Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[Michael Jackson]

in fact it takes no mantras to get enlightened as evidenced by people like 
Eckhart Tolle and Nissagardatta - another of Marsy's scams exposed

On Tue, 10/29/13, Richard J. Williams  wrote:

 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2013, 1:48 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
   
   
   
   
   
 Far from being
 'empty', it is beginning
   to look like Bill is 'devoid' of any kind of
 TM training. Chanting
   OM and concentrating on Krishna is a pseudo yoga
 practice best
   left to dilettantes and followers of the Vaishnava
 Swami
   Bhativedanta. Hey, Bill, how many mantras does it take
 to get
   enlightened? LoL!
 
   
 
   dil·et·tante
 
   
 
   noun
 
   plural noun: dilettantes
 
   
 
   1. a person who cultivates an area of interest, such
 as the arts,
   without real commitment or knowledge.
 
   "a dilettante approach to science"
 
   
 
   synonyms: dabbler, amateur, nonprofessional, layman
 
   
 
   On 10/27/2013 3:46 PM, wgm4u wrote:
 
 
 
    
   
   
 Empty Bill seems to have
 'issues' with 'Prairie
   Dog'.go figure! 
 
 
   
 
   ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
   
 wrote:
 
   
 
   
 Prairie Dog Troll
 
 
   
 You are such an ignorant,
 pseudo-intellectual
 bullshitter that you'll make any
 kind of claim just
 to appear like you know
 something. I would call you a liar but
 in actuality
 you are just arrogantly
 stupid.
 
 
 
 Patanjali talks extensively about OM you
 fool. He
 uses the standard vedic term
 pranava.
 See YS
 1.27 -  tasya
 vâcaka.h pra.nava.h
 “(His)
   designation is the pranava
 (pronouncement)”.
  
 Prairie Dog sez:
 Vajrayana Buddhism is
   esoteric, in the sense that the
 transmission of
   certain teachings only occurs directly
 from
   teacher to student during an
   initiation or empowerment and cannot
 be simply
   learned from a book.
  
 Idiot! I’ve had a Vajrayana
 and Dzogchen teacher for a decade. You
 are only a
 stinking troll parroting something
 you read in a book. You don’t know
 shit about
 Vajrayana.
  
 Prairie Dog sez:
 So, SSRS get the bija
   mantras from MMY without even becoming
 a TM
   teacher -  it has not been
 established where and
   from whom MMY got the
   list of bijas, but you only get one
 bija in TM -
   so how did MMY and SSRS get to
   know all the bija mantras? They
 probably read
   about the bija mantras in a 
   yoga book. Because no TM teacher would
 give out
   seventeen different bijas to
   one student. Go
 figure.
  
 Brahmarishi Devarata said
 that the supreme bija of the
 Rg Veda is Im, of Yajur Veda is
 Shri
 and of the Upanishads is the pranava
 Om.
   
  
 The supreme bija of Prairie
 Dog yoga is
 Duh!
 
 
   ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,
   
 wrote:
 
   
 
   
 It
   is a fact that here are no bija
 mantras mentioned
   in the Rig Veda. So, how would the
 SSRS know any
   bijas from being a Vedic Pandit?
 
   
 
   There are no bija mantras mentioned by
 Patanjali.
   The historical Buddha doesn't
 mention any bija
   mantras. So, the bija mantras usage
 must have come
   AFTER the rise of Buddhism (463 BC) in
 India and
   Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (200 BC).
 
 
   
 
   The Siddha tradition of using bija
 mantras can be
   traced back to t

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[Richard J. Williams]

Far from being 'empty', it is beginning to look like Bill is 'devoid' of 
any kind of TM training. Chanting OM and concentrating on Krishna is a 
pseudo yoga practice best left to dilettantes and followers of the 
Vaishnava Swami Bhativedanta. Hey, Bill, how many mantras does it take 
to get enlightened? LoL!


dil·et·tante

noun
plural noun: dilettantes

1. a person who cultivates an area of interest, such as the arts, 
without real commitment or knowledge.

"a dilettante approach to science"

synonyms: dabbler, amateur, nonprofessional, layman

On 10/27/2013 3:46 PM, wgm4u wrote:


Empty Bill seems to have 'issues' with 'Prairie Dog'.go figure!



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


Prairie Dog Troll


You are such an ignorant, pseudo-intellectual bullshitter that you'll 
make any kind of claim just to appear like you know something. I would 
call you a liar but in actuality you are just arrogantly stupid.


Patanjali talks extensively about OM you fool. He uses the standard 
vedic term */pranava/*. *See**/YS 1.27 - tasya vâcaka.h 
pra.nava.h/“(/His) designation is the pranava (pronouncement)”./*


/Prairie Dog sez:/

/Vajrayana Buddhism is esoteric, in the sense that the transmission of 
certain teachings only occurs directly from teacher to student during 
an initiation or empowerment and cannot be simply learned from a book./


Idiot! I’ve had a Vajrayana and Dzogchen teacher for a decade. You are 
only a stinking troll parroting something you read in a book. You 
don’t know shit about Vajrayana.


/Prairie Dog sez:/

/So, SSRS get the bija mantras from MMY without even becoming a TM 
teacher -  it has not been established where and from whom MMY got the 
list of bijas, but you only get one bija in TM - so how did MMY and 
SSRS get to know all the bija mantras? They probably read about the 
bija mantras in a yoga book. Because no TM teacher would give out 
seventeen different bijas to one student. Go figure./


Brahmarishi Devarata said that the supreme bija of the Rg Veda is 
/Im,/ of Yajur Veda is */Shri/* and of the Upanishads is the pranava 
*/Om/*.


The supreme bija of Prairie Dog yoga is */Duh/*!


---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

It is a fact that here are no bija mantras mentioned in the Rig Veda. 
So, how would the SSRS know any bijas from being a Vedic Pandit?


There are no bija mantras mentioned by Patanjali. The historical 
Buddha doesn't mention any bija mantras. So, the bija mantras usage 
must have come AFTER the rise of Buddhism (463 BC) in India and 
Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (200 BC).


The Siddha tradition of using bija mantras can be traced back to the 
Vajrayana Buddhism which probably began at Odisha, or in the modern 
day Swat Valley in what is now Pakistan during the Gupta Age. 
Vajrayana Buddhism is esoteric, in the sense that the transmission of 
certain teachings only occurs directly from teacher to student during 
an initiation or empowerment and cannot be simply learned from a book.


So, SSRS get the bija mantras from MMY without even becoming a TM 
teacher -  it has not been established where and from whom MMY got the 
list of bijas, but you only get one bija in TM - so how did MMY and 
SSRS get to know all the bija mantras? They probably read about the 
bija mantras in a yoga book. Because no TM teacher would give out 
seventeen different bijas to one student. Go figure.


On 10/26/2013 11:20 PM, emptybill@... 
wrote:

SSRS, although a mahapundit of the four vedas, should have asked you 
first. Although he had a number of teachers other than MMY, he  
obviously never asked permission from you - the "punditster". I'm 
sure he regrets the omission to this day.


I'm also sure you could clarify his pronunciation of the riks, reveal 
the hidden connections between between the vaious chhanda-s. Maybe 
you could obtain the blessing of the deva-s and get him authorized 
for using these cheating bijas stolen from the Buddhists.


You should call him and offer to help him out. However, I wouldn't 
use your Prairie Dog credentials. Rather you should just introduce 
yourself as a pandit dedicated to cleaning up the fallen lineage of 
pseudo-pandits using fake bijas. You could give him a copy of the The 
Tantric Tradition by Leopold Fischer (agehananda bharati) and just 
point out "You need to read this and stop ripping everyone off!"



So great of you to consider this.



---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com 
,  
 wrote:


Under whose authority would the SSRS be giving out any bija mantras? 
If you can't reveal where MMY got the bijas, so how could you say 
SSRS got any bijas? There aren't any bijas mentioned in the Vedas. 
From what I've read, SSRS, like Deepak Chopra and Charlie Lutes, 
never became TM teachers by completing a TTC. So, how would they be 
knowing any bijas? Go figure.


On 10/24/2013 7:41 PM, emptybill@... 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Re: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[Richard J. Williams]

This is progress, of a sort - Barry read my post and Judy called me 
Richard instead of Willytex. LoL!


After years of shunning me and trying to get others to shun me, now they 
try to pick fight with each other over me winning. Go figure.


On 10/28/2013 9:29 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:


Er, I don't /have/ to "declare victory." Barry does it for me by 
reacting with posts like this. And he'll react to my response by 
trying to claim I'm "spinning." But he knows it's true. He's Mr. 
Reactivity.



Note that this post is really /only /about his rage at me; Richard is 
a red herring. Barry needed to find a way to disguise the fact that 
he's freaked out about a whole string of Barry-idiocies I'd picked up 
on and lambasted him for over the past week.



He's the gift that keeps on giving: Get him once, and he'll react for 
days, getting angrier and angrier each time. And when he's angry, his 
brains get scrambled, so he makes worse and worse mistakes, making it 
easier and easier to "get" him.




Barry wrote:

(snip)

> Trolls exist because egos do. That's what argument trolls

> like Willytex and Judy feed on. They don't care about who
> really "wins" any of the arguments they start, because
> they'll "declare victory" in all of them. All they care about
> is suckering someone's ego into reacting so that the
> arguments happen, and thus the "declarations of
> victory" can happen.
>
> If you react to their provocation, in their minds they "win."
> If you *don't* react, they'll find some way to try to spin
> *that* into a "win," too, but at least you won't be all
> covered with slime from interacting with them.
>
> Just my opinion...

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[Richard J. Williams]

Hardly anyone meditates on the 'OM' syllable alone, unless maybe they 
are reading a book by Zen Master Rama.


OM is'nt a 'bija' mantra - it's just an esoteric symbol for a 
salutation. OM isn't mentioned in the Rig Veda or in Patanja'i's Yoga 
Sutra. There's no OM in the Vaishnava maha-mantra. The Om in the Gayatri 
mantra isn't included in the original Sanskrit Veda - OM was added 
later, during the Gupta Age in India and the rise of Buddhist tantrism 
and the development of Sanskrit grammar by Pannini. There's no mention 
of OM on any Ashokan pillar in India. OM is a relatively recent event in 
esoteric Indian yoga - obviously the OM syllable didn't exist before the 
invention of writing in India.




On 10/24/2013 7:06 PM, yifux...@yahoo.com wrote:


RightOM attached to the Gayatri mantra (with the preamble) is 
chanted by millions of people; recommended by Ramakrishna and Ramana 
Maharshi.




Here's a Kuwaiti attempting to listen to the OM.:


http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/9/80857.jpg



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


What I've heard is that om or aum causes one to be more detached from 
life and thus is not suitable for householders. Emptybill, thanks for 
distinction about om alone vs om in a phrase which I often encounter 
in bhajans and kirtan. Judy, I personally would not want to mess with 
combining om with my mantra because it's not just the sounds that are 
having a specific and beneficial effect on the physiology, it's also 
the sequence in which they occur which is doing so.



On Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:16 AM, "authfriend@..." 
 wrote:
*So what would the problem be if "OM" /wasn't/ included in a 
maha-mantra but*
*rather along with, say, a bija mantra like what TM uses? Did Sri Sri 
give out*

*bija mantras, or just the maha-mantras?*
*
*
*emptybill wrote:
*
> SSRS, a vedic pandit, has given out OM as part of traditional
> maha-mantras. After receiving one from him, I asked the OM
> question to a sankhya-yoga scholar, a former TMer and student of 
SSRS. He said "No possible problem if

> included within a traditional maha-mantra ... like om namo bhagavate 
vasudevaya."

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

*He said OM was a mantra for recluses, I believe. It's in Beacon Light of*
*the Himalayas.*
*
Buck wrote:*

So[m],  what was Maharishi's particular teaching on "Om"?  His was 
counter to everything "Om", wasn't it.  He did not use "Om" in any of 
the mantras he gave.  Succinctly, what was that?  What is unique about 
his Vedic studies around "Om"?  I got a dressing down recently about 
how Maharishi saved India around the understanding of  "Om".  What did 
he say that "Om" "aum" was so bad that puts him opposed to "Om"? While 
at the same time Brahmananda Saraswati [Guru Dev] it seems was very in 
favor of "Om" spiritually.  See Guru Dev's discourses.   Who do you 
believe?  What is your experience with "Om"?  I find it the vibration 
of the giant electro-magnet of nature turning over in the center of 
the Earth and unified sound of all of Nature and great to attune to as 
such to spin and line up the chakras of the subtle system .  It seems 
the energetic pre-condition that all the nervous systems on earth have 
evolved with.  It runs deep as a vibration (when people sit up) in the 
Dome as a vortex. Maharishi seems to have put the wammy of fear in to 
"Om" for the TM spiritual community.  Does that explain something 
about the TM community?  What is your experience with it and what was 
really said about it?  Just wondering, -Buck



---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

(Not to be taken all too seriously...)

Just as 'om' may be "embedded" in the word 'soma',
so in the tanakh (Hebrew Bible =~ Old Testament)
it may be embedded in the word 'yom' (day) that appears
several times in the first verses of bereshit (Genesis)...

RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[yifuxero]

RightOM attached to the Gayatri mantra (with the preamble) is chanted by 
millions of people; recommended by Ramakrishna and Ramana Maharshi.
 
 Here's a Kuwaiti attempting to listen to the OM.:
 

 http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/9/80857.jpg 
http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/9/80857.jpg 
 

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

 What I've heard is that om or aum causes one to be more detached from life and 
thus is not suitable for householders. Emptybill, thanks for distinction about 
om alone vs om in a phrase which I often encounter in bhajans and kirtan. Judy, 
I personally would not want to mess with combining om with my mantra because 
it's not just the sounds that are having a specific and beneficial effect on 
the physiology, it's also the sequence in which they occur which is doing so.

 
 
 On Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:16 AM, "authfriend@..."  wrote:
 
   So what would the problem be if "OM" wasn't included in a maha-mantra but
 rather along with, say, a bija mantra like what TM uses? Did Sri Sri give out
 bija mantras, or just the maha-mantras?
 

 emptybill wrote:

 > SSRS, a vedic pandit, has given out OM as part of traditional
 > maha-mantras. After receiving one from him, I asked the OM 

 > question to a sankhya-yoga scholar, a former TMer and student of SSRS. He 
 > said "No possible problem if  
 > included within a traditional maha-mantra ... like om namo bhagavate 
 > vasudevaya."

 
---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 He said OM was a mantra for recluses, I believe. It's in Beacon Light of
 the Himalayas.
 
Buck wrote:
 
 So[m],  what was Maharishi's particular teaching on "Om"?  His was counter to 
everything "Om", wasn't it.  He did not use "Om" in any of the mantras he gave. 
 Succinctly, what was that?  What is unique about his Vedic studies around 
"Om"?  I got a dressing down recently about how Maharishi saved India around 
the understanding of  "Om".  What did he say that "Om" "aum" was so bad that 
puts him opposed to "Om"?   While at the same time Brahmananda Saraswati [Guru 
Dev] it seems was very in favor of "Om" spiritually.  See Guru Dev's 
discourses.   Who do you believe?  What is your experience with "Om"?  I find 
it the vibration of the giant electro-magnet of nature turning over in the 
center of the Earth and unified sound of all of Nature and great to attune to 
as such to spin and line up the chakras of the subtle system .  It seems the 
energetic pre-condition that all the nervous systems on earth have evolved 
with.  It runs deep as a vibration (when people sit up) in the Dome as a 
vortex.   Maharishi seems to have put the wammy of fear in to "Om" for the TM 
spiritual community.  Does that explain something about the TM community?  What 
is your experience with it and what was really said about it?  Just wondering, 
-Buck  
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 (Not to be taken all too seriously...) 

 Just as 'om' may be "embedded" in the word 'soma',
 so in the tanakh (Hebrew Bible =~ Old Testament)
 it may be embedded in the word 'yom' (day) that appears
 several times in the first verses of bereshit (Genesis)...
 

 


 



 


 
 

 
 



 
 
 
 

RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[wgm4u]

I guess it is, never having heard it myself:   the three sounds a (a-kāra), u 
(u-kāra), m (ma-kāra), Wiki.
 

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

 And wgm, I remember something about it actually being 3 sounds: A, U, M. PS 
I'm still percolating on your other post about samskaras with regards to Adam 
and Eve.
 

 
 
 On Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:39 AM, wgm4u  wrote:
 
   "From that eternal silence a hum starts and this hum is called OM. You may 
have heard of the glory of OM and the greatness of OM, that OM is everything 
and that from OM the creation comes and into OM the creation dissolves, that OM 
is the sustainer of life, that OM is the beginning and end of all creation. All 
this is OM, that hum, which is the first silent sound, first silent wave that 
starts from that silent ocean of un-manifested life."  MMY the Vedas (booklet). 
 

 Just don't use it as a mantra (according to MMY IMO, it made India too 
passive, perhaps he's right). It is a sound not heard with the physical ears. 
Om is Mother Divine
 

 the Vedic Gods:
 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRMtVr-s9vo 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRMtVr-s9vo
 

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

 So[m],  what was Maharishi's particular teaching on "Om"?  His was counter to 
everything "Om", wasn't it.  He did not use "Om" in any of the mantras he gave. 
 Succinctly, what was that?  What is unique about his Vedic studies around 
"Om"?  I got a dressing down recently about how Maharishi saved India around 
the understanding of  "Om".  What did he say that "Om" "aum" was so bad that 
puts him opposed to "Om"?   While at the same time Brahmananda Saraswati [Guru 
Dev] it seems was very in favor of "Om" spiritually.  See Guru Dev's 
discourses.   Who do you believe?  What is your experience with "Om"?  I find 
it the vibration of the giant electro-magnet of nature turning over in the 
center of the Earth and unified sound of all of Nature and great to attune to 
as such to spin and line up the chakras of the subtle system .  It seems the 
energetic pre-condition that all the nervous systems on earth have evolved 
with.  It runs deep as a vibration (when people sit up) in the Dome as a 
vortex.   Maharishi seems to have put the wammy of fear in to "Om" for the TM 
spiritual community.  Does that explain something about the TM community?  What 
is your experience with it and what was really said about it?  Just wondering, 
-Buck  
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 (Not to be taken all too seriously...) 

 Just as 'om' may be "embedded" in the word 'soma',
 so in the tanakh (Hebrew Bible =~ Old Testament)
 it may be embedded in the word 'yom' (day) that appears
 several times in the first verses of bereshit (Genesis)...
 

 


 



 
 

 
 




 
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[Share Long]

And wgm, I remember something about it actually being 3 sounds: A, U, M. PS I'm 
still percolating on your other post about samskaras with regards to Adam and 
Eve.





On Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:39 AM, wgm4u  wrote:
 
  
"From that eternal silence a hum starts and this hum is called OM. You may have 
heard of the glory of OM and the greatness of OM, that OM is everything and 
that from OM the creation comes and into OM the creation dissolves, that OM is 
the sustainer of life, that OM is the beginning and end of all creation. All 
this is OM, that hum, which is the first silent sound, first silent wave that 
starts from that silent ocean of un-manifested life."  MMY the Vedas (booklet). 

Just don't use it as a mantra (according to MMY IMO, it made India too passive, 
perhaps he's right). It is a sound not heard with the physical ears. Om is 
Mother Divine

the Vedic Gods:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRMtVr-s9vo


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


So[m],  what was Maharishi's particular teaching on "Om"?  His was counter to 
everything "Om", wasn't it.  He did not use "Om" in any of the mantras he gave. 
 Succinctly, what was that?  What is unique about his Vedic studies around 
"Om"?  I got a dressing down recently about how Maharishi saved India around 
the understanding of  "Om".  What did he say that "Om" "aum" was so bad that 
puts him opposed to "Om"?   While at the same time Brahmananda Saraswati [Guru 
Dev] it seems was very in favor of "Om" spiritually.  See Guru Dev's 
discourses.   Who do you believe?  What is your experience with "Om"?  I find 
it the vibration of the giant electro-magnet of nature turning over in the 
center of the Earth and unified sound of all of Nature and great to attune to 
as such to spin and line up the chakras of the subtle system .  It seems the 
energetic pre-condition that all the nervous systems on earth have evolved 
with.  It runs deep as a vibration
 (when people sit up) in the Dome as a vortex.   Maharishi seems to have put 
the wammy of fear in to "Om" for the TM spiritual community.  Does that explain 
something about the TM community?  What is your experience with it and what was 
really said about it?  Just wondering, -Buck  


---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:


(Not to be taken all too seriously...)

Just as 'om' may be "embedded" in the word 'soma',
so in the tanakh (Hebrew Bible =~ Old Testament)
it may be embedded in the word 'yom' (day) that appears
several times in the first verses of bereshit (Genesis)...

RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[authfriend]

Yes, as I said, according to Maharishi, OM is for recluses.
 

 Share wrote:

 > What I've heard is that om or aum causes one to be more detached from life 
 > and thus is not 
 > suitable for householders. Emptybill, thanks for distinction about om alone 
 > vs om in a 
 > phrase which I often encounter in bhajans and kirtan. Judy, I personally 
 > would not want to 
 > mess with combining om with my mantra because it's not just the sounds that 
 > are having a 
 > specific and beneficial effect on the physiology, it's also the sequence in 
 > which they occur 
 > which is doing so.
 

 Thanks, Share, but you've taken my question out of context. Never mind.
 
 I wrote: 
   > > So what would the problem be if "OM" wasn't included in a maha-mantra but
 > > rather along with, say, a bija mantra like what TM uses? Did Sri Sri give 
 > > out
 > > bija mantras, or just the maha-mantras?
 

 emptybill wrote:

 > SSRS, a vedic pandit, has given out OM as part of traditional
 > maha-mantras. After receiving one from him, I asked the OM 

 > question to a sankhya-yoga scholar, a former TMer and student of SSRS. He 
 > said "No possible problem if  
 > included within a traditional maha-mantra ... like om namo bhagavate 
 > vasudevaya."

 
---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 He said OM was a mantra for recluses, I believe. It's in Beacon Light of
 the Himalayas.
 










 
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Om "embedded" in the tanakh?

[Share Long]

What I've heard is that om or aum causes one to be more detached from life and 
thus is not suitable for householders. Emptybill, thanks for distinction about 
om alone vs om in a phrase which I often encounter in bhajans and kirtan. Judy, 
I personally would not want to mess with combining om with my mantra because 
it's not just the sounds that are having a specific and beneficial effect on 
the physiology, it's also the sequence in which they occur which is doing so.




On Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:16 AM, "authfri...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  
So what would the problem be if "OM" wasn't included in a maha-mantra but
rather along with, say, a bija mantra like what TM uses? Did Sri Sri give out
bija mantras, or just the maha-mantras?

emptybill wrote:


> SSRS, a vedic pandit, has given out OM as part of traditional
> maha-mantras. After receiving one from him, I asked the OM 

> question to a sankhya-yoga scholar, a former TMer and student of SSRS. He 
> said "No possible problem if  
> included within a traditional maha-mantra ... like om namo bhagavate 
> vasudevaya."


---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:


He said OM was a mantra for recluses, I believe. It's in Beacon Light of
the Himalayas.

Buck wrote:


So[m],  what was Maharishi's particular teaching on "Om"?  His was counter to 
everything "Om", wasn't it.  He did not use "Om" in any of the mantras he gave. 
 Succinctly, what was that?  What is unique about his Vedic studies around 
"Om"?  I got a dressing down recently about how Maharishi saved India around 
the understanding of  "Om".  What did he say that "Om" "aum" was so bad that 
puts him opposed to "Om"?   While at the same time Brahmananda Saraswati [Guru 
Dev] it seems was very in favor of "Om" spiritually.  See Guru Dev's 
discourses.   Who do you believe?  What is your experience with "Om"?  I find 
it the vibration of the giant electro-magnet of nature turning over in the 
center of the Earth and unified sound of all of Nature and great to attune to 
as such to spin and line up the chakras of the subtle system .  It seems the 
energetic pre-condition that all the nervous systems on earth have evolved 
with.  It runs deep as a vibration
 (when people sit up) in the Dome as a vortex.   Maharishi seems to have put 
the wammy of fear in to "Om" for the TM spiritual community.  Does that explain 
something about the TM community?  What is your experience with it and what was 
really said about it?  Just wondering, -Buck  


---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:


(Not to be taken all too seriously...)

Just as 'om' may be "embedded" in the word 'soma',
so in the tanakh (Hebrew Bible =~ Old Testament)
it may be embedded in the word 'yom' (day) that appears
several times in the first verses of bereshit (Genesis)...