[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/post?postID=hd0c66qqAS- CPtr\ 1VREnlP81oRDaRWbqDPtQeeEO2cJuZnWORp99To70J8nNhXVNGXjr_- oLO0yPyvw9JFYhTR1\ fVWs , R.G. babajii_99@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/post?postID=CL- yygi3hRdfSIS\ VqCgbgbUAmywLF4JyFgi4mw- vcT4uBklgoVNYByuwhXI2HSHdVwkdpS8sjq8rpLvbJkV3SsF\ rHZKh2w , Hagen J. Holtz hagen.j.holtz@ wrote: R.G., your thesis that Jesus would be the sound closest to God seems to me like a claim directly out of mere mythology and not really science-based, saying only: You may believe it or not. This is not my thesis, at all... My thesis is that all these mantras are 'names', 'vibrations',vehicles for Transcendence. I am proposing that if one was a follower of Jesus, and one would like a mantra associated with him, then I was suggesting the mantra or sound: 'Yeshua' For example, when TM was being taught in public schools and it was found to be a religion, there would be another objection, and that is that the mantras originated as 'names' or 'aspects of God'... So, if that objection arose, and one didn't want to start TM, Because they felt they wanted a mantra associated with the God of their choosing... Then for someone like that, you could say: This is your mantra, for bringing Jesus and the qualities of him, By using a vibration, which would relate to him. So, if you wanted to transcend on the name or sound Yeshua, Then that would be a way for someone who felt a clossness to Jesus, To find an inner sense of him, and eventually transcend, if they were taught how to use this vibration of the sound Yeshua, in the same effortless way, they think any other thoughts. So, in that way, TM could be said to be a Universal Technique... Different from the rest, Because it's not chanting, it's not dogma; Rather it is a way to Transcend on a 'life-supporting sound. I am making this sound Yeshua, a mantra that would relate to Jesus, From my own experience. There is a tradition in the Jewish religion, that is called sitting Shiva. When someone passes away, the family and friends get together to comfort the family, by sitting with them, and this is called: Sitting Shiva. Coincidence? Shiva is used as a mantra for God, also, No Coincidence: Jehova= JaiShiva Joshua = Jeshiwa= JaiShiwa Jesus = Jeshua = JaiShiwa Adam = Allahem = Adama (the undivided) = Atma = Allah = Eli = Elija OffWorld No one mantra, is 'The Mantra of God'... The technique of meditation itself, is a way to get to God... That is Maharishi's teaching to the world. A way to transcend. This is what is missing at church, or synagog, or mosque. The dogma keeps people from transcending and engages the mind, Instead of transcending the mind. R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
(snip) No Coincidence: Jehova= JaiShiva Joshua = Jeshiwa= JaiShiwa Jesus = Jeshua = JaiShiwa Adam = Allahem = Adama (the undivided) = Atma = Allah = Eli = Elija OffWorld Ya, ya, das ist gut, ya
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
These letter-similarities and linguistic derivations can be taken as elucidate language relationships but must not necessarily reveal any insights into the impact of mantras as such. Romantics regarding assumed holy meanings of so-called mantras seems to be okay but if not coping with consistency to its topic it will be an uncontrolled tool for nebulizing of to be properly comprehended consecutions and interrelations. - Original Message - From: R.G. To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:28 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God' (snip) No Coincidence: Jehova= JaiShiva Joshua = Jeshiwa= JaiShiwa Jesus = Jeshua = JaiShiwa Adam = Allahem = Adama (the undivided) = Atma = Allah = Eli = Elija OffWorld Ya, ya, das ist gut, ya
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Without passion and some kind of romance, life is not worth much, or not experienced as joyful... Especially if you're not particulary interested in math, and can mathematically understand the mathmantics of Eistein's Theory of Relativity, or any of the Quantum Mechanical equations... So, different strokes for different folks... I was attempting to describe the value of the mantra, as a means of transportation, and the technique for using the mantra, which Maharishi has described quite adequately for us... Whatever you focus on, that will manifest in your life. And whatever your intention in, that will manifest in your life. Mantras are what they are, vibrations of life-supporting qualities, Which we use in Transcendental Meditation. Nicely written. And romance can obviously be a lot of different things. I have a lifelong romance with photography and music. Others are in love with women, Judy is in love with truthfullness, Rick with rumours, Jim with Guru Dev, The Turk with darkness and himself, and Cardemaister is in love with... Heaven knows. Anyway; Maharishis vision of the 200% of life are enjoyed in many different ways. The understanding that the relative and absolute values is the same reality is one of Maharishis greatest contributions. The only important thing is to be happy. - Maharishi
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
The Tetragrammaton is the four Hebrew letters YHWH, YHWH = Shiwa Jehova = JaiShiva God doesn't have a name, least of all Shiva which isn't even a name anyway, even in Hindi. a proper name for God, usually spelled out in English as Yahweh (sometimes Jehovah); the Shema is a confession of faith. Two entirely different things. Hear, O Isreal: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! (Deuteronomy 6:4)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
This might all be true, if you are living romance on the level of Being and not solely on the level of your daily unstable moods and imaginative thoughts. However what makes me suspicious in what you both say is, that there seems to be definitely a lack of genuine experience of pure Being, being inherent in your daily routine, otherwise you could not be in the position to talk in such an easy-going manner about an important subject of that kind. Of course it is principally possible to reach the moon by train or by walk even instead of using the typically appropriate means of a space ship or something similar, as long as you are not forced to put your cards on the table in order to minutely explain and justify, how you expect to reach there including description of the type of vehicle, road and estimated time frame. Free-style theorizing about mantras and your felt relation to them does not necessarily lead to useful and making sense hypotheses. Hagen - Original Message - From: nablusoss1008 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 3:16 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God' --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Without passion and some kind of romance, life is not worth much, or not experienced as joyful... Especially if you're not particulary interested in math, and can mathematically understand the mathmantics of Eistein's Theory of Relativity, or any of the Quantum Mechanical equations... So, different strokes for different folks... I was attempting to describe the value of the mantra, as a means of transportation, and the technique for using the mantra, which Maharishi has described quite adequately for us... Whatever you focus on, that will manifest in your life. And whatever your intention in, that will manifest in your life. Mantras are what they are, vibrations of life-supporting qualities, Which we use in Transcendental Meditation. Nicely written. And romance can obviously be a lot of different things. I have a lifelong romance with photography and music. Others are in love with women, Judy is in love with truthfullness, Rick with rumours, Jim with Guru Dev, The Turk with darkness and himself, and Cardemaister is in love with... Heaven knows. Anyway; Maharishis vision of the 200% of life are enjoyed in many different ways. The understanding that the relative and absolute values is the same reality is one of Maharishis greatest contributions. The only important thing is to be happy. - Maharishi
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Hagen J. Holtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These letter-similarities and linguistic derivations can be taken as elucidate language relationships but must not necessarily reveal any insights into the impact of mantras as such. Romantics regarding assumed holy meanings of so-called mantras seems to be okay but if not coping with consistency to its topic it will be an uncontrolled tool for nebulizing of to be properly comprehended consecutions and interrelations. Your understanding of human language and how people in certain regions evolve it incrementally seems poorly developed and unschooled. PS. If the Vedas and evolution is as fragile as you are claiming, here then we can forget the whole thing and close up the universe and go back to sleep. Nothing can stop the engulfing of man. OffWorld - Original Message - From: R.G. To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:28 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God' (snip) No Coincidence: Jehova= JaiShiva Joshua = Jeshiwa= JaiShiwa Jesus = Jeshua = JaiShiwa Adam = Allahem = Adama (the undivided) = Atma = Allah = Eli = Elija OffWorld Ya, ya, das ist gut, ya
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
Incrimental development seems to be in your conception a coming close to 1 : 1 event in every state of unfoldment. Like as if turning itself to a big copy out of a small one, but looking basically the same. This is just wrong and against daily experience. Your theory sounds very simplifying and fundemtalistic, as if being always afraid of loosing the putative homeliness of a pictographic sight. It reminds me to the colourful pictures of haunting children's books, which seem to make the world become clearly arrangable. But the (human) unfoldment in contrast takes place so that every segment of its evolution represents a completely different reality. Look through what states of evolution as fish and reptile you have already been going in the womb, and all and above I think you will not want to directly compare your childhood-experiences 1 : 1 to those you have been gathering now as an adult as well. Maharishi in his commentary to the Bhagavadgita even confirms this fundamental insight by stating that each higher state of consciousness was based on a completely different quality of reality and could not be taken merely as a finer extension of the preceding one. Hagen - Original Message - From: off_world_beings To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God' --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hagen J. Holtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These letter-similarities and linguistic derivations can be taken as elucidate language relationships but must not necessarily reveal any insights into the impact of mantras as such. Romantics regarding assumed holy meanings of so-called mantras seems to be okay but if not coping with consistency to its topic it will be an uncontrolled tool for nebulizing of to be properly comprehended consecutions and interrelations. Your understanding of human language and how people in certain regions evolve it incrementally seems poorly developed and unschooled. PS. If the Vedas and evolution is as fragile as you are claiming, here then we can forget the whole thing and close up the universe and go back to sleep. Nothing can stop the engulfing of man. OffWorld - Original Message - From: R.G. To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:28 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God' (snip) No Coincidence: Jehova= JaiShiva Joshua = Jeshiwa= JaiShiwa Jesus = Jeshua = JaiShiwa Adam = Allahem = Adama (the undivided) = Atma = Allah = Eli = Elija OffWorld Ya, ya, das ist gut, ya
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hagen J. Holtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Incrimental development seems to be in your conception a coming close to 1 : 1 event in every state of unfoldment. Like as if turning itself to a big copy out of a small one, but looking basically the same. This is just wrong and against daily experience. Your theory sounds very simplifying and fundemtalistic, as if being always afraid of loosing the putative homeliness of a pictographic sight. It reminds me to the colourful pictures of haunting children's books, which seem to make the world become clearly arrangable. But the (human) unfoldment in contrast takes place so that every segment of its evolution represents a completely different reality. Look through what states of evolution as fish and reptile you have already been going in the womb, and all and above I think you will not want to directly compare your childhood-experiences 1 : 1 to those you have been gathering now as an adult as well. Maharishi in his commentary to the Bhagavadgita even confirms this fundamental insight by stating that each higher state of consciousness was based on a completely different quality of reality and could not be taken merely as a finer extension of the preceding one. Hagen I'm not sure what you are talking about. I was talking about transcending, and using mantras for the purpose of transcending... As well, in addition to transcending, a way to explore the finest relative, based in higher vibrations of sound and light, which is located at the finest level. We learn this with the Sidhis, and the concept that 'God' works... Or 'Natural Law' , 'Works', at the quietest, most subtle levels. That is why Obama is getting so much accomplished, Because he knows how to work at the subtlest level. We are moving from the literal 'Gross!!!' To a finer level of reality, the collective consciousness, Of the entire planet, on all levels, Releasing much Karma, individual and collective, Especially when the finer realms are activated by direct experience... This makes it easier for everyone else to activate the 'Light of Consciousness' So, let go and let God. Take it as it comes. Be Still and Know That I am God. Give Peace a Chance. Add your own advice... R.G.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
I am fully agreeing to what you state now further on. But the question was much earlier in the discussion, whether any good mantra coming along like Jeshua or Jesus or whatever it was, would lead to the same or even enhanced effect of transcending in comparison to TM. And my answer to it was clearly no, because such an opinion would not allow us to take any recourse to the reality of the very mechanisms of mantras, which cannot be chosen or evaluated on the basis of good feelings along with them or because of any subjective emotional attributes like holiness or so. The procedure on the other hand is much more jejune. - Original Message - From: R.G. To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:33 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God' --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hagen J. Holtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Incrimental development seems to be in your conception a coming close to 1 : 1 event in every state of unfoldment. Like as if turning itself to a big copy out of a small one, but looking basically the same. This is just wrong and against daily experience. Your theory sounds very simplifying and fundemtalistic, as if being always afraid of loosing the putative homeliness of a pictographic sight. It reminds me to the colourful pictures of haunting children's books, which seem to make the world become clearly arrangable. But the (human) unfoldment in contrast takes place so that every segment of its evolution represents a completely different reality. Look through what states of evolution as fish and reptile you have already been going in the womb, and all and above I think you will not want to directly compare your childhood-experiences 1 : 1 to those you have been gathering now as an adult as well. Maharishi in his commentary to the Bhagavadgita even confirms this fundamental insight by stating that each higher state of consciousness was based on a completely different quality of reality and could not be taken merely as a finer extension of the preceding one. Hagen I'm not sure what you are talking about. I was talking about transcending, and using mantras for the purpose of transcending... As well, in addition to transcending, a way to explore the finest relative, based in higher vibrations of sound and light, which is located at the finest level. We learn this with the Sidhis, and the concept that 'God' works... Or 'Natural Law' , 'Works', at the quietest, most subtle levels. That is why Obama is getting so much accomplished, Because he knows how to work at the subtlest level. We are moving from the literal 'Gross!!!' To a finer level of reality, the collective consciousness, Of the entire planet, on all levels, Releasing much Karma, individual and collective, Especially when the finer realms are activated by direct experience... This makes it easier for everyone else to activate the 'Light of Consciousness' So, let go and let God. Take it as it comes. Be Still and Know That I am God. Give Peace a Chance. Add your own advice... R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
God doesn't have a name... off wrote: God has 10,000 names. God only appears to have a name.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hagen J. Holtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Incrimental development seems to be in your conception a coming close to 1 : 1 event in every state of unfoldment. Like as if turning itself to a big copy out of a small one, but looking basically the same. This is just wrong and against daily experience. Your theory sounds very simplifying and fundemtalistic, as if being always afraid of loosing the putative homeliness of a pictographic sight. It reminds me to the colourful pictures of haunting children's books, which seem to make the world become clearly arrangable. But the (human) unfoldment in contrast takes place so that every segment of its evolution represents a completely different reality. Look through what states of evolution as fish and reptile you have already been going in the womb, and all and above I think you will not want to directly compare your childhood-experiences 1 : 1 to those you have been gathering now as an adult as well. What if Jesus is a reptillian alien invader? Then what? Maharishi in his commentary to the Bhagavadgita even confirms this fundamental insight by stating that each higher state of consciousness was based on a completely different quality of reality and could not be taken merely as a finer extension of the preceding one. That must be why you don't understand what I am saying. OffWorld Hagen - Original Message - From: off_world_beings To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God' --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hagen J. Holtz hagen.j.holtz@ wrote: These letter-similarities and linguistic derivations can be taken as elucidate language relationships but must not necessarily reveal any insights into the impact of mantras as such. Romantics regarding assumed holy meanings of so-called mantras seems to be okay but if not coping with consistency to its topic it will be an uncontrolled tool for nebulizing of to be properly comprehended consecutions and interrelations. Your understanding of human language and how people in certain regions evolve it incrementally seems poorly developed and unschooled. PS. If the Vedas and evolution is as fragile as you are claiming, here then we can forget the whole thing and close up the universe and go back to sleep. Nothing can stop the engulfing of man. OffWorld - Original Message - From: R.G. To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:28 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God' (snip) No Coincidence: Jehova= JaiShiva Joshua = Jeshiwa= JaiShiwa Jesus = Jeshua = JaiShiwa Adam = Allahem = Adama (the undivided) = Atma = Allah = Eli = Elija OffWorld Ya, ya, das ist gut, ya
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: God doesn't have a name... off wrote: God has 10,000 names. God only appears to have a name. God is 'Dog' spelled backwards. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hagen J. Holtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does the fact that it seemed to have been an instruction automatically imply, that it had sufficient authentic strength not to doubt in its very mentally-scientific mechanics as such ? Please explain the details, why such a mantra ought to have been good enough or even better than what MMY had been teaching ! Hagen I ihave no opinion on any of that either way. I was only pointing out that if you believe that the Christian bible mentions meditation, than it isn't a stretch to believe that the Christian meditation mantra is Jesus. L. - Original Message - From: sparaig To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 9:28 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God' --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hagen J. Holtz hagen.j.holtz@ wrote: Aleging that Jesus was the mantra to God sounds to me like as if stemming from a child, raising a steer-similar toy on a couch while making brumm, brumm and being totally absorbed in its phantasy to be a cool driver of a car. It is funny and causing concern at the same time, how religious thought tries to adopt half-understood spiritual tools in order to give its whole crankiness a more (obviously necessary) sophisticated shape. By no other name shall you know Him sounds like an instruction for which mantra to use, in a meditation context, assuming that there was such a thing 2000 years ago. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Everyone knows that Jesus' mantra of God was the Tetragrammaton, the Shema: Judy wrote: The Tetragrammaton is the four Hebrew letters YHWH, a proper name for God, usually spelled out in English as Yahweh (sometimes Jehovah); the Shema is a confession of faith. Two entirely different things. The Shema is the Jesus mantra of God; God doesn't have a name, that's why God is expressed as the Tetragrammaton - they are the same thing: One God, without a name. One more time: The Tetragrammaton is the four Hebrew letters YHWH, considered to be the name of God; the Shema is a confession of faith. Two entirely different things. The Tetragrammaton is the symbol of God - the Schema is the mantra of God. There's no 'Hebrew' or 'English' in it. The Tetragrammaton is four Hebrew letters; the Shema is in Hebrew. Hear, O Isreal: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! (Deuteronomy 6:4)
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
Everyone knows that Jesus' mantra of God was the Tetragrammaton, the Shema: Judy wrote: The Tetragrammaton is the four Hebrew letters YHWH, a proper name for God, usually spelled out in English as Yahweh (sometimes Jehovah); the Shema is a confession of faith. Two entirely different things. The Shema is the Jesus mantra of God; God doesn't have a name, that's why God is expressed as the Tetragrammaton - they are the same thing: One God, without a name. The Tetragrammaton is the symbol of God - the Schema is the mantra of God. There's no 'Hebrew' or 'English' in it. Hear, O Isreal: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! (Deuteronomy 6:4)
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
The Shema is the Jesus mantra of God; God doesn't have a name, that's why God is expressed as the Tetragrammaton - they are the same thing: One God, without a name. Judy wrote: One more time: The Tetragrammaton is the four Hebrew letters YHWH, considered to be the name of God; the Shema is a confession of faith. Two entirely different things. One more time: The Schema is the Jesus mantra of God - the Tetragrammaton is the symbol of God without a name. The Schema is the mantra, the Tetragrammaton is the symbol. One God, without a name. They are not two entirely different things - there is only *One*.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
(snip) even better than what MMY had been teaching ! Hagen I am implying that if someone has a problem with the bija mantras, which Maharishi uses; Then, Since the name/form in the bija is a sound... The closest sound or vibration, would be the name of Jesus... Jesus is a Roman name. Yeshua, was the name, and the sound which could be used, as a mantra. or Elocheem, in the same way. It's more of the sound quality, that I am referring to. In Mararishi's TM, is not the meaning of the mantra, that is important. It is the intention to think a sound, in a particular way, to transcend. The problem with religion, is the dogma, which prevents transcendence. So, in truth, the name of God can't be spoken, like the Ancient One's said. Because God is Transcendent. That is why one commandment has to do with worshiping idols. There is no idol that can represent God. But God can be found through Transcendence. R.G.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
R.G., your thesis that Jesus would be the sound closest to God seems to me like a claim directly out of mere mythology and not really science-based, saying only: You may believe it or not. If you speak of sound quality according to vedic terms, the evaluation of the worth of mantras would be a question of various aspects of form of vibration, which may vary according to the state of manifestation (from finer to grosser states of sound for example in an eventually mathematically traceable manner). And the instrument in order to measure these states may vary from inner hearing up to profane physical hearing. I confess that these terms of description may also lack in precision (at least in the beginning of finding a common language or understanding of what we talk about), but they show at least an effort to distinguish between certain layers of vibrational expression, not throwing and mixing all forms and contents in one pot of mere believe and leveling. Regarding this matter vedic literature seems to offer sufficient appendages. MMY himself was speaking of mantras, who are better for meditation against others who are more applicable for chanting for example. But there are even more refined categorizations possible. Each mantra has its own realm of influence. It would be worthwhile to find out the matching points between them and their layers of influence. Due to the fact that according to vedic terms there is nothing, which is not divine, it seems to be a ridiculous fight to ask, which (mantra) might be closer to God and which not. Regarding your general dogma thesis, it is funny to hear, what ancient saying was, because it can pass only through the filter of what we are able to derive out of it now as interpretation. The so-called unspoken transcendendence is according to my opinion a great illusion because there is nothing unspeakable, unless we would ignore the fundamentals of mind-recognition. The so-called transcendence is only the aura of the manifest, but totally bound to the same, otherwise there would be no sense at all. The so-called relative vice versa absolute are just the two sides of one coin and can never be separated from each other. That is the reason why MMY taught us to fill the relative up with the subtle energy of the absolute, so that once we can see the latter shining bright while being framed in an (almost) perfect relative form. However to speak of mere transcendence as something unspoken is as senseless as if speaking of warmth without considering the opposite of it simultaneously, means coldness. Hagen - Original Message - From: R.G. To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 5:40 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God' (snip) even better than what MMY had been teaching ! Hagen I am implying that if someone has a problem with the bija mantras, which Maharishi uses; Then, Since the name/form in the bija is a sound... The closest sound or vibration, would be the name of Jesus... Jesus is a Roman name. Yeshua, was the name, and the sound which could be used, as a mantra. or Elocheem, in the same way. It's more of the sound quality, that I am referring to. In Mararishi's TM, is not the meaning of the mantra, that is important. It is the intention to think a sound, in a particular way, to transcend. The problem with religion, is the dogma, which prevents transcendence. So, in truth, the name of God can't be spoken, like the Ancient One's said. Because God is Transcendent. That is why one commandment has to do with worshiping idols. There is no idol that can represent God. But God can be found through Transcendence. R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hagen J. Holtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: R.G., your thesis that Jesus would be the sound closest to God seems to me like a claim directly out of mere mythology and not really science-based, saying only: You may believe it or not. This is not my thesis, at all... My thesis is that all these mantras are 'names', 'vibrations',vehicles for Transcendence. I am proposing that if one was a follower of Jesus, and one would like a mantra associated with him, then I was suggesting the mantra or sound: 'Yeshua' For example, when TM was being taught in public schools and it was found to be a religion, there would be another objection, and that is that the mantras originated as 'names' or 'aspects of God'... So, if that objection arose, and one didn't want to start TM, Because they felt they wanted a mantra associated with the God of their choosing... Then for someone like that, you could say: This is your mantra, for bringing Jesus and the qualities of him, By using a vibration, which would relate to him. So, if you wanted to transcend on the name or sound Yeshua, Then that would be a way for someone who felt a clossness to Jesus, To find an inner sense of him, and eventually transcend, if they were taught how to use this vibration of the sound Yeshua, in the same effortless way, they think any other thoughts. So, in that way, TM could be said to be a Universal Technique... Different from the rest, Because it's not chanting, it's not dogma; Rather it is a way to Transcend on a 'life-supporting sound. I am making this sound Yeshua, a mantra that would relate to Jesus, From my own experience. There is a tradition in the Jewish religion, that is called sitting Shiva. When someone passes away, the family and friends get together to comfort the family, by sitting with them, and this is called: Sitting Shiva. Coincidence? Shiva is used as a mantra for God, also, No one mantra, is 'The Mantra of God'... The technique of meditation itself, is a way to get to God... That is Maharishi's teaching to the world. A way to transcend. This is what is missing at church, or synagog, or mosque. The dogma keeps people from transcending and engages the mind, Instead of transcending the mind. R.G.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
R.G., now I get your point. You think the effect of a mantra, - and that could be any suitable word -, to which you feel a special inclination, would be good enough to come closer to God. This seems to me to be only a romantic idea based on the assumption that transcending was only a question of comfort, confidence and good vibrations. But this theory is too simple in order to give justice to the vedic approach. Here the criteria for transcending are based on spota, the science about ideal grammar of (or) form. Example: The word table, in German Tisch and in Latin tabula may have the same meaning but different forms. Spota will teach the criteria for choosing the ideal form, which allows only one sound associatable with one particular meaning. The well-meant idea that any good sound or good meaning, associated with God, would be good enough to create the same result like TM will definitely lead to a dead end. Therefore telling a school-class, that they could take anything that comforts them in order to avoid confrontation with Indian culture is as stupid as saying, if you do not like Einstein's theory about relativity, because it is jewish, then take any other theory out of your cultural vicinity, which comes closest to his thoughts. :-))) Hagen
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hagen J. Holtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: R.G., now I get your point. You think the effect of a mantra, - and that could be any suitable word -, to which you feel a special inclination, would be good enough to come closer to God. This seems to me to be only a romantic idea based on the assumption that transcending was only a question of comfort, confidence and good vibrations. But this theory is too simple in order to give justice to the vedic approach. Here the criteria for transcending are based on spota, the science about ideal grammar of (or) form. Example: The word table, in German Tisch and in Latin tabula may have the same meaning but different forms. Spota will teach the criteria for choosing the ideal form, which allows only one sound associatable with one particular meaning. The well-meant idea that any good sound or good meaning, associated with God, would be good enough to create the same result like TM will definitely lead to a dead end. Therefore telling a school-class, that they could take anything that comforts them in order to avoid confrontation with Indian culture is as stupid as saying, if you do not like Einstein's theory about relativity, because it is jewish, then take any other theory out of your cultural vicinity, which comes closest to his thoughts. :-))) Hagen Without passion and some kind of romance, life is not worth much, or not experienced as joyful... Especially if you're not particulary interested in math, and can mathematically understand the mathmantics of Eistein's Theory of Relativity, or any of the Quantum Mechanical equations... So, different strokes for different folks... I was attempting to describe the value of the mantra, as a means of transportation, and the technique for using the mantra, which Maharishi has described quite adequately for us... Whatever you focus on, that will manifest in your life. And whatever your intention in, that will manifest in your life. Mantras are what they are, vibrations of life-supporting qualities, Which we use in Transcendental Meditation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
---Precisely! The main ingredient is the Shakti level, not cultural correctness. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hagen J. Holtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: R.G., now I get your point. You think the effect of a mantra, - and that could be any suitable word -, to which you feel a special inclination, would be good enough to come closer to God. This seems to me to be only a romantic idea based on the assumption that transcending was only a question of comfort, confidence and good vibrations. But this theory is too simple in order to give justice to the vedic approach. Here the criteria for transcending are based on spota, the science about ideal grammar of (or) form. Example: The word table, in German Tisch and in Latin tabula may have the same meaning but different forms. Spota will teach the criteria for choosing the ideal form, which allows only one sound associatable with one particular meaning. The well-meant idea that any good sound or good meaning, associated with God, would be good enough to create the same result like TM will definitely lead to a dead end. Therefore telling a school-class, that they could take anything that comforts them in order to avoid confrontation with Indian culture is as stupid as saying, if you do not like Einstein's theory about relativity, because it is jewish, then take any other theory out of your cultural vicinity, which comes closest to his thoughts. :-))) Hagen
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also meant to establish the notion, that there could be other valuble 'names of God' other than strictly Vedic ones. The Name Yeshua for example. Yeshua = JaiShiwa The Name Elocheem for example. Elocheem = AllaHymn = AdamaHymn (song of praise to Adam/Allah/adamah - átomos the undivided, Unity) Adamah = undivided, related to Atma. Adamah gives Adam and Atom Hymnos = Song of praise. The Indo-European root for 'hymn' is syu- believed to be the common ancestor of sew, seam, suture, couture, the Latin subulus (an awl) and Sanskrit sutra (a thread). OffWorld These are Jewish and Christian names of God... Yeshua for me has a similar vibration to the the mantra Muktananda used. Om Shri Shivaiya Namah Om Similar but different. I would assume there are Buddhist mantras as well. And of course lest we forget the Islamic folks. They have mantras also... So, mantras are good. Yes, it is easy? It is easy, yes? R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Richard J. Williams willytex@ wrote: snip Everyone knows that Jesus' mantra of God was the Tetragrammaton, the Shema: The Tetragrammaton is the four Hebrew letters YHWH, YHWH = Shiwa Jehova = JaiShiva OffWorld a proper name for God, usually spelled out in English as Yahweh (sometimes Jehovah); the Shema is a confession of faith. Two entirely different things. Hear, O Isreal: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! (Deuteronomy 6:4)
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Hagen J. Holtz hagen.j.holtz@ wrote: R.G., your thesis that Jesus would be the sound closest to God seems to me like a claim directly out of mere mythology and not really science-based, saying only: You may believe it or not. This is not my thesis, at all... My thesis is that all these mantras are 'names', 'vibrations',vehicles for Transcendence. I am proposing that if one was a follower of Jesus, and one would like a mantra associated with him, then I was suggesting the mantra or sound: 'Yeshua' For example, when TM was being taught in public schools and it was found to be a religion, there would be another objection, and that is that the mantras originated as 'names' or 'aspects of God'... So, if that objection arose, and one didn't want to start TM, Because they felt they wanted a mantra associated with the God of their choosing... Then for someone like that, you could say: This is your mantra, for bringing Jesus and the qualities of him, By using a vibration, which would relate to him. So, if you wanted to transcend on the name or sound Yeshua, Then that would be a way for someone who felt a clossness to Jesus, To find an inner sense of him, and eventually transcend, if they were taught how to use this vibration of the sound Yeshua, in the same effortless way, they think any other thoughts. So, in that way, TM could be said to be a Universal Technique... Different from the rest, Because it's not chanting, it's not dogma; Rather it is a way to Transcend on a 'life-supporting sound. I am making this sound Yeshua, a mantra that would relate to Jesus, From my own experience. There is a tradition in the Jewish religion, that is called sitting Shiva. When someone passes away, the family and friends get together to comfort the family, by sitting with them, and this is called: Sitting Shiva. Coincidence? Shiva is used as a mantra for God, also, No Coincidence: Jehova= JaiShiva Joshua = Jeshiwa= JaiShiwa Jesus = Jeshua = JaiShiwa Adam = Allahem = Adama (the undivided) = Atma = Allah = Eli = Elija No one mantra, is 'The Mantra of God'... The technique of meditation itself, is a way to get to God... That is Maharishi's teaching to the world. A way to transcend. This is what is missing at church, or synagog, or mosque. The dogma keeps people from transcending and engages the mind, Instead of transcending the mind. R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/post?postID=hd0c66qqAS-CPtr\ 1VREnlP81oRDaRWbqDPtQeeEO2cJuZnWORp99To70J8nNhXVNGXjr_-oLO0yPyvw9JFYhTR1\ fVWs , R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/post?postID=CL-yygi3hRdfSIS\ VqCgbgbUAmywLF4JyFgi4mw-vcT4uBklgoVNYByuwhXI2HSHdVwkdpS8sjq8rpLvbJkV3SsF\ rHZKh2w , Hagen J. Holtz hagen.j.holtz@ wrote: R.G., your thesis that Jesus would be the sound closest to God seems to me like a claim directly out of mere mythology and not really science-based, saying only: You may believe it or not. This is not my thesis, at all... My thesis is that all these mantras are 'names', 'vibrations',vehicles for Transcendence. I am proposing that if one was a follower of Jesus, and one would like a mantra associated with him, then I was suggesting the mantra or sound: 'Yeshua' For example, when TM was being taught in public schools and it was found to be a religion, there would be another objection, and that is that the mantras originated as 'names' or 'aspects of God'... So, if that objection arose, and one didn't want to start TM, Because they felt they wanted a mantra associated with the God of their choosing... Then for someone like that, you could say: This is your mantra, for bringing Jesus and the qualities of him, By using a vibration, which would relate to him. So, if you wanted to transcend on the name or sound Yeshua, Then that would be a way for someone who felt a clossness to Jesus, To find an inner sense of him, and eventually transcend, if they were taught how to use this vibration of the sound Yeshua, in the same effortless way, they think any other thoughts. So, in that way, TM could be said to be a Universal Technique... Different from the rest, Because it's not chanting, it's not dogma; Rather it is a way to Transcend on a 'life-supporting sound. I am making this sound Yeshua, a mantra that would relate to Jesus, From my own experience. There is a tradition in the Jewish religion, that is called sitting Shiva. When someone passes away, the family and friends get together to comfort the family, by sitting with them, and this is called: Sitting Shiva. Coincidence? Shiva is used as a mantra for God, also, No Coincidence: Jehova= JaiShiva Joshua = Jeshiwa= JaiShiwa Jesus = Jeshua = JaiShiwa Adam = Allahem = Adama (the undivided) = Atma = Allah = Eli = Elija OffWorld No one mantra, is 'The Mantra of God'... The technique of meditation itself, is a way to get to God... That is Maharishi's teaching to the world. A way to transcend. This is what is missing at church, or synagog, or mosque. The dogma keeps people from transcending and engages the mind, Instead of transcending the mind. R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hagen J. Holtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aleging that Jesus was the mantra to God sounds to me like as if stemming from a child, raising a steer-similar toy on a couch while making brumm, brumm and being totally absorbed in its phantasy to be a cool driver of a car. It is funny and causing concern at the same time, how religious thought tries to adopt half-understood spiritual tools in order to give its whole crankiness a more (obviously necessary) sophisticated shape. By no other name shall you know Him sounds like an instruction for which mantra to use, in a meditation context, assuming that there was such a thing 2000 years ago. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip By no other name shall you know Him sounds like an instruction for which mantra to use, in a meditation context, assuming that there was such a thing 2000 years ago. Is this what you're thinking of? There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4.12).
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: snip By no other name shall you know Him sounds like an instruction for which mantra to use, in a meditation context, assuming that there was such a thing 2000 years ago. Is this what you're thinking of? There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4.12). Jesus' Life was rather dramatic and the vision of Him is one of Love, innocence and following the inner voice. So, that is why I think he has been the 'Rock Star' of Spiritual figures, In terms of the past couple of thousand years So, whatever means you find to draw inspiration, from His life, or wherever you find inspiration, well... That is your meditation. What ever you give your attention to, is your meditation. So, who do you want to inspire you? Who inspires you? What inspires you? That is where spirit leads you. But spirit needs a channel and that channel is You. Muktananda used to love to say That... What you are looking for, is Wwithin... Jesus taught the same. R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
I also meant to establish the notion, that there could be other valuble 'names of God' other than strictly Vedic ones. The Name Yeshua for example. The Name Elocheem for example. These are Jewish and Christian names of God... Yeshua for me has a similar vibration to the the mantra Muktananda used. Om Shri Shivaiya Namah Om Similar but different. I would assume there are Buddhist mantras as well. And of course lest we forget the Islamic folks. They have mantras also... So, mantras are good. Yes, it is easy? It is easy, yes? R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
By no other name shall you know Him sounds like an instruction for which mantra to use, in a meditation context, assuming that there was such a thing 2000 years ago. Judy wrote: Is this what you're thinking of? There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4.12). There have been meditation centers in the Levant for probably 5,000 years. Everyone knows that Jesus' mantra of God was the Tetragrammaton, the Shema: Hear, O Isreal: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! (Deuteronomy 6:4)
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Everyone knows that Jesus' mantra of God was the Tetragrammaton, the Shema: The Tetragrammaton is the four Hebrew letters YHWH, a proper name for God, usually spelled out in English as Yahweh (sometimes Jehovah); the Shema is a confession of faith. Two entirely different things. Hear, O Isreal: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! (Deuteronomy 6:4)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God'
Does the fact that it seemed to have been an instruction automatically imply, that it had sufficient authentic strength not to doubt in its very mentally-scientific mechanics as such ? Please explain the details, why such a mantra ought to have been good enough or even better than what MMY had been teaching ! Hagen - Original Message - From: sparaig To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 9:28 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jesus, Mantra of God' --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hagen J. Holtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aleging that Jesus was the mantra to God sounds to me like as if stemming from a child, raising a steer-similar toy on a couch while making brumm, brumm and being totally absorbed in its phantasy to be a cool driver of a car. It is funny and causing concern at the same time, how religious thought tries to adopt half-understood spiritual tools in order to give its whole crankiness a more (obviously necessary) sophisticated shape. By no other name shall you know Him sounds like an instruction for which mantra to use, in a meditation context, assuming that there was such a thing 2000 years ago. Lawson
