sadhana don't do TM but practice things they learned from childhood which are very traditional. Maybe you should ask your neighborhood convenience store owner, if they're Indian, about mantras without Om and see what answer you get. And I was not speaking about just meditating on Om alone.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: Also it is very non-traditional to not use Om (omkara) with the mantra. Which is even a greater controversy since MMY got the idea that it causes poverty but look at all the Indian millionaires who practice traditional mantras with Om in them. You conviniently skip the shakti and blessing from the teacher and his traditiohn behind any matra. And you may well choose to ignore a teachers instruction/advice if you want, thats your choice. Personally I have not met 1 (and I have met many) millionar or billionar for that matter in India that have practiced meditation with Om. Chanting it here and there in Temples (which they often visit) or at their pujatables in their homes yes indeed. But quiet meditation using OM - never. No I didn't conveniently skip that because I'm discussing the mantras and not their method of transmission. That's another subject which I have also written about in the last few days. Do you understand why I used planetary mantras? I would say you don't know many or maybe any Indian billionaires then. My guru has a client who is an Indian billionaire. Most wealthy Hindus who do sadhana don't do TM but practice things they learned from childhood which are very traditional. Maybe you should ask your neighborhood convenience store owner, if they're Indian, about mantras without Om and see what answer you get. And I was not speaking about just meditating on Om alone. I used to know several indian billioaires in rupees (:-) and two in $. And you are right, they practise what they have learnt from the family, but never sitting down with closed eyes, mainly chanting. Therefore it does not fall into the category of meditation, IMO, but rather devotional practise with less pronounced effects. For them using Om has little or no effect, it's just part of the religion. The inheritants are probably happily unaware of the possible danger...
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question I would have is: Who has the free will? Very much, what we consider ourselves to be, is just a bundle of desires impressions, reactions etc. This is how most people define themselves. They say: this is who I am. And why? Because I wanted it that way. Research shows that most of what we want and think are rationalizations, and that decisions are formed in the brain a split second before we become aware of it! What we do, and what we say why we do something are two separate issues! Yes. Your view / experience is very similar to mine. (As we have discussed before -- me perhaps under a different name then.) If you call that entity, who decides for you, life or God, No need to attribute it to God, IMO. Nor to any predestination as Bronte presents in another post. or if it is simply the result of eternally cycling material processes is not my point here. My point is the illusory character of our selves. Yes, the result of action and reaction, learning, and conditioning. I can't do other than my nature. My nature is the sum total of the above. And for the skeptics who are in control of their lives -- tell me one thing: do thoughts just come -- naturally, effortlessly? Or do you volitional create your thoughts through effort and control? (As per prior posts, TM checking is the great Mahavakya, IMHO.) His belief in a separate ego and his own decision-making. An atheist in short believes in himself being in charge through his ratio[nal mind] This does not necessarily follow. I can be an atheist or agnostic and still have POV / experience of non-doership and non-predetermination (with massive degrees of freedom) -- all with no God, and no zombiness. Its all just the evolutionary culmination of the appartus -- mind,intellect, senses,cognitive abilities, education, culture, upbringing, learning, conditioning -- reacting to its karma. The great pin ball machine of life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: My sense of self is a given I guess. I'm down with Decartes' first principle. But as TM checking (the stealth Mahavakya) clearly shows, Decartes was wrong. If Descartes had only followed Nab's advice, (and got checked) he would have said I don't create my thoughts, they just come. Thus I don't create my actions, they just run after thoughts. Therefore, thoughts just come, there is no thinker.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: My sense of self is a given I guess. I'm down with Decartes' first principle. But as TM checking (the stealth Mahavakya) clearly shows, Decartes was wrong. If Descartes had only followed Nab's advice, (and got checked) he would have said I don't create my thoughts, they just come. Thus I don't create my actions, they just run after thoughts. Therefore, thoughts just come, there is no thinker. Shiva just dances for joy. He doesn't have to think about it. He just goes for it, like a bird singing, or the world turning. No need to 'think' about dancing for joy. Joy spurs the dancer to dance and the universe unfolds. Bliss is...therefore the universe dances. OffWorld .
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
I'm a fairly clear channel for my God Double uh oh. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: do.rflx wrote: I look at the quantity of people like myself in that seemingly 'unique' and 'special' time frame who were 'lost' in the darker side of the hippie daze [days], or just plain 'lost' - and because of TM became positive and hopeful for probably the first time in many of their lives. The life-saving transformation that happened to me must also have been evident in hundreds of thousands of others in those days. Bronte writes: You guys make a point that needs to be considered: the fact that TM did save a lot (most?) of us drugged-out hippies from a nose-diving lifestyle. I, too, had that experience. The first time I transcended, the tears rolled down my cheeks for 20 minutes. I had felt so isolated for so many years, believing in nothing beyond the world of the senses. In that 20-minute session, I knew beyond a doubt there was a God. I felt a sense of presence I hadn't known since I was a little girl. All the noise in my mind had turned to stillness. And TM quickly also changed my life, in ways much like other people's stories already told here. So if the TMO, or New Age in general, is -- as has been alleged -- manipulating people into becoming mindless zombies, or nice-guys-turned-possessed (Hitler: a worst-case example) -- how can that possibly be, when TM brought so much good into our lives? I've thought about this a good deal, and I think it is a very important question. What I come up with is this. TM did deliver experience of the stillest states of awareness, that most of us had been too outward-directed ever to have noticed before. It pointed us toward home. That was fantastic. But just as a bad product offer can include a really good freebie giveaway, TM attached a pretty big pricetag to the good that it gave us. That pricetag wasn't noticed until we'd been meditating a long time, until we'd bought the philosophy hook line and sinker. Kind of like those credit card deals that start out with zero interest then slowly build interest until you're amazed to find yourself swimming in debt. The pricetag was, you pay a toll to the gods to ride the road to transcendence. You get to pure consciousness using a toll road highway. At first you're asked for only a tiny toll, no pinch at all. You're informed this is the only way to the ocean -- taking the freeway is far too dangerous. So the aspirant flies down the toll road, thrilled to be using it, paying 35 cents at a tollbooth now and then. But as the years go by, the toll charge rises -- he gets an advanced technique, he starts reading Vedas to the gods every day, listening to chants -- his mantra gets namah added to it. Bowing, bowing down. Delivering soma to the gods. Longer and longer hours are spent meditating, and he's told this is good for him. But his health is getting weaker now, he feels irritability where he used to only feel peace. He has little time for personal pursuits because the movement requires his fulltime service. (I'm not saying everyone who meditates experiences weak health after a while, but a lot of people do.) But the aspirant rarely complains because he's told he's getting so much good from all this. He probably hasn't noticed a lot of progress in a long time. But he believes -- why? Because of those first great initiatory experiences! Back when the toll was 35 cents. Back when he visited his inner Source and came back again, infused with its values, dynamic into activity. But now his energy is going to Indra and Kali, Shiva and Saraswati. Pictures of gods line the walls of his house. An alter is in his bedroom. And because he's not happy, perhaps he starts to visit other gurus, hoping for renewal of those early days of purity and joy. But instead he just accumulates more teachers, who teach the very same things only rearranged a little. They give him a new mantra or a special name. Maybe they give him a hug. He has so much invested already -- all these years of his life! So he hangs on yet stronger, dedicating even more of himself to spiritual advancement. And he is taught to how to handle the frustration, that feeling he used to get that his life was supposed to be more. That is just egoistic desire, he is told. So he surrenders his personal needs. When his mind starts questioning, he also has been taught the solution to that: know that the wise embrace paradox -- nothing is real, no thing is true. Everything but the Absolute is illusion. The aspirant surrenders mind and desire. He offers them on the alter of his meditation, of his devotion. He sings more hymns to the gods. Oh, Mother, relieve me from this suffering. She does. The goddess does. The aspirant feels better after meditation and chanting. His depression miraculously disappears. It comes back, but it goes away when he meditates. He knows the
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
Bronte writes: As we are ALL channels for our God, Curtis. In my view, we each have a higher self, our own personal God, or you could say, our ego in its most pure individualized state. Our human bodies and personalities are channels for that being, as well as for God in the universal sense. You took it out of context to make me look megalamanic -- I wrote in spite of many faults which I still intend to correct, I am a fairly clear channel for my God. And I am. God gets through my wires successfully a darn good portion of the time. It's a sad world if we have to be ashamed to say that. Why I objected to her anonymous holiness the other day was not because she felt connected with God, but because she spoke of herself as superior to the people around her, people she described as beggars after her dharshan. I find that appalling. As I said, if you ever find me thinking or talking like that, drag me home by the toenails and hold me down in a bathtub of icewater. But to say I am God is everyone's human right, including my own. I won't be ashamed of admitting my birthright, or the fact that I lay claim to it. As everybody can. That wonderful equality was the whole point of my it's free to all of us post. - Bronte curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm a fairly clear channel for my God Double uh oh. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: do.rflx wrote: I look at the quantity of people like myself in that seemingly 'unique' and 'special' time frame who were 'lost' in the darker side of the hippie daze [days], or just plain 'lost' - and because of TM became positive and hopeful for probably the first time in many of their lives. The life-saving transformation that happened to me must also have been evident in hundreds of thousands of others in those days. Bronte writes: You guys make a point that needs to be considered: the fact that TM did save a lot (most?) of us drugged-out hippies from a nose-diving lifestyle. I, too, had that experience. The first time I transcended, the tears rolled down my cheeks for 20 minutes. I had felt so isolated for so many years, believing in nothing beyond the world of the senses. In that 20-minute session, I knew beyond a doubt there was a God. I felt a sense of presence I hadn't known since I was a little girl. All the noise in my mind had turned to stillness. And TM quickly also changed my life, in ways much like other people's stories already told here. So if the TMO, or New Age in general, is -- as has been alleged -- manipulating people into becoming mindless zombies, or nice-guys-turned-possessed (Hitler: a worst-case example) -- how can that possibly be, when TM brought so much good into our lives? I've thought about this a good deal, and I think it is a very important question. What I come up with is this. TM did deliver experience of the stillest states of awareness, that most of us had been too outward-directed ever to have noticed before. It pointed us toward home. That was fantastic. But just as a bad product offer can include a really good freebie giveaway, TM attached a pretty big pricetag to the good that it gave us. That pricetag wasn't noticed until we'd been meditating a long time, until we'd bought the philosophy hook line and sinker. Kind of like those credit card deals that start out with zero interest then slowly build interest until you're amazed to find yourself swimming in debt. The pricetag was, you pay a toll to the gods to ride the road to transcendence. You get to pure consciousness using a toll road highway. At first you're asked for only a tiny toll, no pinch at all. You're informed this is the only way to the ocean -- taking the freeway is far too dangerous. So the aspirant flies down the toll road, thrilled to be using it, paying 35 cents at a tollbooth now and then. But as the years go by, the toll charge rises -- he gets an advanced technique, he starts reading Vedas to the gods every day, listening to chants -- his mantra gets namah added to it. Bowing, bowing down. Delivering soma to the gods. Longer and longer hours are spent meditating, and he's told this is good for him. But his health is getting weaker now, he feels irritability where he used to only feel peace. He has little time for personal pursuits because the movement requires his fulltime service. (I'm not saying everyone who meditates experiences weak health after a while, but a lot of people do.) But the aspirant rarely complains because he's told he's getting so much good from all this. He probably hasn't noticed a lot of progress in a long time. But he believes -- why? Because of those first great initiatory experiences! Back when the toll was 35 cents. Back when he visited his inner Source and came back again, infused with its values, dynamic into activity. But now his energy is going to Indra and Kali, Shiva and Saraswati. Pictures of gods line
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bronte writes: As we are ALL channels for our God, Curtis. What you mean we whiteman? (Old Tonto joke reference) In my view, we each have a higher self, our own personal God, or you could say, our ego in its most pure individualized state. Our human bodies and personalities are channels for that being, as well as for God in the universal sense. Or you could say we are just humans with belief systems that make us feel more important on earth then our humble existence here would suggest. I am not channeling any being or conception of God that you have, no higher self, no personal God, I am just me. I don't accept your concept of ego as including any of these things. My eyebrows raise when I hear people claiming such things. You took it out of context to make me look megalamanic -- I wrote in spite of many faults which I still intend to correct, I am a fairly clear channel for my God. And I am. God gets through my wires successfully a darn good portion of the time. It's a sad world if we have to be ashamed to say that. Did you think it made you sound like a megalomaniac? I don't share the POV that any version of the God idea is getting through your wires. Why I objected to her anonymous holiness the other day was not because she felt connected with God, but because she spoke of herself as superior to the people around her, people she described as beggars after her dharshan. I find that appalling. As I said, if you ever find me thinking or talking like that, drag me home by the toenails and hold me down in a bathtub of icewater. But to say I am God is everyone's human right, including my own. I won't be ashamed of admitting my birthright, or the fact that I lay claim to it. As everybody can. That wonderful equality was the whole point of my it's free to all of us post. You have the right to say anything you want. When you say I am God I have the right to say Uh oh. I have my reasons. - Bronte curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm a fairly clear channel for my God Double uh oh. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter brontebaxter8@ wrote: do.rflx wrote: I look at the quantity of people like myself in that seemingly 'unique' and 'special' time frame who were 'lost' in the darker side of the hippie daze [days], or just plain 'lost' - and because of TM became positive and hopeful for probably the first time in many of their lives. The life-saving transformation that happened to me must also have been evident in hundreds of thousands of others in those days. Bronte writes: You guys make a point that needs to be considered: the fact that TM did save a lot (most?) of us drugged-out hippies from a nose-diving lifestyle. I, too, had that experience. The first time I transcended, the tears rolled down my cheeks for 20 minutes. I had felt so isolated for so many years, believing in nothing beyond the world of the senses. In that 20-minute session, I knew beyond a doubt there was a God. I felt a sense of presence I hadn't known since I was a little girl. All the noise in my mind had turned to stillness. And TM quickly also changed my life, in ways much like other people's stories already told here. So if the TMO, or New Age in general, is -- as has been alleged -- manipulating people into becoming mindless zombies, or nice-guys-turned-possessed (Hitler: a worst-case example) -- how can that possibly be, when TM brought so much good into our lives? I've thought about this a good deal, and I think it is a very important question. What I come up with is this. TM did deliver experience of the stillest states of awareness, that most of us had been too outward-directed ever to have noticed before. It pointed us toward home. That was fantastic. But just as a bad product offer can include a really good freebie giveaway, TM attached a pretty big pricetag to the good that it gave us. That pricetag wasn't noticed until we'd been meditating a long time, until we'd bought the philosophy hook line and sinker. Kind of like those credit card deals that start out with zero interest then slowly build interest until you're amazed to find yourself swimming in debt. The pricetag was, you pay a toll to the gods to ride the road to transcendence. You get to pure consciousness using a toll road highway. At first you're asked for only a tiny toll, no pinch at all. You're informed this is the only way to the ocean -- taking the freeway is far too dangerous. So the aspirant flies down the toll road, thrilled to be using it, paying 35 cents at a tollbooth now and then. But as the years go by, the toll charge rises -- he gets an advanced technique, he starts reading Vedas to the gods every day, listening to chants -- his mantra gets namah added to it. Bowing, bowing down. Delivering soma to the gods.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You have the right to say anything you want. When you say I am God I have the right to say Uh oh. I have my reasons. Or not. Most reasons are rationalizations, as brain research suggests. What you think to be 'my decision' or 'my reason' is very often, if not always a later rationalization of processes in the brain which are under the threshold of your awareness. And yet you feel sure (most of us do) that its us doing it, us thinking and us being independent. E.g. in my view, which is just a POV, are are an atheist, precisely because God wants you to be so. In my view we are not independent units, but are guided by a cosmic force, that you might call 'God' The sense of the I and doer-ship is one of the greatest miracles. Which you take for granted obviously.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip TM gave us something. But that was the thing that was always free to us anyway, had we only known where to look. It's something that still waits for us, never demanding we pay a toll. It's there for the experiencing, without gods or mantras, bajans or ego-suicide. It's just what we Are, and it just Is. Another point of view is to see TM as a very efficient vehicle for transcending; a tool, like a hammer or a screwdriver. I've been doing it now starting on my fourth decade, and never thought of it as anything but. Perhaps I need a more active imagination ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: You have the right to say anything you want. When you say I am God I have the right to say Uh oh. I have my reasons. Or not. Most reasons are rationalizations, as brain research suggests. What you think to be 'my decision' or 'my reason' is very often, if not always a later rationalization of processes in the brain which are under the threshold of your awareness. And yet you feel sure (most of us do) that its us doing it, us thinking and us being independent. A lack of compelling evidence has nothing to do with unconscious processes. I don't feel independent of unconscious processes. Quite the opposite, I use them for my art. Being confident about knowledge is not undermined by studies on our rationalization processes. There are many methods that we use to avoid this among many possible human cognitive errors. E.g. in my view, which is just a POV, are are an atheist, precisely because God wants you to be so. In my view we are not independent units, but are guided by a cosmic force, that you might call 'God' The sense of the I and doer-ship is one of the greatest miracles. Which you take for granted obviously. I don't take our sense of I an doer-ship for granted, I love being alive. I just don't believe that any of the explanations for how we got here rise above mythology. (which has its valuable uses) I am satisfied with the miracle of life itself without the overlay concepts of cosmic forces. My awe, wonder, joy and even bliss come from being alive, not from one of the many, many God concepts. If you find these concepts useful in interpreting your experiences of your consciousness, that is your business. But not adapting these concepts doesn't make me take anything for granted. You yourself have decided not to adapt literally hundreds of God concepts to arrive at the one that works for you. I have rejected them too and probably for many of the same reasons. I just have one less God than you have.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
Bhairitu wrote: Gods, BTW, are just personifications of the subtle fields that sages experienced in meditation. They were personified so that the ordinary person could conceptualize them. You got it backwards, once again, Mr. Bharat2. The Vedic Devas are the personifications of the forces of nature, like the Wind, Fire, Earth, etc. Devas are supernal deities, not persons or states of conciousness. The Devatas of later Hinduism are deified heroes, such as Krishna, Rama, Ramchandra, Vasudeva and Devaki. They are deemed transcendental persons, described in the later Vedic literature as the subtle fields of conciousness. Ordinary village people don't have a problem with conceptualizing persons as heroes or devatas.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
Ordinary village people don't have a problem with conceptualizing persons as heroes or devatas. http://youtube.com/watch?v=JWPTtJ-Z4lU The ordinary Village People speak out. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bhairitu wrote: Gods, BTW, are just personifications of the subtle fields that sages experienced in meditation. They were personified so that the ordinary person could conceptualize them. You got it backwards, once again, Mr. Bharat2. The Vedic Devas are the personifications of the forces of nature, like the Wind, Fire, Earth, etc. Devas are supernal deities, not persons or states of conciousness. The Devatas of later Hinduism are deified heroes, such as Krishna, Rama, Ramchandra, Vasudeva and Devaki. They are deemed transcendental persons, described in the later Vedic literature as the subtle fields of conciousness. Ordinary village people don't have a problem with conceptualizing persons as heroes or devatas.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
First of all: Thanks for your answer Curtis. My comments follow. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: You have the right to say anything you want. When you say I am God I have the right to say Uh oh. I have my reasons. Or not. Most reasons are rationalizations, as brain research suggests. What you think to be 'my decision' or 'my reason' is very often, if not always a later rationalization of processes in the brain which are under the threshold of your awareness. And yet you feel sure (most of us do) that its us doing it, us thinking and us being independent. A lack of compelling evidence has nothing to do with unconscious processes. I don't feel independent of unconscious processes. Quite the opposite, I use them for my art. When you say: 'I use them for my art' you obviously feel in charge that you have some kind of control of what is conscious and what is unconscious, its exactly that which I am doubting.This transition of unconscious processes to conscious ones is something we are obviously not aware of, so how could 'you' possibly control them? I know what you mean, and I am sure that you have worked out a means to be creative in that way, but I am obviously challenging he overall picture. Which is that the I, ego is in control. Being confident about knowledge is not undermined by studies on our rationalization processes. There are many methods that we use to avoid this among many possible human cognitive errors. I am not talking about errors here, but about the general process of brain-processes coming into awareness. These processes in your brain are not under your control. But the result of these processes are then , once they come into awareness, owned by an ego, the self, with which we identify. From reading your posts until so far, I have got the impression, that you have sort of a naive belief into the ego, your sense of self, as a given. You take whatever appears to be as it is, as the truth, as far as I understood you. E.g. in my view, which is just a POV, are are an atheist, precisely because God wants you to be so. In my view we are not independent units, but are guided by a cosmic force, that you might call 'God' The sense of the I and doer-ship is one of the greatest miracles. Which you take for granted obviously. I don't take our sense of I an doer-ship for granted, I love being alive. I just don't believe that any of the explanations for how we got here rise above mythology. (which has its valuable uses) I am satisfied with the miracle of life itself without the overlay concepts of cosmic forces. My awe, wonder, joy and even bliss come from being alive, not from one of the many, many God concepts. Even people who believe in God, know that whatever we think about him /her or them is a concept. Ask the most fundamentalist Muslim, and he will tell you that God cannot be described or understood by the mind. So when you talk about God, you talk about something indescribable. As such you have a metaphor for the indescribable, and that is God. I would say most people are aware of this. If you say ' I do not know God (as he is beyound the mind)' or if you say 'I do not know the origin of the world' whats the difference really? If you say: ' I am satisfied with the miracles of live' you obviously simply substitute the word 'God' with 'life', as an overall concept of the processes going on in the world. I don't see any big difference there. If you speak of the 'miracle' you even more so use religious terminology. If you find these concepts useful in interpreting your experiences of your consciousness, that is your business. Sure. I feel using concepts of something I experience with certainty (God) as helpful of getting things 'out of the way'. I mean why bother with questions I can have a metaphor for as a working hypothesis? I don't have to think about things my intellect cannot grasp. (and I can still use my intellect to probe deeper into 'higher realties' having such expressions and metaphors I can work with. Its like the steps of a ladder I can use) But not adapting these concepts doesn't make me take anything for granted. It seems you have taken many things for granted, for example that you are in control of your actions. Or that he intellect is a valid means to understand reality, which exceeds personal experience. You yourself have decided not to adapt literally hundreds of God concepts to arrive at the one that works for you. I am actually not exactly sure in how many Gods/gods I believe ;-)But basically there is no big difference in believing in 108 Gods or only 107 Gods or actually just one God. It doesn't matter, as you believe there is a consciousness beyound your individual mind, and that there is
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ordinary village people don't have a problem with conceptualizing persons as heroes or devatas. http://youtube.com/watch?v=JWPTtJ-Z4lU The ordinary Village People speak out. I don't get it. This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Scorpio / Can't Stop Productions
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First of all: Thanks for your answer Curtis. My comments follow. Likewise. I'm sure I'll learn something. Snip Me the opposite, I use them for my art. T: When you say: 'I use them for my art' you obviously feel in charge that you have some kind of control of what is conscious and what is unconscious, its exactly that which I am doubting.This transition of unconscious processes to conscious ones is something we are obviously not aware of, so how could 'you' possibly control them? I know what you mean, and I am sure that you have worked out a means to be creative in that way, but I am obviously challenging he overall picture. Which is that the I, ego is in control. I didn't say I control them, I said I use them. There are lots of ways people access their unconscious processes, meditation being one. I don't feel as if I am in control of them or conscious of them. But like the fungi that live under the soil occasionally a mushroom pops up on the surface. If you know something about what conditions to make them pop you can create more favorable conditions for it to happen more often. I think I am in agreement with your point that there is much that is never known. Certainly my ego isn't in control of all of my unconscious processes. ME: Being confident about knowledge is not undermined by studies on our rationalization processes. There are many methods that we use to avoid this among many possible human cognitive errors. T: I am not talking about errors here, but about the general process of brain-processes coming into awareness. These processes in your brain are not under your control. But the result of these processes are then , once they come into awareness, owned by an ego, the self, with which we identify. From reading your posts until so far, I have got the impression, that you have sort of a naive belief into the ego, your sense of self, as a given. You take whatever appears to be as it is, as the truth, as far as I understood you. I can be as naive as the next person, but I don't think I really follow your point here. I don't take anything as it appears as the truth. My sense of self is a given I guess. I'm down with Decartes' first principle. I am not confused about who I am, but that does include plenty of mystery including unconscious processes. Snip T: Even people who believe in God, know that whatever we think about him /her or them is a concept. Ask the most fundamentalist Muslim, and he will tell you that God cannot be described or understood by the mind. So when you talk about God, you talk about something indescribable. As such you have a metaphor for the indescribable, and that is God. I would say most people are aware of this. If you say ' I do not know God (as he is beyound the mind)' or if you say 'I do not know the origin of the world' whats the difference really? If you say: ' I am satisfied with the miracles of live' you obviously simply substitute the word 'God' with 'life', as an overall concept of the processes going on in the world. I don't see any big difference there. If you speak of the 'miracle' you even more so use religious terminology. ME: I often find that down deep under the spiritual terms, I share beliefs about life with overtly spiritual people. The term God isn't useful for me but I understand it is for others. But when I say life, I don't mean any of the God concepts I have come across. Maybe Pantheism, I should look into that. I would attend WICCA meetings but I am sure to get kicked out for leering. If you find these concepts useful in interpreting your experiences of your consciousness, that is your business. T: Sure. I feel using concepts of something I experience with certainty (God) as helpful of getting things 'out of the way'. I mean why bother with questions I can have a metaphor for as a working hypothesis? I don't have to think about things my intellect cannot grasp. (and I can still use my intellect to probe deeper into 'higher realties' having such expressions and metaphors I can work with. Its like the steps of a ladder I can use) ME: OK ME But not adapting these concepts doesn't make me take anything for granted. T: It seems you have taken many things for granted, for example that you are in control of your actions. Or that he intellect is a valid means to understand reality, which exceeds personal experience. Me: I hope I have cleared up that I do acknowledge unconscious processes beyond my conscious mind. If you are taking it to an extreme version of philosophical skepticism about the authorship of the actions I do control, you may be going beyond my POV. Even using the intellect in this way is coming from a whole epistemological POV that I don't share. I don't cut up my mental processes that way. I understand reality with all my human faculties just like you. ME
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Because when my world view crashed, it left but one thing behind. It left my Isness. I found that I'm immortal, that I'm always joined with God. Nothing can ever sever me unless I give it permission. I remember in '81 when I left MIU and returned home and re-entered the real world. I had to come to grips with some of my desires, which pertained to sex, diet, routine, meditation. I was breaking away from the habits and thought patterns I had been abiding. Concurrent with the thought, Okay, I'm breaking the rules, was, This is who I am, If I'm going to get struck down, so be it, but THIS IS WHO I AM, AND I ACCEPT IT. This was my awakening. Nothing has been the same since. I have heard many others here express this same sentiment. I'm not sure if this is what they call waking down. I kinda lost my interest in getting involved in any groups. lurk
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First of all: Thanks for your answer Curtis. My comments follow. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: You have the right to say anything you want. When you say I am God I have the right to say Uh oh. I have my reasons. Or not. Most reasons are rationalizations, as brain research suggests. What you think to be 'my decision' or 'my reason' is very often, if not always a later rationalization of processes in the brain which are under the threshold of your awareness. And yet you feel sure (most of us do) that its us doing it, us thinking and us being independent. A lack of compelling evidence has nothing to do with unconscious processes. I don't feel independent of unconscious processes. Quite the opposite, I use them for my art. When you say: 'I use them for my art' you obviously feel in charge that you have some kind of control of what is conscious and what is unconscious, its exactly that which I am doubting.This transition of unconscious processes to conscious ones is something we are obviously not aware of, so how could 'you' possibly control them? I know what you mean, and I am sure that you have worked out a means to be creative in that way, but I am obviously challenging he overall picture. Which is that the I, ego is in control. Curtis, this is addressed to you and I'm sure you will respond, but.may I ? Trinity3, why would you doubt that he doesn't feel independent of unconscious processes, and that he uses them (uncoscious processes) for his art ? It seems that Curtis is fully one with the creative expressions from their inception, through their expression through his art, in his case blues music performance. The concept of control of the process was introduced by your question, and isn't what he asserts. He seems to be a fully enlightened artist, at one with the first creative impulse, through its relative expression of his own voice, guitar, and physical expression. Expanding the range of awareness of the conscious mind to percieve the first impulses of creativity is what FFLers have been doing naturally for a very long time. -Mainstream Being confident about knowledge is not undermined by studies on our rationalization processes. There are many methods that we use to avoid this among many possible human cognitive errors. I am not talking about errors here, but about the general process of brain-processes coming into awareness. These processes in your brain are not under your control. But the result of these processes are then , once they come into awareness, owned by an ego, the self, with which we identify. From reading your posts until so far, I have got the impression, that you have sort of a naive belief into the ego, your sense of self, as a given. You take whatever appears to be as it is, as the truth, as far as I understood you. E.g. in my view, which is just a POV, are are an atheist, precisely because God wants you to be so. In my view we are not independent units, but are guided by a cosmic force, that you might call 'God' The sense of the I and doer-ship is one of the greatest miracles. Which you take for granted obviously. I don't take our sense of I an doer-ship for granted, I love being alive. I just don't believe that any of the explanations for how we got here rise above mythology. (which has its valuable uses) I am satisfied with the miracle of life itself without the overlay concepts of cosmic forces. My awe, wonder, joy and even bliss come from being alive, not from one of the many, many God concepts. Even people who believe in God, know that whatever we think about him /her or them is a concept. Ask the most fundamentalist Muslim, and he will tell you that God cannot be described or understood by the mind. So when you talk about God, you talk about something indescribable. As such you have a metaphor for the indescribable, and that is God. I would say most people are aware of this. If you say ' I do not know God (as he is beyound the mind)' or if you say 'I do not know the origin of the world' whats the difference really? If you say: ' I am satisfied with the miracles of live' you obviously simply substitute the word 'God' with 'life', as an overall concept of the processes going on in the world. I don't see any big difference there. If you speak of the 'miracle' you even more so use religious terminology. If you find these concepts useful in interpreting your experiences of your consciousness, that is your business. Sure. I feel using concepts of something I experience with certainty (God) as helpful of getting things 'out of the way'.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter brontebaxter8@ wrote: snip Because when my world view crashed, it left but one thing behind. It left my Isness. I found that I'm immortal, that I'm always joined with God. Nothing can ever sever me unless I give it permission. I remember in '81 when I left MIU and returned home and re-entered the real world. I had to come to grips with some of my desires, which pertained to sex, diet, routine, meditation. I was breaking away from the habits and thought patterns I had been abiding. Concurrent with the thought, Okay, I'm breaking the rules, was, This is who I am, If I'm going to get struck down, so be it, but THIS IS WHO I AM, AND I ACCEPT IT. This was my awakening. Nothing has been the same since. I have heard many others here express this same sentiment. I'm not sure if this is what they call waking down. I kinda lost my interest in getting involved in any groups. lurk Brilliant! Waking down!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis, this is addressed to you and I'm sure you will respond, but.may I ? Trinity3, why would you doubt that he doesn't feel independent of unconscious processes, and that he uses them (uncoscious processes) for his art ? It seems that Curtis is fully one with the creative expressions from their inception, through their expression through his art, in his case blues music performance. The concept of control of the process was introduced by your question, and isn't what he asserts. He seems to be a fully enlightened artist, at one with the first creative impulse, through its relative expression of his own voice, guitar, and physical expression. Expanding the range of awareness of the conscious mind to percieve the first impulses of creativity is what FFLers have been doing naturally for a very long time. -Mainstream Mainstream, maybe I am doing injustice to Curtis, I am certainly not doubting his creative process. Its simply my understanding of atheism as a philosophy of life. Religion, any religion certainly questions the independence of our mind /ego (while I am aware that Christianity makes it a special point that God gave man freedom of decision - not my belief) and makes it dependent on another entity, atheism asserts us that we alone are in control of our lives. At least thats what I have understood it to mean until now. Of course, everyone is aware of 'limitations' we all have,imposed to us by nature. But there is a fundamental belief that we are ourself in charge of what we believe in, that we with our mind can logically understand life and should reject irrationality. In fact religion is seen as 'irrational' by atheists, which implies that they believe in a rational understanding of life. IOW they regard ratio higher than feelings or experiences (as Curtis is never tired to point out that he regards the same mystical experiences many of us share in a different way and strips them of any religious meaning they could have.) In fact he tries to understand them rationally only, as I believe. Thus he places ratio highest, and I always understood this to mean a place where intellect is 'in control'
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
On Oct 15, 2007, at 4:30 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: http://youtube.com/watch?v=JWPTtJ-Z4lU The ordinary Village People speak out. Can't Stop the Silliness. :) Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 mainstream20016@ wrote: Curtis, this is addressed to you and I'm sure you will respond, but.may I ? Trinity3, why would you doubt that he doesn't feel independent of unconscious processes, and that he uses them (uncoscious processes) for his art ? It seems that Curtis is fully one with the creative expressions from their inception, through their expression through his art, in his case blues music performance. The concept of control of the process was introduced by your question, and isn't what he asserts. He seems to be a fully enlightened artist, at one with the first creative impulse, through its relative expression of his own voice, guitar, and physical expression. Expanding the range of awareness of the conscious mind to percieve the first impulses of creativity is what FFLers have been doing naturally for a very long time. -Mainstream Mainstream, maybe I am doing injustice to Curtis, I am certainly not doubting his creative process. Its simply my understanding of atheism as a philosophy of life. Religion, any religion certainly questions the independence of our mind /ego (while I am aware that Christianity makes it a special point that God gave man freedom of decision - not my belief) and makes it dependent on another entity, atheism asserts us that we alone are in control of our lives. At least thats what I have understood it to mean until now. Of course, everyone is aware of 'limitations' we all have,imposed to us by nature. But there is a fundamental belief that we are ourself in charge of what we believe in, that we with our mind can logically understand life and should reject irrationality. In fact religion is seen as 'irrational' by atheists, which implies that they believe in a rational understanding of life. IOW they regard ratio higher than feelings or experiences (as Curtis is never tired to point out that he regards the same mystical experiences many of us share in a different way and strips them of any religious meaning they could have.) In fact he tries to understand them rationally only, as I believe. Thus he places ratio highest, and I always understood this to mean a place where intellect is 'in control' t3rinity, you have a polar opposite view from atheism regarding the authorship of any person's thoughts. While atheism denies the existence of God, you attribute all thoughts to God - Even the thoughts of atheists' that deny God's existence!! Why do you believe that humans do not have free will ? Is the concept of free will too removed from the belief that God authors all ? What if God authored free will ? How would that concept fit for you ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
---Hsuan Hua on fate: Most people are of the opinion that a person's fate has a fixed arrangement. This is illustrated by the saying, When one's fate only allows for eight feet, it's difficult to seek for ten. Not bad! However, this is only spoken with reference to ordinary people. If one is a cultivator of the Way, then one doesn't fall into this sort of fate. Those who cultivate the Way shouldn't be consulting The Book of Changes. That's something which is used by the normal run of common person. Those who cultivate the Way are even able to put and end to birth and death, how much the more so are they able to deal with other forms of fate. There even more able to leap over such things. So, don't pay any attention to those things. (p.119) * In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 mainstream20016@ wrote: Curtis, this is addressed to you and I'm sure you will respond, but.may I ? Trinity3, why would you doubt that he doesn't feel independent of unconscious processes, and that he uses them (uncoscious processes) for his art ? It seems that Curtis is fully one with the creative expressions from their inception, through their expression through his art, in his case blues music performance. The concept of control of the process was introduced by your question, and isn't what he asserts. He seems to be a fully enlightened artist, at one with the first creative impulse, through its relative expression of his own voice, guitar, and physical expression. Expanding the range of awareness of the conscious mind to percieve the first impulses of creativity is what FFLers have been doing naturally for a very long time. -Mainstream Mainstream, maybe I am doing injustice to Curtis, I am certainly not doubting his creative process. Its simply my understanding of atheism as a philosophy of life. Religion, any religion certainly questions the independence of our mind /ego (while I am aware that Christianity makes it a special point that God gave man freedom of decision - not my belief) and makes it dependent on another entity, atheism asserts us that we alone are in control of our lives. At least thats what I have understood it to mean until now. Of course, everyone is aware of 'limitations' we all have,imposed to us by nature. But there is a fundamental belief that we are ourself in charge of what we believe in, that we with our mind can logically understand life and should reject irrationality. In fact religion is seen as 'irrational' by atheists, which implies that they believe in a rational understanding of life. IOW they regard ratio higher than feelings or experiences (as Curtis is never tired to point out that he regards the same mystical experiences many of us share in a different way and strips them of any religious meaning they could have.) In fact he tries to understand them rationally only, as I believe. Thus he places ratio highest, and I always understood this to mean a place where intellect is 'in control' t3rinity, you have a polar opposite view from atheism regarding the authorship of any person's thoughts. While atheism denies the existence of God, you attribute all thoughts to God - Even the thoughts of atheists' that deny God's existence!! Why do you believe that humans do not have free will ? Is the concept of free will too removed from the belief that God authors all ? What if God authored free will ? How would that concept fit for you ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also it is very non-traditional to not use Om (omkara) with the mantra. Which is even a greater controversy since MMY got the idea that it causes poverty but look at all the Indian millionaires who practice traditional mantras with Om in them. You conviniently skip the shakti and blessing from the teacher and his traditiohn behind any matra. And you may well choose to ignore a teachers instruction/advice if you want, thats your choice. Personally I have not met 1 (and I have met many) millionar or billionar for that matter in India that have practiced meditation with Om. Chanting it here and there in Temples (which they often visit) or at their pujatables in their homes yes indeed. But quiet meditation using OM - never.
