Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
Thank you for the Rama clarification - it is unfortunate that people decide to abuse others under the guise of giving them something good - but I suppose it is part of human nature. As to Maharishi's sexual behavior, it doesn't bother me all that much that he did it, I was curious about how those who think he was the best thing since sliced bread worked it out in their heads that the skin boys had come forward with such stories - I figured most would say they thought the skinboys were lying, but they didn't. Although we didn't hear from folks like nabby. The reason I put such weight to what the former secretaries to M said was that they all had pretty consistent stories of how he behaved with women and there are more of the skin boys who have come forward than women who said they had relations with him. If he had been up front about his sexual energy and told everyone Hey, this is what is coming up in my awareness, I want to explore this for myself, if any of you would like to help me, then I would appreciate it. Then that would have been open and honest. It is the lying and hiding the behavior that I find objectionable. And when someone routinely lies, I don't think they are worth following or giving money to. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 5:11 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: Turq wrote: About Rama and Maharishi: They were BOTH scumbags in my considered opinion. And they BOTH did some good, for some people. Exactly! I know some people, other than you, who were with Rama and respected him much. As far as I can tell, they meditate wonderfully, you see this when you meditate together with them, got good insights into spiritual principles, good recommendations for their professional life, and even good endorsement of other saints, both the same from Maharishi and Rama. They got the meditate well thing from Rama. He could absolutely SMOKE in meditation. In contrast, I never felt that Maharishi could meditate worth a damn. That is, after all, the reason he invented a meditation technique that claimed that sitting there with your mind filled with thoughts and daydreams was correct meditation. Meditating in the same room with Maharishi was (for me) like meditating at home alone; there was almost never any more silence than usual going down. That, in my estimation, is the reason MMY spent so little time *ever* meditating with groups of his students, so that they wouldn't be able to notice that he wasn't very good at it. With Rama it was very different; the silence was so profound that if you were meditating in the same room with him the issue of having thoughts during meditation never arose because you *couldn't* have thoughts. *Very* different experience, one that tended to inspire you to develop deeper levels of meditation on your own. *That* was the main reason I stuck around with him for as long as I did. That and the fact that much of what we did, at least in the earlier years, was FUN. When *he* stopped meditating with his students (and IMO for the same reasons as MMY, having by then become addicted to Valium and lost his phwam! as a meditator) and the FUN went away, to be replaced with just standard cult bullshit, I went away, too. Playing out one Guru against the other, you know only from hearsay, is just too dumb. Jimbo really *isn't* very smart. He got his buttons pushed and so he did the same thing that Nabby (*also* not very smart) does and thought, Wow...him saying things I don't like about *my* spiritual teacher really pissed me off and pushed my buttons, so I'll try to do the exact same thing to him. So he read the Wikipedia article on Fred Lenz - Rama and extracted what he thought would be a good zinger from it, and then tried to use it to demonize me, via my previous association with Fred. It's pretty much classic cult behavior, Kill the messenger. Jim really doesn't have the intelligence to think of anything new and original. My participation in this is simply to point out the mechanics of what Jimbo and his fellow button-pushed TBs are doing. They're trying for a *diversion*, to steer the discussion away from any issues brought up about Maharishi by his critics, and towards dissing the critics themselves. It's pretty pitiful, but hey! that's all they've got. The *most* pitiful aspect of it, which we've seen here quite a few times over the years, is that when the TBs get stuck in a corner in which they cannot possibly deny the criticism (such as Maharishi having slept with his female students), they're reduced to the kinder- garten behavior of shouting, YEAH, BUT YOUR TEACHER DID IT, TOO. NYAAH NYAAH. *Of course* my teacher (for a time) did it, too. The ISSUE is what that said about both him and Maharishi, not what it
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
For some reason, this reminds me of a story I heard from what I think of as a reliable source: once on a course someone asked Maharishi if it's true that an enlightened man can just look at a person and pop them into enlightenment. Maharishi silently nodded his head. Well, Maharishi, said the guy, why don't you just look at us and pop us into enlightenment. Long pause. Because it would knock your sox off, replied Maharishi. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 4:11 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: Turq wrote: About Rama and Maharishi: They were BOTH scumbags in my considered opinion. And they BOTH did some good, for some people. Exactly! I know some people, other than you, who were with Rama and respected him much. As far as I can tell, they meditate wonderfully, you see this when you meditate together with them, got good insights into spiritual principles, good recommendations for their professional life, and even good endorsement of other saints, both the same from Maharishi and Rama. They got the meditate well thing from Rama. He could absolutely SMOKE in meditation. In contrast, I never felt that Maharishi could meditate worth a damn. That is, after all, the reason he invented a meditation technique that claimed that sitting there with your mind filled with thoughts and daydreams was correct meditation. Meditating in the same room with Maharishi was (for me) like meditating at home alone; there was almost never any more silence than usual going down. That, in my estimation, is the reason MMY spent so little time *ever* meditating with groups of his students, so that they wouldn't be able to notice that he wasn't very good at it. With Rama it was very different; the silence was so profound that if you were meditating in the same room with him the issue of having thoughts during meditation never arose because you *couldn't* have thoughts. *Very* different experience, one that tended to inspire you to develop deeper levels of meditation on your own. *That* was the main reason I stuck around with him for as long as I did. That and the fact that much of what we did, at least in the earlier years, was FUN. When *he* stopped meditating with his students (and IMO for the same reasons as MMY, having by then become addicted to Valium and lost his phwam! as a meditator) and the FUN went away, to be replaced with just standard cult bullshit, I went away, too. Playing out one Guru against the other, you know only from hearsay, is just too dumb. Jimbo really *isn't* very smart. He got his buttons pushed and so he did the same thing that Nabby (*also* not very smart) does and thought, Wow...him saying things I don't like about *my* spiritual teacher really pissed me off and pushed my buttons, so I'll try to do the exact same thing to him. So he read the Wikipedia article on Fred Lenz - Rama and extracted what he thought would be a good zinger from it, and then tried to use it to demonize me, via my previous association with Fred. It's pretty much classic cult behavior, Kill the messenger. Jim really doesn't have the intelligence to think of anything new and original. My participation in this is simply to point out the mechanics of what Jimbo and his fellow button-pushed TBs are doing. They're trying for a *diversion*, to steer the discussion away from any issues brought up about Maharishi by his critics, and towards dissing the critics themselves. It's pretty pitiful, but hey! that's all they've got. The *most* pitiful aspect of it, which we've seen here quite a few times over the years, is that when the TBs get stuck in a corner in which they cannot possibly deny the criticism (such as Maharishi having slept with his female students), they're reduced to the kinder- garten behavior of shouting, YEAH, BUT YOUR TEACHER DID IT, TOO. NYAAH NYAAH. *Of course* my teacher (for a time) did it, too. The ISSUE is what that said about both him and Maharishi, not what it says about their students. The cult aspect of all of this is getting your buttons pushed *personally* over something that isn't said about you *at all*. It was said about a teacher you once studied with. Taking that personally enough to get all angry and vindictive about it just indicates to me that the teacher in question must not have been much of one. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Good points, dumbass. Not really. Jimbo's just gotten his OMG-somebody- insulted-Maharishi buttons pushed, and is just lashing out thinking that insulting my former teacher will push mine. It's kinda childish of him, and displays all
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
Good save (-: Sigh, I admit to liking the idea that Maharishi said the other phrase about socks. But appreciate your setting me straight. From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 10:15 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: For some reason, this reminds me of a story I heard from what I think of as a reliable source: once on a course someone asked Maharishi if it's true that an enlightened man can just look at a person and pop them into enlightenment. Maharishi silently nodded his head. Well, Maharishi, said the guy, why don't you just look at us and pop us into enlightenment. Long pause. Because it would knock your sox off, replied Maharishi. I was there. What Maharishi said was it would instantly burn you up I did'nt take notes, he probably said: you would instantly burn up
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
I was present when he answered pretty much the same question and M's answer was that it would be cruel because the person's physiology wouldn't be trained to maintain it and they would lose it just as easily. There was no mention of *burning up*, just the idea of the torment one would have at having something so wonderful and losing it. The ultimate *tease* so to speak. From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 8:15 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: For some reason, this reminds me of a story I heard from what I think of as a reliable source: once on a course someone asked Maharishi if it's true that an enlightened man can just look at a person and pop them into enlightenment. Maharishi silently nodded his head. Well, Maharishi, said the guy, why don't you just look at us and pop us into enlightenment. Long pause. Because it would knock your sox off, replied Maharishi. I was there. What Maharishi said was it would instantly burn you up I did'nt take notes, he probably said: you would instantly burn up
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
Having been involved in as much channeling as I was the past 25 years, I have to agree. There are all sorts of permutations of it from the living masters, if you want to call them that, to the Space Brothers or Galactics who are going to come down and save us with their superior technology and or energy to the Ascended Masters and avatars and so on. It is all just a way of saying I ain't got no power and I dunno how to git any, so I am gonna wait for the Hand of God to come pick me up and carry me to heaven. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 11:38 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: For some reason, this reminds me of a story I heard from what I think of as a reliable source: once on a course someone asked Maharishi if it's true that an enlightened man can just look at a person and pop them into enlightenment. Maharishi silently nodded his head. Well, Maharishi, said the guy, why don't you just look at us and pop us into enlightenment. Long pause. Because it would knock your sox off, replied Maharishi. I was there. What Maharishi said was it would instantly burn you up And you actually *believed* this horseshit? Either of you? At least now we know why Nabby is so gullible that he still believes in Benjamin Creme, who has been telling suckers like Nabby that his savior Maitreya is due to appear Any Day Now for over 54 years. He's still a no show. HaHa, ofcourse He is for you who are blind, deluded and dull. Not so much for tens and thousands of others who have seen Him with their own eyes :-) What I read somewhere recently is (in the context of the 9 Ashoks), that Osho actually believed that Krishnamurti, who renounced the role of Maitreya, should have accepted this role, that it was a mistake of him not to do so. Krishnamurti in turn had said, that if the Maitreya was there, he would just exactly tell to the people what Krishnamurti said. What I find fascinating is anyone so weak-willed and wussy as to believe that such saviors could actually EXIST. In my book this is the height of New Age / Old Age delusional fantasy. It's all based on the wish that there is someone out there who can do it for them and make them instantly happy or enlightened or whatever it is they think would make them better than they are now, with no effort being required on their part. We used to call it the Beam me up, Scotty approach to enlightenment or self-realization. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
Paraphrasing Maharishi, a doctor doesn't need to be in good health to heal others. From: Buck dhamiltony...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 4:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: This is a good answer, Mike. I wouldn't want to have to define holy man or saint, so I wouldn't want to say what would disqualify him (or qualify him, for that matter) for being either. He wasn't a perfect human being, that's for sure. It's up to the individual to decide how much they want to hold his sins against him. Couldn't describe? Saints? Okay, if you won't stick your neck out at this point I will for sake of the discussion here. We all know them when we see them. Saints become described by their work. As spiritual people our saints are those particular people who can help people spiritually and who distinguish their life work that way. More than just doing good works and different from folks [think Batgap.com] just being awake authors or spiritual teachers out on the circuit but those being in the work of tangibly lending spiritual transformation by interceding with healing for others of the binding influences in the subtle bodies of the spiritual psycho-physical and emotional samskara towards helping to free people of the binding influences in their spiritual life on earth. Real saints, it's those particular enlightened who can tangibly or manifestly heal people who are either afflicted or ignorant in their spiritual lives. -Buck --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: Yeah, he's still a holy man, just not as holy as most of us thought. The Bible tells us that all men fall short of the Glory of God. That means that all men have and will sin. Maharishi was a man, not God. The Bible also speaks of angels coming to earth and having sex with women. Veda Vyasa had sex with an unmarried woman in a boat while crossing a river, thus we have Shukadeva. Maharishi belongs on a pedestal, just not as high as we might have thought. My thoughts are that M was a very high soul on a mission and upon taking birth as a man, he did things men do. From: Michael Jackson To: mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com; Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 12:58 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Serious Question  OK, serious question here to all those who have defended Maharishi as a saint and true holy man. How do you account for the stories that several of his former skin boys have told about his sexual escapades? Mark Landau, Billy Clayton, Nedd Wynn and others have told stories that are very similar as to what who and when. Do you think they are all lying and if so why? Or do you honestly think it is alright for a true holy man who always said he was a lifelong celibate to have sex repeatedly and lie about having done so?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
From Barry: As for parallels, I think mine was apt. Michael obsesses on Maharishi and the TMO because it's an *ongoing issue*. None of the practices and dishonesty he's upset about have stopped; instead, they are normal, everyday policy. But there is another sense in which your stalking is like his (apologies in advance to Michael if I'm incorrect, none needed with regard to the Judester because everyone here knows I'm correct). I may have tried early on to convince others here on FFL that another point of view might be wise, but it didn't take long before I learned that was a forlorn hope - for the last several months at least I have been asking questions and learning things both facts, personal anecdotes and opinions that have helped me make sense of my time with TM and make sense of TM and the TMO and Marshy in general. Aside from that, I do the same thing now that you say you do, I say how I feel or what I believe and I do pose questions sometimes to see what others believe - I have no illusions that anyone here will change their minds. I would like to thank to everyone who has posted here - I have been criticized for agreeing with you Barry and it is true that sometimes you can really cuss people out but for me I have gained a great deal of insight from your points of view and the stories of what you saw and did in the TMO. I have gained not only from what you and Sal and Curtis have posted it but others as well - if it weren't for Rick I might not have had my eyes opened to M's sexual escapades - and while others excuse the behavior and even say it made him more human for me it goes to credibility - I have a hard time with believing someone is doing things in my best interest when they are lying to my face everyday. It has been most helpful too to read much of Ravi and Bhairitu's posts - a perspective of TM from the Indian perspective. I have also gained from the exchanges with Nabby, Dr. D, seventhray and others who have disagreed with or criticized me - it helped me see that some people will hang on to their illusions no matter what - and I realize they believe I am hanging on to my illusions. FFL has been very helpful for me and at times quite amusing. So thank you everyone. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 3:09 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: (snip) You vilify politicians and people in high finance who do the exact same things that Maha did and give him a free pass for doing what you don't tolerate in others. I understand it, but I shore don't agree with it. What good would vilifying him do, Michael? You appear to enjoy wallowing in your outrage, but you won't be satisfied until everyone else is wallowing in it too. Sorta the way *you* do when obsessing on Curtis or Vaj or myself or others of your enemies? Just sayin'... :-) Allow me to obsess a little more and point out that you carefully, deliberately, and dishonestly failed to quote the part of my post that refutes your accusation: Like dishonest politicians and banksters, you are alive and kicking and being destructive. If what you wished to accomplish was to *demonstrate* your obsession, and your tendency to project onto those you dislike your *own* negative qualities, feel free. I allow you. By all means, obsess away. :-) I never even *read* the parts of your post that I snipped, much less deleted them intentionally. That's something *you* repeatedly accuse people of, because you're...uh... insane, and you have a tendency to accuse others of the very tactics that *you* employ. :-) As for parallels, I think mine was apt. Michael obsesses on Maharishi and the TMO because it's an *ongoing issue*. None of the practices and dishonesty he's upset about have stopped; instead, they are normal, everyday policy. But there is another sense in which your stalking is like his (apologies in advance to Michael if I'm incorrect, none needed with regard to the Judester because everyone here knows I'm correct). That's the fact that it seems to *matter* to you both very much that you are able to *convince* others to see issues and obsessions the same way you do. You try to *persuade* others to believe the way that you do, and pile on to the issues you believe are issues. I honestly don't try to do that. I'm here just for my own amusement. I state my opinions -- making clear that opinions is *all* that they are -- and then allow others to react or not react, as they see fit. I don't get drawn into long ego-battles to establish my opinion as the correct one or the dominant one, and I don't
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
That is a funny funny post - I do love your style of writing and I laughed out loud when I read your quote of Bhairitu's take on FFL. One experience I have not mentioned here is that 2 years after I left MIU I was with a woman in Boulder (not a TM woman) and she wanted to do a pilgrimage with Swami Kriyananda at their place outside Nevada City called Ananda. Ann and I had taken a trip to Portland where we made friends with a couple who were into Kriyananda (I am still friends with them, Ann, not so much). Anyway they had this tradition of doing pilgrimage going to India to visit the places Yogananda and his guru Sri Yukteswar and his guru Lahiri Mahasaya had lived and taught. Well, somehow some of the descendants of Yogananda got annoyed at people wanting to traipse through their homes and told them to get lost - so in 1989, Kriyananda organized a pilgrimage of one of Yodananda's nephews and one other guy who was supposed to the the great-grandson of Lahiri Mahasaya to come to America to Ananda. What struck me after being there at Ananda for a day or two was that even though the techniques were different, even though they were really into music and chanting, the vibe there was just like it was at MIU. I was struck by the similarity of the way people dressed, the way they spoke, their polite yet aloof manner and just about everything about the Ananda people was just like the MIU crowd. I remember after the first meeting and then group meal I was sitting in the dining hall thinking that you could take the MIU folks and put them here and take these folks and put them at MIU, you would never know the difference. One funny thing I heard was the nephew of Yogananda was in his 80's and when he came to the US it was his first trip outside of India. When I met him, he was tall, thin and had a very sweet, sattvic demeanor. The people from Ananda who had been assigned to pick him up from the airport took him through San Francisco where he insisted on trying out a trolley car. The Ananda people nearly crapped in their pants because he got on the back of the car and swung himself back and forth on the pole at the back of the car - they finally got him to come in and sit down but one of them said he nearly had a heart attack fearing Yogananda's nephew was going to fall off the trolley and get killed on his watch. That old man was pretty cool to be around - the great grandson was kind of full of himself, but all in all it was in interesting experience. Kriyananda had not at that point been accused of sexual improprieties and had not fled to Italy - he told all sorts of Yogananda stories including that Yogananda had confided to him that he (Yogananda) had been Arjuna in a previous life. Not that anyone cares what I think, I was not overly impressed withe the Swami - he just seemed like a kindly old man - there wasn't any real energy there, but you would have thought he was God incarnate from the way the Ananda people fawned all over him. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 11:19 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 You make good points, and I withdraw my parallel. :-) I think this place (FFL) is best approached as enter- tainment that has the capability of teaching. Like you, I have learned from many in my time here, and as much from those who disagreed with me as from those who agreed. I'm fairly comfortable with my views of Maharishi, TM, the TMO, and spirituality in general, but IMO *none* of them constitute anything resembling truth. They're just ideas that I have. I don't so much believe in them as wear them for a bit while toying with them. In so doing, occasionally I throw them out onto the Internet like spaghetti against a refrigerator; some idea-strands stick, others don't. No big deal either way. I honestly don't think there is enough there there about the whole TM experience to get emotional about or attached to. For me, at least. But I enjoy playing with ideas about it, as a form of amusement and as an opportunity to learn. It's one of my weird ideas of fun. What many of my detractors don't seem to understand when they cast me as a villain with a grudge against Maharishi is that I really couldn't give a flying fuck about him. He doesn't interest me. I'll never read a book about him, and have trouble making it through any of his quotes when they are posted here. He's so much a part of my past that I really can't identify enough to get all that interested in him. But THE TM MOVEMENT, and the people who populated it, or continue to, THEY are more interesting. FFL is, as Bhairitu suggests, the Funny Farm Lounge. It's a zoo. It's a never- ending education in the ongoing history of spiritual movements -- or cults, if you prefer -- past, present, and future. Sooner or later every quirk or weirdness I've witnessed or even
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
Oh man, you are right, I didn't catch that! From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 12:35 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 Great stories, nicely told. I never had anything to do with Kriyananda and his set, or the Yogananda trip, but I *completely* get the similar vibe to MUM thang, having experienced it in any number of spiritual trips. I have nothing to add to your excellent rap except to riff off of a typo in your post that you probably didn't notice but which set me to laughing -- Yodananda. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: That is a funny funny post - I do love your style of writing and I laughed out loud when I read your quote of Bhairitu's take on FFL. One experience I have not mentioned here is that 2 years after I left MIU I was with a woman in Boulder (not a TM woman) and she wanted to do a pilgrimage with Swami Kriyananda at their place outside Nevada City called Ananda. Ann and I had taken a trip to Portland where we made friends with a couple who were into Kriyananda (I am still friends with them, Ann, not so much). Anyway they had this tradition of doing pilgrimage going to India to visit the places Yogananda and his guru Sri Yukteswar and his guru Lahiri Mahasaya had lived and taught. Well, somehow some of the descendants of Yogananda got annoyed at people wanting to traipse through their homes and told them to get lost - so in 1989, Kriyananda organized a pilgrimage of one of Yodananda's nephews and one other guy who was supposed to the the great-grandson of Lahiri Mahasaya to come to America to Ananda. What struck me after being there at Ananda for a day or two was that even though the techniques were different, even though they were really into music and chanting, the vibe there was just like it was at MIU. I was struck by the similarity of the way people dressed, the way they spoke, their polite yet aloof manner and just about everything about the Ananda people was just like the MIU crowd. I remember after the first meeting and then group meal I was sitting in the dining hall thinking that you could take the MIU folks and put them here and take these folks and put them at MIU, you would never know the difference. One funny thing I heard was the nephew of Yogananda was in his 80's and when he came to the US it was his first trip outside of India. When I met him, he was tall, thin and had a very sweet, sattvic demeanor. The people from Ananda who had been assigned to pick him up from the airport took him through San Francisco where he insisted on trying out a trolley car. The Ananda people nearly crapped in their pants because he got on the back of the car and swung himself back and forth on the pole at the back of the car - they finally got him to come in and sit down but one of them said he nearly had a heart attack fearing Yogananda's nephew was going to fall off the trolley and get killed on his watch. That old man was pretty cool to be around - the great grandson was kind of full of himself, but all in all it was in interesting experience. Kriyananda had not at that point been accused of sexual improprieties and had not fled to Italy - he told all sorts of Yogananda stories including that Yogananda had confided to him that he (Yogananda) had been Arjuna in a previous life. Not that anyone cares what I think, I was not overly impressed withe the Swami - he just seemed like a kindly old man - there wasn't any real energy there, but you would have thought he was God incarnate from the way the Ananda people fawned all over him. From: turquoiseb To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 11:19 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 Â You make good points, and I withdraw my parallel. :-) I think this place (FFL) is best approached as enter- tainment that has the capability of teaching. Like you, I have learned from many in my time here, and as much from those who disagreed with me as from those who agreed. I'm fairly comfortable with my views of Maharishi, TM, the TMO, and spirituality in general, but IMO *none* of them constitute anything resembling truth. They're just ideas that I have. I don't so much believe in them as wear them for a bit while toying with them. In so doing, occasionally I throw them out onto the Internet like spaghetti against a refrigerator; some idea-strands stick, others don't. No big deal either way. I honestly don't think there is enough there there about the whole TM experience to get emotional about or attached to. For me, at least. But I enjoy playing with ideas about it, as a form of amusement and as an opportunity to learn. It's one of my weird ideas of fun.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
Not well read!?!?! I read every Rick Riordan book ever published! From: Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 12:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 What good would vilifying him do, Michael? You appear to enjoy wallowing in your outrage, but you won't be satisfied until everyone else is wallowing in it too. salyavin808: Yeah Michael, how dare you keep introducing uncomfortable topics to try and work out the whole story about Marshy! Anyone would think this was a TM discussion forum the way you carry on... You won't be finding out much from Barry or Michael, since they got booted out of the TMO years ago, and neither of them seem are in a cult now, or even well-read. Barry doesn't really want to talk about Rama - to embarrasing, I guess. Go figure. Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs. It isn't as if there's anything we can do about it now. With politicians and banksters, if enough people become sufficiently infuriated, it could facilitate positive change. But Maharishi, he daid. And we'd all rather keep pretending the self-created myth was true thank you very much, so quit your wallowing and appreciate the good things we got like world peace and perfect health... And as far as politicians and banksters are concerned, unlike Maharishi, they haven't given us much of anything of value. That doesn't excuse the bad stuff he did, but at least with him there are two sides to the ledger.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
Could it be this? That I don't really see anyone as my leader. I like how Ram Das says it: We're all just walking each other home. That's how I feel about it. And since I have flaws, it doesn't bother me that they have flaws too. From: Buck dhamiltony...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:13 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: I'm very glad that Rajaram is a householder. Are you glad that he lied about it to pretty much everyone in the TM movement for many years, including his close friends like John Hagelin? It makes the TMO more human somehow, more of the world with all its joys and sorrows, more connected to life with all its light and dark. Yeah, you say this NOW, now that it's come out that he is married and has been for many years. But I wonder what excuses you make for him lying about it for so long, and to so many? That is a really tough question. That could easily be someone's scholarly thesis topic alone on Fairfield. How meditators have dealt with the deceit and moral dissonance of their leadership. That became more directly addressed in a series of posts by a range of old meditators writing on FFL between Christmas and New Year's a month ago. It was really interesting to read how different people resolved their relationship with the Tmo.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
It's the pop guru thing. Better to learn from someone who is not interested in running a big movement where you can get some good one on one teaching. They're harder to find but they are indeed out there. On 02/05/2013 09:35 AM, turquoiseb wrote: Great stories, nicely told. I never had anything to do with Kriyananda and his set, or the Yogananda trip, but I *completely* get the similar vibe to MUM thang, having experienced it in any number of spiritual trips. I have nothing to add to your excellent rap except to riff off of a typo in your post that you probably didn't notice but which set me to laughing -- Yodananda. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
dunno anything about Rama except what I have read here - I recall 2 things Barry said - one was an acknowledgement of Rama's faults and the other was that in spite of Rama's faults and shortcomings, Barry from time to time got from his association with Rama some good things in the way of experiences. This is the same thing that others here have said of Marshy and other teachers - so since Barry has said outright that Rama did things he shouldn't have, I have no problem with his past with Rama and his present attitude towards his experiences and time in association with him especially since it is the same attitude others have about Marshy. And for what it is worth, I do understand those who had powerful experiences with Marshy still having some appreciation of him - for all his denunciation of Marshy, Mark Landau still has admiration for his old master, fraud that he was. I understand the appreciation - and the denunciation. My old man was an emotionally abusive functional alcoholic, yet he did take good care of us financially and with the best advice he had to offer. He was manipulative (but it was clumsy since he was generally inebriated at night) - I disliked much of his behavior and still appreciated that he worked his ass off to raise 3 kids. So I get it. Personally I didn't have powerful experiences with Marshy, and therefore am left with only the denunciation. From: doctordumb...@rocketmail.com doctordumb...@rocketmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 8:29 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 MJ, can you really take TB seriously? Still smells Ok to you? After all, I can sorta see you being all upset over Maharishi, but with Bee, its twisted and tragic, his PURE DENIAL of Rama's criminality - his most recent Guru, and *ALL IN* cult experience. Seems to me you'd ask yourself why Bee focuses SO MUCH on Maharishi, and, like I say in my re-post below, Too bad all we get from Barry on this asshole [Rama], is crickets. Makes ME wonder, even if you are Okey-Dokey with it... Now, I know Barry is going to counter with his sensitivity and ponderings over Rama, and his confusion over whether rape at gunpoint is a bad thang, or not, but, that aside, I am curious about how you see it. - Barry doesn't really want to talk about Rama [Frederick Lenz] - too embarrassing, I guess. Spot on! or as Nabby says, BINGO! Despite his pretensions as some sort of spiritual sociologist (gag me with a spoon...), Barry spent far more time with Rama, spent far more of his money on him, and bought into the guy, hook, line and sinker vs. his relatively minimal, and ancient, involvement with TMO and Maharishi. Nobody is concerned about Rama's legacy, BECAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE ONE. He used to consider himself a great lover, by seducing his female followers with a loaded gun. Sexy, huh?? He took hundreds of thousands of dollars from his pathetic followers like Barry, to fuel his degenerate lifestyle, and finally ended his life by first trying to kill a follower, and then successfully committed suicide by drug overdose...oh, while wearing a dog collar. Yeah, wow, if I had followed Maharishi, and this dude, I'd definitely go after Maharishi as the less ethical, dishonest one. Not. Although if someone thought perms, pistols, and pleather were the height of fashion, they might just give Rama a pass - lol. All I can say is I am glad such a dissolute and criminal windbag is gone for good. Too bad all we get from Barry on this asshole, is crickets. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: Oh man, you are right, I didn't catch that! From: turquoiseb To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 12:35 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2  Great stories, nicely told. I never had anything to do with Kriyananda and his set, or the Yogananda trip, but I *completely* get the similar vibe to MUM thang, having experienced it in any number of spiritual trips. I have nothing to add to your excellent rap except to riff off of a typo in your post that you probably didn't notice but which set me to laughing -- Yodananda. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: That is a funny funny post - I do love your style of writing and I laughed out loud when I read your quote of Bhairitu's take on FFL. One experience I have not mentioned here is that 2 years after I left MIU I was with a woman in Boulder (not a TM woman) and she wanted to do a pilgrimage with Swami Kriyananda at their place outside Nevada City called Ananda. Ann and I had taken a trip to Portland where we made friends with a couple who were into Kriyananda (I am still friends with them, Ann, not so much).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
Thank you, Doc for what you say here which helps me find my own words about this topic. Thanks also to Mike and novashok. I'd add that I don't put the celibate way of life on a pedestal when it seems like the person is straining for spiritual goals to be something they are not. I more admire people settled in their own nature. My aspirations to celibacy have never lasted long and I'm grateful for that. And I've had some sexual experiences that were celestial. So there's not been much of a split between the sacred and the corporeal for me. Again, I'm grateful. Thinking about all this I realize that I never thought of Maharishi as a monk. Having grown up Catholic, to me monk meant someone who lived behind monastery walls praying and working all day long. So someone active in the world as Maharishi was, did not fit my idea of a monk anyway. And as a woman, I was sometimes aware of his sexual power. I guess that's what is called shakti. And I never heard him talk about sex though there were stories of Charlie Lutes talking about its being a drain on energy. Consequently I never felt lied to about all that. I'm very glad that Rajaram is a householder. It makes the TMO more human somehow, more of the world with all its joys and sorrows, more connected to life with all its light and dark. From: doctordumb...@rocketmail.com doctordumb...@rocketmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 12:54 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question Sure, it is fine with me, MJ. Given the range of human action we are each capable of, having sex with consenting adults is fine, regardless if he lied about it, or not. He owed me nothing regarding how he lived his life. I was simply interested in his knowledge and techniques and consider him a Maharishi in that regard. He never set himself up as anyone's personal Guru, and I did not ever see him that way, so it is a non-issue for me. Just because I followed his knowledge for many, many years, and continue to, I see him as a Divine resource, much more than some guy, who's life I am going to pour over, looking for inconsistencies. I am just not all that interested in his life. It was his, and continues to be, and I've got my own, anyway. I found one of the easiest ways to make myself depressed is to concern myself with things I cannot change, or that are none of my business. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: OK, serious question here to all those who have defended Maharishi as a saint and true holy man. How do you account for the stories that several of his former skin boys have told about his sexual escapades? Mark Landau, Billy Clayton, Nedd Wynn and others have told stories that are very similar as to what who and when. Do you think they are all lying and if so why? Or do you honestly think it is alright for a true holy man who always said he was a lifelong celibate to have sex repeatedly and lie about having done so?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
I don't think he lied about it. I think he kept his private life private. Which is everyone's right IMHO. Even famous people in Hollywood and sports and politics have a right to a private life. Though the media would have us believe otherwise. And yes, famous people should be realistic about this particular consequence of their fame. But still, they have a right to try to have a private life. Even from their close friends if need be. If a friend is really close, they will understand one's choice in the matter. If not, then let the two of them work it out. Yes, privately, just between the two of them. I think when people are disappointed etc. about famous people and or people in positions of authority, it's my opinion that they are dealing with unresolved issues about their early caregivers and or from previous lives. As such I think it's an opportunity to grow beyond looking for someone or something superficially perfect in this world. I say superficially because at the deeper levels, it is perfect. In my experience. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 7:26 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: I'm very glad that Rajaram is a householder. Are you glad that he lied about it to pretty much everyone in the TM movement for many years, including his close friends like John Hagelin? It makes the TMO more human somehow, more of the world with all its joys and sorrows, more connected to life with all its light and dark. Yeah, you say this NOW, now that it's come out that he is married and has been for many years. But I wonder what excuses you make for him lying about it for so long, and to so many?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
One last comment on this. M told us the story of how he left seclusion. He had been in Uttar Kashi and was sitting with a saint. He told the saint he had the thought to go to the south of India and the saint told him across the river is nothing but mud. In other words ,if he goes out into the world , he should expect to get muddy. From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 2:12 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question This is a good answer, Mike. I wouldn't want to have to define holy man or saint, so I wouldn't want to say what would disqualify him (or qualify him, for that matter) for being either. He wasn't a perfect human being, that's for sure. It's up to the individual to decide how much they want to hold his sins against him. --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: Yeah, he's still a holy man, just not as holy as most of us thought. The Bible tells us that all men fall short of the Glory of God. That means that all men have and will sin. Maharishi was a man, not God. The Bible also speaks of angels coming to earth and having sex with women. Veda Vyasa had sex with an unmarried woman in a boat while crossing a river, thus we have Shukadeva. Maharishi belongs on a pedestal, just not as high as we might have thought. My thoughts are that M was a very high soul on a mission and upon taking birth as a man, he did things men do. From: Michael Jackson To: mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com; Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 12:58 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Serious Question  OK, serious question here to all those who have defended Maharishi as a saint and true holy man. How do you account for the stories that several of his former skin boys have told about his sexual escapades? Mark Landau, Billy Clayton, Nedd Wynn and others have told stories that are very similar as to what who and when. Do you think they are all lying and if so why? Or do you honestly think it is alright for a true holy man who always said he was a lifelong celibate to have sex repeatedly and lie about having done so?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question to navashok
Thanks, navashok, and just to dig deeper. I've been wondering why we are all so shook up and triggered when people in authority lie to us. I think it's connected to survival and fear of dying. Deep in the primitive brain is the program from childhood saying that if authority figures lie, then we cannot trust them to protect us from saber toothed tigers, etc. And I'm not saying that lying should be condoned. I think lying is wrong and that if a person does it and hurts someone else, then the liar should make amends as best as possible. But the fact is that people lie, even people in positions of authority. And it begins early in our life. When we're quite young, our parents tell us about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. I don't remember but I'm sure it's a shock when a child realizes that there is no Santa Claus. And that the parents were lying about it, something they told us not to do. That's the worse part maybe. We all have to come to peace about the lying of others, especially authority figures in whom we believed. Even if we were young children when we believed in them. Not for their sake or to let them off the hook or to prevent it from happening again. But for our own growth and happiness and good health. Does this make any sense? FWIW I was neither in the Dome nor around the TMO for approx 7 years which included the time of Maharishi's death and Rajaram's becoming the TMO leader. So I don't know who called him Purusha and lots of other details from that period. From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 9:56 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: I don't think he lied about it. I think he kept his private life private. Share, (not that it's important), but I have to disagree here. I think that Barry has a point. He was called a Purusha, and Purushas are celibate. So its not an issue of just keeping his private life private. It is deceptive. Also, Maharishi promoted the Purusha and Mother Divine lifestyle, it's not that this is something neutral, which is nobodies business. It's a life style promoted as especially evolutionary by the movement, which he is the head of. It's a bit different from normal celebrities, who are known for example for their ability as actors etc. Compare it to finding out that the pope is actually married, while all his priests have to live celebate. Which is everyone's right IMHO. Even famous people in Hollywood and sports and politics have a right to a private life. Though the media would have us believe otherwise. And yes, famous people should be realistic about this particular consequence of their fame. But still, they have a right to try to have a private life. Even from their close friends if need be. If a friend is really close, they will understand one's choice in the matter. If not, then let the two of them work it out. Yes, privately, just between the two of them. I think when people are disappointed etc. about famous people and or people in positions of authority, it's my opinion that they are dealing with unresolved issues about their early caregivers and or from previous lives. As such I think it's an opportunity to grow beyond looking for someone or something superficially perfect in this world. I say superficially because at the deeper levels, it is perfect. In my experience. From: turquoiseb To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 7:26 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: I'm very glad that Rajaram is a householder. Are you glad that he lied about it to pretty much everyone in the TM movement for many years, including his close friends like John Hagelin? It makes the TMO more human somehow, more of the world with all its joys and sorrows, more connected to life with all its light and dark. Yeah, you say this NOW, now that it's come out that he is married and has been for many years. But I wonder what excuses you make for him lying about it for so long, and to so many?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
Yes, there are people who do such things in life not connected to TM and it would apply to some that have done TM too From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 11:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question Salyavin, Michael, I'm genuinely curious to know whether you think this makes a lick of sense: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: (snip) The problem is compounded in those who carefully stayed away from him and never met the man. They got to base their fantasies on what he wrote in books and said on videotapes, and carefully stayed far, far away so that they'd never have to encounter any reality that might contradict their fantasies. Does *anybody* here think this makes a lick of sense? It's not the first time Barry's made this suggestion. So either *he* believes it, or he thinks others will.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question to navashok
It makes sense to not be in a state of upset over the person who lied and what they lied about etc. But the way you and others approach it seems to be to say that now that you have made your peace about M's lying you don't care that his successors are continuing the lying tradition to others. I can't go that far myself. I notice to my surprise that most of the people who responded to my question seem to believe that he did have sex and lied about it rather than the few ladies who came forward and the skin boys all being liars - that was one of the things I was wondering - if they lied, why would they do so? (Personally I think they are telling the truth but I wanted to know what others thought. From: Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question to navashok Thanks, navashok, and just to dig deeper. I've been wondering why we are all so shook up and triggered when people in authority lie to us. I think it's connected to survival and fear of dying. Deep in the primitive brain is the program from childhood saying that if authority figures lie, then we cannot trust them to protect us from saber toothed tigers, etc. And I'm not saying that lying should be condoned. I think lying is wrong and that if a person does it and hurts someone else, then the liar should make amends as best as possible. But the fact is that people lie, even people in positions of authority. And it begins early in our life. When we're quite young, our parents tell us about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. I don't remember but I'm sure it's a shock when a child realizes that there is no Santa Claus. And that the parents were lying about it, something they told us not to do. That's the worse part maybe. We all have to come to peace about the lying of others, especially authority figures in whom we believed. Even if we were young children when we believed in them. Not for their sake or to let them off the hook or to prevent it from happening again. But for our own growth and happiness and good health. Does this make any sense? FWIW I was neither in the Dome nor around the TMO for approx 7 years which included the time of Maharishi's death and Rajaram's becoming the TMO leader. So I don't know who called him Purusha and lots of other details from that period. From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 9:56 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: I don't think he lied about it. I think he kept his private life private. Share, (not that it's important), but I have to disagree here. I think that Barry has a point. He was called a Purusha, and Purushas are celibate. So its not an issue of just keeping his private life private. It is deceptive. Also, Maharishi promoted the Purusha and Mother Divine lifestyle, it's not that this is something neutral, which is nobodies business. It's a life style promoted as especially evolutionary by the movement, which he is the head of. It's a bit different from normal celebrities, who are known for example for their ability as actors etc. Compare it to finding out that the pope is actually married, while all his priests have to live celebate. Which is everyone's right IMHO. Even famous people in Hollywood and sports and politics have a right to a private life. Though the media would have us believe otherwise. And yes, famous people should be realistic about this particular consequence of their fame. But still, they have a right to try to have a private life. Even from their close friends if need be. If a friend is really close, they will understand one's choice in the matter. If not, then let the two of them work it out. Yes, privately, just between the two of them. I think when people are disappointed etc. about famous people and or people in positions of authority, it's my opinion that they are dealing with unresolved issues about their early caregivers and or from previous lives. As such I think it's an opportunity to grow beyond looking for someone or something superficially perfect in this world. I say superficially because at the deeper levels, it is perfect. In my experience. From: turquoiseb To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 7:26 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: I'm very glad that Rajaram is a householder. Are you glad that he lied about it to pretty much everyone in the TM movement for many years, including his close friends like John Hagelin? It makes the TMO
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question to Michael
What I said in second paragraph: And I'm not saying that lying should be condoned. I think lying is wrong and that if a person does it and hurts someone else, then the liar should make amends as best as possible. What I said in third paragraph: We all have to come to peace about the lying of others...Not for their sake or to let them off the hook or to prevent it from happening again. But for our own growth and happiness and good health. These are not expressions of not caring. That is your interpretation and a huge leap from being at peace. From: Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 11:53 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question to navashok It makes sense to not be in a state of upset over the person who lied and what they lied about etc. But the way you and others approach it seems to be to say that now that you have made your peace about M's lying you don't care that his successors are continuing the lying tradition to others. I can't go that far myself. I notice to my surprise that most of the people who responded to my question seem to believe that he did have sex and lied about it rather than the few ladies who came forward and the skin boys all being liars - that was one of the things I was wondering - if they lied, why would they do so? (Personally I think they are telling the truth but I wanted to know what others thought. From: Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question to navashok Thanks, navashok, and just to dig deeper. I've been wondering why we are all so shook up and triggered when people in authority lie to us. I think it's connected to survival and fear of dying. Deep in the primitive brain is the program from childhood saying that if authority figures lie, then we cannot trust them to protect us from saber toothed tigers, etc. And I'm not saying that lying should be condoned. I think lying is wrong and that if a person does it and hurts someone else, then the liar should make amends as best as possible. But the fact is that people lie, even people in positions of authority. And it begins early in our life. When we're quite young, our parents tell us about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. I don't remember but I'm sure it's a shock when a child realizes that there is no Santa Claus. And that the parents were lying about it, something they told us not to do. That's the worse part maybe. We all have to come to peace about the lying of others, especially authority figures in whom we believed. Even if we were young children when we believed in them. Not for their sake or to let them off the hook or to prevent it from happening again. But for our own growth and happiness and good health. Does this make any sense? FWIW I was neither in the Dome nor around the TMO for approx 7 years which included the time of Maharishi's death and Rajaram's becoming the TMO leader. So I don't know who called him Purusha and lots of other details from that period. From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 9:56 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: I don't think he lied about it. I think he kept his private life private. Share, (not that it's important), but I have to disagree here. I think that Barry has a point. He was called a Purusha, and Purushas are celibate. So its not an issue of just keeping his private life private. It is deceptive. Also, Maharishi promoted the Purusha and Mother Divine lifestyle, it's not that this is something neutral, which is nobodies business. It's a life style promoted as especially evolutionary by the movement, which he is the head of. It's a bit different from normal celebrities, who are known for example for their ability as actors etc. Compare it to finding out that the pope is actually married, while all his priests have to live celebate. Which is everyone's right IMHO. Even famous people in Hollywood and sports and politics have a right to a private life. Though the media would have us believe otherwise. And yes, famous people should be realistic about this particular consequence of their fame. But still, they have a right to try to have a private life. Even from their close friends if need be. If a friend is really close, they will understand one's choice in the matter. If not, then let the two of them work it out. Yes, privately, just between the two of them. I think when people are disappointed etc. about famous people and or people in positions
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2
thanks - I will try to fix it From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 1:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question, Part 2 I don't have anything to add to what you posted, Michael, just a suggestion. Whatever editor/email program/whatever you are using to write your posts seems to have smart (curly) quotes and semi-quotes turned on. The Yahoo system is obvously unable to process these, and turns them into the โ€� and โ€� characters you see below. Most such editors or programs have an option to turn off smart quotes, even Microstuft Word, if you are using that. You might consider using such an option, because your current setup makes your posts difficult to read. The ย characters that show up from place to place are non-breaking spaces, and I don't know why they appear, unless either you or the editor in question is adding them manually; almost no one *tries* to create them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: My thanks to everyone who offered their answers. Since Mike D was the first to respond I will start there, but really I am using all the answers as a springboard to think and write about this: ย So from what most of you seem to be saying, you feel he was enlightened in some way, but because his consciousness was housed in a human body, he was subject to flawed human behavior and yet he was still a holy man, or enlightened. ย Or you may feel that he was holy and engaged in Divine activity by teaching meditation, yet not enlightened and therefore his human lies and deception were just part of his human life, sort of like the various Popes who have guided the Catholic church while doing things they officially denounced. ย I began my question with the idea of Mโ€�s sexual activity because it seems that those who have talked about it (the women and the skin boys) have come forth with some amount of detail, as opposed to some of the financial allegations which are a little lacking in detail (here I speak of things like suitcases across the border rather than the obvious soliciting funds for projects that never materialized that everyone could see) I agree with Navashok that it does make a difference that Maharishi preached celibacy to others and as head of a movement claimed to be so himself. Had he only practiced deception about his sexual activities, I could have turned a blind eye myself, but in addition to the sexual considerations, he did two things โ€ one being that he seemed to take money under false pretenses, asking for funds for many, many projects that never or rarely ever materialized. ย Second, he always claimed that everything he ever offered was far superior to anything everyone else offered. His meditation was superior, his advanced techniques were superior, he alone was able to revitalize ancient vedic knowledge - ayurveda, jyotish, yagas, vastu veda and all the adjunct programs and offerings that went with the main things he sold. He seemed to do this to keep his customers loyal to him, to keep the cash flowing and to feed his ego, that he alone could provide the best of the best. So with the sexual activity, Maharishi practiced deception on a grand scale (meaning that he lied for the better part of his adult life to nearly everyone he came into contact, as opposed to just a few times with a few people), he took money under false pretenses therefore committing fraud and seemed to have a large ego. Committing these sexual and financial acts he manipulated people also on a grand scale meaning he manipulated many people for many years, seemingly to feed his ego and achieve sexual and financial gains. This is behavior that most people would not tolerate in their friends, family, co-workers or strangers. As a society we certainly revile our politicians for doing the exact same things. I find it interesting in a cat-with-a-hairball kind of way that some of you can so easily give him a free pass for doing things you would never allow anyone else in your life to get away with. One more thing I want to mention, Mike said this: โ€�The Bible tells usย that all men fall short of the Glory of God. That means that all men have and will sin.โ€� This must mean that he was not enlightened. Maharishiโ€�s own definition of enlightenment was: ย โ€�...in this state (of enlightenment) the mind has become transformed into bliss-consciousness, Being is permanently lived as separate from activity.ย ย Then a man realizes that his Self isย different from the mind which is engaged with thoughts and desires.ย ย ย It is now his experience that the mind, which had been identified with desires, is mainly identified with the Self.ย ย He experiences the desires of the mind as lying outside of himself, whereas he used to experience himself as completely involved with desires.ย ย On the surface
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
that is a very insightful statement - thank you! From: obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 3:49 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question Nabby, it doesn't mean Turq has not put together a thinking mind of the possibilities that are told? Just because someone is not around, does not make them less of a witness. Some people know how to put a jigsaw puzzle together and some just look at the pieces and the box picture and say, oh that is pretty. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: It is bizarre. Considering Bee hasn't been around Maharishi for decades, and then, only briefly. Who, exactly, is fantasizing?? According to posters here the Turq was never around Maharishi in any way. Apparently he never even talked to Maharishi privately or had a private telephoneconversation with him.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
I am aware of and have been aware of J. Borque's book since before beginning posting on FFL. I did not give it much credibility at first for several reasons. One is that even though I had already come to believe that M was unethical in his monetary dealings and in the way he treated people in general, I was not willing to believe he was not celibate. Usually with these guru sexcapades there will be one woman who comes forward, the guru or guru supporters will deny the allegations, then another woman will come forward, then another and another and another until the evidence seems undeniable as in the case of Swami Kriyananda (J. Donald Walters) In Maha's case - there were only one or two women who came forward -after having a brief e-mail conversation with Rick on the matter, I felt I needed to take another look at the allegations and then began to find material from the skin boys addressing the issue - it was there very consistent stories that convinced me that Marshy was indeed an unethical SOB. As to your last post, you asked if it made sense and to me it does, meaning that some people avoid looking because they don't want to find. This is essentially what Barry was saying - that people keep their distance because they don't want to hear and see the truth and that does happen and has happened within the TMO and those who do TM. From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 4:21 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: Yes, there are people who do such things in life Define such things in life. Whatever such things are, they'd have to be very close to the facts of the TM situation to apply to TMers as Barry has suggested. not connected to TM and it would apply to some that have done TM too Look, Michael, I know we can't expect anything from you but a knee-jerk defense of Barry, but just for the record: The first time Barry made this suggestion, it referred to me specifically, and I think it's safe to assume it still does in his mind, perhaps now including other FFL TMers who never had the chance to spend time with Maharishi. Where it fails on its face, quite definitively, is that if I and these other FFL TMers were bent on never encountering anything that could disturb our purported fantasies about Maharishi, FFL is the last place we would be inclined to hang out (in my case for 17 years, including my participation on alt.meditation.transcendental, which was also full of TM critics). If I were intent on preserving those purported fantasies, would I have pointed you to Judith Bourque's book, which you appear not to have known about, or the extensive discussions we've had about it here? And with regard to non-FFL TMers, the suggestion is just as silly. To have one's fantasies about Maharishi challenged firsthand, one would have to have been into TM when he was still accessible, either early on when he was conducting long rounding courses for meditators, or later when he was leading TTCs--but before he withdrew into his digs at Vlodrop--or one would have had to have been on his staff. To claim, as Barry does, that any TMer who was never in any of these situations has been deliberately avoiding them in order to preserve their Maharishi fantasies is obviously absurd. *Barry* knows this, but he also knows there are folks here like you who will fall for it because it confirms your preconceptions, and you don't have the imagination to see beyond them--or even a strong enough grasp of logic to see through his attempt to mislead you. From: authfriend To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 11:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question Salyavin, Michael, I'm genuinely curious to know whether you think this makes a lick of sense: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: (snip) The problem is compounded in those who carefully stayed away from him and never met the man. They got to base their fantasies on what he wrote in books and said on videotapes, and carefully stayed far, far away so that they'd never have to encounter any reality that might contradict their fantasies. Does *anybody* here think this makes a lick of sense? It's not the first time Barry's made this suggestion. So either *he* believes it, or he thinks others will.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question to Michael
what a joke - I think you were looking in the mirror From: seventhray27 steve.sun...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 7:24 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question to Michael --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: What I said in second paragraph: And I'm not saying that lying should be condoned. I think lying is wrong and that if a person does it and hurts someone else, then the liar should make amends as best as possible. What I said in third paragraph: We all have to come to peace about the lying of others...Not for their sake or to let them off the hook or to prevent it from happening again. But for our own growth and happiness and good health. These are not expressions of not caring. That is your interpretation and a huge leap from being at peace. I've noticed that MJ does this quite a bit. He's got an agenda he's pretty attached to. I mean, there's an appearance of open mindedness, but I don't think it runs very deep. He often takes what you say and then twists it into something that better suits his view of the subject matter.
