[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: Ah, my experience is that yagyas have an effect. But then I do have them done and I don't just spout off about them without ever having had one. Some people get on a flippant roll and think they actually are saying something. Let's do a double-blind test just to see if what you experience is anything other than what you might expect to experience having coughed up all those sponduliks. I am happy to make a prediction: Nothing will happen. This sin't flippant it's just that I know a lot of people who have also had yagyas and I detect a certain desperation in their attempts to justify the fact they didn't get what they paid for. For instance, I knew a girl who had five health yagyas, at several thousand dollars, a pop to cure her of migraine. It didn't work, but she was convinced it was working at a level she wasn't aware of (?) This is the research that David Orme Johnson should be doing. - Original Message - From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 1:40 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: I am sorry but this whole Maharishi gayness thread is wa off track as pertains to any sort of import. My original question, I thought, was much more ineresting and would provide much more insight into mechanics of consciousness than this flubber. You talking about my stomach or my argument? I want you to know that I have a perfectly good set of six pack abs under there which I am protecting with that layer contributed mostly by members of the porcine product line. When I grow it thick enough I'm gunna cure it into bacon. My question was, does the ethos of the individual pundit effect the outcome of a yagya? No. The outcome is equally nil except as a believe enhancing ritual for the participants and whoever was unlucky enough to give their money to have it done. What do you all think? Or is everyone so caught up in their maras First of all it was Mara who ordered all those disgusting lemon drop shots and it was Mara who conveniently spilled one on her tank top turning her headlights on and which lead me to invite her back to my place where she ate everything in my fridge and then puked into the cat litter box putting an end to any designs I had on her at the beginning of the evening. that they can't think coherently any longer? My guess is yes. Well you got that right. Functioning while not being able to think coherently is a bit of a hobby for me. My favorite is attempting to perform music that way. Anyway, neverthefuckmind. it's all theory, and therefore as specious as the present argument. I'll come back tomorrow when people wake up - hopefully. And after I get all that Mara puke out of my cat box, hopefully. - Original Message - From: Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:13 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits curtisdeltablues wrote: So you are still missing the point? It is the hypocrisy of his position on gayness that I am criticizing. Not that he might be gay. You remind me of my cats Judy. When I point my finger at a treat, they look at my finger. Curtis, Now that was funny. Judy in a nutshellemphasis on the word shell. I'm continually amazed that you debate her when you know it will come to naught in terms of helping her evolve her POV. I'm guessing that you do it as an intellectual exercise for your own benefit -- practice makes clarity. Edg To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: I don't believe that causality is ever experienced. It is belief that bridges the cause and the effect in a person's mind. Very elegantly put. But it leads to a wicked thought. Doesn't that make the idea of causality and scientific law as much a PROJECTION on to the shit that happens as is, say, the idea of deities, sprites, spirits, and other superstitious what-not? They're just alternative language games for the same thing (stuff-that-happens)? You choose the one that floats your boat best down the shit stream. But the one you choose is not necessarily TRUE, it's just the one that's more or less able to get you from your chosen A to your chosen B? Curtis - I thought you had a more progessive epistemology than that! But then I do have them done and I don't just spout off about them without ever having had one. I actually have had a few and was there in person. Very enjoyable. They have all sorts of benifits other than the claimed results. I'm not selling you my POV, but it wasn't gained by me being never having had one. Some people get on a flippant roll and think they actually are saying something. - Original Message - From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 1:40 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: I am sorry but this whole Maharishi gayness thread is wa off track as pertains to any sort of import. My original question, I thought, was much more ineresting and would provide much more insight into mechanics of consciousness than this flubber. You talking about my stomach or my argument? I want you to know that I have a perfectly good set of six pack abs under there which I am protecting with that layer contributed mostly by members of the porcine product line. When I grow it thick enough I'm gunna cure it into bacon. My question was, does the ethos of the individual pundit effect the outcome of a yagya? No. The outcome is equally nil except as a believe enhancing ritual for the participants and whoever was unlucky enough to give their money to have it done. What do you all think? Or is everyone so caught up in their maras First of all it was Mara who ordered all those disgusting lemon drop shots and it was Mara who conveniently spilled one on her tank top turning her headlights on and which lead me to invite her back to my place where she ate everything in my fridge and then puked into the cat litter box putting an end to any designs I had on her at the beginning of the evening. that they can't think coherently any longer? My guess is yes. Well you got that right. Functioning while not being able to think coherently is a bit of a hobby for me. My favorite is attempting to perform music that way. Anyway, neverthefuckmind. it's all theory, and therefore as specious as the present argument. I'll come back tomorrow when people wake up - hopefully. And after I get all that Mara puke out of my cat box, hopefully. - Original Message - From: Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:13 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits curtisdeltablues wrote: So you are still missing the point? It is the hypocrisy of his position on gayness that I am criticizing. Not that he might be gay. You remind me of my cats Judy. When I point my finger at a treat, they look at my finger. Curtis, Now that was funny. Judy in a nutshellemphasis on the word shell. I'm continually amazed that you debate her when you know it will come to naught in terms of helping her evolve her POV. I'm guessing that you do it as an intellectual exercise for your own benefit -- practice makes clarity. Edg To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
- Original Message - From: Hugo richardhughes...@hotmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:09 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: Ah, my experience is that yagyas have an effect. But then I do have them done and I don't just spout off about them without ever having had one. Some people get on a flippant roll and think they actually are saying something. Let's do a double-blind test just to see if what you experience is anything other than what you might expect to experience having coughed up all those sponduliks. I am happy to make a prediction: Nothing will happen. This sin't flippant it's just that I know a lot of people who have also had yagyas and I detect a certain desperation in their attempts to justify the fact they didn't get what they paid for. For instance, I knew a girl who had five health yagyas, at several thousand dollars, a pop to cure her of migraine. It didn't work, but she was convinced it was working at a level she wasn't aware of (?) This is the research that David Orme Johnson should be doing. -So, I don't expect them to do anything. I consider them an adjunct to my own practice whereby I am somehow amped up and feel more clear. Also, I don't shell out much as my yagya group allows me to pay what I wish. I don't even necessarily believe in Gods at all. But I do believe in the power of human attention, and paying others to place their attention on ones higher nature has an impact. Fact is, I feel them and it's not based in autosuggection to me. But I cannot make anyone else believe that. Nor do I care to. Yagyas fit into my way of thinking, even as a Buddhist. As for Maharishi yagyas I have never heard anything good about them. But I have had some wild experiences with them when I had alot of them going at once. In fact it was too much for me and I became insomniac for 6 months. Now I just have one group doing one yagya a day for me, in part of a group yagya. It costs me about a dollar a day. So do contact lenses. I pay five bucks a day for a pack of smokes, so I'm not worried about the money.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
It's all just an excuse to spout off and pass the time of day. Kirk wrote: More ego here, more often, less valuable conversation... Sal Sunshine wrote: You got an ego here, an ego there, and pretty soon you're talking real egos! Sal is a case in point, Kirk - all hat, no cattle. Wasted band space, no insight, nothing of substance, nothing better to do, I guess.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I don't believe that causality is ever experienced. It is belief that bridges the cause and the effect in a person's mind. Very elegantly put. But it leads to a wicked thought. Doesn't that make the idea of causality and scientific law as much a PROJECTION on to the shit that happens as is, say, the idea of deities, sprites, spirits, and other superstitious what-not? They're just alternative language games for the same thing (stuff-that-happens)? You choose the one that floats your boat best down the shit stream. But the one you choose is not necessarily TRUE, it's just the one that's more or less able to get you from your chosen A to your chosen B? Curtis - I thought you had a more progessive epistemology than that! Scientific choices are not as random as that. Humans have been at it long enough to no longer need to use characters from literature as starting points for theories. This shift is historically called the enlightenment which makes Maharishi's misuse of his Age of Enlightenment which proposes going back to the pre-reason model, all the more ironically absurd. You fill in the gaps as best as you can in the scientific method. You give more or less weight to different descriptions as you discover if it applies to more areas that strengthen the overall theory. Then you test the shit out of all the falsifiable theories you can conjure up. Occasionally very good evidence that cannot be denied comes along and blows your theory up, and a new model is necessary to explain it and what you have discovered before. This is happening less and less, not more and more in science, because we do understand some stuff pretty well and we are building on that. Probability, statistics, and vaguely worded unfalsifiable predictions give Yagyas all the wiggle room needed for people who already know their effect and how they work to find all the evidence they need. We have so many cognitive gaps, and sometimes it is hard to face how poorly we are equipped to test such claims, especially after we have paid for them. And then you have A-hole scientists who sometimes subvert the process of inquiry into a way to support the latest pharmaceutical, only giving the method lip service(Not the kind that feels good) for some gold coins with In God We Trust stamped on them. And finally we have a complex mysterious world that has defied our ability to achieve complete knowledge with absolute certainty and this makes some people so nervous they turn to an explanation from a fairy tale to help them go to sleep. So epistemological humility is appropriate in facing the world. But that doesn't mean we don't know anything at all. We just don't everything. And we always have to be on the lookout for things we KNOW that aren't so. If we care about keeping it real, that is. But then I do have them done and I don't just spout off about them without ever having had one. I actually have had a few and was there in person. Very enjoyable. They have all sorts of benifits other than the claimed results. I'm not selling you my POV, but it wasn't gained by me being never having had one. Some people get on a flippant roll and think they actually are saying something. - Original Message - From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 1:40 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: I am sorry but this whole Maharishi gayness thread is wa off track as pertains to any sort of import. My original question, I thought, was much more ineresting and would provide much more insight into mechanics of consciousness than this flubber. You talking about my stomach or my argument? I want you to know that I have a perfectly good set of six pack abs under there which I am protecting with that layer contributed mostly by members of the porcine product line. When I grow it thick enough I'm gunna cure it into bacon. My question was, does the ethos of the individual pundit effect the outcome of a yagya? No. The outcome is equally nil except as a believe enhancing ritual for the participants and whoever was unlucky enough to give their money to have it done. What do you all think? Or is everyone so caught up in their maras First of all it was Mara who ordered all those disgusting lemon drop shots and it was Mara who conveniently spilled one on her tank top turning her headlights on and which lead me to invite her back to my place where she ate everything in my fridge and then puked
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I don't believe that causality is ever experienced. It is belief that bridges the cause and the effect in a person's mind. Very elegantly put. But it leads to a wicked thought. Doesn't that make the idea of causality and scientific law as much a PROJECTION on to the shit that happens as is, say, the idea of deities, sprites, spirits, and other superstitious what-not? They're just alternative language games for the same thing (stuff-that-happens)? You choose the one that floats your boat best down the shit stream. But the one you choose is not necessarily TRUE, it's just the one that's more or less able to get you from your chosen A to your chosen B? Curtis - I thought you had a more progessive epistemology than that! Scientific choices are not as random as that. Humans have been at it long enough to no longer need to use characters from literature as starting points for theories. This shift is historically called the enlightenment which makes Maharishi's misuse of his Age of Enlightenment which proposes going back to the pre-reason model, all the more ironically absurd. Mmmm...The period known as the age of enlightmenment in the history of the West has nothing to with enlightenment (in a meditation sense). MMY had in mind the latter sense. He never proposed going back to a pre-reason model from what I know! You may well think what he advocated amounts to that - but then that's not the same as him proposing that, eh? I should not have mentioned progessive epistemology - my bad. Your response was very interesting of course (but have you read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?). What I had in mind was something else really. It's that bit of yours where you say no longer need to use characters from literature as starting points for theories! Science does not just get us from A to B (instrumentalism). It carries with it an interpretation of the world that is NOT itself science. It is metaphysics (or, dare I say it? Religion!). It was that excellent Curtis nugget that demonstrates this: I don't believe that causality is ever experienced. It is belief that bridges the cause and the effect in a person's mind. The religion of science (scientific triumphalism otherwise known as scientism) is built on causality and all that is bound up with it. This is why triumphalists will assert that Science is laying bare the Laws of Nature (capital L, capital N, as opposed to finding handy, convenient associations which work fairly well for our purposes). These reified, Platonic laws are very odd birds indeed. What ARE they? IMO they're nothing else but the modern equivalents of the deities of the ancients who believed that some order-behind-appearances explained the way things are. Gods? laws? TomRtoe? TomAtoe? So, no, we don't use characters from literature as starting points for theories. We use the agencies and controllers of causality named as laws instead. And the meta-science is not itself Science. Of course you CAN do science without subscribing to scientism. Many do. Rather the same way as you can do TM without being a triumphalist Hindu. And again, many do! You fill in the gaps as best as you can in the scientific method. You give more or less weight to different descriptions as you discover if it applies to more areas that strengthen the overall theory. Then you test the shit out of all the falsifiable theories you can conjure up. Occasionally very good evidence that cannot be denied comes along and blows your theory up, and a new model is necessary to explain it and what you have discovered before. This is happening less and less, not more and more in science, because we do understand some stuff pretty well and we are building on that. Probability, statistics, and vaguely worded unfalsifiable predictions give Yagyas all the wiggle room needed for people who already know their effect and how they work to find all the evidence they need. We have so many cognitive gaps, and sometimes it is hard to face how poorly we are equipped to test such claims, especially after we have paid for them. And then you have A-hole scientists who sometimes subvert the process of inquiry into a way to support the latest pharmaceutical, only giving the method lip service(Not the kind that feels good) for some gold coins with In God We Trust stamped on them. And finally we have a complex mysterious world that has defied our ability to achieve complete knowledge with absolute certainty and this makes some people so nervous they turn to an explanation from a fairy tale to help them go to sleep. So epistemological humility is appropriate in facing the
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I don't believe that causality is ever experienced. It is belief that bridges the cause and the effect in a person's mind. Very elegantly put. But it leads to a wicked thought. Doesn't that make the idea of causality and scientific law as much a PROJECTION on to the shit that happens as is, say, the idea of deities, sprites, spirits, and other superstitious what-not? They're just alternative language games for the same thing (stuff-that-happens)? You choose the one that floats your boat best down the shit stream. But the one you choose is not necessarily TRUE, it's just the one that's more or less able to get you from your chosen A to your chosen B? Curtis - I thought you had a more progessive epistemology than that! Scientific choices are not as random as that. Humans have been at it long enough to no longer need to use characters from literature as starting points for theories. This shift is historically called the enlightenment which makes Maharishi's misuse of his Age of Enlightenment which proposes going back to the pre-reason model, all the more ironically absurd. You fill in the gaps as best as you can in the scientific method. You give more or less weight to different descriptions as you discover if it applies to more areas that strengthen the overall theory. Then you test the shit out of all the falsifiable theories you can conjure up. Occasionally very good evidence that cannot be denied comes along and blows your theory up, and a new model is necessary to explain it and what you have discovered before. This is happening less and less, not more and more in science, because we do understand some stuff pretty well and we are building on that. Probability, statistics, and vaguely worded unfalsifiable predictions give Yagyas all the wiggle room needed for people who already know their effect and how they work to find all the evidence they need. We have so many cognitive gaps, and sometimes it is hard to face how poorly we are equipped to test such claims, especially after we have paid for them. And then you have A-hole scientists who sometimes subvert the process of inquiry into a way to support the latest pharmaceutical, only giving the method lip service(Not the kind that feels good) for some gold coins with In God We Trust stamped on them. And finally we have a complex mysterious world that has defied our ability to achieve complete knowledge with absolute certainty and this makes some people so nervous they turn to an explanation from a fairy tale to help them go to sleep. So epistemological humility is appropriate in facing the world. But that doesn't mean we don't know anything at all. We just don't everything. And we always have to be on the lookout for things we KNOW that aren't so. If we care about keeping it real, that is. Well, in a very real sense we KNOW nothing. We can only know what is NOT, not what IS. Its Hume's problem of induction, How many white swans do you need to see until you know the truth that all swans are white? 1000, one million, one billion? At one billion, you may say, well, the statistical probability of knowing that there are no black swans is astronomically huge -- we have a sample of one billion. The probability that there are other than white swans is on the far far side of the tail (of the normal distibution). The problem is that the normal distribution accounts for some things nicely, and yet is hugely flawed as a representative distribution for far more things. You don't really know the distribution until you have seen the entire population, not just a sample. Many things have distributions with enormously fat tails. That is, they have a much higher probability of occurring than the normal distribution would predict. But hey, the white swan theory worked extremely well at predicting the color of swans. Everyone continued to see only white swans, What a marvelous model we have, everyone beamed. Until one black swan was discovered. Then many. opps -- our poor normal distribution totally sucked and we fell for it. If we had be significantly on this model, we would hve bee nwiped out. The only thing we know now is that NOT all swans are white. We don't know what IS only what is NOT. A doctor can say he finds no evidence of disease in you. That is far far from saying .I have evidence of no disease in you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I don't believe that causality is ever experienced. It is belief that bridges the cause and the effect in a person's mind. Very elegantly put. But it leads to a wicked thought. Doesn't that make the idea of causality and scientific law as much a PROJECTION on to the shit that happens as is, say, the idea of deities, sprites, spirits, and other superstitious what-not? They're just alternative language games for the same thing (stuff-that-happens)? You choose the one that floats your boat best down the shit stream. But the one you choose is not necessarily TRUE, it's just the one that's more or less able to get you from your chosen A to your chosen B? Curtis - I thought you had a more progessive epistemology than that! Scientific choices are not as random as that. Humans have been at it long enough to no longer need to use characters from literature as starting points for theories. This shift is historically called the enlightenment which makes Maharishi's misuse of his Age of Enlightenment which proposes going back to the pre-reason model, all the more ironically absurd. You fill in the gaps as best as you can in the scientific method. You give more or less weight to different descriptions as you discover if it applies to more areas that strengthen the overall theory. Then you test the shit out of all the falsifiable theories you can conjure up. Occasionally very good evidence that cannot be denied comes along and blows your theory up, and a new model is necessary to explain it and what you have discovered before. This is happening less and less, not more and more in science, because we do understand some stuff pretty well and we are building on that. Probability, statistics, and vaguely worded unfalsifiable predictions give Yagyas all the wiggle room needed for people who already know their effect and how they work to find all the evidence they need. We have so many cognitive gaps, and sometimes it is hard to face how poorly we are equipped to test such claims, especially after we have paid for them. And then you have A-hole scientists who sometimes subvert the process of inquiry into a way to support the latest pharmaceutical, only giving the method lip service(Not the kind that feels good) for some gold coins with In God We Trust stamped on them. And finally we have a complex mysterious world that has defied our ability to achieve complete knowledge with absolute certainty and this makes some people so nervous they turn to an explanation from a fairy tale to help them go to sleep. So epistemological humility is appropriate in facing the world. But that doesn't mean we don't know anything at all. We just don't everything. And we always have to be on the lookout for things we KNOW that aren't so. If we care about keeping it real, that is. Well, in a very real sense we KNOW nothing. We can only know what is NOT, not what IS. Its Hume's problem of induction, How many white swans do you need to see until you know the truth that all swans are white? 1000, one million, one billion? At one billion, you may say, well, the statistical probability of knowing that there are no black swans is astronomically huge -- we have a sample of one billion. The probability that there are other than white swans is on the far far side of the tail (of the normal distibution). The problem is that the normal distribution accounts for some things nicely, and yet is hugely flawed as a representative distribution for far more things. You don't really know the distribution until you have seen the entire population, not just a sample. Many things have distributions with enormously fat tails. That is, they have a much higher probability of occurring than the normal distribution would predict. But hey, the white swan theory worked extremely well at predicting the color of swans. Everyone continued to see only white swans, What a marvelous model we have, everyone beamed. Until one black swan was discovered. Then many. opps -- our poor normal distribution totally sucked and we fell for it. If we had be significantly on this model, we would hve bee nwiped out. The only thing we know now is that NOT all swans are white. We don't know what IS only what is NOT. A doctor can say he finds no evidence of disease in you. That is far far from saying .I have evidence of no disease in you. Aren't we in bigger shit than this though in reality? To know the negative depends on knowing a positive viz. Nabster in Tasmania has seen a black swan. But perhaps Nabster
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: You fill in the gaps as best as you can in the scientific method. You give more or less weight to different descriptions as you discover if it applies to more areas that strengthen the overall theory. Then you test the shit out of all the falsifiable theories you can conjure up. Can yu share with us your list of how you have tested (hopefully the shit out of) the falsifiability of your theory that the practice of TM, twice day, is a religion? Occasionally very good evidence that cannot be denied comes along and blows your theory up, and a new model is necessary to explain it and what you have discovered before. This is happening less and less, not more and more in science, because we do understand some stuff pretty well and we are building on that. Probability, statistics, and vaguely worded unfalsifiable predictions give Yagyas all the wiggle room needed for people who already know their effect and how they work to find all the evidence they need. Which reminds me of the method some have used to establish that the 2x day practice of TM is a religion. What is your model for predicting something is a religion? And how is it falsified?
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I don't believe that causality is ever experienced. It is belief that bridges the cause and the effect in a person's mind. Very elegantly put. But it leads to a wicked thought. Doesn't that make the idea of causality and scientific law as much a PROJECTION on to the shit that happens as is, say, the idea of deities, sprites, spirits, and other superstitious what-not? They're just alternative language games for the same thing (stuff-that-happens)? You choose the one that floats your boat best down the shit stream. But the one you choose is not necessarily TRUE, it's just the one that's more or less able to get you from your chosen A to your chosen B? Curtis - I thought you had a more progessive epistemology than that! Scientific choices are not as random as that. Humans have been at it long enough to no longer need to use characters from literature as starting points for theories. This shift is historically called the enlightenment which makes Maharishi's misuse of his Age of Enlightenment which proposes going back to the pre-reason model, all the more ironically absurd. You fill in the gaps as best as you can in the scientific method. You give more or less weight to different descriptions as you discover if it applies to more areas that strengthen the overall theory. Then you test the shit out of all the falsifiable theories you can conjure up. Occasionally very good evidence that cannot be denied comes along and blows your theory up, and a new model is necessary to explain it and what you have discovered before. This is happening less and less, not more and more in science, because we do understand some stuff pretty well and we are building on that. Probability, statistics, and vaguely worded unfalsifiable predictions give Yagyas all the wiggle room needed for people who already know their effect and how they work to find all the evidence they need. We have so many cognitive gaps, and sometimes it is hard to face how poorly we are equipped to test such claims, especially after we have paid for them. And then you have A-hole scientists who sometimes subvert the process of inquiry into a way to support the latest pharmaceutical, only giving the method lip service(Not the kind that feels good) for some gold coins with In God We Trust stamped on them. And finally we have a complex mysterious world that has defied our ability to achieve complete knowledge with absolute certainty and this makes some people so nervous they turn to an explanation from a fairy tale to help them go to sleep. So epistemological humility is appropriate in facing the world. But that doesn't mean we don't know anything at all. We just don't everything. And we always have to be on the lookout for things we KNOW that aren't so. If we care about keeping it real, that is. Well, in a very real sense we KNOW nothing. We can only know what is NOT, not what IS. Its Hume's problem of induction, How many white swans do you need to see until you know the truth that all swans are white? 1000, one million, one billion? At one billion, you may say, well, the statistical probability of knowing that there are no black swans is astronomically huge -- we have a sample of one billion. The probability that there are other than white swans is on the far far side of the tail (of the normal distibution). The problem is that the normal distribution accounts for some things nicely, and yet is hugely flawed as a representative distribution for far more things. You don't really know the distribution until you have seen the entire population, not just a sample. Many things have distributions with enormously fat tails. That is, they have a much higher probability of occurring than the normal distribution would predict. But hey, the white swan theory worked extremely well at predicting the color of swans. Everyone continued to see only white swans, What a marvelous model we have, everyone beamed. Until one black swan was discovered. Then many. opps -- our poor normal distribution totally sucked and we fell for it. If we had be significantly on this model, we would hve bee nwiped out. The only thing we know now is that NOT all swans are white. We don't know what IS only what is NOT. A doctor can say he finds no evidence of disease in you. That is far far from saying .I have evidence of no disease in you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
I am running out of posts with my incessant blathering! So I want to address both Grate Swan and Richard's post together. Both of you never fail to make me think more deeply here so first a big nod and think you for that! I believe both of you are taking a more purely philosophical look at our ability to know. Hume did point out our humble relationship with knowing, but it is a glass half empty situation. The pragmatist, myself included, just goes with probabilities and finds that suits him pretty well most of the time. Just don't put a low brow like me in a theoretical physics lab! Although I would have to agree with the theoretical arguments of the absolute skeptic, I don't live that way. I am not alone in this. Knowing our limitations is one thing. Pushing on with existential enlightenment is another. (I know I co-opted that word but I have used it for the ultimate in knowledge so long, I now use if for the good-enough epistemological world I have created for myself. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote: snip Mmmm...The period known as the age of enlightmenment in the history of the West has nothing to with enlightenment (in a meditation sense). MMY had in mind the latter sense. He never proposed going back to a pre-reason model from what I know! You may well think what he advocated amounts to that - but then that's not the same as him proposing that, eh? I believe he did. Every time he ridiculed modern science's lack of absolute knowledge and proposed religious texts as the solution. If you listen to his argument with Jon Shear about the logical necessity for PC in between the other states, and hear him conclude with Then you must change your logic, you see his true commitment to irrationality. He only pay lip-service to reason for marketing purposes. He always said the elephant has two sets of teeth, one to show and one to chew with. I should not have mentioned progessive epistemology - my bad. Your response was very interesting of course (but have you read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?). So long ago, but even my faded memory makes me want to revise some of my statements below so thanks for mentioning it. What I had in mind was something else really. It's that bit of yours where you say no longer need to use characters from literature as starting points for theories! Let me start here. This statement is full of it as stated. You can START from anywhere for a theory. Why not Vedic literature or a dream even? I should have been referring to the fact that with all the work that has been done in science, we can base a theory on another likely theory with some proof behind it now. We have gone past, then magic happened in many areas. However to discuss how the Vedic characters can help us transcend the limits of our imagination in theoretical physics...why not? Science does not just get us from A to B (instrumentalism). It carries with it an interpretation of the world that is NOT itself science. It is metaphysics (or, dare I say it? Religion!). It was that excellent Curtis nugget that demonstrates this: I don't believe that causality is ever experienced. It is belief that bridges the cause and the effect in a person's mind. The religion of science (scientific triumphalism otherwise known as scientism) is built on causality and all that is bound up with it. This is why triumphalists will assert that Science is laying bare the Laws of Nature (capital L, capital N, as opposed to finding handy, convenient associations which work fairly well for our purposes). I am somewhere between your skepticism and the scientific triumphalist on this point. I don't have a perfectionist standard for knowledge to compare what we are doing in science to an ideal that is better. I am accepting the human condition with the limits we have. In my life the biggest gaps in knowledge don't come from the theoretical problems of causality, but from my own susceptibility to cognitive error. My knowledge issues are wy down the line from the issues posed by philosophers. It is what cognitive psychologists reveal to me that makes me cast a skeptical eye on anything I assert! These reified, Platonic laws are very odd birds indeed. What ARE they? IMO they're nothing else but the modern equivalents of the deities of the ancients who believed that some order-behind-appearances explained the way things are. Gods? laws? TomRtoe? TomAtoe? Again, the pragmatist in me rejects the need to grapple with Plato's idealistic forms. And the language does matter on one level because there are many implied beliefs in a word like Gods that are not contained in the word laws. For most purposes in science the term laws works better, especially when you may have to chuck them when new data comes in. Killing Gods is much more difficult emotionally. So, no, we
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: You fill in the gaps as best as you can in the scientific method. You give more or less weight to different descriptions as you discover if it applies to more areas that strengthen the overall theory. Then you test the shit out of all the falsifiable theories you can conjure up. Can yu share with us your list of how you have tested (hopefully the shit out of) the falsifiability of your theory that the practice of TM, twice day, is a religion? I never said that. And I would never use this method to determine such a thing. I would use the definition of words to assess how these concepts are used. You can practice TM twice a day and not have it be your religion. But I also believe that teaching TM in schools is promoting a religious practice because of how it is taught and its origins. I can also drink wine and take bread in a church and consider it an type of piss poor Tapas bar fare. But that doesn't mean we should have a priest come in to third grade to see if it settles the kids down if he performs mass for them. You are trying to use the scientific method in the wrong place. There are other areas of knowledge that we use for such questions and the answers are not so clear cut. That is why we have courts to decide some of these question and you may disagree with their conclusions. Occasionally very good evidence that cannot be denied comes along and blows your theory up, and a new model is necessary to explain it and what you have discovered before. This is happening less and less, not more and more in science, because we do understand some stuff pretty well and we are building on that. Probability, statistics, and vaguely worded unfalsifiable predictions give Yagyas all the wiggle room needed for people who already know their effect and how they work to find all the evidence they need. Which reminds me of the method some have used to establish that the 2x day practice of TM is a religion. What is your model for predicting something is a religion? And how is it falsified? As I said, wrong application of the method. Science is cross cultural, these questions are culture bound. In the US we have made some distinctions that are meant to keep religious concepts from being taught outside religion classes. This is a big difference between our educational system and say, Afghanistan's.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I don't believe that causality is ever experienced. It is belief that bridges the cause and the effect in a person's mind. Very elegantly put. But it leads to a wicked thought. Doesn't that make the idea of causality and scientific law as much a PROJECTION on to the shit that happens as is, say, the idea of deities, sprites, spirits, and other superstitious what-not? They're just alternative language games for the same thing (stuff-that-happens)? You choose the one that floats your boat best down the shit stream. But the one you choose is not necessarily TRUE, it's just the one that's more or less able to get you from your chosen A to your chosen B? Curtis - I thought you had a more progessive epistemology than that! Scientific choices are not as random as that. Humans have been at it long enough to no longer need to use characters from literature as starting points for theories. This shift is historically called the enlightenment which makes Maharishi's misuse of his Age of Enlightenment which proposes going back to the pre-reason model, all the more ironically absurd. You fill in the gaps as best as you can in the scientific method. You give more or less weight to different descriptions as you discover if it applies to more areas that strengthen the overall theory. Then you test the shit out of all the falsifiable theories you can conjure up. Occasionally very good evidence that cannot be denied comes along and blows your theory up, and a new model is necessary to explain it and what you have discovered before. This is happening less and less, not more and more in science, because we do understand some stuff pretty well and we are building on that. Probability, statistics, and vaguely worded unfalsifiable predictions give Yagyas all the wiggle room needed for people who already know their effect and how they work to find all the evidence they need. We have so many cognitive gaps, and sometimes it is hard to face how poorly we are equipped to test such claims, especially after we have paid for them. And then you have A-hole scientists who sometimes subvert the process of inquiry into a way to support the latest pharmaceutical, only giving the method lip service(Not the kind that feels good) for some gold coins with In God We Trust stamped on them. And finally we have a complex mysterious world that has defied our ability to achieve complete knowledge with absolute certainty and this makes some people so nervous they turn to an explanation from a fairy tale to help them go to sleep. So epistemological humility is appropriate in facing the world. But that doesn't mean we don't know anything at all. We just don't everything. And we always have to be on the lookout for things we KNOW that aren't so. If we care about keeping it real, that is. Well, in a very real sense we KNOW nothing. We can only know what is NOT, not what IS. Its Hume's problem of induction, How many white swans do you need to see until you know the truth that all swans are white? 1000, one million, one billion? At one billion, you may say, well, the statistical probability of knowing that there are no black swans is astronomically huge -- we have a sample of one billion. The probability that there are other than white swans is on the far far side of the tail (of the normal distibution). The problem is that the normal distribution accounts for some things nicely, and yet is hugely flawed as a representative distribution for far more things. You don't really know the distribution until you have seen the entire population, not just a sample. Many things have distributions with enormously fat tails. That is, they have a much higher probability of occurring than the normal distribution would predict. But hey, the white swan theory worked extremely well at predicting the color of swans. Everyone continued to see only white swans, What a marvelous model we have, everyone beamed. Until one black swan was discovered. Then many. opps -- our poor normal distribution totally sucked and we fell for it. If we had be significantly on this model, we would hve bee nwiped out. The only thing we know now is that NOT all swans are white. We don't
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: But what you gunna do? As long as I got rhythm, I got music, I got my girl... who could ask for anything more! Yep! Sounds as good as it gets... Me - gotta work on the rhythm (white boy can't dance). I'm gonna throw a Nabby at you here: See Curtis - all that karma yoga you did paid off! (That's very irritating of me, sorry) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: I am running out of posts with my incessant blathering! So I want to address both Grate Swan and Richard's post together. Both of you never fail to make me think more deeply here so first a big nod and think you for that! I believe both of you are taking a more purely philosophical look at our ability to know. Hume did point out our humble relationship with knowing, but it is a glass half empty situation. The pragmatist, myself included, just goes with probabilities and finds that suits him pretty well most of the time. Just don't put a low brow like me in a theoretical physics lab! Although I would have to agree with the theoretical arguments of the absolute skeptic, I don't live that way. I am not alone in this. Knowing our limitations is one thing. Pushing on with existential enlightenment is another. (I know I co-opted that word but I have used it for the ultimate in knowledge so long, I now use if for the good-enough epistemological world I have created for myself. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote: snip Mmmm...The period known as the age of enlightmenment in the history of the West has nothing to with enlightenment (in a meditation sense). MMY had in mind the latter sense. He never proposed going back to a pre-reason model from what I know! You may well think what he advocated amounts to that - but then that's not the same as him proposing that, eh? I believe he did. Every time he ridiculed modern science's lack of absolute knowledge and proposed religious texts as the solution. If you listen to his argument with Jon Shear about the logical necessity for PC in between the other states, and hear him conclude with Then you must change your logic, you see his true commitment to irrationality. He only pay lip-service to reason for marketing purposes. He always said the elephant has two sets of teeth, one to show and one to chew with. I should not have mentioned progessive epistemology - my bad. Your response was very interesting of course (but have you read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?). So long ago, but even my faded memory makes me want to revise some of my statements below so thanks for mentioning it. What I had in mind was something else really. It's that bit of yours where you say no longer need to use characters from literature as starting points for theories! Let me start here. This statement is full of it as stated. You can START from anywhere for a theory. Why not Vedic literature or a dream even? I should have been referring to the fact that with all the work that has been done in science, we can base a theory on another likely theory with some proof behind it now. We have gone past, then magic happened in many areas. However to discuss how the Vedic characters can help us transcend the limits of our imagination in theoretical physics...why not? Science does not just get us from A to B (instrumentalism). It carries with it an interpretation of the world that is NOT itself science. It is metaphysics (or, dare I say it? Religion!). It was that excellent Curtis nugget that demonstrates this: I don't believe that causality is ever experienced. It is belief that bridges the cause and the effect in a person's mind. The religion of science (scientific triumphalism otherwise known as scientism) is built on causality and all that is bound up with it. This is why triumphalists will assert that Science is laying bare the Laws of Nature (capital L, capital N, as opposed to finding handy, convenient associations which work fairly well for our purposes). I am somewhere between your skepticism and the scientific triumphalist on this point. I don't have a perfectionist standard for knowledge to compare what we are doing in science to an ideal that is better. I am accepting the human condition with the limits we have. In my life the biggest gaps in knowledge don't come from the theoretical problems of causality, but from my own susceptibility to cognitive error. My knowledge issues are wy down the line from the issues posed by philosophers. It is what cognitive psychologists reveal to me that makes me cast a skeptical eye on anything I assert! These reified, Platonic laws are very odd birds indeed. What ARE they? IMO they're nothing else but the modern equivalents of the
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Doughney m...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: I used to see a similar behavior pattern among the supposedly-celibate guys working on staff at Seelisberg and on courses in Europe, but in a heterosexual way. These guys would see a woman they liked and seduce her with the olde I know that I should be celibate but you're just s beautiful routine. And after one or two rolls in the hay, they would forget the women. Not just drop them, FORGET them. The way this sort of thing was told to me, by a woman (a meditator/checker) who was very briefly involved with one such TM initiator sleazebag, was that after a night of rolling in the hay, so to speak, she was met with hostility and a lot of canned language about how their evolution had been sidetracked by having sex. After having consensual sex, the next morning the guy basically blamed her for harming him. Just another data point illustrating how involvement with the TMO correlates with all kinds of unhealthy habits and attitudes, particularly with respect to intimate matters, like sex. /me recalls several B'Hai and other fundamentalist girlfriends who insisted that sex before marriage was a no-no... as long as you were romantically involved. Once marriage/long-term committment was off the table, it was anything goes... wanna shag tonight since we're not engaged? Unhealthy attitudes can be found in many different contexts. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I don't believe that. It is still hypocritical considering... let's call it a more neutral outside the box, male bonding. Maharishi was very clear that he wanted a personal relationship with Guru Dev and contrived a scheme to make it happen. He was not looking for a way to sneak into his Vedic study class. You are drawing different conclusions than I am from the few facts we do know about the guy. That's a pretty standard form of sadhana in India. It's called Guru-Bhakti Yoga. In that context, it's not at all out-of-the-box. Google it; there's over 15,000 hits. And the way he described how he went about it in that one tape that's been transcribed and posted a number of times is in very close accord with the traditional formulations. What Judy is trying to obscure is that Curtis and I are CHALLENGING that trad- itional formulation. We think it's a cover for something more mundane, the love of one man for another man. The traditional formulation is a way of pretending that guru-bhakti love is something *different* than the love of one man for another man. It's loftier, more spiritual, and all about God, not flesh. I don't think it is. I think it's just a way to not only excuse what the SAME society felt was inexcusable, but elevate it and put it on a pedestal as something noble and admirable. The traditional formulation of guru wor- ship and devotion is ON ONE LEVEL a way that men who are attracted to other men can do it and GET AWAY WITH IT. It's a social structure that allows them to get all weepy and blissed-out and bhakti- fied about another man not only without being dragged out into an alley and left to die in a pool of blood for doing it, but getting *praised* for doing it. The guru-bhakti traditional formulation is a way of turning socially unacceptable male-to-male behavior into socially acceptable male-to-male behavior. Men in ashram situations are *praised* and put on pedestals for the SAME behavior with regard to gushing over other men that would get them beaten to a pulp in Texas, or even in Bombay. ALL that Curtis and I are doing is pointing out the *artificiality* of this traditional formulation and looking at it a different way than the tradition looks at it. And Judy's RESPONSE to that intellectual questioning and out of the box thinking? Attack! Vilify! Call the out of the box thinkers names. Accuse them of everything she can possibly think of. And WHY? Because we not only thought out of the box, but suggested that the box was more than a little artificial and self-serving. That's all. I have NOT ONCE in these discussions suggested that Maharishi was gay and *acted on it*. I believe that he was so sexually repressed that he would never in a million years have been able to do that. But I *DO* believe that there were *elements* of man-love involved in his obsessional relationship with Guru Dev, and that one of the reasons he was drawn to the ashram life was that its traditional formu- lation allowed him to express what he was really feeling about other men in a way that was IN THAT CONTEXT socially acceptable. And not ONLY socially acceptable...he could get brownie points and strokes for doing what would have gotten him beaten to a pulp in Bombay. The more flowery the language he used to describe Guru Dev, the more he was praised. The more he gushed over him and treated him as if he was the master in a master-slave relationship, the more Maharishi was seen as a good student, an example of bhakti, a veritable budding Trotakacharya to Guru Dev's Shankara. I don't know about Curtis, but I'm really just playing with ideas here. I think that ON ONE LEVEL the guru-bhakti traditional formulation is a *cover* for something. And that on that same level, the men who are drawn to such environments are looking for cover. Judy is so offended by me and Curtis expressing these ideas that's she's trying her best to vilify us. In words, she's acting out the counter- part of dragging us out behind the bar and beat- ing us to a pulp because we've done something that she considers socially unacceptable. Judy is ideaphobic in the same way that some men are homophobic. The homophobic men are so challenged and threat- ened by men who act outside the box that they feel the need to attack them. Ideaphobic Judy is so challenged and threatened by men who *think* outside the box that she feels the need to attack them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I don't believe that. It is still hypocritical considering... let's call it a more neutral outside the box, male bonding. Maharishi was very clear that he wanted a personal relationship with Guru Dev and contrived a scheme to make it happen. He was not looking for a way to sneak into his Vedic study class. You are drawing different conclusions than I am from the few facts we do know about the guy. That's a pretty standard form of sadhana in India. It's called Guru-Bhakti Yoga. In that context, it's not at all out-of-the-box. Google it; there's over 15,000 hits. And the way he described how he went about it in that one tape that's been transcribed and posted a number of times is in very close accord with the traditional formulations. What Judy is trying to obscure is that Curtis and I are CHALLENGING that trad- itional formulation. We think it's a cover for something more mundane, the love of one man for another man. Positing that Maharishi's love for Guru Dev was possibly a cover for repressed homosexuality was yet another TM critic's excursion into, Let's think outside the box, and have some fun taking a cheap shot at Maharishi. Aren't we so creative? Now let's sit back and watch their heads explode. Such behavior reminds me of a bunch of 8th grade boys ganging up on a kid who brought his beloved teacher an apple and for that, they decide to bully and humiliate him. The boy's expression of pure love for his teacher, made them feel squeamish and perhaps insecure about their own budding manhood. To keep their feelings of superiority and manliness intact, they must crush any expression of delicacy of spirit in others; surrender of the heart makes them feel weak. One has to question the motivation of chronic TM critics and marvel at the lengths they will go to get their rocks off bashing Maharishi. Challenge away. Have some fun. Your cynicism only exposes your inability to appreciate the delicacy of spirit and trollish obsession to crush the hearts of TMers. The traditional formulation is a way of pretending that guru-bhakti love is something *different* than the love of one man for another man. It's loftier, more spiritual, and all about God, not flesh. I don't think it is. I think it's just a way to not only excuse what the SAME society felt was inexcusable, but elevate it and put it on a pedestal as something noble and admirable. The traditional formulation of guru wor- ship and devotion is ON ONE LEVEL a way that men who are attracted to other men can do it and GET AWAY WITH IT. It's a social structure that allows them to get all weepy and blissed-out and bhakti- fied about another man not only without being dragged out into an alley and left to die in a pool of blood for doing it, but getting *praised* for doing it. The guru-bhakti traditional formulation is a way of turning socially unacceptable male-to-male behavior into socially acceptable male-to-male behavior. Men in ashram situations are *praised* and put on pedestals for the SAME behavior with regard to gushing over other men that would get them beaten to a pulp in Texas, or even in Bombay. ALL that Curtis and I are doing is pointing out the *artificiality* of this traditional formulation and looking at it a different way than the tradition looks at it. And Judy's RESPONSE to that intellectual questioning and out of the box thinking? Attack! Vilify! Call the out of the box thinkers names. Accuse them of everything she can possibly think of. And WHY? Because we not only thought out of the box, but suggested that the box was more than a little artificial and self-serving. That's all. I have NOT ONCE in these discussions suggested that Maharishi was gay and *acted on it*. I believe that he was so sexually repressed that he would never in a million years have been able to do that. But I *DO* believe that there were *elements* of man-love involved in his obsessional relationship with Guru Dev, and that one of the reasons he was drawn to the ashram life was that its traditional formu- lation allowed him to express what he was really feeling about other men in a way that was IN THAT CONTEXT socially acceptable. And not ONLY socially acceptable...he could get brownie points and strokes for doing what would have gotten him beaten to a pulp in Bombay. The more flowery the language he used to describe Guru Dev, the more he was praised. The more he gushed over him and treated him as if he was the master in a master-slave relationship, the more Maharishi was seen as a good student, an example of bhakti, a veritable budding Trotakacharya to Guru Dev's Shankara. I
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
Curtis wrote: Maharishi was very clear that he wanted a personal relationship with Guru Dev and contrived a scheme to make it happen. He was not looking for a way to sneak into his Vedic study class. You are drawing different conclusions than I am from the few facts we do know about the guy... Based on what they've written in this thread, I'd say that Curtis, Barry, and Edg all wanted to have a sexual relationship with the Marshy, but because they were homophobes, they couldn't overcome the peer pressure. Edg admitted as much and even confessed to being a hypocrite. This of course, is just my *opinion*. It's obvious that they all had a 'personal relationship' with the Marshy and they all contrived a 'scheme' to make it happen. They all tried to 'sneak' into his Vedic study classes. Now it looks like Curtis, Barry, and Edg are desperate to make themselves look innocent by leveling charges against their dead guru - that's the hypocrisy, in my *opinion*. But the truth is that Curtis, Barry, and Edg probably spent less than a few minutes alone with the Marshy in his bedroom, in fourteen years - none of them were actually insiders - they were lackeys, pure and simple, robots, who spouted the TMO party line. From what I've heard, they all, Curtis, Barry, and Edg, sucked as TM teachers. One was kicked out, apparently, because the Marshy was up to his schemes. And I can't blame the Marshy for kicking people out - I mean who would want someone like Curtis, Barry, or Edg hanging out by the bedroom door all the time? It's a very sick type of person who would want to get off on another guy's antelope skin. It's a perversion of spirituality, in my *opinion*. But what would i know, being *just a man*? But as sick as this thread is, nothing can top the rantings of Steve Perino and Vaj, who claim, without a shred of evidence, that the Marshy murdered the Guru Dev. That's just outrageous, in my *opinion*. Forum: alt.meditation.transcendental Subject: RE: Hard times for Perino Author: Steve Perino Date: October 2, 2001 The fact is 'lil brahmachari mahesh' conspired with Shantinanda to rid the Ashram of their Master (Swami Brahmananda), by posioning him to death, with the help of the cook.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I don't believe that. It is still hypocritical considering... let's call it a more neutral outside the box, male bonding. Maharishi was very clear that he wanted a personal relationship with Guru Dev and contrived a scheme to make it happen. He was not looking for a way to sneak into his Vedic study class. You are drawing different conclusions than I am from the few facts we do know about the guy. That's a pretty standard form of sadhana in India. It's called Guru-Bhakti Yoga. In that context, it's not at all out-of-the-box. Google it; there's over 15,000 hits. And the way he described how he went about it in that one tape that's been transcribed and posted a number of times is in very close accord with the traditional formulations. What Judy is trying to obscure is that Curtis and I are CHALLENGING that trad- itional formulation. We think it's a cover for something more mundane, the love of one man for another man. No, Barry, I'm not trying to obscure anything, sorry. It would never have occurred to me that either of you were suggesting the *whole tradition* was a cover for homosexuality. If I had realized that, I'd have *highlighted* it. So I'm delighted you've laid it out so clearly. However, I could be wrong, but I don't think this is what Curtis had in mind. The way he describes what MMY did in the quote above, it appears that he wasn't aware of the tradition and thought it was MMY's own unique idea. snip Judy is ideaphobic in the same way that some men are homophobic. No, Barry, I'm *dumb*-ideaphobic. This is a dumb idea. It makes no sense. It does not compute. It's a fantasy you've dreamed up because you don't like the idea of devotion to the guru. It's *OK* for you not to like it. You don't have to invent a nitwit fantasy to justify your dislike of it. But the fact that you've done so is more revealing about your state of mind than you realize. That's why I'm happy you've presented that fantasy. From another of your posts: Add to that Willytex and Judy melting down and going purple-faced apoplectic in response to someone talking about their more than human teacher AS IF HE WERE HUMAN, and I'm sorry, but I don't think it's lookin' as Curtis and I are the 'gay' ones here. Barry. I'm not the one who's been screaming in capital letters all over my last batch of posts. Look in the mirror. See what color your face is and check your blood pressure. I don't think MMY was more than human, and my posts reflect that. This is another of your very silly ideas. You're making yourself look like a raving paranoid lunatic. Calm down before you bust an artery.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: The homophobic views were bad enough. What I'm objecting to is your *adding* the hypocrisy charge when there's zero evidence for it. Obviously I don't share that opinion. I don't share your tolerance for his intolerance either. Understanding a person's culture doesn't get him off the hook for being a dick. And I notice you are not extending me the same courtesy for my opinion being influenced by my culture and upbringing, are you? So your understanding only extends to defending him doesn't it? That's petty and meanspirited and entirely gratuitous. For calling the guy a hypocrite? You have your meanspirited meter set too low. You might want to raise it to say, people who present themselves as enlightened beings who teach their followers that gay people are destroying their personal evolution. If you knew anything about the gay purging that went on at MIU you would understand the meaning of the word meanspirited. That's how I feel about your interjecting this into a discussion about Maharishi's life, petty and meanspirited and entirely gratuitous. And here is the difference. He is a dead guy and doesn't know I am judging him this way. One last point: That's a pretty standard form of sadhana in India. It's called Guru-Bhakti Yoga. In that context, it's not at all out-of-the-box. And neither you nor I know anything about what is involved in that relationship do we? Like the relationship of a Catholic priest and his favorite alter boy perhaps? Neither of us know. What started out as an experiment in speculation like the entire media does with the personal life of public figures has turned into an interesting experiment in how long term meditators deal with cognitive dissonance. But as usual you made many good points among the attempts to turn anything I say against the perfect image of Maharishi against me personally. And as usual I had fun, so thanks for that. So a dude who grew up in India and went from college straight into an ashram who isn't understanding to your modern Western standards is hypocritical? The guy was a world traveler who had plenty of time to learn that he was wrong. He had more exposure to people and ideas than I will ever have in m life. But he didn't learn and never amended his prejudice. Mr. Enlightened. But I'm the bad guy for pointing this out. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking to his fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression when his relationship with Guru Dev can only be characterized as love between men is so absurd and hurtful to gay men everywhere. Doesn't lessen MMY one bit, nosireebob. Furthest thing from your mind, right, Curtis? So you are still missing the point? It is the hypocrisy of his position on gayness that I am criticizing. That's exactly the criticism I've been addressing, Curtis. It would be hypocritical only if he and Guru Dev had been sexually involved. I don't believe that. It is still hypocritical considering... let's call it a more neutral outside the box, male bonding. Maharishi was very clear that he wanted a personal relationship with Guru Dev and contrived a scheme to make it happen. He was not looking for a way to sneak into his Vedic study class. You are drawing different conclusions than I am from the few facts we do know about the guy. That's a pretty standard form of sadhana in India. It's called Guru-Bhakti Yoga. In that context, it's not at all out-of-the-box. Google it; there's over 15,000 hits. And the way he described how he went about it in that one tape that's been transcribed and posted a number of times is in very close accord with the traditional formulations. snip And you're accusing *him* of hypocrisy? The assumption is that if it were true it would lesson Maharishi somehow says a lot. But it doesn't lessen him to call him a hypocrite, right? That's the hypocrisy of yours I was referring to. It makes a difference for what reason you object to his behavior. You are looking for any excuse to pull out your favorite H word I know, but I'm not the guy teaching people that homosexuals are violating natural law. I'm not being a hypocrite for pointing that out. Never said you were, as I just explained. Read it again, please. snip Homophobia isn't based on men loving each other; that is honored and respected in virtually all
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
curtisdeltablues wrote: So you are still missing the point? It is the hypocrisy of his position on gayness that I am criticizing. Not that he might be gay. You remind me of my cats Judy. When I point my finger at a treat, they look at my finger. Curtis, Now that was funny. Judy in a nutshellemphasis on the word shell. I'm continually amazed that you debate her when you know it will come to naught in terms of helping her evolve her POV. I'm guessing that you do it as an intellectual exercise for your own benefit -- practice makes clarity. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: curtisdeltablues wrote: So you are still missing the point? It is the hypocrisy of his position on gayness that I am criticizing. Not that he might be gay. You remind me of my cats Judy. When I point my finger at a treat, they look at my finger. Curtis, Now that was funny. Judy in a nutshellemphasis on the word shell. I'm continually amazed that you debate her when you know it will come to naught in terms of helping her evolve her POV. I'm definitely not trying to change her perspective on anything. I can't remember any instance of this happening. She has changed my POV sometimes though, by making me see something in a different way. I'm guessing that you do it as an intellectual exercise for your own benefit -- practice makes clarity. It is a real asset for me to find out how I feel about something. Most of the distracting noise of personal insults has subsided to a comfortable background drone. I know I am discussing something with a person who thinks poorly of me and this keeps me on my toes. But the real value is the invitation to discuss something in detail knowing that any slip will be challenged. Although I am not always in agreement with what she is challenging, the general effect is sort of editor-like for my writing. And since my main payoff here is not the content of the discussion, but the process of writing itself, this is a gift. Although Judy can't be considered a friend here like I consider you, someone who wishes me well, and will not immediately interpret what I write as evidence of my personal faults, she is one of the main reasons I have stuck around. If you compare what she has written in this last exchange to the posters who have used it as a reason to fling the oddest personal insults only, you see how rare this is. Most people with a TM orientation would ignore such an offensive thought exercise, some would fling invectives. But there is Judy actually engaging in the topic in detail! And I could say the same for you Edg. You have also offered me the gift of a detailed response numerous times. But with you I can relax a bit with that bro is at home good-will feeling underneath the challenges. If I had my druthers, this is what I prefer. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
(Although the Post Count will register this as my 51st post for the week, in fact I had a duplicate post on Monday (215357 and 215358), so this is really my 50th.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: The homophobic views were bad enough. What I'm objecting to is your *adding* the hypocrisy charge when there's zero evidence for it. Obviously I don't share that opinion. I don't share your tolerance for his intolerance either. Understanding a person's culture doesn't get him off the hook for being a dick. And I notice you are not extending me the same courtesy for my opinion being influenced by my culture and upbringing, are you? So your understanding only extends to defending him doesn't it? Huh?? Your last sentence makes no sense to me. That's petty and meanspirited and entirely gratuitous. For calling the guy a hypocrite? You have your meanspirited meter set too low. We disagree. You might want to raise it to say, people who present themselves as enlightened beings who teach their followers that gay people are destroying their personal evolution. If you knew anything about the gay purging that went on at MIU you would understand the meaning of the word meanspirited. So because very meanspirited things happened at MIU many years ago, that makes it OK for you to be somewhat meanspirited here? snip That's a pretty standard form of sadhana in India. It's called Guru-Bhakti Yoga. In that context, it's not at all out-of-the-box. And neither you nor I know anything about what is involved in that relationship do we? Like the relationship of a Catholic priest and his favorite alter boy perhaps? Neither of us know. Is that what you're calling out-of-the-box male bonding? Do you agree with Barry that the *entire tradition* has always been a cover for homosexuality? Just one point on the *rationality* of your speculation: Ashrams are pressure cookers, and it's not easy to keep secrets. The other disciples of Guru Dev were reportedly pissed off at MMY in the first place because he'd maneuvered himself into the position of Guru Dev's secretary, to the point that rumors were started after Guru Dev's death that MMY had murdered him. Do you really think that if there'd been any suspicion that MMY lusted after Guru Dev, not a whiff of it would have been noted anywhere on the record? What started out as an experiment in speculation like the entire media does with the personal life of public figures has turned into an interesting experiment in how long term meditators deal with cognitive dissonance. The cognitive dissonance mantra is intellectually dishonest. It's just a cheap way to dismiss and demean any objection to TM critics' ideas, no matter how absurd those ideas may be. If I suggested that you were a child abuser, would it be cognitive dissonance for you to object? But as usual you made many good points among the attempts to turn anything I say against the perfect image of Maharishi against me personally. Right, like my acknowledgments that he was a flawed human being, had a highly objectionable view of homosexuality, and had committed lots of other hypocrisies. Yup, I'm sure defending a perfect image of MMY, all right. So a dude who grew up in India and went from college straight into an ashram who isn't understanding to your modern Western standards is hypocritical? The guy was a world traveler who had plenty of time to learn that he was wrong. He had more exposure to people and ideas than I will ever have in m life. People, yes. Ideas, especially about homosexuality, I seriously doubt. And the ideas about homosexuality back then were generally significantly less liberal than those you've been exposed to. More likely he'd have been exposed to *confirmation* of his ideas. But he didn't learn and never amended his prejudice. Mr. Enlightened. But I'm the bad guy for pointing this out. You're a lot harder on him than is reasonable or fair, yes. And sometimes you have to stand on your head to justify adding yet another sin to the list. BTW, the notion that higher consciousness fosters perfect behavior according to human standards is a pernicious one, IMHO (and if there are nonhuman standards, we don't know what they are). Either MMY believed higher consciousness *did* foster perfect behavior and was wrong, or he knew it wasn't but figured the idea that it was would nudge meditators to improve their behavior in line with *his* standards. But if that was his motivation, it backfired on him, because *he* couldn't maintain those standards. I don't think higher consciousness has much of any correlation with behavior, positive or negative. So I evaluate MMY's behavior as I would anyone else's. But by the same token, I don't subtract enlightenment points on the basis of his bad behavior (or add them on the basis of
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Duveyoung wrote: curtisdeltablues wrote: So you are still missing the point? It is the hypocrisy of his position on gayness that I am criticizing. Not that he might be gay. You remind me of my cats Judy. When I point my finger at a treat, they look at my finger. Curtis, Now that was funny. Judy in a nutshellemphasis on the word shell. I'm continually amazed that you debate her when you know it will come to naught in terms of helping her evolve her POV. I'm guessing that you do it as an intellectual exercise for your own benefit -- practice makes clarity. I got a kick out of that too--it could be a nyaya sutra: Points finger at catnip but cat looks at finger. Moral of sutra: the cat missing the catnip and choosing the finger is a metaphor for those who intuitively or deliberately miss the point of a comment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: (Although the Post Count will register this as my 51st post for the week, in fact I had a duplicate post on Monday (215357 and 215358), so this is really my 50th.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: The homophobic views were bad enough. What I'm objecting to is your *adding* the hypocrisy charge when there's zero evidence for it. Obviously I don't share that opinion. I don't share your tolerance for his intolerance either. Understanding a person's culture doesn't get him off the hook for being a dick. And I notice you are not extending me the same courtesy for my opinion being influenced by my culture and upbringing, are you? So your understanding only extends to defending him doesn't it? Huh?? Your last sentence makes no sense to me. You are making excuses based on the cultural upbringing and culture for Maharishi for his views. But my views are also shaped by my culture and upbringing. For me to express mine is labeled as meanspirited. But for him, whose views actually hurt real people, it is just a cultural thing that we should all just understand and overlook like when Uncle John scratches his balls at family gatherings. That's petty and meanspirited and entirely gratuitous. For calling the guy a hypocrite? You have your meanspirited meter set too low. We disagree. You might want to raise it to say, people who present themselves as enlightened beings who teach their followers that gay people are destroying their personal evolution. If you knew anything about the gay purging that went on at MIU you would understand the meaning of the word meanspirited. So because very meanspirited things happened at MIU many years ago, that makes it OK for you to be somewhat meanspirited here? I object to this whole angle Judy. The guy is dead. His feelings are not being hurt by my speculations. IMO this whole discussion would have been vastly improved without this distraction. snip That's a pretty standard form of sadhana in India. It's called Guru-Bhakti Yoga. In that context, it's not at all out-of-the-box. And neither you nor I know anything about what is involved in that relationship do we? Like the relationship of a Catholic priest and his favorite alter boy perhaps? Neither of us know. Is that what you're calling out-of-the-box male bonding? I am saying that I don't know the range of behaviors and you don't either. But in my experience, the claim of asexuality often a cover for gay activity. I don't believe that it is normal to be asexual. When I tried to be a monk it just made my desire for women become stronger. The intensity of fantasy life, the intensity of whenever I was with women makes me believe that more often something is going on. I know people claim some men aren't like this. I'll believe it when I see it and I haven't so far. Especially in over the top ambitious men like Maharishi. Do you agree with Barry that the *entire tradition* has always been a cover for homosexuality? I doubt he believes this either. But it is not all one way or another. Just as we know from the Catholic Church, religious institutions can be a context where gay men can exist in a society that forbids it. Just one point on the *rationality* of your speculation: Ashrams are pressure cookers, and it's not easy to keep secrets. The other disciples of Guru Dev were reportedly pissed off at MMY in the first place because he'd maneuvered himself into the position of Guru Dev's secretary, to the point that rumors were started after Guru Dev's death that MMY had murdered him. Do you really think that if there'd been any suspicion that MMY lusted after Guru Dev, not a whiff of it would have been noted anywhere on the record? Neither of us know what rumors swirled around the ashram when his doors were closed. For all we know this is an acceptable thing in the context of the enlightened. People sure were able to rationalize anything Maharishi did. So I don't take a lack of a recorded account of accusations to mean anything. It is not an unreasonable speculation for me. We are only arguing about what his seemingly obsessive man-love included. What started out as an experiment in speculation like the entire media does with the personal life of public figures has turned into an interesting experiment in how long term meditators deal with cognitive dissonance. The cognitive dissonance mantra is intellectually dishonest. It's just a cheap way to dismiss and demean any objection to TM critics' ideas, no matter how absurd those ideas may be. If I suggested that you were a child abuser, would it be cognitive dissonance for you to object? Fair enough. But there
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: I got a kick out of that too--it could be a nyaya sutra: Points finger at catnip but cat looks at finger. Moral of sutra: the cat missing the catnip and choosing the finger is a metaphor for those who intuitively or deliberately miss the point of a comment. The funny thing is that my cats have actually developed the ability to follow my finger's direction now. I sometimes have to move it a bit in the direction to make it work. This is one of the distinctions I have read about dog intelligence as shaped by human contact over higher level primates. Apes don't get this connection as quickly as dogs do. On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Duveyoung wrote: curtisdeltablues wrote: So you are still missing the point? It is the hypocrisy of his position on gayness that I am criticizing. Not that he might be gay. You remind me of my cats Judy. When I point my finger at a treat, they look at my finger. Curtis, Now that was funny. Judy in a nutshellemphasis on the word shell. I'm continually amazed that you debate her when you know it will come to naught in terms of helping her evolve her POV. I'm guessing that you do it as an intellectual exercise for your own benefit -- practice makes clarity. I got a kick out of that too--it could be a nyaya sutra: Points finger at catnip but cat looks at finger. Moral of sutra: the cat missing the catnip and choosing the finger is a metaphor for those who intuitively or deliberately miss the point of a comment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: You're making yourself look like a raving paranoid lunatic. Look like ? Calm down before you bust an artery.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
I am sorry but this whole Maharishi gayness thread is wa off track as pertains to any sort of import. My original question, I thought, was much more ineresting and would provide much more insight into mechanics of consciousness than this flubber. My question was, does the ethos of the individual pundit effect the outcome of a yagya? What do you all think? Or is everyone so caught up in their maras that they can't think coherently any longer? My guess is yes. Anyway, neverthefuckmind. it's all theory, and therefore as specious as the present argument. I'll come back tomorrow when people wake up - hopefully. - Original Message - From: Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:13 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits curtisdeltablues wrote: So you are still missing the point? It is the hypocrisy of his position on gayness that I am criticizing. Not that he might be gay. You remind me of my cats Judy. When I point my finger at a treat, they look at my finger. Curtis, Now that was funny. Judy in a nutshellemphasis on the word shell. I'm continually amazed that you debate her when you know it will come to naught in terms of helping her evolve her POV. I'm guessing that you do it as an intellectual exercise for your own benefit -- practice makes clarity. Edg To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
BuhBye! - Original Message - From: authfriend jst...@panix.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 11:15 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits (Although the Post Count will register this as my 51st post for the week, in fact I had a duplicate post on Monday (215357 and 215358), so this is really my 50th.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: The homophobic views were bad enough. What I'm objecting to is your *adding* the hypocrisy charge when there's zero evidence for it. Obviously I don't share that opinion. I don't share your tolerance for his intolerance either. Understanding a person's culture doesn't get him off the hook for being a dick. And I notice you are not extending me the same courtesy for my opinion being influenced by my culture and upbringing, are you? So your understanding only extends to defending him doesn't it? Huh?? Your last sentence makes no sense to me. That's petty and meanspirited and entirely gratuitous. For calling the guy a hypocrite? You have your meanspirited meter set too low. We disagree. You might want to raise it to say, people who present themselves as enlightened beings who teach their followers that gay people are destroying their personal evolution. If you knew anything about the gay purging that went on at MIU you would understand the meaning of the word meanspirited. So because very meanspirited things happened at MIU many years ago, that makes it OK for you to be somewhat meanspirited here? snip That's a pretty standard form of sadhana in India. It's called Guru-Bhakti Yoga. In that context, it's not at all out-of-the-box. And neither you nor I know anything about what is involved in that relationship do we? Like the relationship of a Catholic priest and his favorite alter boy perhaps? Neither of us know. Is that what you're calling out-of-the-box male bonding? Do you agree with Barry that the *entire tradition* has always been a cover for homosexuality? Just one point on the *rationality* of your speculation: Ashrams are pressure cookers, and it's not easy to keep secrets. The other disciples of Guru Dev were reportedly pissed off at MMY in the first place because he'd maneuvered himself into the position of Guru Dev's secretary, to the point that rumors were started after Guru Dev's death that MMY had murdered him. Do you really think that if there'd been any suspicion that MMY lusted after Guru Dev, not a whiff of it would have been noted anywhere on the record? What started out as an experiment in speculation like the entire media does with the personal life of public figures has turned into an interesting experiment in how long term meditators deal with cognitive dissonance. The cognitive dissonance mantra is intellectually dishonest. It's just a cheap way to dismiss and demean any objection to TM critics' ideas, no matter how absurd those ideas may be. If I suggested that you were a child abuser, would it be cognitive dissonance for you to object? But as usual you made many good points among the attempts to turn anything I say against the perfect image of Maharishi against me personally. Right, like my acknowledgments that he was a flawed human being, had a highly objectionable view of homosexuality, and had committed lots of other hypocrisies. Yup, I'm sure defending a perfect image of MMY, all right. So a dude who grew up in India and went from college straight into an ashram who isn't understanding to your modern Western standards is hypocritical? The guy was a world traveler who had plenty of time to learn that he was wrong. He had more exposure to people and ideas than I will ever have in m life. People, yes. Ideas, especially about homosexuality, I seriously doubt. And the ideas about homosexuality back then were generally significantly less liberal than those you've been exposed to. More likely he'd have been exposed to *confirmation* of his ideas. But he didn't learn and never amended his prejudice. Mr. Enlightened. But I'm the bad guy for pointing this out. You're a lot harder on him than is reasonable or fair, yes. And sometimes you have to stand on your head to justify adding yet another sin to the list. BTW, the notion that higher consciousness fosters perfect behavior according to human standards is a pernicious one, IMHO (and if there are nonhuman standards, we don't know what they are). Either MMY believed higher consciousness *did* foster perfect behavior and was wrong, or he knew it wasn't but figured the idea that it was would nudge meditators to improve their behavior in line with *his* standards. But if that was his motivation, it backfired on him, because *he* couldn't maintain those standards. I don't think higher consciousness has
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: I am sorry but this whole Maharishi gayness thread is wa off track as pertains to any sort of import. My original question, I thought, was much more ineresting and would provide much more insight into mechanics of consciousness than this flubber. You talking about my stomach or my argument? I want you to know that I have a perfectly good set of six pack abs under there which I am protecting with that layer contributed mostly by members of the porcine product line. When I grow it thick enough I'm gunna cure it into bacon. My question was, does the ethos of the individual pundit effect the outcome of a yagya? No. The outcome is equally nil except as a believe enhancing ritual for the participants and whoever was unlucky enough to give their money to have it done. What do you all think? Or is everyone so caught up in their maras First of all it was Mara who ordered all those disgusting lemon drop shots and it was Mara who conveniently spilled one on her tank top turning her headlights on and which lead me to invite her back to my place where she ate everything in my fridge and then puked into the cat litter box putting an end to any designs I had on her at the beginning of the evening. that they can't think coherently any longer? My guess is yes. Well you got that right. Functioning while not being able to think coherently is a bit of a hobby for me. My favorite is attempting to perform music that way. Anyway, neverthefuckmind. it's all theory, and therefore as specious as the present argument. I'll come back tomorrow when people wake up - hopefully. And after I get all that Mara puke out of my cat box, hopefully. - Original Message - From: Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:13 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits curtisdeltablues wrote: So you are still missing the point? It is the hypocrisy of his position on gayness that I am criticizing. Not that he might be gay. You remind me of my cats Judy. When I point my finger at a treat, they look at my finger. Curtis, Now that was funny. Judy in a nutshellemphasis on the word shell. I'm continually amazed that you debate her when you know it will come to naught in terms of helping her evolve her POV. I'm guessing that you do it as an intellectual exercise for your own benefit -- practice makes clarity. Edg To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
Understanding a person's culture doesn't get him off the hook for being a dick. And I notice you are not extending me the same courtesy for my opinion being influenced by my culture and upbringing, are you? So your understanding only extends to defending him doesn't it? Judy wrote: Huh?? Your last sentence makes no sense to me. Actually we should be holding Curtis, Barry, and Edg to a higher standard than the Marshy. They knew better than to persecute the gays in the TMO - but they chose not to denounce these activities, knowing full well that it was immoral to be prejudiced against anyone's sexual preference. But, Curtis, Barry, and Edg loved the Marshy and would do anything to please him. Maybe they too had a secret desire to have sexual relations with the Marshy. According to a recent study cited by Curtis, these desires even increase when attempting monkdom. What's so nonsensical about this thread is that the Marshy loved the Guru Dev, but it probably wasn't sexual love at all, but platonic. It's really weird to see the gang-of-three bashing the Marshy now, when for twenty or more years they did his bidding. In my *opinion*, what the three did was a lot worse than the Marshy being homophobic - the three were actually deceitful - wanting to be gurus themselves, but lacking the honesty to speak up against the Marshy, until now, years later, when it doesn't do any good and nobody cares what they say anymore. The three don't get off the hook by saying that they knew it was wrong at the time, but didn't say anything because they loved the Marshy so much. Now that the Marshy is dead they want to be forgiven?
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
Kirk wrote: What do you all think? Or is everyone so caught up in their maras... Curtis wrote: First of all it was Mara who ordered all those disgusting lemon drop shots and it was Mara who conveniently spilled one on her tank top turning her headlights on and which lead me to invite her back to my place where she ate everything in my fridge and then puked into the cat litter box putting an end to any designs I had on her at the beginning of the evening. Yep, it always seems to come back to sex with guys like Curtis - almost any message is an excuse for posting some tid-bit about their sexual repression, or libertinism. The answer to Kirk is yes, they are so caught up in their 'maras' that they think 'maras' is 'Mara' -they don't even have a clue what you're talking about Kirk - not a clue. It's all just an excuse to spout off and pass the time of day. I mean, their hero is Vaj and Uncle Tantra and they can't stand Judy. Give it up Kirk - you should know better by now - you've been posting for what, ten years now? Do you seriously think you are going to find out anything of substance from a 'Delta Blues' guy, a 'Vaj Nath' or an 'Uncle Tantra'? You'd probably find out more about life by visiting a bowling alley on Skid Row.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
Ah, my experience is that yagyas have an effect. But then I do have them done and I don't just spout off about them without ever having had one. Some people get on a flippant roll and think they actually are saying something. - Original Message - From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 1:40 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: I am sorry but this whole Maharishi gayness thread is wa off track as pertains to any sort of import. My original question, I thought, was much more ineresting and would provide much more insight into mechanics of consciousness than this flubber. You talking about my stomach or my argument? I want you to know that I have a perfectly good set of six pack abs under there which I am protecting with that layer contributed mostly by members of the porcine product line. When I grow it thick enough I'm gunna cure it into bacon. My question was, does the ethos of the individual pundit effect the outcome of a yagya? No. The outcome is equally nil except as a believe enhancing ritual for the participants and whoever was unlucky enough to give their money to have it done. What do you all think? Or is everyone so caught up in their maras First of all it was Mara who ordered all those disgusting lemon drop shots and it was Mara who conveniently spilled one on her tank top turning her headlights on and which lead me to invite her back to my place where she ate everything in my fridge and then puked into the cat litter box putting an end to any designs I had on her at the beginning of the evening. that they can't think coherently any longer? My guess is yes. Well you got that right. Functioning while not being able to think coherently is a bit of a hobby for me. My favorite is attempting to perform music that way. Anyway, neverthefuckmind. it's all theory, and therefore as specious as the present argument. I'll come back tomorrow when people wake up - hopefully. And after I get all that Mara puke out of my cat box, hopefully. - Original Message - From: Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:13 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits curtisdeltablues wrote: So you are still missing the point? It is the hypocrisy of his position on gayness that I am criticizing. Not that he might be gay. You remind me of my cats Judy. When I point my finger at a treat, they look at my finger. Curtis, Now that was funny. Judy in a nutshellemphasis on the word shell. I'm continually amazed that you debate her when you know it will come to naught in terms of helping her evolve her POV. I'm guessing that you do it as an intellectual exercise for your own benefit -- practice makes clarity. Edg To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
William, there's other people lurking out there who are rarely inspired to post due to obvious lack of content. It's to them I asked the question, or even to you, if you have a definite, or indefinite opinion. Somebody out of the 2000 members here might be intrigued to consider the topic. But I catch your drift. More ego here, more often, less valuable conversation. - Original Message - From: Richard J. Williams willy...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 2:59 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits Kirk wrote: What do you all think? Or is everyone so caught up in their maras... Curtis wrote: First of all it was Mara who ordered all those disgusting lemon drop shots and it was Mara who conveniently spilled one on her tank top turning her headlights on and which lead me to invite her back to my place where she ate everything in my fridge and then puked into the cat litter box putting an end to any designs I had on her at the beginning of the evening. Yep, it always seems to come back to sex with guys like Curtis - almost any message is an excuse for posting some tid-bit about their sexual repression, or libertinism. The answer to Kirk is yes, they are so caught up in their 'maras' that they think 'maras' is 'Mara' -they don't even have a clue what you're talking about Kirk - not a clue. It's all just an excuse to spout off and pass the time of day. I mean, their hero is Vaj and Uncle Tantra and they can't stand Judy. Give it up Kirk - you should know better by now - you've been posting for what, ten years now? Do you seriously think you are going to find out anything of substance from a 'Delta Blues' guy, a 'Vaj Nath' or an 'Uncle Tantra'? You'd probably find out more about life by visiting a bowling alley on Skid Row. To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: Ah, my experience is that yagyas have an effect. I don't believe that causality is ever experienced. It is belief that bridges the cause and the effect in a person's mind. But then I do have them done and I don't just spout off about them without ever having had one. I actually have had a few and was there in person. Very enjoyable. They have all sorts of benifits other than the claimed results. I'm not selling you my POV, but it wasn't gained by me being never having had one. Some people get on a flippant roll and think they actually are saying something. - Original Message - From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 1:40 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: I am sorry but this whole Maharishi gayness thread is wa off track as pertains to any sort of import. My original question, I thought, was much more ineresting and would provide much more insight into mechanics of consciousness than this flubber. You talking about my stomach or my argument? I want you to know that I have a perfectly good set of six pack abs under there which I am protecting with that layer contributed mostly by members of the porcine product line. When I grow it thick enough I'm gunna cure it into bacon. My question was, does the ethos of the individual pundit effect the outcome of a yagya? No. The outcome is equally nil except as a believe enhancing ritual for the participants and whoever was unlucky enough to give their money to have it done. What do you all think? Or is everyone so caught up in their maras First of all it was Mara who ordered all those disgusting lemon drop shots and it was Mara who conveniently spilled one on her tank top turning her headlights on and which lead me to invite her back to my place where she ate everything in my fridge and then puked into the cat litter box putting an end to any designs I had on her at the beginning of the evening. that they can't think coherently any longer? My guess is yes. Well you got that right. Functioning while not being able to think coherently is a bit of a hobby for me. My favorite is attempting to perform music that way. Anyway, neverthefuckmind. it's all theory, and therefore as specious as the present argument. I'll come back tomorrow when people wake up - hopefully. And after I get all that Mara puke out of my cat box, hopefully. - Original Message - From: Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:13 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits curtisdeltablues wrote: So you are still missing the point? It is the hypocrisy of his position on gayness that I am criticizing. Not that he might be gay. You remind me of my cats Judy. When I point my finger at a treat, they look at my finger. Curtis, Now that was funny. Judy in a nutshellemphasis on the word shell. I'm continually amazed that you debate her when you know it will come to naught in terms of helping her evolve her POV. I'm guessing that you do it as an intellectual exercise for your own benefit -- practice makes clarity. Edg To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Kirk kirk_bernha...@cox.net wrote: Ah, my experience is that yagyas have an effect. But then I do have them done and I don't just spout off about them without ever having had one. Some people get on a flippant roll and think they actually are saying something. I have not done yagnas but have assisted in my own yagnas. I've sponsored perhaps 1,200 yagnas. Then there was a year or two of abortive yagnas with Ben Collins and my monthly yagns since 8/2005 with Yagna by Choice. I have very powerful experiences with Yagna by Choice yagnas. The question doesn't come up, I don't believe, on the moral or sexual activities of the pundits who perform my yagnas, since they are former Maharish pundits who live, quite happily in a Vedic village. These are sidhas but they aren't part of the TMO machine.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: Ah, my experience is that yagyas have an effect. I don't believe that causality is ever experienced. It is belief that bridges the cause and the effect in a person's mind. Good explanation.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
On Apr 15, 2009, at 8:03 PM, Kirk wrote: William, there's other people lurking out there who are rarely inspired to post due to obvious lack of content. It's to them I asked the question, or even to you, if you have a definite, or indefinite opinion. Somebody out of the 2000 members here might be intrigued to consider the topic. But I catch your drift. More ego here, more often, less valuable conversation. You got an ego here, an ego there, and pretty soon you're talking real egos! Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
Somebody out of the 2000 members here might be intrigued to consider the topic. Only 1250 members are subscribed to FFL, 150 of whom are bouncing and so probably not active. Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only love. - Amma --- On Wed, 4/15/09, Kirk kirk_bernha...@cox.net wrote: From: Kirk kirk_bernha...@cox.net Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 9:03 PM William, there's other people lurking out there who are rarely inspired to post due to obvious lack of content. It's to them I asked the question, or even to you, if you have a definite, or indefinite opinion. Somebody out of the 2000 members here might be intrigued to consider the topic. But I catch your drift. More ego here, more often, less valuable conversation. - Original Message - From: Richard J. Williams willy...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 2:59 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits Kirk wrote: What do you all think? Or is everyone so caught up in their maras... Curtis wrote: First of all it was Mara who ordered all those disgusting lemon drop shots and it was Mara who conveniently spilled one on her tank top turning her headlights on and which lead me to invite her back to my place where she ate everything in my fridge and then puked into the cat litter box putting an end to any designs I had on her at the beginning of the evening. Yep, it always seems to come back to sex with guys like Curtis - almost any message is an excuse for posting some tid-bit about their sexual repression, or libertinism. The answer to Kirk is yes, they are so caught up in their 'maras' that they think 'maras' is 'Mara' -they don't even have a clue what you're talking about Kirk - not a clue. It's all just an excuse to spout off and pass the time of day. I mean, their hero is Vaj and Uncle Tantra and they can't stand Judy. Give it up Kirk - you should know better by now - you've been posting for what, ten years now? Do you seriously think you are going to find out anything of substance from a 'Delta Blues' guy, a 'Vaj Nath' or an 'Uncle Tantra'? You'd probably find out more about life by visiting a bowling alley on Skid Row. To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: I used to see a similar behavior pattern among the supposedly-celibate guys working on staff at Seelisberg and on courses in Europe, but in a heterosexual way. These guys would see a woman they liked and seduce her with the olde I know that I should be celibate but you're just s beautiful routine. And after one or two rolls in the hay, they would forget the women. Not just drop them, FORGET them. The way this sort of thing was told to me, by a woman (a meditator/checker) who was very briefly involved with one such TM initiator sleazebag, was that after a night of rolling in the hay, so to speak, she was met with hostility and a lot of canned language about how their evolution had been sidetracked by having sex. After having consensual sex, the next morning the guy basically blamed her for harming him. Just another data point illustrating how involvement with the TMO correlates with all kinds of unhealthy habits and attitudes, particularly with respect to intimate matters, like sex.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Mike Doughney m...@doughney.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: I used to see a similar behavior pattern among the supposedly-celibate guys working on staff at Seelisberg and on courses in Europe, but in a heterosexual way. These guys would see a woman they liked and seduce her with the olde I know that I should be celibate but you're just s beautiful routine. And after one or two rolls in the hay, they would forget the women. Not just drop them, FORGET them. And you're saying that this isn't typical guy behavior? Love 'em and leave 'em is a slogan that's been around since the beginning of time. There'll be no strings to bind your hands Not if my love can't bind your heart. And there's no need to take a stand For it was I who chose to start. I see no need to take me home, I'm old enough to face the dawn. Just call me angel of the morning ANGEL Just touch my cheek before you leave me, baby. Just call me angel of the morning ANGEL then slowly turn away from me. Maybe the sun's light will be dim And it won't matter anyhow. If morning's echo says we've sinned, Well, it was what I wanted now. And if we're the victims of the night, I won't be blinded by light. Just call me angel of the morning ANGEL Just touch my cheek before you leave me, baby. Just call me angel of the morning ANGEL Then slowly turn away, I won't beg you to stay with me Through the tears of the day, Of the years, baby baby baby. Just call me angel of the morning ANGEL Just touch my cheek before you leave me, baby.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal l.shad...@... wrote: On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Mike Doughney m...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: I used to see a similar behavior pattern among the supposedly-celibate guys working on staff at Seelisberg and on courses in Europe, but in a heterosexual way. These guys would see a woman they liked and seduce her with the olde I know that I should be celibate but you're just s beautiful routine. And after one or two rolls in the hay, they would forget the women. Not just drop them, FORGET them. And you're saying that this isn't typical guy behavior? Love 'em and leave 'em is a slogan that's been around since the beginning of time. There'll be no strings to bind your hands Not if my love can't bind your heart. And there's no need to take a stand For it was I who chose to start. I see no need to take me home, I'm old enough to face the dawn. Just call me angel of the morning ANGEL Just touch my cheek before you leave me, baby. Just call me angel of the morning ANGEL then slowly turn away from me. Maybe the sun's light will be dim And it won't matter anyhow. If morning's echo says we've sinned, Well, it was what I wanted now. And if we're the victims of the night, I won't be blinded by light. Just call me angel of the morning ANGEL Just touch my cheek before you leave me, baby. Just call me angel of the morning ANGEL Then slowly turn away, I won't beg you to stay with me Through the tears of the day, Of the years, baby baby baby. Just call me angel of the morning ANGEL Just touch my cheek before you leave me, baby. Great song...reminds me of my once intimate friend, Maggie May... R.G.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Robert babajii...@yahoo.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal l.shad...@... wrote: Great song...reminds me of my once intimate friend, Maggie May... R.G. I've always loved this C W song. It says so very much: Tell me a lie Say I look familiar Though I know that you don’t even know my name Tell me a lie Say ya just got into town Even though I’ve seen you here before Just hangin’ around Umm, tell me a lie Say you’re not a married man ‘Cause you don’t know I saw you Slip off your wedding band Ooh, tell me a lie Say ya got no place to stay But you’ll be glad to drive me home ‘Cause it’s on your way Tell me a lie When you take me home (Tell me a lie) I don’t really want to spend the night alone Tell me a lie Don’t worry about my sorrow You’ll be long gone tomorrow And you won’t have to see me cry Just tell me a lie Tell me a lie Come on, tell me that you need me And I’ll pretend that it’s for real The way you want me to Please, tell me a lie When you’re lying close beside me And whisper when you hold me Sweet words “I love you” Ooh, tell me a lie When our night is almost over And make it easy on us both When it’s time for you to go Come on, tell me a lie Say you’d really like to stay Just tell me one more lie That you’ll be back one day Tell me a lie When you take me home (Tell me a lie) I don’t really want to spend the night alone Tell me a lie Don’t worry about my sorrow You’ll be long gone tomorrow And you won’t have to see me cry Just tell me a lie Maggie Mays is the name of a very well known collegiate bar on 6th St. here in Austin. They have quite a number of well known (in Austin) bumper stickers available at the bar. One of these says Beer. It's just not for breakfast anymore. Maggie Mays Austin Beats the Hell out of the one put out by Bertha's (raw and shell fish) Bar in Glen Bernie, Baltimore: Eat Bertha's Mussels To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:fairfieldlife-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: fairfieldlife-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal l.shad...@... wrote: On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: Both Plus. Descriptions of activities from my gay Purusha buddy was beyond fears. Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think fuck each other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on. Abhorrent because the Purusha were supposed to be celibate, or abhorrent because the goings-on were homosexual? Years ago I dated a lady TM teacher who had been on staff at MIU. We spoke once over veggies and tofu (yuk!) about whether or not TM would !cure! homosexuality. She told me that there was a significant amount of gay men working on staff at MIU (woman seem to really pick up on this and can't let it go, even to this day). She also told me about massive amounts of corruption, lots of people pocketing MIU money. This would have been around the 1970s. Now my understanding was that Maharishi considered homosexuality an abomination. Just as an example of the kinds of breaks we cut to people based upon the idea that we should cut them those breaks because they are holy, the person who considered homo- sexuality an abomination is the same guy who had only one strong love relationship in his entire life, with another man. This relationship was so strong and so over- whelming that when the other man died, the person who considered homosexuality an abom- ination reputedly dived into the river he was being buried in and tried to accompany the coffin to the bottom of the river. He then dedicated the rest of his life to the memory of this other man, with photos of him everywhere, giving long, loving talks about his amazing qualities. He trained his own followers to basically worship the other man as he did and bow down to him and revere him as a near-god. But there's nothing gay there, right? Just sayin'... I am NOT suggesting that Maharishi's love for Guru Dev was of the gay variety, merely that the *same* people who see a little some- thing light in the loafers with, say, Batman and Robin and their relationship don't see anything even the *least* bit gay in suppos- edly spiritual relationships in which one man basically becomes devoted to another man to the level of obsession. Many of them don't see this even when the men in question write long rants about the evil nature of women and characterize them as temptresses whose only purpose is to lure otherwise spiritual men away from the path. They don't see it even when the men in ques- tion spend their lives treating women as second-class citizens and don't allow them into their physical presence. Somehow, this behavior becomes something other than fear of women and latent homo- sexuality when it's in a spiritual context. Curious, eh?
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal L.Shaddai@ wrote: On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: Both Plus. Descriptions of activities from my gay Purusha buddy was beyond fears. Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think fuck each other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on. Abhorrent because the Purusha were supposed to be celibate, or abhorrent because the goings-on were homosexual? Years ago I dated a lady TM teacher who had been on staff at MIU. We spoke once over veggies and tofu (yuk!) about whether or not TM would !cure! homosexuality. She told me that there was a significant amount of gay men working on staff at MIU (woman seem to really pick up on this and can't let it go, even to this day). She also told me about massive amounts of corruption, lots of people pocketing MIU money. This would have been around the 1970s. Now my understanding was that Maharishi considered homosexuality an abomination. Just as an example of the kinds of breaks we cut to people based upon the idea that we should cut them those breaks because they are holy, the person who considered homo- sexuality an abomination is the same guy who had only one strong love relationship in his entire life, with another man. This relationship was so strong and so over- whelming that when the other man died, the person who considered homosexuality an abom- ination reputedly dived into the river he was being buried in and tried to accompany the coffin to the bottom of the river. He then dedicated the rest of his life to the memory of this other man, with photos of him everywhere, giving long, loving talks about his amazing qualities. He trained his own followers to basically worship the other man as he did and bow down to him and revere him as a near-god. But there's nothing gay there, right? Just sayin'... I am NOT suggesting that Maharishi's love for Guru Dev was of the gay variety, merely that the *same* people who see a little some- thing light in the loafers with, say, Batman and Robin and their relationship don't see anything even the *least* bit gay in suppos- edly spiritual relationships in which one man basically becomes devoted to another man to the level of obsession. Many of them don't see this even when the men in question write long rants about the evil nature of women and characterize them as temptresses whose only purpose is to lure otherwise spiritual men away from the path. They don't see it even when the men in ques- tion spend their lives treating women as second-class citizens and don't allow them into their physical presence. Somehow, this behavior becomes something other than fear of women and latent homo- sexuality when it's in a spiritual context. Curious, eh? It all depends on what energy is activated... Whether you believe in the system of 'Chakras' or not, We all can identify with feeling of the 'Heart'... Feelings of will in the gut, fear and ambition. Feeling of pleasure in the sexual regions, feeling of creative play. Feelings of feeling comfortable, feeling 'at home' when we are grounded or not. Feelings of speaking the truth, or hiding something, lieing. Feeling of 'seeing' spiritually from the soul. When someone is wanting to not concentrate so much on pleasure, then one would not want to put much attention on things that would tempt one. Our culture is completely based on temptations. In India, things were not so materialistic, so it was more natural there, to strive for things, not of the flesh. I can feel love and closeness to another man, but won't have sex with him. It just doesn't feel right... It feels like I would have to give into lust, pure lust. People on a spiritual path, attempt to avoid, lust for lusts sake. Now, this also applies to heterosexual relationsips. Most are based on lust. A few transcend that through time, but not many. This is the way it is. R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal l.shad...@... wrote: On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: Both Plus. Descriptions of activities from my gay Purusha buddy was beyond fears. Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think fuck each other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on. Abhorrent because the Purusha were supposed to be celibate, or abhorrent because the goings-on were homosexual? Years ago I dated a lady TM teacher who had been on staff at MIU. We spoke once over veggies and tofu (yuk!) about whether or not TM would !cure! homosexuality. She told me that there was a significant amount of gay men working on staff at MIU (woman seem to really pick up on this and can't let it go, even to this day). She also told me about massive amounts of corruption, lots of people pocketing MIU money. This would have been around the 1970s. Now my understanding was that Maharishi considered homosexuality an abomination. Homosexuality was discussed on a course I was on and the teacher said the official TM position was that being gay was due to stress, and in an enlightened society it therefore wouldn't occur. Stress can mean anything to someone steeped in SCI, but they were quick to point out that it's the way the world is and the gays aren't to blame(!) Seems to imply that they thought it wasn't a stress picked up in this life or that they weren't really thinking at all. Sounded to me like a way to hedge your bets and (hopefully) avoid offending anyone. This must mean that the gay guys I knew on purusha wouldn't ever get enlightenened, according to the prevailing view, until they had transcended their sexuality. The path is indeed long and winding!
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal L.Shaddai@ wrote: On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: Both Plus. Descriptions of activities from my gay Purusha buddy was beyond fears. Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think fuck each other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on. Abhorrent because the Purusha were supposed to be celibate, or abhorrent because the goings-on were homosexual? Years ago I dated a lady TM teacher who had been on staff at MIU. We spoke once over veggies and tofu (yuk!) about whether or not TM would !cure! homosexuality. She told me that there was a significant amount of gay men working on staff at MIU (woman seem to really pick up on this and can't let it go, even to this day). She also told me about massive amounts of corruption, lots of people pocketing MIU money. This would have been around the 1970s. Now my understanding was that Maharishi considered homosexuality an abomination. Homosexuality was discussed on a course I was on and the teacher said the official TM position was that being gay was due to stress, and in an enlightened society it therefore wouldn't occur. Stress can mean anything to someone steeped in SCI, but they were quick to point out that it's the way the world is and the gays aren't to blame(!) Seems to imply that they thought it wasn't a stress picked up in this life or that they weren't really thinking at all. Sounded to me like a way to hedge your bets and (hopefully) avoid offending anyone. This must mean that the gay guys I knew on purusha wouldn't ever get enlightenened, according to the prevailing view, until they had transcended their sexuality. The path is indeed long and winding! The Clintonian way: Don't Ask, Don't Tell...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
At any rate accusation of child abuse and sexual misconduct were rife at NOIDA. - Original Message - From: Robert babajii...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:40 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal L.Shaddai@ wrote: On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: Both Plus. Descriptions of activities from my gay Purusha buddy was beyond fears. Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think fuck each other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on. Abhorrent because the Purusha were supposed to be celibate, or abhorrent because the goings-on were homosexual? Years ago I dated a lady TM teacher who had been on staff at MIU. We spoke once over veggies and tofu (yuk!) about whether or not TM would !cure! homosexuality. She told me that there was a significant amount of gay men working on staff at MIU (woman seem to really pick up on this and can't let it go, even to this day). She also told me about massive amounts of corruption, lots of people pocketing MIU money. This would have been around the 1970s. Now my understanding was that Maharishi considered homosexuality an abomination. Homosexuality was discussed on a course I was on and the teacher said the official TM position was that being gay was due to stress, and in an enlightened society it therefore wouldn't occur. Stress can mean anything to someone steeped in SCI, but they were quick to point out that it's the way the world is and the gays aren't to blame(!) Seems to imply that they thought it wasn't a stress picked up in this life or that they weren't really thinking at all. Sounded to me like a way to hedge your bets and (hopefully) avoid offending anyone. This must mean that the gay guys I knew on purusha wouldn't ever get enlightenened, according to the prevailing view, until they had transcended their sexuality. The path is indeed long and winding! The Clintonian way: Don't Ask, Don't Tell... To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
You miss the point. My point was really that - does it matter what sort of personal ethics ones pundits have? As far as the outcome of theor yajna? - Original Message - From: sparaig lengli...@cox.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 8:58 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think fuck each other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on. Not to be a punk or anything, but how amny celibate male religious types of ALL persuasions, including Japanese Zen Buddhists, do you think indulge in that kind of thing? THe rationale for the Japanese is that its relations with WOMEN that are a no-no not relations with men, and it was traditional for the Zen monastaries to room the accolytes across the hall from teh senior monks for easier access. Of course, Tibetan Buddhists, and Indian Hindu monks would NEVER indulge in that kind of abhorrent goings on... just the Japanese Zen types and the Catholic types, but not Tibetan or Hindu, nosireee. L. To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: This was a great rap Turq. The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking to his fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression when his relationship with Guru Dev can only be characterized as love between men is so absurd and hurtful to gay men everywhere. I remember how Yogananda's highest desire was to spoon with his master all night. He was absolutely giddy as he wrote about how wonderful it was when his master fulfilled his wish to spend the night with him in his bed. By trying to elevate these relationships to some cosmic level we are denying their humanity. Any time humans find love with each other it is a beautiful thing. I think it would help our society advance from his primitive oppression of gay people to admit the obvious when we see it, instead of trying to make up a story. I know that this insinuation is gunna be met with a lot of flack and I don't really care to parse words about what either of these pairs of men actually did together. That cheapens it. But both of these couples express the same kind of love I have for women. And there really is nothing wrong with that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal L.Shaddai@ wrote: On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: Both Plus. Descriptions of activities from my gay Purusha buddy was beyond fears. Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think fuck each other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on. Abhorrent because the Purusha were supposed to be celibate, or abhorrent because the goings-on were homosexual? Years ago I dated a lady TM teacher who had been on staff at MIU. We spoke once over veggies and tofu (yuk!) about whether or not TM would !cure! homosexuality. She told me that there was a significant amount of gay men working on staff at MIU (woman seem to really pick up on this and can't let it go, even to this day). She also told me about massive amounts of corruption, lots of people pocketing MIU money. This would have been around the 1970s. Now my understanding was that Maharishi considered homosexuality an abomination. Just as an example of the kinds of breaks we cut to people based upon the idea that we should cut them those breaks because they are holy, the person who considered homo- sexuality an abomination is the same guy who had only one strong love relationship in his entire life, with another man. This relationship was so strong and so over- whelming that when the other man died, the person who considered homosexuality an abom- ination reputedly dived into the river he was being buried in and tried to accompany the coffin to the bottom of the river. He then dedicated the rest of his life to the memory of this other man, with photos of him everywhere, giving long, loving talks about his amazing qualities. He trained his own followers to basically worship the other man as he did and bow down to him and revere him as a near-god. But there's nothing gay there, right? Just sayin'... I am NOT suggesting that Maharishi's love for Guru Dev was of the gay variety, merely that the *same* people who see a little some- thing light in the loafers with, say, Batman and Robin and their relationship don't see anything even the *least* bit gay in suppos- edly spiritual relationships in which one man basically becomes devoted to another man to the level of obsession. Many of them don't see this even when the men in question write long rants about the evil nature of women and characterize them as temptresses whose only purpose is to lure otherwise spiritual men away from the path. They don't see it even when the men in ques- tion spend their lives treating women as second-class citizens and don't allow them into their physical presence. Somehow, this behavior becomes something other than fear of women and latent homo- sexuality when it's in a spiritual context. Curious, eh?
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
Male-male (and female-female) bonding (cosmic or mundane) that has nothing to do with sexual attraction has been around as long as human beans (or at least as long as the Hebrew Bible--e.g., David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi). MMY's views on homosexuality were objectionable in the extreme, but to accuse him of hypocrisy on the basis of his relationship with Guru Dev is so idiotic as to defy comment (especially given the flak about his purported relationships with women). If you've never had an intense but wholly platonic friendship with another man, Curtis, you've missed something that's part of the human experience. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: This was a great rap Turq. The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking to his fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression when his relationship with Guru Dev can only be characterized as love between men is so absurd and hurtful to gay men everywhere. I remember how Yogananda's highest desire was to spoon with his master all night. He was absolutely giddy as he wrote about how wonderful it was when his master fulfilled his wish to spend the night with him in his bed. By trying to elevate these relationships to some cosmic level we are denying their humanity. Any time humans find love with each other it is a beautiful thing. I think it would help our society advance from his primitive oppression of gay people to admit the obvious when we see it, instead of trying to make up a story. I know that this insinuation is gunna be met with a lot of flack and I don't really care to parse words about what either of these pairs of men actually did together. That cheapens it. But both of these couples express the same kind of love I have for women. And there really is nothing wrong with that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: Male-male (and female-female) bonding (cosmic or mundane) that has nothing to do with sexual attraction has been around as long as human beans (or at least as long as the Hebrew Bible--e.g., David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi). MMY's views on homosexuality were objectionable in the extreme, but to accuse him of hypocrisy on the basis of his relationship with Guru Dev is so idiotic as to defy comment (especially given the flak about his purported relationships with women). If you've never had an intense but wholly platonic friendship with another man, Curtis, you've missed something that's part of the human experience. Sure I have but it never resulted in me desiring to sleep in their bed with them or to talk about him in the over-the-top terms that Maharishi uses. And for idiotic, I'll give you the assumption that religiously repressed gay men never sleep with women. Especially in the use and discard style that his accusers reported. And using characters from scriptures is bogus because it doesn't offer the kind of detail we would need to know to determine if there was a gay aspect to it. Look at Plato's dialogues to see how there was not always a very clear line historically. To believe that his complete attraction and devotion to Guru Dev which he himself describes as love at first sight (before he knew his personality enough to be in love with that) requires a whole set of beliefs that I don't share. The fact is that neither of us know the nature of their relationship, we are both guessing from what we have heard from him. So you call it your way and I'll call it my way. In either case his stance on homosexuals was abhorrent with or without the hypocrisy added. But I'll tell you as a man, whenever a man has started a friendship quickly with me based on must meeting me, and if they ever start using the kind of term of endearment Maharishi uses about his feelings for Guru Dev, they turned out to be a gay attraction. My close male friends, some who have been my close friends for decades never express themselves in that way. It has nothing to do with how much we care about each other, it is a straight version of friendship and it really isn't hard for a man to know the difference. I love you man is a lot different from I love love you man. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: This was a great rap Turq. The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking to his fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression when his relationship with Guru Dev can only be characterized as love between men is so absurd and hurtful to gay men everywhere. I remember how Yogananda's highest desire was to spoon with his master all night. He was absolutely giddy as he wrote about how wonderful it was when his master fulfilled his wish to spend the night with him in his bed. By trying to elevate these relationships to some cosmic level we are denying their humanity. Any time humans find love with each other it is a beautiful thing. I think it would help our society advance from his primitive oppression of gay people to admit the obvious when we see it, instead of trying to make up a story. I know that this insinuation is gunna be met with a lot of flack and I don't really care to parse words about what either of these pairs of men actually did together. That cheapens it. But both of these couples express the same kind of love I have for women. And there really is nothing wrong with that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: But I'll tell you as a man, whenever a man has started a friendship quickly with me based on just meeting me, and if they ever start using the kind of term of endearment Maharishi uses about his feelings for Guru Dev, they turned out to be a gay attraction. My close male friends, some who have been my close friends for decades never express themselves in that way. It has nothing to do with how much we care about each other, it is a straight version of friendship and it really isn't hard for a man to know the difference. I love you man is a lot different from I love love you man. Curtis, I would say that what you are describing is more an appropriate version of friendship than a straight one. The reason I say this is that I have had a number of fairly close gay friends. Some of them were fellow Rama students with me, a few of them are current friends here in Sitges. Their gaydar is without flaw; they took one look at me and knew that I was straight, and so anything gay was off the table. And almost immediately they shifted into an appropriate level of banter and friend- ship that would fit the extent to which we knew each other. As we got to know each other better, that sense of appropriateness never wavered. I was never the least bit uncomfortable with them, and they have told me that they are never the least bit uncom- fortable with me. We're just friends. What seems inappropriate to me in Maharishi's relationship with Guru Dev is that fawning bhakti thing. Yeah, yeah...I know that there is a whole tradition of that in India, and that one gets brownie points in spiritual traditions for *how* fawning one can be and *how* flowery the language one can think up to describe one's teacher is, but *really*...is all that shit NECESSARY? At various times I have respected the spiritual teachers I've worked with, but I never felt the need to describe them the way that Maharishi described Guru Dev, or that some of the more bhaktied-out TM TBs on this forum have described him. Like Nabby referring to Maharishi by capi- talizing He. Like the ones who droned on and on when he died about Him being in some heaven higher than the gods. I'm sorry, but that is *learned* behavior, and IMO not completely appropriate behavior. It's a social thing, something that is perpetuated and encouraged by groups, or by the teachers them- selves. It's often a form of spiritual one- upsmanship. I've actually seen people *punished* in the TMO (by looks of stern disapproval, if not by denying them access to MMY in the future) for not being fawning and bhaktied-out ENOUGH. He set the standard for how one was supposed to think about and talk about one's spiritual teacher in the way in which he talked about Guru Dev. And he clearly expected to be talked about and related to the same way. And God help you if you didn't. I just don't think it's necessary. I can hang out and laugh and have fun with my gay guy friends without wanting to get into their pants. And I can study with and fully respect a spir- itual teacher without *sounding like* I want to get into his pants.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: I just don't think it's necessary. I can hang out and laugh and have fun with my gay guy friends without wanting to get into their pants. snip To have missed having gay friends is punishment for homophobia! If you want to watch your gaydar meter redline hang out with Nandkashore and listen to him talk about Maharishi. And if you take a good look at Maharishi's preference for skin boys you see a common physical theme. And I can study with and fully respect a spir- itual teacher without *sounding like* I want to get into his pants. That totally cracked me up! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: But I'll tell you as a man, whenever a man has started a friendship quickly with me based on just meeting me, and if they ever start using the kind of term of endearment Maharishi uses about his feelings for Guru Dev, they turned out to be a gay attraction. My close male friends, some who have been my close friends for decades never express themselves in that way. It has nothing to do with how much we care about each other, it is a straight version of friendship and it really isn't hard for a man to know the difference. I love you man is a lot different from I love love you man. Curtis, I would say that what you are describing is more an appropriate version of friendship than a straight one. The reason I say this is that I have had a number of fairly close gay friends. Some of them were fellow Rama students with me, a few of them are current friends here in Sitges. Their gaydar is without flaw; they took one look at me and knew that I was straight, and so anything gay was off the table. And almost immediately they shifted into an appropriate level of banter and friend- ship that would fit the extent to which we knew each other. As we got to know each other better, that sense of appropriateness never wavered. I was never the least bit uncomfortable with them, and they have told me that they are never the least bit uncom- fortable with me. We're just friends. What seems inappropriate to me in Maharishi's relationship with Guru Dev is that fawning bhakti thing. Yeah, yeah...I know that there is a whole tradition of that in India, and that one gets brownie points in spiritual traditions for *how* fawning one can be and *how* flowery the language one can think up to describe one's teacher is, but *really*...is all that shit NECESSARY? At various times I have respected the spiritual teachers I've worked with, but I never felt the need to describe them the way that Maharishi described Guru Dev, or that some of the more bhaktied-out TM TBs on this forum have described him. Like Nabby referring to Maharishi by capi- talizing He. Like the ones who droned on and on when he died about Him being in some heaven higher than the gods. I'm sorry, but that is *learned* behavior, and IMO not completely appropriate behavior. It's a social thing, something that is perpetuated and encouraged by groups, or by the teachers them- selves. It's often a form of spiritual one- upsmanship. I've actually seen people *punished* in the TMO (by looks of stern disapproval, if not by denying them access to MMY in the future) for not being fawning and bhaktied-out ENOUGH. He set the standard for how one was supposed to think about and talk about one's spiritual teacher in the way in which he talked about Guru Dev. And he clearly expected to be talked about and related to the same way. And God help you if you didn't. I just don't think it's necessary. I can hang out and laugh and have fun with my gay guy friends without wanting to get into their pants. And I can study with and fully respect a spir- itual teacher without *sounding like* I want to get into his pants.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal L.Shaddai@ wrote: On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: Both Plus. Descriptions of activities from my gay Purusha buddy was beyond fears. Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think fuck each other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on. Abhorrent because the Purusha were supposed to be celibate, or abhorrent because the goings-on were homosexual? Years ago I dated a lady TM teacher who had been on staff at MIU. We spoke once over veggies and tofu (yuk!) about whether or not TM would !cure! homosexuality. She told me that there was a significant amount of gay men working on staff at MIU (woman seem to really pick up on this and can't let it go, even to this day). She also told me about massive amounts of corruption, lots of people pocketing MIU money. This would have been around the 1970s. Now my understanding was that Maharishi considered homosexuality an abomination. Homosexuality was discussed on a course I was on and the teacher said the official TM position was that being gay was due to stress, and in an enlightened society it therefore wouldn't occur. Stress can mean anything to someone steeped in SCI, but they were quick to point out that it's the way the world is and the gays aren't to blame(!) Seems to imply that they thought it wasn't a stress picked up in this life or that they weren't really thinking at all. Sounded to me like a way to hedge your bets and (hopefully) avoid offending anyone. This must mean that the gay guys I knew on purusha wouldn't ever get enlightenened, according to the prevailing view, until they had transcended their sexuality. The path is indeed long and winding! Can't speak to all homosexual behavior, but it IS established that male mammals tend to turn homosexual in high-stress situations. And I've known flaming queers who were happily married heterosexual men until their wives died in tragic accidents, whereupon they flipped orientation AND personality and came out of the closet in an aggressive way complete with flaming mannerisms that were never there before. In my own experience, there was a period in my life where I had extreme illness/fever, and was totally obsessed with my male friends at the same time I dealt with it by reminding myself of the stress factor, didn't indulge my obsession, and once my physical health improved, the obsession went away. Was I temporarily gay, or merely stressed out? Am I in the closet now because I didn't act out what I considered to be a fever-induced tendency? Who judges these things? Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: You miss the point. My point was really that - does it matter what sort of personal ethics ones pundits have? As far as the outcome of theor yajna? - Original Message - From: sparaig lengli...@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 8:58 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think fuck each other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on. Not to be a punk or anything, but how amny celibate male religious types of ALL persuasions, including Japanese Zen Buddhists, do you think indulge in that kind of thing? THe rationale for the Japanese is that its relations with WOMEN that are a no-no not relations with men, and it was traditional for the Zen monastaries to room the accolytes across the hall from teh senior monks for easier access. Of course, Tibetan Buddhists, and Indian Hindu monks would NEVER indulge in that kind of abhorrent goings on... just the Japanese Zen types and the Catholic types, but not Tibetan or Hindu, nosireee. What is the personal ethics in this situation? Are you saying that the gay pundits (assuming there are any) are de facto unethical? Lawson
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
What is the personal ethics in this situation? Are you saying that the gay pundits (assuming there are any) are de facto unethical? Lawson If they are brahmachari then yes.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
Who judges these things? Lawson Such personal choices are judged by oneself. But I applaud you for being so self aware.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Male-male (and female-female) bonding (cosmic or mundane) that has nothing to do with sexual attraction has been around as long as human beans (or at least as long as the Hebrew Bible--e.g., David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi). MMY's views on homosexuality were objectionable in the extreme, but to accuse him of hypocrisy on the basis of his relationship with Guru Dev is so idiotic as to defy comment (especially given the flak about his purported relationships with women). If you've never had an intense but wholly platonic friendship with another man, Curtis, you've missed something that's part of the human experience. Sure I have but it never resulted in me desiring to sleep in their bed with them or to talk about him in the over-the-top terms that Maharishi uses. And because *you* haven't had the kind of relationship that led you to talk about the other guy in over-the-top terms (sleeping in the same bed was Yogananda, I believe, not MMY), therefore that's the standard? And for idiotic, I'll give you the assumption that religiously repressed gay men never sleep with women. Especially in the use and discard style that his accusers reported. I wasn't making that assumption. See if you can figure out why I mentioned it. And using characters from scriptures is bogus because it doesn't offer the kind of detail we would need to know to determine if there was a gay aspect to it. This is a whole 'nother topic, but there is in fact a good deal of textual evidence that David/Jonathan and Ruth/Naomi had very deep but straight friendships that were recognized as such by the biblical writers. Look at Plato's dialogues to see how there was not always a very clear line historically. To believe that his complete attraction and devotion to Guru Dev which he himself describes as love at first sight (before he knew his personality enough to be in love with that) requires a whole set of beliefs that I don't share. Such as? The fact is that neither of us know the nature of their relationship, we are both guessing from what we have heard from him. So you call it your way and I'll call it my way. Might want to reread your recent post on how we know what we think we know, which concludes: It is the ability to notice the quality of evidence that I consider 'being thoughtful.' Which way you lean after that seems to be more a of an emotional rather than an intellectual issue. In the post I was responding to, you wrote: The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking to his fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression when his relationship with Guru Dev can only be characterized as love between men is so absurd and hurtful to gay men everywhere. Can only be characterized as sounds like a lot more than a guess to me. In either case his stance on homosexuals was abhorrent with or without the hypocrisy added. Granted. But you felt you just *had* to add the hypocrisy charge. His homophobia didn't reflect badly enough on him to suit you, even on top of (you should excuse the expression) his fooling around with women. But I'll tell you as a man, whenever a man has started a friendship quickly with me based on must meeting me Again the assumption that *your* experience and behavior are the standard, even given the marked cultural and contextual differences. , and if they ever start using the kind of term of endearment Maharishi uses about his feelings for Guru Dev, they turned out to be a gay attraction. My close male friends, some who have been my close friends for decades never express themselves in that way. It has nothing to do with how much we care about each other, it is a straight version of friendship and it really isn't hard for a man to know the difference. I love you man is a lot different from I love love you man.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Male-male (and female-female) bonding (cosmic or mundane) that has nothing to do with sexual attraction has been around as long as human beans (or at least as long as the Hebrew Bible--e.g., David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi). MMY's views on homosexuality were objectionable in the extreme, but to accuse him of hypocrisy on the basis of his relationship with Guru Dev is so idiotic as to defy comment (especially given the flak about his purported relationships with women). If you've never had an intense but wholly platonic friendship with another man, Curtis, you've missed something that's part of the human experience. Sure I have but it never resulted in me desiring to sleep in their bed with them or to talk about him in the over-the-top terms that Maharishi uses. And because *you* haven't had the kind of relationship that led you to talk about the other guy in over-the-top terms (sleeping in the same bed was Yogananda, I believe, not MMY), therefore that's the standard? This is a personal judgment about someone's personal life. Whose standard would you recommend I go with? And for idiotic, I'll give you the assumption that religiously repressed gay men never sleep with women. Especially in the use and discard style that his accusers reported. I wasn't making that assumption. See if you can figure out why I mentioned it. If you didn't consider it to be counter evidence to his having a gay relationship with Guru Dev then I have no idea. And using characters from scriptures is bogus because it doesn't offer the kind of detail we would need to know to determine if there was a gay aspect to it. This is a whole 'nother topic, but there is in fact a good deal of textual evidence that David/Jonathan and Ruth/Naomi had very deep but straight friendships that were recognized as such by the biblical writers. I'm not sure we can be confident of how cultures so far away handled this situation. There is always society's official stand and then what actually happens. That was my point. Look at Plato's dialogues to see how there was not always a very clear line historically. To believe that his complete attraction and devotion to Guru Dev which he himself describes as love at first sight (before he knew his personality enough to be in love with that) requires a whole set of beliefs that I don't share. Such as? That it was a spiritual love at first sight which is how he pitches it rather than the more common personal love at first sight. The fact is that neither of us know the nature of their relationship, we are both guessing from what we have heard from him. So you call it your way and I'll call it my way. Might want to reread your recent post on how we know what we think we know, which concludes: It is the ability to notice the quality of evidence that I consider 'being thoughtful.' Which way you lean after that seems to be more a of an emotional rather than an intellectual issue. Thanks for reading. In the post I was responding to, you wrote: The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking to his fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression when his relationship with Guru Dev can only be characterized as love between men is so absurd and hurtful to gay men everywhere. Can only be characterized as sounds like a lot more than a guess to me. I don't know why you think this is a contradiction. We are all compelled by our own reasoning, both intellectual and as a feeling. It IS more than a guess for me, it is my opinion which could be completely wrong. But as I said, we evaluate what we can from the evidence and then go with our complete feeling. If you had hung around Nandkashore a bit you might know better why I am guessing in this direction. In either case his stance on homosexuals was abhorrent with or without the hypocrisy added. Granted. But you felt you just *had* to add the hypocrisy charge. Because I believe it is true and it is so common among religious fundamentalists who are anti gay to be hypocrites. His homophobia didn't reflect badly enough on him to suit you, even on top of (you should excuse the expression) his fooling around with women. I don't know why you are trying to shame me for offering my opinion. I am not keeping score on how many bad things I write about him. For me his being gay is not the issue, it IS the hypocrisy of how he treated gays in the movement with lines like they might as well not even meditate. I had gay friends in the movement an this teaching tormented them. I hold him accountable for that. But I'll tell you as a man, whenever a man has started a friendship
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:45 AM, authfriend jst...@panix.com wrote: Male-male (and female-female) bonding (cosmic or mundane) that has nothing to do with sexual attraction has been around as long as human beans Judy, how long were human beans around? Did they predate human beings? Were they edible?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:45 AM, authfriend jst...@panix.com wrote: Male-male (and female-female) bonding (cosmic or mundane) that has nothing to do with sexual attraction has been around as long as human beans (or at least as long as the Hebrew Bible--e.g., David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi). MMY's views on homosexuality were objectionable in the extreme, but to accuse him of hypocrisy on the basis of his relationship with Guru Dev is so idiotic as to defy comment (especially given the flak about his purported relationships with women). If you've never had an intense but wholly platonic friendship with another man, Curtis, you've missed something that's part of the human experience. Judy, just consider the source. Only Barry would stretch a life of devotion to one's guru as a homosexual relationship. Only Barry would be sick enough to grasp at every possible straw in his perpetual attempt to denigrate TM and Maharishi. Sane people who didn't like their experience would, after a couple of decades of mean mouthing, tire and find something else to be a true disbeliever of.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip And because *you* haven't had the kind of relationship that led you to talk about the other guy in over-the-top terms (sleeping in the same bed was Yogananda, I believe, not MMY), therefore that's the standard? This is a personal judgment about someone's personal life. Whose standard would you recommend I go with? Curtis, I lose respect for your much-(self-)touted reasoning skills by the day. You talk a wonderful game in the abstract, but when it gets down to cases, your noble principles go straight out the window, most strikingly where anything concerning MMY or Guru Dev is concerned. There's no point in trying to explain to you what's wrong with the above comment or any of the other absurdities in your response. It's just too depressing. Just a guess doesn't contradict can only be characterized as?? Give me a BREAK. snip
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal l.shad...@... wrote: On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:45 AM, authfriend jst...@... wrote: Male-male (and female-female) bonding (cosmic or mundane) that has nothing to do with sexual attraction has been around as long as human beans (or at least as long as the Hebrew Bible--e.g., David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi). MMY's views on homosexuality were objectionable in the extreme, but to accuse him of hypocrisy on the basis of his relationship with Guru Dev is so idiotic as to defy comment (especially given the flak about his purported relationships with women). If you've never had an intense but wholly platonic friendship with another man, Curtis, you've missed something that's part of the human experience. Judy, just consider the source. Only Barry would stretch a life of devotion to one's guru as a homosexual relationship. Only Barry would be sick enough to grasp at every possible straw in his perpetual attempt to denigrate TM and Maharishi. Sane people who didn't like their experience would, after a couple of decades of mean mouthing, tire and find something else to be a true disbeliever of. I wouldn't even bother to address Barry on this point. I was responding to *Curtis*, who is blessed with superior reasoning skills and has rid himself of all emotional undercurrents that might affect his logical conclusions (just ask him).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:20 PM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote: I've been to India and have Indian close friends. Of course it is my own experiences with this culture and its customs that are a part of my opinion. So I draw my personal opinion for personal experiences. So are you, we just have come to different conclusions. I've been to India a few times but have spent a lot of time in the Middle East. I've gotten used to walking down the street hand in hand with another guy and swapping spit with him. Being straight, this of course first made me very, very uncomfortable to the extreme, but I'm a good actor so I never let on. This sort of show of affection is common in many parts of the world between men and between women. I remember that my mother used to walk down the street hand in hand with her friends and I suspect that her father and mother walked arm in arm down the street in old country.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip And because *you* haven't had the kind of relationship that led you to talk about the other guy in over-the-top terms (sleeping in the same bed was Yogananda, I believe, not MMY), therefore that's the standard? This is a personal judgment about someone's personal life. Whose standard would you recommend I go with? Curtis, I lose respect for your much-(self-)touted reasoning skills by the day. You talk a wonderful game in the abstract, but when it gets down to cases, your noble principles go straight out the window, most strikingly where anything concerning MMY or Guru Dev is concerned. So I should just make the assumption that they didn't have a gay relationship, would that show superior skills of reasoning? There's no point in trying to explain to you what's wrong with the above comment or any of the other absurdities in your response. Now who is blowing their own horn about their superior reasoning ability? It's just too depressing. You might want to have that checked. Hearing different opinions from your own shouldn't be depressing. Just a guess By me. I'm the poster. I am not speaking for all humanity. doesn't contradict can only be characterized as?? Give me a BREAK. It was my reasoned guess. What do you think your opinion is based on? This is a personal unknowable issue. I am expressing my opinion. snip
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: I wouldn't even bother to address Barry on this point. I was responding to *Curtis*, who is blessed with superior reasoning skills and has rid himself of all emotional undercurrents that might affect his logical conclusions (just ask him). Yeah, it is my hidden resentment that makes me believe Maharishi was in love love with Guru Dev. It couldn't be based on what he said about his feelings for the guy. And don't think I haven't noticed that you have not weighted in with an opinion on this. As usual you have gotten distracted with personal insults to the people here when discussing Maharishi. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal L.Shaddai@ wrote: On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:45 AM, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Male-male (and female-female) bonding (cosmic or mundane) that has nothing to do with sexual attraction has been around as long as human beans (or at least as long as the Hebrew Bible--e.g., David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi). MMY's views on homosexuality were objectionable in the extreme, but to accuse him of hypocrisy on the basis of his relationship with Guru Dev is so idiotic as to defy comment (especially given the flak about his purported relationships with women). If you've never had an intense but wholly platonic friendship with another man, Curtis, you've missed something that's part of the human experience. Judy, just consider the source. Only Barry would stretch a life of devotion to one's guru as a homosexual relationship. Only Barry would be sick enough to grasp at every possible straw in his perpetual attempt to denigrate TM and Maharishi. Sane people who didn't like their experience would, after a couple of decades of mean mouthing, tire and find something else to be a true disbeliever of. I wouldn't even bother to address Barry on this point. I was responding to *Curtis*, who is blessed with superior reasoning skills and has rid himself of all emotional undercurrents that might affect his logical conclusions (just ask him).
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal l.shad...@... wrote: Judy, just consider the source. Only Barry would stretch a life of devotion to one's guru as a homosexual relationship. Only Barry would be sick enough to grasp at every possible straw in his perpetual attempt to denigrate TM and Maharishi. Some might suggest that someone who gets his buttons pushed this strongly just by someone reminding him of the simple facts of his teacher's lifelong obsession with another man might be feeling this button-pushed because it suggests reasons he's uncomfortable with for his own obsession with that teacher. In other words, are you more concerned about someone looking at Maharishi's love for a man without the polite spiritual trappings, or your own love of Maharishi, without the same spiritual trappings? T'would seem that the only thing that makes people crazier than suggesting that Maharishi was human enough to spring the occasional boner for a woman is to suggest that he might have been human enough to spring the occasional boner for a man.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal l.shad...@... wrote: On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:20 PM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: I've been to India and have Indian close friends. Of course it is my own experiences with this culture and its customs that are a part of my opinion. So I draw my personal opinion for personal experiences. So are you, we just have come to different conclusions. I've been to India a few times but have spent a lot of time in the Middle East. I've gotten used to walking down the street hand in hand with another guy and swapping spit with him. Wait a second. Kissing a man with tongue IS gay behavior. As far as the hand holding or walking arm in arm goes, I have done this with monks and never felt anything gay about it. I don't have perfect gaydar but you can usually tell what is in play. Being straight, this of course first made me very, very uncomfortable to the extreme, but I'm a good actor so I never let on. This sort of show of affection is common in many parts of the world between men and between women. I remember that my mother used to walk down the street hand in hand with her friends and I suspect that her father and mother walked arm in arm down the street in old country.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
TurquoiseB wrote: Some might suggest that someone who gets his buttons pushed this strongly just by someone reminding him of the simple facts of his teacher's lifelong obsession with another man might be feeling this button-pushed because it suggests reasons he's uncomfortable with for his own obsession with that teacher... From: Uncle Tantra Subject: Open Letter To Willytex Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: August 6, 2003 Willy, since fucking prairie dogs or whatever you do with your time doesn't seem to fill enough of it lately, and you've been going out of your way to associate me with Rama and thus with a big, bad cult figure, I figure I should explain a couple of things...
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: T'would seem that the only thing that makes people crazier than suggesting that Maharishi was human enough to spring the occasional boner for a woman is to suggest that he might have been human enough to spring the occasional boner for a man. I have laughed out loud so many times with this topic today. Thanks Turq! The idea that such a relationship denigrates Maharishi is some way is very revealing. The assumption is that if it were true it would lesson Maharishi somehow says a lot. But being free enough to consider it as a possibility is actually more respectful of Maharishi the man. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal L.Shaddai@ wrote: Judy, just consider the source. Only Barry would stretch a life of devotion to one's guru as a homosexual relationship. Only Barry would be sick enough to grasp at every possible straw in his perpetual attempt to denigrate TM and Maharishi. Some might suggest that someone who gets his buttons pushed this strongly just by someone reminding him of the simple facts of his teacher's lifelong obsession with another man might be feeling this button-pushed because it suggests reasons he's uncomfortable with for his own obsession with that teacher. In other words, are you more concerned about someone looking at Maharishi's love for a man without the polite spiritual trappings, or your own love of Maharishi, without the same spiritual trappings? T'would seem that the only thing that makes people crazier than suggesting that Maharishi was human enough to spring the occasional boner for a woman is to suggest that he might have been human enough to spring the occasional boner for a man.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
Curtis wrote: Wait a second. Kissing a man with tongue IS gay behavior... Kissing a man 'with tongue' for a gay man simply means 'hello' and 'how are you doing?' Now, if it was a straight man doing that, then I'd worry, Curtis. : )
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: And because *you* haven't had the kind of relationship that led you to talk about the other guy in over-the-top terms (sleeping in the same bed was Yogananda, I believe, not MMY), therefore that's the standard? The Turq is now as low as it gets, even within his own standards. What we see is that after the huge success of the concert with Paul and Ringo for the David Lynch Foundation the Turq, and other TM-haters, have become increasingly desperate. That they would resort to this kind of arguments is really sad. And quite telling for their desperation.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Richard J. Williams willy...@yahoo.com wrote: Curtis wrote: Wait a second. Kissing a man with tongue IS gay behavior... Kissing a man 'with tongue' for a gay man simply means 'hello' and 'how are you doing?' Now, if it was a straight man doing that, then I'd worry, Curtis. : ) Where I come from, swapping spit means anything objectionable that two guys would do together with their mouths. And where I come from homosexuality is anathema. I meant to convey something beyond a mere peck on the cheek. I'm talking a big, slobbering kiss. The first time I received a kiss like that from a guy was from one of my workers (aka electrical men). He was not gay, I am not gay and it was not a gay thing. It was a sign that I made the grade in the electrical men's eyes. Of course that all fell apart very quickly when I said to one of the Copts that I really enjoyed going to church with him on Sunday. The guy who kissed me asked me if I was Christian. I said of course I'm Christian. The whole bloody country is Christian (actually a rough Arabic translation of that). Suddenly all the Muslims fell on the floor and whaled. The next day he gave me a little statue of Marium. I accepted it. Then the Copts took me to task for accepting profane objects. I got all of my men together and told them that we needed peace in the Middle East and it oughta start with us. A while later I saw Copt and Muslim walking home hand in hand. Well, I accomplished something. You see, the sidhis do work.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
On Apr 14, 2009, at 5:06 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: I wouldn't even bother to address Barry on this point. I was responding to *Curtis*, who is blessed with superior reasoning skills and has rid himself of all emotional undercurrents that might affect his logical conclusions (just ask him). Yeah, it is my hidden resentment that makes me believe Maharishi was in love love with Guru Dev. It couldn't be based on what he said about his feelings for the guy. And don't think I haven't noticed that you have not weighted in with an opinion on this. As usual you have gotten distracted with personal insults to the people here when discussing Maharishi. It's interesting, this question 'was the Maharishi Gay' (or was the Maharishi Bi). I often wondered if he was Gay or Bi. However, after the facts came out on his sexual relationship with females I thought 'Oh well, I guess he's not gay'. But since then I've wondered, could that have been a screen? The conclusion I came to is the androgynous aspect of atman/brahman and bhakti-oriented individuals is such that it seems, to us as westerners, that because they are both effeminate in speech and in their actions, they seem stereotypically Gay. If disciples of his don't achieve that neutral equanimity and sameness of Brahman, they can also feign androgyny. Perfect examples of this would be Bevan Morris and more recently John Hagelin who sound, frankly, like posturing Vedic castratos to me. It just doesn't feel genuine. Then there's also the encouragement towards bliss addiction, and that drippy Vedic sentimentality and fabricated devotionalism which also can come across as Gay. The odd thing is, there are many aspects of Gay culture and alternative sexuality that are quite at home in India. They are recognized as part of the plan. I suspect the invasion of India by the British Raj and their imposition of Judeo-Christian mores has affected that original understanding and appreciation of Gays as the Tratriya Prakithi, the Third Nature.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: T'would seem that the only thing that makes people crazier than suggesting that Maharishi was human enough to spring the occasional boner for a woman is to suggest that he might have been human enough to spring the occasional boner for a man. I have laughed out loud so many times with this topic today. Thanks Turq! Thanks for getting it enough to laugh. The idea that such a relationship denigrates Maharishi is some way is very revealing. The assumption is that if it were true it would lessen Maharishi somehow says a lot. But being free enough to consider it as a possibility is actually more respectful of Maharishi the man. I completely agree. Please see my post on The Dark Night Of The Soul. Assume that San Juan de la Cruz' poem was originally about a sexual union with another man. Does that somehow denigrate or lessen the fact that it is ALSO one of the most beautiful poems about union with God ever written?
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
Nab wrote: The Turq is now as low as it gets, even within his own standards. Maybe so, but I'd like to suggest John Manning for the top honors: From: John Manning Subject: According to witnesses Newsgroups: alt.religion.mormon Date: November 21, 2000 According to witnesses just like Joe Smith had witnesses - we now have video taped accounts of witnesses confirming Gordon B. Hinckley's sensual activities with young boys and prostitutes. His wife, with another observer, caught Joe porking another woman in the barn...
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: T'would seem that the only thing that makes people crazier than suggesting that Maharishi was human enough to spring the occasional boner for a woman is to suggest that he might have been human enough to spring the occasional boner for a man. I have laughed out loud so many times with this topic today. Thanks Turq! The idea that such a relationship denigrates Maharishi is some way is very revealing. The assumption is that if it were true it would lesson Maharishi somehow says a lot. Yeah, Curtis, tell us what it says, since you and Barry are the ones who are using it to denigrate MMY. But being free enough to consider it as a possibility is actually more respectful of Maharishi the man. Right, this is so respectful of MMY the man: The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking to his fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression when his relationship with Guru Dev can only be characterized as love between men is so absurd and hurtful to gay men everywhere. Doesn't lessen MMY one bit, nosireebob. Furthest thing from your mind, right, Curtis? And you're accusing *him* of hypocrisy?
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
TurquoiseB wrote: Thanks for getting it enough to laugh. Yeah, lets hear a big laugh!!! Bogumils are derived from Paulicans, Paulicans from Manicheans, Manicheans from Gnostics. Thus Cathars are derived from Gnostics. Moggers can understand this simple fact, 'cletantra' can't. - Klaus Schilling
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking to his fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression when his relationship with Guru Dev can only be characterized as love between men is so absurd and hurtful to gay men everywhere. Doesn't lessen MMY one bit, nosireebob. Furthest thing from your mind, right, Curtis? So you are still missing the point? It is the hypocrisy of his position on gayness that I am criticizing. Not that he might be gay. You remind me of my cats Judy. When I point my finger at a treat, they look at my finger. And you missed Turq's point also. He wasn't even going as far as I was in speculation. He was commenting on their over the top expressions of love for each other while denying that to men who may feel the same way but also physically. Speculating on their relationship is just another chance for you express rancor to me personally isn't it Judy? You aren't even following the actual topic we are discussing. And you're accusing *him* of hypocrisy? Yes I was. He, with his devotion to Guru Dev, out of anyone should understand how men can love each other, and should stay off their case. Neither you nor I know what that included. And you're accusing *him* of hypocrisy? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: T'would seem that the only thing that makes people crazier than suggesting that Maharishi was human enough to spring the occasional boner for a woman is to suggest that he might have been human enough to spring the occasional boner for a man. I have laughed out loud so many times with this topic today. Thanks Turq! The idea that such a relationship denigrates Maharishi is some way is very revealing. The assumption is that if it were true it would lesson Maharishi somehow says a lot. Yeah, Curtis, tell us what it says, since you and Barry are the ones who are using it to denigrate MMY. But being free enough to consider it as a possibility is actually more respectful of Maharishi the man. Right, this is so respectful of MMY the man: The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking to his fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression when his relationship with Guru Dev can only be characterized as love between men is so absurd and hurtful to gay men everywhere. Doesn't lessen MMY one bit, nosireebob. Furthest thing from your mind, right, Curtis? And you're accusing *him* of hypocrisy?
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
curtisdeltablues wrote:it IS the hypocrisy of how he [MMY]treated gays in the movement with lines like they might as well not even meditate. I had gay friends in the movement an this teaching tormented them. I hold him accountable for that. Curtis, Man you've been in the thick of it what with Pencil-J and Richard J. stomping around with jack boots in a strawberry patch. In your quote above, I'm guessing that you knew that any gay person who stayed with the movement despite Maharishi's known disdain was responsible for any further abuse he was subjected to if he remained in the TMO. That was my big mistake: not getting out when I knew a moral line had be crossed by my own standards. I should have at least screamed about it from the back of the room, ya know?...and gotten kicked out and been honorable to that extent at least. It was my decision -- many times -- to be in some sort of scientific denial, i.e. I could see if things changed...take in more data...see if the course office ever treated anyone as a human being, or, say, found an usher who didn't save seats up front for his friends, or, if ever Bevan could lose a single pound. Like that I thought I could afford to hang around and let TM purify the ranks. Not being gay, to my shame, I was not triggered THEN about Maharishi's stance, but now I see it as a clear sign, a sign that is not unlike his cursing all of Britain, etc. Let's say it plainly: Maharishi could be one mother fucking bastard and was often, and yet all of us gave him wiggle room of cosmic proportions. Consider what anyone's opinion of Obama would be if he were to be caught on tape being homophobic. Instantly, his constituency would be riled into reformation. His vaunted image would be trashed, but Maharishi was caught like this time and time again -- starting with how he treated women, yet all of us dug deep and came up with the rationalizations to purify his actions. I think my sin of not seeing what abuse is heaped upon others is equal to the sin of homophobia, so it's hard to toss a stone at Maharishi who was obviously raised like anyone and was a product of his culture. His homophobia was innocent compared to my knowing something was wrong and doing nothing about it. My hair is going to be messy for the rest of the day -- no way am I looking in a mirror right now. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
I have also heard other than what you suggest, some one else mentioned here that Maharishi had some real flamers as close assistants at times.I have never heard that Maharishi was ever on tape saying anything like this. h--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: curtisdeltablues wrote:it IS the hypocrisy of how he [MMY]treated gays in the movement with lines like they might as well not even meditate. I had gay friends in the movement an this teaching tormented them. I hold him accountable for that. Curtis, Man you've been in the thick of it what with Pencil-J and Richard J. stomping around with jack boots in a strawberry patch. In your quote above, I'm guessing that you knew that any gay person who stayed with the movement despite Maharishi's known disdain was responsible for any further abuse he was subjected to if he remained in the TMO. That was my big mistake: not getting out when I knew a moral line had be crossed by my own standards. I should have at least screamed about it from the back of the room, ya know?...and gotten kicked out and been honorable to that extent at least. It was my decision -- many times -- to be in some sort of scientific denial, i.e. I could see if things changed...take in more data...see if the course office ever treated anyone as a human being, or, say, found an usher who didn't save seats up front for his friends, or, if ever Bevan could lose a single pound. Like that I thought I could afford to hang around and let TM purify the ranks. Not being gay, to my shame, I was not triggered THEN about Maharishi's stance, but now I see it as a clear sign, a sign that is not unlike his cursing all of Britain, etc. Let's say it plainly: Maharishi could be one mother fucking bastard and was often, and yet all of us gave him wiggle room of cosmic proportions. Consider what anyone's opinion of Obama would be if he were to be caught on tape being homophobic. Instantly, his constituency would be riled into reformation. His vaunted image would be trashed, but Maharishi was caught like this time and time again -- starting with how he treated women, yet all of us dug deep and came up with the rationalizations to purify his actions. I think my sin of not seeing what abuse is heaped upon others is equal to the sin of homophobia, so it's hard to toss a stone at Maharishi who was obviously raised like anyone and was a product of his culture. His homophobia was innocent compared to my knowing something was wrong and doing nothing about it. My hair is going to be messy for the rest of the day -- no way am I looking in a mirror right now. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking to his fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression when his relationship with Guru Dev can only be characterized as love between men is so absurd and hurtful to gay men everywhere. Doesn't lessen MMY one bit, nosireebob. Furthest thing from your mind, right, Curtis? So you are still missing the point? It is the hypocrisy of his position on gayness that I am criticizing. That's exactly the criticism I've been addressing, Curtis. It would be hypocritical only if he and Guru Dev had been sexually involved. The assumption is that if it were true it would lesson Maharishi somehow says a lot. But it doesn't lessen him to call him a hypocrite, right? snip And you're accusing *him* of hypocrisy? The assumption is that if it were true it would lesson Maharishi somehow says a lot. But it doesn't lessen him to call him a hypocrite, right? That's the hypocrisy of yours I was referring to. Yes I was. He, with his devotion to Guru Dev, out of anyone should understand how men can love each other, and should stay off their case. This is a backpedal, Curtis. You wouldn't have brought up Yogananda wanting to spend the night with his guru if you weren't insinuating a sexual relationship in MMY's case. But to address the backpedal on its own terms: Homophobia isn't based on men loving each other; that is honored and respected in virtually all cultures. Devotion to one's guru is honored and respected in guru-centered spiritual traditions. Homophobia is based on men having sex with each other, which until recently has been reviled in most cultures. It may be short-sighted for people not to be able to extrapolate from men loving each other nonsexually to men having loving sexual relationships, but it's hardly hypocritical. For many people, that extrapolation would be a huge leap. Those who still revile homosexuality do so in large part because they were taught that homosexual relationships are *only* about sex and that sexual preference is a free choice. Again, it's only very recently that loving, committed same-sex relationships and the likelihood that people are born homosexual appeared on the radar. MMY was a child of his culture and his time where his social views were concerned. To call him a hypocrite (in your backpedaled version) because his views on homosexuality didn't measure up to the most modern perspectives is off the wall. One can loathe his *views* because they don't measure up in this regard, but there's no need to loathe him for holding them, unless one is looking for an excuse to do so.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking to his fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression when his relationship with Guru Dev can only be characterized as love between men is so absurd and hurtful to gay men everywhere. Doesn't lessen MMY one bit, nosireebob. Furthest thing from your mind, right, Curtis? So you are still missing the point? It is the hypocrisy of his position on gayness that I am criticizing. That's exactly the criticism I've been addressing, Curtis. It would be hypocritical only if he and Guru Dev had been sexually involved. I don't believe that. It is still hypocritical considering... let's call it a more neutral outside the box, male bonding. Maharishi was very clear that he wanted a personal relationship with Guru Dev and contrived a scheme to make it happen. He was not looking for a way to sneak into his Vedic study class. You are drawing different conclusions than I am from the few facts we do know about the guy. The assumption is that if it were true it would lesson Maharishi somehow says a lot. But it doesn't lessen him to call him a hypocrite, right? No, that does. It is meant to. As one example of the misery his teaching on this caused was a good friend of mine at the College of Natural Law in DC who was gay and very devoted to Maharishi's teaching. He was really tormented by this aspect of his teaching. It was a wake up call for me but as Edg pointed out, I was not strong enough to stand up against it and take the consequences. So calling him a homophobe is a much bigger criticism than calling him a hypocrite. That is just a bonus observation. snip And you're accusing *him* of hypocrisy? The assumption is that if it were true it would lesson Maharishi somehow says a lot. But it doesn't lessen him to call him a hypocrite, right? That's the hypocrisy of yours I was referring to. It makes a difference for what reason you object to his behavior. You are looking for any excuse to pull out your favorite H word I know, but I'm not the guy teaching people that homosexuals are violating natural law. I'm not being a hypocrite for pointing that out. Of course I am calling him out for his whole view. I am speculating about the circumstances of his own life. But I am not lessening him for being shitty to gays in the movement. He did that all on his own. In addition I believe it was hypocritical since he was in love with Guru Dev, define it how you wish. Yes I was. He, with his devotion to Guru Dev, out of anyone should understand how men can love each other, and should stay off their case. This is a backpedal, Curtis. You wouldn't have brought up Yogananda wanting to spend the night with his guru if you weren't insinuating a sexual relationship in MMY's case. Do you think I am taking a stand of certainty here? I said no one knows the truth. I have my opinion, you can have yours. It is not a backpedal it is an honest discussion of all the aspects of the topic. So yes, I believe there was towel shaping and sword fighting going on in Joitir Math. But to address the backpedal on its own terms: Homophobia isn't based on men loving each other; that is honored and respected in virtually all cultures. Devotion to one's guru is honored and respected in guru-centered spiritual traditions. Homophobia is based on men having sex with each other, which until recently has been reviled in most cultures. It is practiced in many including the Mideast. There's a boy across the river with a bottom like a peach, but alas I cannot swim is a famous folk song in Afghanistan. It was a big part of Greek life. It had a place in American Indian societies as well as in India itself. Our own culture maintains prisons such that men can have sex with each other. It is a fact at many levels of society outside just gay culture. Read about the history of sailing ships. I believe it happens in ashrams too. It may be short-sighted for people not to be able to extrapolate from men loving each other nonsexually to men having loving sexual relationships, but it's hardly hypocritical. For many people, that extrapolation would be a huge leap. And for some it isn't a big leap given the level of love as it was described by Maharishi himself. So for me I find it hypocritical. He could have been more understanding. Those who still revile homosexuality do so in large part because they were taught that homosexual relationships are *only* about sex and that sexual preference is a free choice. Again, it's only very recently that loving,
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: I can't believe I typed the best joke in the post! So yes, I believe there was towel shaping and sword fighting going on in Joitir Math. It should, of course, read: towel SNAPPING and sword fighting going on in Joitir math. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking to his fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression when his relationship with Guru Dev can only be characterized as love between men is so absurd and hurtful to gay men everywhere. Doesn't lessen MMY one bit, nosireebob. Furthest thing from your mind, right, Curtis? So you are still missing the point? It is the hypocrisy of his position on gayness that I am criticizing. That's exactly the criticism I've been addressing, Curtis. It would be hypocritical only if he and Guru Dev had been sexually involved. I don't believe that. It is still hypocritical considering... let's call it a more neutral outside the box, male bonding. Maharishi was very clear that he wanted a personal relationship with Guru Dev and contrived a scheme to make it happen. He was not looking for a way to sneak into his Vedic study class. You are drawing different conclusions than I am from the few facts we do know about the guy. The assumption is that if it were true it would lesson Maharishi somehow says a lot. But it doesn't lessen him to call him a hypocrite, right? No, that does. It is meant to. As one example of the misery his teaching on this caused was a good friend of mine at the College of Natural Law in DC who was gay and very devoted to Maharishi's teaching. He was really tormented by this aspect of his teaching. It was a wake up call for me but as Edg pointed out, I was not strong enough to stand up against it and take the consequences. So calling him a homophobe is a much bigger criticism than calling him a hypocrite. That is just a bonus observation. snip And you're accusing *him* of hypocrisy? The assumption is that if it were true it would lesson Maharishi somehow says a lot. But it doesn't lessen him to call him a hypocrite, right? That's the hypocrisy of yours I was referring to. It makes a difference for what reason you object to his behavior. You are looking for any excuse to pull out your favorite H word I know, but I'm not the guy teaching people that homosexuals are violating natural law. I'm not being a hypocrite for pointing that out. Of course I am calling him out for his whole view. I am speculating about the circumstances of his own life. But I am not lessening him for being shitty to gays in the movement. He did that all on his own. In addition I believe it was hypocritical since he was in love with Guru Dev, define it how you wish. Yes I was. He, with his devotion to Guru Dev, out of anyone should understand how men can love each other, and should stay off their case. This is a backpedal, Curtis. You wouldn't have brought up Yogananda wanting to spend the night with his guru if you weren't insinuating a sexual relationship in MMY's case. Do you think I am taking a stand of certainty here? I said no one knows the truth. I have my opinion, you can have yours. It is not a backpedal it is an honest discussion of all the aspects of the topic. So yes, I believe there was towel shaping and sword fighting going on in Joitir Math. But to address the backpedal on its own terms: Homophobia isn't based on men loving each other; that is honored and respected in virtually all cultures. Devotion to one's guru is honored and respected in guru-centered spiritual traditions. Homophobia is based on men having sex with each other, which until recently has been reviled in most cultures. It is practiced in many including the Mideast. There's a boy across the river with a bottom like a peach, but alas I cannot swim is a famous folk song in Afghanistan. It was a big part of Greek life. It had a place in American Indian societies as well as in India itself. Our own culture maintains prisons such that men can have sex with each other. It is a fact at many levels of society outside just gay culture. Read about the history of sailing ships. I believe it happens in ashrams too. It may be short-sighted for people not to be able to extrapolate from men loving each other nonsexually to men having loving sexual relationships, but it's hardly hypocritical. For many people, that extrapolation would be
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking to his fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression when his relationship with Guru Dev can only be characterized as love between men is so absurd and hurtful to gay men everywhere. Doesn't lessen MMY one bit, nosireebob. Furthest thing from your mind, right, Curtis? So you are still missing the point? It is the hypocrisy of his position on gayness that I am criticizing. That's exactly the criticism I've been addressing, Curtis. It would be hypocritical only if he and Guru Dev had been sexually involved. I don't believe that. It is still hypocritical considering... let's call it a more neutral outside the box, male bonding. Maharishi was very clear that he wanted a personal relationship with Guru Dev and contrived a scheme to make it happen. He was not looking for a way to sneak into his Vedic study class. You are drawing different conclusions than I am from the few facts we do know about the guy. That's a pretty standard form of sadhana in India. It's called Guru-Bhakti Yoga. In that context, it's not at all out-of-the-box. Google it; there's over 15,000 hits. And the way he described how he went about it in that one tape that's been transcribed and posted a number of times is in very close accord with the traditional formulations. snip And you're accusing *him* of hypocrisy? The assumption is that if it were true it would lesson Maharishi somehow says a lot. But it doesn't lessen him to call him a hypocrite, right? That's the hypocrisy of yours I was referring to. It makes a difference for what reason you object to his behavior. You are looking for any excuse to pull out your favorite H word I know, but I'm not the guy teaching people that homosexuals are violating natural law. I'm not being a hypocrite for pointing that out. Never said you were, as I just explained. Read it again, please. snip Homophobia isn't based on men loving each other; that is honored and respected in virtually all cultures. Devotion to one's guru is honored and respected in guru-centered spiritual traditions. Homophobia is based on men having sex with each other, which until recently has been reviled in most cultures. It is practiced in many including the Mideast. Homosexuality has been around as long as loving nonsexual male relationships. But in most cultures, it's been reviled, considered an abomination, a perversion, a sickness, degenerate, sinful, whereas loving nonsexual relationships have been honored and respected, as has devotion to the guru. Point being, it's ridiculous to call someone who had a relationship of the latter type hypocritical because they objected to the former type. As far as they're concerned, it's apples and oranges. snip It may be short-sighted for people not to be able to extrapolate from men loving each other nonsexually to men having loving sexual relationships, but it's hardly hypocritical. For many people, that extrapolation would be a huge leap. And for some it isn't a big leap given the level of love as it was described by Maharishi himself. So for me I find it hypocritical. He could have been more understanding. So a dude who grew up in India and went from college straight into an ashram who isn't understanding to your modern Western standards is hypocritical? Curtis, *listen* to yourself. Those who still revile homosexuality do so in large part because they were taught that homosexual relationships are *only* about sex and that sexual preference is a free choice. Again, it's only very recently that loving, committed same-sex relationships and the likelihood that people are born homosexual appeared on the radar. You are a fan of the classics right? Wanna rethink that statement? Nope, sure don't. Do you think MMY read these classics? MMY was a child of his culture and his time where his social views were concerned. To call him a hypocrite (in your backpedaled version) because his views on homosexuality didn't measure up to the most modern perspectives is off the wall. MMY was supposed to be more than a child of his culture he was deified as nature speaking English. Non sequitur. I'm not deifying him. And according to Barry, the two of you are critizing him the way you would any other human being. If that's the case, you don't get to criticize him for not being a god. The view I was expecting from him was one of more compassion than he showed. So he's hypocritical
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, michael vedamer...@... wrote: http://globalcountryofworldpeace.org:80/maharishi_vedic_pandits12.html � in maharishi vedic city � INteresting. L.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think fuck each other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on. - Original Message - From: sparaig lengli...@cox.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 1:54 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, michael vedamer...@... wrote: http://globalcountryofworldpeace.org:80/maharishi_vedic_pandits12.html � in maharishi vedic city � INteresting. L. To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think fuck each other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on. Now that's interesting. I don't remember this particular subject having come up before. I would bet not only that homosexual relation- ships are common, but that they are done in a state of almost total denial. That is, the people involved can't admit even to each other what they are doing to each other. I used to see a similar behavior pattern among the supposedly-celibate guys working on staff at Seelisberg and on courses in Europe, but in a heterosexual way. These guys would see a woman they liked and seduce her with the olde I know that I should be celibate but you're just s beautiful routine. And after one or two rolls in the hay, they would forget the women. Not just drop them, FORGET them. Ask these guys three weeks later if they had ever had a sexual relationship with this woman, and they would not only deny it, but deny it truthfully, from their point of view. They had so completely put it out of their minds that to them it was as if it had never happened. And then they would run the exact same number on another course a month or two later. Once one of these scumbags did this to a female friend of mine. I happened to be on a course in the same town, and so we talked about it when he dumped her. So I took her with me and we confronted the guy together, in person, and he denied to BOTH of us that anything had ever happened between him and the woman in question. Blew her mind. She stood there in total and complete shock, partly because the scumbag in question was one of Maharishi's favorites at the time. That's why I think that this would be how homo- sexual relationships, if they are present, would work themselves out. Everyone knows that they are somehow bad, so the guys would have to first talk themselves into it by pretending to be swept away by emotion or something of the sort. And then my bet is that the next morn- ing they would do the olde college girl the morning after balling the entire football team routine and say, I don't remember a thing. Within a week they would have convinced them- selves that it never happened. This is pure speculation, based on dozens and dozens of hetero assignations I saw go down in course environments. I was never on Purusha and never would have been, so I don't know for sure that the guys get it on with each other. But based on how these *same* people (many of the course leader slimeballs later went on to join Purusha) around women, I can't believe that they would act any differently around men. I'm speaking so far about Purusha. With regard to the pundits, I would expect somewhat similar behavior, based on Indian guys I have worked with in the computer world. Many of them were basically being treated as slaves by relatives who had brought them to the U.S. and gotten them jobs for which they charged the company $75-150 an hour, but they were then paying the Indian guys $15-25 an hour, and putting them up at the local YMCA. So these guys didn't really have the money to go out with women, and from time to time there would be rumors of some of them having gotten it on together at the Y. The reaction? Always total denial, even when someone had walked in on them and seen them. - Original Message - From: sparaig lengli...@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 1:54 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, michael vedamerlin@ wrote: http://globalcountryofworldpeace.org:80/maharishi_vedic_pandits12.html � in maharishi vedic city � INteresting. L.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
Let's face it, the only reason they're here is because they're desperate--desperate for money, desperate for opportunity and from a country where their hereditary right to be a vedic priest means less and less every day. Being a Vedic magician just ain't what it used to be. What's the underlying motivation here? To be a magical whore where there's more magical Johns? If they're not allowed to bring women with them, I think it's fair to assume 'they'll get it where they can'. On Apr 13, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Kirk wrote: Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think fuck each other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think fuck each other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on. Abhorrent because the Purusha were supposed to be celibate, or abhorrent because the goings-on were homosexual?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
Well, we pay pundits presupposing that they are focused on our well being. But what if they are seething with an undercurrent of rage and hatred of the West, or maybe even just bubbling with old base desires themselves? Therefore I don't think background of transcendence alone is 'it' for creating a new generation of pundits. What would be more perfect would be if the pundits were fully individuated and fulfilled before they perform their rituals. We are told that yajnas work as based in numbers of reps and so on of invocation, but I more believe that since sacrafice is the real issue, the greater the hardship involved on behalf of the person funding the yajna the greater the faith and hence power behind it. Thus one penny sacrificed by an impoverished person is equal to a million bucks spent by a billionaire. There's really no objectivity in the whole system. There are basic moral and integral issues regarding holding these pundit/slaves, even if it is mere usury and not actual slavery. Caste promotion, etc One must consider the group of people they are supporting and decide if that's what they wish to represent. Now personally I do like having yajnas done as I feel it clarifies my mind. But I have to like my pundits and feel that they perform the ritual out of love rather than material necessity. That love can only be developed in individual pundits and cannot be forced on them from outside. The whole situation is very hokey in general. I also feel nothing from watching the videos of Maharishi pundits. I get more from local village tantrics and common practitioners who love what they are doing. - Original Message - From: Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 3:25 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits Let's face it, the only reason they're here is because they're desperate--desperate for money, desperate for opportunity and from a country where their hereditary right to be a vedic priest means less and less every day. Being a Vedic magician just ain't what it used to be. What's the underlying motivation here? To be a magical whore where there's more magical Johns? If they're not allowed to bring women with them, I think it's fair to assume 'they'll get it where they can'. On Apr 13, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Kirk wrote: Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think fuck each other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on. To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think fuck each other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on. Now that's interesting. I don't remember this particular subject having come up before. Purusha were (mainly) a group of oddballs, not celibate-monk-qualified, but just goofy householders. That's because the early adopters of TM in the West were heavily canted in favor of screwballs and misfits. The pundits in India, on the other hand, are from the mainstream of society, so judgments about their behavior extrapolated from Purusha don't work.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
thanks for sharing this-- glad to see the pandit numbers are growing. very powerful and enjoyable chanting. and thanks again to the TM critics and proponents alike for continuing to keep TM in the forefront-- more than Yogananda, more than the DL, more than Scientology, Rama or any of the lesser lights. TM is and always will be the way of the householder. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, michael vedamer...@... wrote: http://globalcountryofworldpeace.org:80/maharishi_vedic_pandits12.html in maharishi vedic city
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
nail on the head Bob! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think fuck each other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on. Now that's interesting. I don't remember this particular subject having come up before. Purusha were (mainly) a group of oddballs, not celibate-monk-qualified, but just goofy householders. That's because the early adopters of TM in the West were heavily canted in favor of screwballs and misfits. The pundits in India, on the other hand, are from the mainstream of society, so judgments about their behavior extrapolated from Purusha don't work.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
On Apr 13, 2009, at 5:07 PM, Kirk wrote: Well, we pay pundits presupposing that they are focused on our well being. But what if they are seething with an undercurrent of rage and hatred of the West, or maybe even just bubbling with old base desires themselves? Therefore I don't think background of transcendence alone is 'it' for creating a new generation of pundits. What would be more perfect would be if the pundits were fully individuated and fulfilled before they perform their rituals. We are told that yajnas work as based in numbers of reps and so on of invocation, but I more believe that since sacrafice is the real issue, the greater the hardship involved on behalf of the person funding the yajna the greater the faith and hence power behind it. Thus one penny sacrificed by an impoverished person is equal to a million bucks spent by a billionaire. There's really no objectivity in the whole system. There are basic moral and integral issues regarding holding these pundit/slaves, even if it is mere usury and not actual slavery. Caste promotion, etc One must consider the group of people they are supporting and decide if that's what they wish to represent. Now personally I do like having yajnas done as I feel it clarifies my mind. But I have to like my pundits and feel that they perform the ritual out of love rather than material necessity. That love can only be developed in individual pundits and cannot be forced on them from outside. The whole situation is very hokey in general. I also feel nothing from watching the videos of Maharishi pundits. I get more from local village tantrics and common practitioners who love what they are doing. I've enjoyed the yagna experience when I was staying at an ashram and it was part of what was happening and something I was participating in, but later I got more interested in doing sadhanas for yidams I had an affinity with--the whole bit, finding an appropriate place for retreat and doing the accumulations till I could work with the action mantras directly. After that I connected with others in the community of yogis I work with and we could do these together or for each other or for someone hurting. In that sense it becomes like something you have access to whenever needed. As I was trying to explain to someone off list recently, there's different levels of the guru. Most people latch onto the outer guru--even to the point of following them around or having to be physically near them, having to hear all their talks or craving seeing them like a darshan junky. But the ishta or yidam is the inner guru, and a bridge to more secret aspects of the guru like the wisdom dakini / jnana-shakti, so it would feel antithetical for me to be interested in anything external from my own practice or experience.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
Both Plus. Descriptions of activities from my gay Purusha buddy was beyond fears. - Original Message - From: authfriend jst...@panix.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 3:39 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think fuck each other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on. Abhorrent because the Purusha were supposed to be celibate, or abhorrent because the goings-on were homosexual? To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Kirk kirk_bernha...@cox.net wrote: Both Plus. Descriptions of activities from my gay Purusha buddy was beyond fears. Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think fuck each other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on. Abhorrent because the Purusha were supposed to be celibate, or abhorrent because the goings-on were homosexual? Years ago I dated a lady TM teacher who had been on staff at MIU. We spoke once over veggies and tofu (yuk!) about whether or not TM would !cure! homosexuality. She told me that there was a significant amount of gay men working on staff at MIU (woman seem to really pick up on this and can't let it go, even to this day). She also told me about massive amounts of corruption, lots of people pocketing MIU money. This would have been around the 1970s. Now my understanding was that Maharishi considered homosexuality an abomination.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think fuck each other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on. Not to be a punk or anything, but how amny celibate male religious types of ALL persuasions, including Japanese Zen Buddhists, do you think indulge in that kind of thing? THe rationale for the Japanese is that its relations with WOMEN that are a no-no not relations with men, and it was traditional for the Zen monastaries to room the accolytes across the hall from teh senior monks for easier access. Of course, Tibetan Buddhists, and Indian Hindu monks would NEVER indulge in that kind of abhorrent goings on... just the Japanese Zen types and the Catholic types, but not Tibetan or Hindu, nosireee. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 900 Pandits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: Not to be a punk or anything but how many of them do you all think fuck each other? After I quit Purusha I learned of many abhorrent goings on. Now that's interesting. I don't remember this particular subject having come up before. I would bet not only that homosexual relation- ships are common, but that they are done in a state of almost total denial. That is, the people involved can't admit even to each other what they are doing to each other. I used to see a similar behavior pattern among the supposedly-celibate guys working on staff at Seelisberg and on courses in Europe, but in a heterosexual way. These guys would see a woman they liked and seduce her with the olde I know that I should be celibate but you're just s beautiful routine. And after one or two rolls in the hay, they would forget the women. Not just drop them, FORGET them. Ask these guys three weeks later if they had ever had a sexual relationship with this woman, and they would not only deny it, but deny it truthfully, from their point of view. They had so completely put it out of their minds that to them it was as if it had never happened. And then they would run the exact same number on another course a month or two later. Once one of these scumbags did this to a female friend of mine. I happened to be on a course in the same town, and so we talked about it when he dumped her. So I took her with me and we confronted the guy together, in person, and he denied to BOTH of us that anything had ever happened between him and the woman in question. Blew her mind. She stood there in total and complete shock, partly because the scumbag in question was one of Maharishi's favorites at the time. That's why I think that this would be how homo- sexual relationships, if they are present, would work themselves out. Everyone knows that they are somehow bad, so the guys would have to first talk themselves into it by pretending to be swept away by emotion or something of the sort. And then my bet is that the next morn- ing they would do the olde college girl the morning after balling the entire football team routine and say, I don't remember a thing. Within a week they would have convinced them- selves that it never happened. This is pure speculation, based on dozens and dozens of hetero assignations I saw go down in course environments. I was never on Purusha and never would have been, so I don't know for sure that the guys get it on with each other. But based on how these *same* people (many of the course leader slimeballs later went on to join Purusha) around women, I can't believe that they would act any differently around men. I'm speaking so far about Purusha. With regard to the pundits, I would expect somewhat similar behavior, based on Indian guys I have worked with in the computer world. Many of them were basically being treated as slaves by relatives who had brought them to the U.S. and gotten them jobs for which they charged the company $75-150 an hour, but they were then paying the Indian guys $15-25 an hour, and putting them up at the local YMCA. So these guys didn't really have the money to go out with women, and from time to time there would be rumors of some of them having gotten it on together at the Y. The reaction? Always total denial, even when someone had walked in on them and seen them. On the other hand, Arabs sitting in a room jerking themselves off in a competition to see who lasts longest, IS not seen as homosexual behavior, from I understand. ANd if course, the Japanese mainstream teenager-oriented sports cartoon that contains myriad elephant jokes' bout the one kid who is well hung shouldn't be seen as homosexual either. NOr the fact that his friends scrawled obscene messages on his dick while he was unconscious in the hospital. IN fact, these guys are NOT seen as gay, since they're 1) tolerant of gays, and 2) only chase after girls. SO one culture's abhorrent behavior is another's divinely inspired... Or should we not talk about the temple prostitutes in ancient Rome? Lawson
