Guru Dev's wisdom - his teaching about mantras and meditation
premanandpaulmason
interesting subject has been raised by Eki.
Stu now asks 'Isn't japa the repetition of a holy name? Isn't that
exactly what TM is?'
Linking the phrase 'holy name' with the Hindi word 'japa' and a
trademarked system of meditation (TM) might not go down well with
everyone. But few seem aware what the godfather of TM taught. It is
interesting to note that 'Guru Dev' Shankaracharya Swami Brahmanand
Saraswati most definitely encouraged 'mantra japa'.
Going through his teachings (especially
amongst those contained in 'Amrit-Kana', a Hindi volume compiled by
Balbrahmachari Mahesh in 1949-50), the guru is found repeatedly
encouraging the practise of 'mantra japa'. The mantras of
'mantra-japa' to which Gurudev refers he indicates as those relating
to the devotee's favoured god [of which he names the five viz.
Shankar (Shiva), Vishnu (Ram or Krishna), Devi (goddess), Ganesh, and
Surya (Sun)]. Furthermore, he also encouraged 'dhyaana' of the 'ruupa'
of the god.
Clearly Gurudev was speaking in Hindi and a little translation is
therefore necessary. Bhargava's Illustrated Dictionary of the Hindi
Language offers the following:-
japa n.mas. the silent repetition of a Mantra, etc
dhyaana n.mas. consideration, meditation, contemplation, etc
ruupa n.mas. form, aspect, shape, etc
Jay Gurudev
jst...@panix.com
premanandpaulmason wrote:
> In another Google strand [Yoga-tattva-upanishad about mantra-yoga!]
an
> interesting subject has been raised by Eki.
>
> Stu now asks 'Isn't japa the repetition of a holy name? Isn't that
> exactly what TM is?'
>
> Linking the phrase 'holy name' with the Hindi word 'japa' and a
> trademarked system of meditation (TM) might not go down well with
> everyone. But few seem aware what the godfather of TM taught. It is
> interesting to note that 'Guru Dev' Shankaracharya Swami Brahmanand
> Saraswati most definitely encouraged 'mantra japa'.
>From what I understand, Guru Dev did not teach TM;
Maharishi came up with it himself, Guru Dev being
his inspiration.
I base this on Larry Domash's brilliant introductory
essay to the first volume of the Collected Papers,
which had to have been approved by Maharishi. TM
teacher James Cook posted it on alt.m.t back in
1993, and it's still available:
Search for the words "unusually talented student"
for the section that describes how MMY developed
TM.
John Manning
Maharishi doesn't teach that, except to young children. And he doesn't
call it 'japa'. He calls it a "word of wisdom". And that instruction is
very specifically defined and delineated for the TM teachers as to how
to give that to the child.
Guru Dev was/is a Master of Masters. He had, according to Charlie Lutes,
every method to help humanity spiritually, in his hands. And he surely
used those methods.
You do good work Paul. Wish I could share with you what I feel about
that at this moment. Wow...
I would suggest that other TMers can know the overwhelming vibe of the
Grace and Presence of Guru Dev.
I'm quite confident that you directly know what I'm talking about.
JEEZ, I'M GETTING NON-FUNCTIONAL NOW. I can force my way of it, but I
don't want to.
******
Some time later...
I hesitate to talk about this here, Paul because people will think I'm
crazy and maybe not want to do TM. But I just experienced Guru Dev. [I
have in the past, but not at all like this. In the past it was just
inner spiritual and visual conversation. I saw him and we talked kind of
telepathically.] But this happened after having read your post as I was
writing in response. I'm still experiencing waves of overwhelming peace.
As I was writing, I 'saw' words coming from Guru Dev; coming very
quickly in English letters. [There was no conversation this time.] I
couldn't get the whole thing in memory - it was so vague - but the word
'samhita' sticks in my mind for some reason. I'll look it up. I'm sure
eki, our resident Sanskrit scholar, will know the meaning.
Anyway, I perceived that I was 'initiated' by Guru Dev. I totally don't
know what that means exactly in any real definable terms.
I remember Charlie Lutes talking about initiations like that. [I'll
elaborate on what Charlie said about that if someone wants to know.]
Anyway, I feel wonderful and really happy. I don't know what else to say
right now.
eki
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>As I was writing, I 'saw' words coming from Guru Dev; coming very
>quickly in English letters. [There was no conversation this time.] I
>couldn't get the whole thing in memory - it was so vague - but the word
>'samhita' sticks in my mind for some reason. I'll look it up. I'm sure
>eki, our resident Sanskrit scholar, will know the meaning.
Thanks for your kind words, but I certainly don't like to be
called scholar, unless you mean number 2 here:
scholar , n.
1. a learned or erudite person, esp. one who has profound
knowledge of a particular subject.
2. a student; pupil. : )
[....]
I'd rather be called enthusiast, or something
like that. Nik knows some aspects of Sanskrit better than me.
Barry
Brahmananda Saraswati would have been teaching for two paths: 1) the
monks at the ashram who were his devotees and 2) the householders who
came for consultation. The former would have gotten a guru mantra with
which other mantras could be empowered and instruction in mantra siddhi,
yantras and the tantras (rituals). The latter would have been
instructed in a yogic meditation, perhaps given a yantra or a simple
ritual to perform as a remedial. This is the quite common practice
given variants among many paths in India.
It is possible that Maharishi many have never taught the householder
instruction Brahmananda Saraswati did as he many not have received the
instruction to do so. Even if he did he may have gone searching for a
more effective technique or if he didn't then he went searching he was
allowed to learn. At certain high levels of tantric achievement one can
even create their own mantra systems though most just stick to tradition.
It is interesting to note that some of the most common methods of giving
mantras for japa is based on the persons vibration revealed by their
name. I have seen several systems for this, they are all similar. Here
is one I found yesterday similar to others I have seen published in books:
http://www.indiayogi.com/consultation/mantras/create.asp
- Barry2
Sidh Tantrik
will...@yahoo.com
> I think too much has been made of a perceived "uniqueness" of TM.
>
one of the most esoteric traditions in India. It's pretty difficult to
be any more exclusive than the tradition of Shankara and the Sri Vidya!
Guru Dev said that it was "The real thing, the whole thing."
> It is possible that Maharishi many have never taught the
> householder instruction Brahmananda Saraswati did as he
> many not have received the instruction to do so.
>
In my opinion, Maharishi has recieved the full traditional teaching
from Guru Dev - he got the real thing, the whole thing. There's simply
nothing higher than the Sri Vidya. The question is, as a TM teacher and
a Sidh Tantrik, can you say with confidence that there is a higher path
than Knoledge of the Absolute? Only if you're a quasi-dualistic,
vasita-adwaita following the path of siddhanta and socialistic anarchy.
Make up your own mantras? For what purpose?
- Vajracharya
According to Swami Rama in his book, 'Living With the Himalayan
Masters', Swami Brahmanand once displayed to him a Sri Chakra encrusted
with rubies. "He used to live only on germinated gram seeds mixed with
a little bit of salt. He lived on a hillock in a small natural cave
near a mountain pool. I was led by the villagers to that place, but I
did not find anyone there and became disapointed. The next day I went
again, and found a few footprints on the edge of the pool made by his
wooden sandals. I tried, but I could not track the footprints. Finally
on the fifth day of effort, early in the morning before sunrise, I went
back to the pool and found him taking a bath. I greeted him saying,
"Namo Narayan," which is a commonly used salutation among swamis,
meaning "I bow to the divinity in you." He was observing silence, so he
motioned for me to follow him to his small cave, and I did so gladly.
This was the eighth day of his silence, and after staying the night
with him he broke his silence and I gently spoke to him about the
purpose of my visit. I wanted to know how he was living and the ways
and methods of his spiritual practices.
During our conversation he started talking to me about Sri Vidya, the
highest of paths, followed only by accomplished Sanskrit scholars of
India. It is a path which joins raja yoga, kundalini yoga, bhakti yoga,
and advaita Vedanta. There are two books recommended by the teachers of
this path: The Wave of Bliss and The Wave of Beauty; the compilation of
the two books is called Saundaryalahari in Sanskrit. There is another
part of this literature, called Prayoga Shastra, which is in manuscript
form and found only in the Mysore and Baroda libraries. No scholar can
understand these spiritual yoga poems without the help of a competent
teacher who himself practices these teachings.
Later on I found that Sri Vidya and Madhu Vidya are spiritual practices
known to a very few-only ten to twelve people in all of India. I
became interested in knowing this science, and whatever little I have
today is because of it. In this science the body is seen as a temple
and the inner dweller, Atman, as God. A human being is like a miniature
universe, and by understanding this, one can understand the whole of
the universe and ultimately realize the absolute One. Finally, after
studying many scriptures and learning various paths, my master helped
me in choosing to practice the way of Sri Vidya" (245).
Work cited:
"Living With the Himalayan Masters"
by Swami Rama
Himalayan Institute, Honesdale, 1978
mdhut...@yahoo.com
sam·hit·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (smht-)
n.
A collection of sacred devotional hymns in Sanskrit constituting one of
the four Vedas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Sanskrit sahit, collection, from feminine past participle of
samdadhti, he puts together, collects : sam, together; see sem-1 in
Indo-European Roots + dadhti, he puts; see dh- in Indo-European Roots.]
[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
samhita
n : one of four collections of sacred texts [syn: Samhita]
premanandpaulmason
> >From what I understand, Guru Dev did not teach TM;
> Maharishi came up with it himself, Guru Dev being
> his inspiration.
Between the year of Guru Dev's passing and The Maharishi's arrival in
the U.S. [some 5 or 6 years later] there seems to be no evidence
whatsoever of any new method or a modified form of Guru Dev's
transcendental meditation [mantra-japa and ruupa-dhyaana] being made
available.
In 1955 Guru Dev's 'student' Brahmachari Mahesh is quoted in 'Beacon
Light of the Himalayas' saying 'When he devotes himself and meditates
on the name and form (NAMA AND RUPA) of the LORD, he begins to
experience some ANANDAM and also the Grace of the Lord in every walk
of life.
Again in 1958 in 'Meditation: Easy system propounded by Maharishi
Mahesh Yogi' he is quoted saying:-
A. Our system of meditation involves the All Mighty Power. We take the
'MANTRA' of some God according to our faith and meditate on that. The
power of the 'MANTRA' brings to us the Almighty.
However, after Guru Dev's student arrives in the U.S. the mention of a
connection between gods and the mantras seems to fall away.
Coincidentally it is also at this time that a fixed 'donation' for
initiation is instituted. It is some time later still that the term
'Transcendental Meditation' is coined.
John Manning
Thanks for that.
jrm
eki
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>As I was writing, I 'saw' words coming from Guru Dev; coming very
>quickly in English letters. [There was no conversation this time.] I
>couldn't get the whole thing in memory - it was so vague - but the word
>'samhita' sticks in my mind for some reason. I'll look it up. I'm sure
>eki, our resident Sanskrit scholar, will know the meaning.
Here are both the adjective (perfect participle) and the
same as a feminine noun with a long 'a' at the end,
according to Cologne Digital:
Entry saMhita
Meaning mfn. (1. %{dhA}) put together , joined , attached RV. &c. &c.
; fixed , settled AitBr. ; composed of (comp.) ib. ; placed together
(%{pArzva-s-} , `" placed side by side "') La1t2y. ; uninterrupted (as
a series of words) RPra1t. ; joined or connected or endowed or
furnished with , abounding in , possessed of , accompanied by (comp.)
Mn. MBh. &c. ; agreeing with , conformable to (%{dharma-s-} , `" in
accordance with justice "') R. ; relating to , concerning (comp.) ib.
; connected with , proceeding from (comp.) MBh. ; being on friendly
terms with (instr.) ib. ; (%{-ta4}) mfn. mixed in colour , variegated
VS. TS. ; (%{A}) f. see next ; n. N. of a Sa1man A1rshBr.
Entry saMhitA
Meaning f. conjunction , connection , union TUp. ; (in gram.) the
junction or combination of letters according to euphonic rules (=
%{saMdhi} , but sometimes considered rather as the state preparatory
to the actual junction than the junction itself Pra1t. ; a text
treated according to euphonic rules (esp. the real continuous text of
the Vedas as formed out of the Padas or separate words by proper
phonetic changes [according to various schools ; cf. IW. 152]: beside
the Sam2hita1s of the R2ig- , Sa1ma- , and Atharvaveda there is the
Va1jasaneyi-SñSam2hita1s belonging to the White Yajur-veda , and five
other Sam2hita1s belonging to the black Yajur-veda , viz. the
Taittiri1ya-SñSam2hita1 , the Sam2hita of the A1treyas [known only by
its Anukraman2i1] , the SñSam2hita1 of the Kat2has , the
Kapisht2hala-Kat2ha-SñSam2hita1 , and the SñSam2hita1 of the
Maitra1yan2iyas or Maitra1yan2i1-SñSam2hita1) Nir. Pra1t. &c. ; any
methodically arranged collection of texts or verses (e.g. the
Ra1ma7yan2a , the various law-books , the medical works of Caraka and
S3a1rn3gadhara , the complete system of natural astrology &c. [cf.
%{bRhat-s-}] ; there is also a Sam2hita1 of the Pura1n2as said to have
been compiled by Vya1sa , the substance of which is supposed to be
represented by the Vishn2u-pura1n2a) MBh. VarBr2S. Pur. &c. ; science
L. ; the force which holds together and supports the universe (a term
applied to the Supreme Being accord. to some) MW. ; N. of various wks.
John Manning
Thanks, eki.
jrm
Michael Z.
> As I was writing, I 'saw' words coming from Guru Dev; coming very
> quickly in English letters. [There was no conversation this time.] I
> couldn't get the whole thing in memory - it was so vague - but the word
> 'samhita' sticks in my mind for some reason.
John, the term Samhita plays a keyrole in Maharishis philosophy. Samhita
is the togetherness of Rishi, Devata and Chhandas. Rishi is the seer, the
subject. Chhandas is the object, and Devata is the gap between the two,
the Knowledge, the Intelligence. See this lecture of Maharishi of 1999;
You can also try to google 'samhita rishi devata chhandas' and you will
find many more references.
http://www.enmag.org/04/4mmy.htm
The individual, at his basic reality, is Atma, the Self. Veda is the
self-referral dynamics of the Self. Veda is knowledge. Knowledge is, in
itself, the field of consciousness. The self-interacting dynamics of
consciousness are displayed in the Samhita of Rishi, Devata, and
Chhandas, which is the structure of Veda. So, in this historical
development of science today, we are in possession of that level of
intelligence which is one with the ability to be many: one and many, one
and many: one and many means it's the Self, it's the Veda. When we say
Veda, then it makes the unified state functioning with the three
fundamental values—Rishi, Devata, Chhandas.
We have been explaining this all these years. We are in possession of
that knowledge of ultimately one value, consciousness or intelligence,
this consciousness or intelligence which we know to be creative
intelligence. We say consciousness and creative intelligence: Atma, the
Self, is creative intelligence. It is intelligence and it is creative
intelligence. When we say creative intelligence, we equate it with Veda,
which is the Samhita of Rishi, Devata and Chhandas, the unified state of
the three values of knower, knowing, and known. The experience of this
field is, through Transcendental Meditation, Transcendental Consciousness,
the transcendental experience of unbounded consciousness.
Transcendental Consciousness is unbounded consciousness. Waking state of
consciousness is full of boundaries. We see this there—all boundaries,
boundaries, boundaries. But when we close the eyes, we get out of diverse
perceptions and the mind settles down in quietness, unboundedness,
unbounded consciousness, unbounded intelligence. It is
self-referral—self-referral unboundedness. There is Veda. Because Veda
means knowledge, it has complete knowledge of itself; that intelligence
knows itself.
In what way does it know itself? It knows itself in its unboundedness and
its points—whole unboundedness. When the unboundedness of Atma is awake
within itself, then it locates its point value. The example is, when the
waves of the ocean settle down then that unbounded, settled, peaceful
state of the ocean, fully awake within itself, that ocean knows its
unboundedness. At the same time, the ocean knows the value of the points
of unboundedness. It is the points in a series that construct
unboundedness. In the settled state, the ocean is aware of its point value
and it is aware of its unbounded value. Within the unbounded value and the
point value is the field of all possibilities. So we know all
possibilities in the field of knowledge. All possibilities are in that
settled state of consciousness, Transcendental Consciousness.
Michael Z.
>> As I was writing, I 'saw' words coming from Guru Dev; coming very
>> quickly in English letters. [There was no conversation this time.] I
>> couldn't get the whole thing in memory - it was so vague - but the word
>> 'samhita' sticks in my mind for some reason.
One more keyword to look for 'Three in one'
Some more here:
http://sanskrit.bhaarat.com/Dale/Origins/indexa40.htm
There is one other structure of the Veda that is basic to understanding
the Veda. In the
process of knowing itself, the infinite pure consciousness, which is
eternal knows itself. In knowing itself, pure consciousness creates a
division within itself of knower, known, and process of knowing. This is
necessary for it to know itself. It is both eternally one, and yet it is
eternally three—knower, knowing, and known—making a three-in-one
structure of self- knowing consciousness.
This is another fundamental feature of pure consciousness that it is
both eternally one and
eternally many. From the threefold structure of knower, known, and process
of knowing, consciousness continues to reflect on itself, giving rise to
many more reiterations of itself, until the one has evolved into the
diversity of the entire Veda.
This threefold structure of pure knowledge, that it is one and
three at the same time,
Maharishi calls the three-in-one structure of pure knowledge. It is
expressed in the Veda in the terms rishi (knower), devata (process of
knowing) and chhandas (known). Every sukta of the Rig Veda has a structure
of rishi, devata, and chhandas, which is announced at the beginning of
the hymn. There are infinitely many values of rishi, infinitely many
values of devata, and infinitely many values of chhandas. These provide
the basic key to understanding the structure of the Rig Veda, as well as
Sama, Atharva, and Yajur Veda.
jst...@panix.com
premanandpaulmason wrote:
> jst...@panix.com wrote in message
>
> > >From what I understand, Guru Dev did not teach TM;
> > Maharishi came up with it himself, Guru Dev being
> > his inspiration.
>
> Between the year of Guru Dev's passing and The Maharishi's arrival in
> the U.S. [some 5 or 6 years later] there seems to be no evidence
> whatsoever of any new method or a modified form of Guru Dev's
> transcendental meditation [mantra-japa and ruupa-dhyaana] being made
> available.
>
> In 1955 Guru Dev's 'student' Brahmachari Mahesh is quoted in 'Beacon
> Light of the Himalayas' saying 'When he devotes himself and meditates
> on the name and form (NAMA AND RUPA) of the LORD, he begins to
> experience some ANANDAM and also the Grace of the Lord in every walk
> of life.
>
> Again in 1958 in 'Meditation: Easy system propounded by Maharishi
> Mahesh Yogi' he is quoted saying:-
> A. Our system of meditation involves the All Mighty Power. We take
the
> 'MANTRA' of some God according to our faith and meditate on that. The
> power of the 'MANTRA' brings to us the Almighty.
>
> However, after Guru Dev's student arrives in the U.S. the mention of
a
> connection between gods and the mantras seems to fall away.
As you know, the bija mantras used in TM are associated
in Hinduism with deities. That MMY referred to this
association when teaching Hindus does not indicate
anything about the method of using the mantras. As you
also know, instruction in TM is oral, so you would not
find the specifics of that instruction in written reports
of the time.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
John West
"John Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1126q2b...@news.supernews.com...
>
> You do good work Paul. Wish I could share with you what I feel about
> that at this moment. Wow...
>
> I would suggest that other TMers can know the overwhelming vibe of the
> Grace and Presence of Guru Dev.
>
> I'm quite confident that you directly know what I'm talking about.
>
> JEEZ, I'M GETTING NON-FUNCTIONAL NOW. I can force my way of it, but I
> don't want to.
>
> right now.
>
I dont think that John are in contact with Guru Dev. Because I do not
believe anyone who can have such a negative conception of his fellow Humans
can be in contact with the divine, no way.
John Manning
I'm very grateful for what you've shared here, Michael. Just this much
is a lot for me to look at and to digest.
Really, being close to Guru Dev and what he represents - in his actual
expression of full Divine grace and love - has seemed very natural to me
look to as a worthy concept that Maharishi has described about him.
*Experiencing* what Guru Dev is, is a blessing beyond words.
[There's a passage somewhere in the older stuff from Maharishi where he
describes Guru Dev as an expression of the Self-Effulgent Light, among
other Divine qualities. I think it was in the 'Beacon' or in one of the
early SRM pamphlets. It may also be in the preface to Maharishi's Gita
commentary. Not sure.]
Just from those oft expressed descriptions from Maharishi, and having
read much of what was attributed to Guru Dev in words - and having seen
the film of him - and having done the TM Puja while initiating and
having actually *felt* his overwhelming grace and waves of peace during
it - and from my experience with TM --- I remain with a *deeeeeep*
feeling of love and admiration for him; loving awe would be a better to
put it. What he IS is in my heart, is another way to say how I feel.
But when I have had the experience of communicating with him [as I
previously described], he doesn't at all come off as 'super' or
'unreachable' or even 'superior' in any way whatsoever; just perfectly
normal with no airs.
Having had this other experience with him however, reminds me that he is
indeed a loving giver of 'big stuff' even beyond my current comprehension.
While I'm not particularly intellectual [I go mostly by feeling in my
heart - that's how I've communicated with Guru Dev], I will surely study
what you've shared. I'm still attempting to 'put together' my experience
of yesterday.
'Samhita'... Wow! I feel wonderful and happy in my heart. Thank you
again, Michael.
jrm
John Manning
Indeed, you are entitled to what you think. But your thinking is flawed,
limited and inaccurate. Did you ever hear of Dhuryodana and his pals?
Barry
> Barry wrote:
>
>>I think too much has been made of a perceived "uniqueness" of TM.
>>
>
> Sidh Tantrik - From what I've been able to ascertain the Sri Vidya is
> one of the most esoteric traditions in India. It's pretty difficult to
> be any more exclusive than the tradition of Shankara and the Sri Vidya!
> Guru Dev said that it was "The real thing, the whole thing."
>
>
>>It is possible that Maharishi many have never taught the
>>householder instruction Brahmananda Saraswati did as he
>>many not have received the instruction to do so.
>>
>
> In my opinion, Maharishi has recieved the full traditional teaching
> from Guru Dev - he got the real thing, the whole thing. There's simply
> nothing higher than the Sri Vidya.
>The question is, as a TM teacher and
> a Sidh Tantrik, can you say with confidence that there is a higher path
> than Knoledge of the Absolute?
Yes, direct experience. Even MMY taught that. You were never a TM
teacher were you?
- Barry2
<snip>
will...@yahoo.com
> And Ford says it makes the best cars around too.
>
Sri Vidya, the tradition of Shankara and the Adwaita, the Siddhanta
path notwithstanding.
>> The question is, as a TM teacher and a Sidh Tantrik, can you say
>> with confidence that there is a higher path than Knoledge of the
>> Absolute?
>>
> Yes, direct experience.
>
TM is pure tantra - the Sri Vidya; knowledge of the Absolute IS a
direct experience.
> Even MMY taught that.
>
So, we are agreed that the Sri Vidya is the highest path? If so, why
are you debating with me? Do you think the Siddhanta path has something
to offer? If so, what would that be?
> You were never a TM teacher were you?
>
No, why would I want to be a teacher of TM? I was a meditation teacher
before I even started TM. I can teach anything I want to, as long as I
don't call it "TM". There's no trade mark on the Sri Vidya.
premanandpaulmason
audience that in all probability consisted entirely of anchorites of
the Hindu faith. By offering them a method by which they might deepen
their faith, he was not offering them a religion, but an adjunct to
their existing convictions. When years later he offered his techniques
to those without religious beliefs, could it reasonably be said that
he was therefore offering them a religion, that he was pulling the
wool over their eyes? Perhaps not, but the presence of the following
passage from his commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita, published some
twelve years after the 'Beacon Light' lectures, appears to confirm
that his meditation has an essentially religious basis:
"By taking the name or form of the god and experiencing it in its
subtler states until the mind transcends the subtlest state and
attains transcendental consciousness. Those who are highly emotional,
however, may even transcend through an increased feeling of love for
the god during the process of making offerings.315"'
Quotation from 'The Maharishi: The Biography of the Man Who Gave
Transcendental Meditation to the World' - currently viewable at
www.paulmason.info
jst...@panix.com
premanandpaulmason wrote:
> 'At the 'Beacon Light' lectures the Maharishi was addressing an
> audience that in all probability consisted entirely of anchorites of
> the Hindu faith. By offering them a method by which they might deepen
> their faith, he was not offering them a religion, but an adjunct to
> their existing convictions. When years later he offered his
techniques
> to those without religious beliefs, could it reasonably be said that
> he was therefore offering them a religion, that he was pulling the
> wool over their eyes? Perhaps not, but the presence of the following
> passage from his commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita, published some
> twelve years after the 'Beacon Light' lectures, appears to confirm
> that his meditation has an essentially religious basis:
>
> "By taking the name or form of the god and experiencing it in its
> subtler states until the mind transcends the subtlest state and
> attains transcendental consciousness. Those who are highly emotional,
> however, may even transcend through an increased feeling of love for
> the god during the process of making offerings.315"'
Paul, do you think it might be *just* a little
disingenuous to take this quote out of context?
Or were you just unaware of the context?
If you check the commentary to IV:25, which this
quote is from, you'll find that it's a description
of how to *transcend through worship*, one of many
approaches to performing yagya that Krishna is
enumerating for Arjuna (including doing only right
action, controlling the senses, taking on austerities,
performing breathing exercises, and restricting food
intake).
In his commentary, MMY explains that each of these
approaches is fulfilled through TM *when the
particular approach is understood in its most
abstract sense*. He does something very similar in
Science of Being and Art of Living.
In other words, what he's saying is that although
transcendence is possible through worship or breath
control or austerities or any of the other approaches,
you don't *have* to engage in any of these, because
transcendence is most easily and efficiently
accomplished via TM. TM is *contrasted* to these
approaches in this regard in his commentary, as it
is in the portion of the commentary from which this
specific quote is drawn.
Perhaps most importantly, *even if* MMY--a devout
Hindu--thinks of the bija mantras used in TM as
being associated with gods, TM is not taught that
way. For a practice to be religious, it's obviously
necessary for the practitioner to think of it that
way; it has to be the practitioner's *intention*.
So you can certainly think of TM as a religious
practice if you're so inclined; but you could also
think of kicking tin cans down the street as a
religious practice if you were so inclined. By the
same token, you could recite the Catholic rosary
(especially in Latin) simply because you find it
soothing, without necessarily believing in God or
Jesus or the Virgin Mary, without even necessarily
knowing what the words mean.
So the whole thing is a big fat red herring, and
a rather smelly one coming from anyone who is
well informed about TM.
premanandpaulmason
> Hindu--thinks of the bija mantras used in TM as
> being associated with gods, TM is not taught that
> way. For a practice to be religious, it's obviously
> necessary for the practitioner to think of it that
> way; it has to be the practitioner's *intention*.
I have not suggested anywhere that TM is a religion or stated that I
believed it to be a religious practice. Actually I have made efforts
to reveal the baselessness of these allegations. Back in 1994 whilst
writing the chapter quoted [chapter 22] I raised very similar points
to the ones you make:-
'it would be unreasonable to suggest that meditators, many of whom
profess no religion, are involved in religion. The suggestion that by
attending a ceremony conducted in a foreign tongue followed by
instruction in the use a sound 'Meaningless to us' one might become
embroiled in a fledging offshoot of the Hindu religion is a little
hard to accept. Few meditators would agree with this assertion since
for the most part, they view TM as nothing more than a useful
self-help technique, a way to relax after the upheavals that beset
their everyday life. Having learned to meditate, only a small
proportion then trouble themselves to make further contact with the
Movement. It is unlikely that many practitioners of TM have more than
a scant awareness of the Maharishi's philosophy and fewer still a
knowledge of his religious convictions.'
Many who intone the phrase 'Jai Guru Dev' know little or nothing about
Gurudev's life or teaching. Whilst researching the teachings of 'Guru
Dev' I have decided to share a little of my understanding about the
methods of meditation he taught with this discussion group. There is
also a page on my website devoted exclusively to Gurudev, which is
proving very popular. http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/gurudev.htm
It's high time that those who praise him come to know who Gurudev was
and what he was talking about - regardless of what his 'student' now
teaches or however much anyone reveres him.
jst...@panix.com
premanandpaulmason wrote:
<snip>
> Many who intone the phrase 'Jai Guru Dev' know little or nothing
about
> Gurudev's life or teaching. Whilst researching the teachings of 'Guru
> Dev' I have decided to share a little of my understanding about the
> methods of meditation he taught with this discussion group. There is
> also a page on my website devoted exclusively to Gurudev, which is
> proving very popular. http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/gurudev.htm
> It's high time that those who praise him come to know who Gurudev was
> and what he was talking about - regardless of what his 'student' now
> teaches or however much anyone reveres him.
Uh-huh. And that's why you posted an out-of-context
quotation from MMY's Gita translation and commentary
in an attempt to show, as you wrote:
"When years later he offered his techniques to those without religious
beliefs, could it reasonably be said that he was therefore offering
them a religion, that he was pulling the wool over their eyes? Perhaps
not, but the presence of the following passage from his commentary on
the Bhagavad-Gita, published some twelve years after the 'Beacon Light'
lectures, appears to confirm that his meditation has an essentially
religious basis:..."
If what you intend is to tell people something of
what Guru Dev was talking about *regardless of what
MMY teaches*, maybe you should stick to what Guru
Dev was talking about and not drag in what MMY
teaches.
John Manning
Are any of the 'audios' at your site from Guru Dev, or are they from
others. Do you know? And if you do, could you kindly point out the
*actual* sound recordings from Guru Dev?
Thanks.
jrm
will...@yahoo.com
> Are any of the 'audios' at your site from Guru Dev, or are
> they from others. Do you know? And if you do, could you
> kindly point out the *actual* sound recordings from Guru Dev?
>
premanandpaulmason
> others. Do you know? And if you do, could you kindly point out the
> *actual* sound recordings from Guru Dev?
The audios at http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/gurudev.htm are
considered to be from 'wire' recordings of Gurudev Shankaracharya
Brahmanand Saraswati himself. There is also a recording of Shankara's
poem 'Bhaja Govindam' and an extended recording of the longer of the
two discourses [25mins appx] which are, as yet, unavailable on-line.
Any information about any other recordings and literature relating to
his life and teachings would be highly valued.
premanandpaulmason
> what Guru Dev was talking about *regardless of what
> MMY teaches*, maybe you should stick to what Guru
> Dev was talking about and not drag in what MMY
> teaches.
Since MMY is Gurudev's most famous and vocal student, and many of
those on this discussion group are or were TM practitioners, it would
be disingenuous not to offer evidence of similarities in the
meditation teachings given by guru and student.
There is a glaring dichotomy within the teachings of TM in that
initiates are encouraged to revere 'Guru Dev' but are given no access
to knowledge of his actual teachings.
John Manning
>>Are any of the 'audios' at your site from Guru Dev, or are they from
>>others. Do you know? And if you do, could you kindly point out the
>>*actual* sound recordings from Guru Dev?
>
>
> The audios at http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/gurudev.htm are
> considered to be from 'wire' recordings of Gurudev Shankaracharya
> Brahmanand Saraswati himself. There is also a recording of Shankara's
> poem 'Bhaja Govindam' and an extended recording of the longer of the
> two discourses [25mins appx] which are, as yet, unavailable on-line.
That's great! I didn't know that his voice was ever recorded. Thanks!
jrm
jst...@panix.com
premanandpaulmason wrote:
> > If what you intend is to tell people something of
> > what Guru Dev was talking about *regardless of what
> > MMY teaches*, maybe you should stick to what Guru
> > Dev was talking about and not drag in what MMY
> > teaches.
>
> Since MMY is Gurudev's most famous and vocal student, and many of
> those on this discussion group are or were TM practitioners, it would
> be disingenuous not to offer evidence of similarities in the
> meditation teachings given by guru and student.
So it's not "regardless of what MMY teaches," then.
> There is a glaring dichotomy within the teachings of TM in that
> initiates are encouraged to revere 'Guru Dev' but are given no access
> to knowledge of his actual teachings.
Not in terms of the meditation techniques he
taught, no. But why should we be? We're not
learning his techniques, we're learning MMY's
techniques.
TMers "revere" him as the teacher of their teacher.
Whatever Guru Dev taught, the result was MMY, so
if we value MMY, we also value Guru Dev.
I should think that if TMers had an interest in
what Guru Dev taught, it would be in terms of
his teaching about the nature and mechanics of
consciousness.
coldbluice
> > Ms Judy says:
> > If what you intend is to tell
> > people something of
> > what Guru Dev was talking
> > about *regardless of what
> > MMY teaches*, maybe you should
> > stick to what Guru
> > Dev was talking about and not
> > drag in what MMY
> > teaches.
> Since MMY is Gurudev's most famous and vocal student,
Wait a minute there Paul, in *your mind* Mahesh is-
"Gurudev's most famous and vocal student"!!
Since you both are discussing Sri BrahmanandaJi...
There are other "students" of BrahmanandaJi's living today that are
*Authentic* Spiritual Masters, (as recognized by the very same
religious organization-the KVP, that appointed BrahmanandaJi in 1941 to
Jyosimutt Ashram).
These living authentic *recognized* masters include:
Swami SwaroopanandaJi Saraswati and
108 Swami HiteshiJi Maharaj and
Swami PrakshanandaJi Saraswati
Two living "students" over the years have steadfastly refused (when
asked) to reveal any of the *Devotional Secrets* of Sri BrahmanadaJi's
teaching.
Only one living "student" has spoken directly to this very subject, and
then only a brief outline of Sri Brahmananda's teaching without
revealing any initimate details.
As we all now the interview of Sri Swaroopananda can be found here:
A Visit to the Shankaracharya (Part 1/5) (Robert Kropinski)
A Visit to the Shankaracharya (Part 2/5) (Robert Kropinski)
A Visit to the Shankaracharya (Part 3/5) (Robert Kropinski)
A Visit to the Shankaracharya (Part 4/5) (Robert Kropinski)
A Visit to the Shankaracharya (Part 5/5) (Robert Kropinski)
> and many of
> those on this discussion group are or were
> TM practitioners, it would
> be disingenuous not to offer evidence of
> similarities in the
> meditation teachings given
> by guru and student.
The only disingenous statements here are the ones that include such
things as-, "it would be unreasonable to suggest that meditators, many
of whom profess no religion, are involved in religion. The suggestion
that by attending a ceremony conducted in a foreign tongue followed by
instruction in the use a sound 'Meaningless to us' one might become
embroiled in a fledging offshoot of the Hindu religion is a little
hard to accept..."
You cannot have both ways Paul...
To say "tm and the teachings of Sri BrahmanandaJi have similarities",
and then attempt to disect BrahmanandaJi teaching to point as to
eliminate any religous connotations (as Judy has attempted to in the
past by saying things like-, "Guru Dev did not mean worship" when He
said worship") is disingenous.
Sri BrahmanandaJi taught a form of Vedic Sanatan(a) Dharm(a) which is
what you are ignorantly referring to as "Hindu religion".
You specifically cite (in previous posts) the authority of the-
"Beacon of Light" at http://www.trancenet.org/
as the definitive authority on the matter of the similarities of "tm
and Sri BrahmanandaJi's teaching..
Well Paul by using the "Beacon of Light" you have effectively ended
yours (as well as Judy's) argument that "tm is not a religion" because
Mahesh himself states otherwise..
.."For our practice, we select only the suitable mantras of personal
Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the grace of personal Gods and make us
happier in every walk of life..."
http://www.trancenet.org/secrets/beacon/beacon2.shtml#27
> There is a glaring dichotomy within the teachings of TM in that
> initiates are encouraged to revere 'Guru Dev' but are given no access
> to knowledge of his actual teachings.
There is "no access to knowledge of his actual teachings" because the
only two *credible* sources have refused to speak about Sri
Brahmananda's teaching.
And, the source that did speak, only spoke in very general terms.
And, as far as the "tm teachings" are concerned (in discussing
BrahmanandaJi's teaching), "tm" (and Mahesh) is silent on this matter
because-- Mahesh has *absolutely* no clue as to *exactly* what the
Devotional Secrets of BrahmanandaJi's teaching included.
You (as well as *everyone* else here included- willytex) have only a
very vague and general discription of BrahmanandaJi's teaching, that
is-..
He gave diksha mantra initiation using.."Bija Aksharas(also means
IshTadevataas- names of the personal forms of God) along
with every mantra, thinking or reflecting over the form of the
IshTadevataa is essential. Therefore, in all the modes of worship, one
reflects over one's IshTadevataa before chanting or meditating with
one's mantra."
So, Sri BrahmanandaJi (as near as we can discern) gave names of God for
devotional rememberance, either silent heartfelt repeatition, or
chanting aloud(aka sankirtan).
If there is any question as to the validity of my statements, then just
check your own previous statements and website..
> The audios at http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/gurudev.htm
> are considered to be from 'wire' recordings of
> Gurudev Shankaracharya Brahmanand Saraswati himself.
> There is also a recording of Shankara's poem 'Bhaja Govindam'
> and an extended recording of the longer of the two discourses
> [25mins appx] which are, as yet, unavailable on-line
Just what exactly do you think Sri Adi Shankar was singing of when He
said-, "Bhaja Govindam"??
That would be devotional heartfelt remeberance to Lord Sri Krishna, as
I have said for the past five years here at a.m.t.
If you do not believe me then do a search here at a.m.t... some of the
very first post regarding Sri Adi Shankar's- Bhaja Govindam, I posted.
This btw (as Ms. Judy pointed out) has nothing to do with "tm" that Lil
Mishmashi Mahesh Varma completely fabricated on his own years after Sri
BrahmanadaJi passed away.
In retrospect, as much as you and willytex debate/speculate ad nauseum
regarding these matters..you have no clue and are only guessing, when
it comes to any "similarities of tm" to BrahmanandaJi's treaching.
Although you are closer to the proximity of BrahmanadaJi's teaching
than willytex.
Michael Z.
> Just what exactly do you think Sri Adi Shankar was singing of when He
> said-, "Bhaja Govindam"??
I think I'm having a deja vu
> That would be devotional heartfelt remeberance to Lord Sri Krishna, as
> I have said for the past five years here at a.m.t.
No, it refers to Govindacharya, Shankaras master. But as both are
embodiments of the absolute Brahman, it doesn't really matter.
jst...@panix.com
coldbluice wrote:
<snip>
> To say "tm and the teachings of Sri BrahmanandaJi have similarities",
> and then attempt to disect BrahmanandaJi teaching to point as to
> eliminate any religous connotations (as Judy has attempted to in the
> past by saying things like-, "Guru Dev did not mean worship" when He
> said worship") is disingenous.
Hmm, I can't recall ever saying anything like that.
Do you have a quote?
<snip>
> Well Paul by using the "Beacon of Light" you have effectively ended
> yours (as well as Judy's) argument that "tm is not a religion"
because
> Mahesh himself states otherwise..
> .."For our practice, we select only the suitable mantras of personal
> Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the grace of personal Gods and make us
> happier in every walk of life..."
> http://www.trancenet.org/secrets/beacon/beacon2.shtml#27
Here MMY was speaking *to Hindus* *as a Hindu*.
To Hindus, TM can be a religious practice because
they associate the mantras with gods.
Fasting can be a religious practice. Does that
mean that everyone who fasts is practicing a
religion?
coldbluice
> Michael Z. wrote:
> Am Thu, 03 Mar 2005 06:54:51 -0800 schrieb
>
> > Just what exactly do you think Sri Adi Shankar
> > was singing of when He
> > said-, "Bhaja Govindam"??
>
> I think I'm having a deja vu
>
> > That would be devotional heartfelt remeberance to
> > Lord Sri Krishna, as
> > I have said for the past five years
> > here at a.m.t.
>
> No, it refers to Govindacharya, Shankaras master.
That is *what you claim* however that is *not* historical *fact*
> But as both are
> embodiments of the absolute Brahman,
> it doesn't really matter.
Yes it does.. your "brahman" thingy does not exist nor has it ever
existed!
The "brahman" religion was a creation of the Brahmo Samaj. Once
referred to as the "Brahmo" by the founder of the Brahmo Samaj- Mohan
Rob Roy in 1826.
John Manning
[snip]
>>But as both are
>>embodiments of the absolute Brahman,
>>it doesn't really matter.
>
>
> Yes it does.. your "brahman" thingy does not exist nor has it ever
> existed!
> The "brahman" religion was a creation of the Brahmo Samaj. Once
> referred to as the "Brahmo" by the founder of the Brahmo Samaj- Mohan
> Rob Roy in 1826.
You're wrong, CBI. The Upanishads certainly predate 'Rob Roy' in 1826:
"This single, unitary divinity had several aspects and names in the
Upanishads, two of the most important are Atman, "Universal Spirit," and
Brahman. [...] In the Upanishads, Brahman is not only the principle and
creator of all there is, but is also the sum totality of the universe
and its phenomena.
coldbluice
> John Manning wrote:
> > coldbluice wrote:
> >> Micheal wrote:
> >>But as both are
> >>embodiments of the absolute Brahman,
> >>it doesn't really matter.
> >
> >
> > Yes it does.. your "brahman" thingy does not exist nor has it ever
> > existed!
> > The "brahman" religion was a creation of the Brahmo Samaj. Once
> > referred to as the "Brahmo" by the founder of the Brahmo Samaj-
Mohan
> > Rob Roy in 1826.
>
>
> You're wrong, CBI.
> The Upanishads certainly predate 'Rob Roy' in 1826:
I agree John.. the Upanishds do in fact pre-date 1826.
However the word "brahman" *does NOT* predate 1826, unless you are
referring to the word "Brahmo" which became the foundation of the word
"brahman" in 1826.
In other words John, the word "brahman" *did not* exist prior to 1826.
I you do not believe me go the webiste of the organization that inveted
the word- "brahman"..
..." Brahmo Samaj ("assembly of brahman")
http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/hindu/ascetic/brahmo.html
Here John let me quote the website of the actual inventors of this
word-"brahman"..
..."Brahman is worshipped as the sole creator and supporter of the
universe. This monotheism is based on the interpretation of the early
Vedanta, the Upanishads, and the Brahma Sutra. Ram Mohan Roy, founder
of Brahmo Samaj, identified the monotheism of Christianity and Islam as
of universal validity. Codification of the doctrines came with the main
principles of the Nava Samhita, New Dispensation, of Keshub Chandra
Sen, the third leader of the movement, in 1881. These are: 1) Harmony
of all scriptures, saints, and sects. 2) Harmony of reason and faith,
of devotion and duty, of yoga and bhakti. 3) The church of the Samaj
stands for One Supreme God, to be worshipped without form.
http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/hindu/ascetic/brahmo.html
coldbluice
> jst...@panix.com wrote:
> > coldbluice wrote:
> <snip>
> > To say "tm and the teachings of Sri BrahmanandaJi
> > have similarities",
> > and then attempt to disect BrahmanandaJi teaching
> > to point as to
> > eliminate any religous connotations
> > (as Judy has attempted to in the
> > past by saying things like-, "Guru Dev did not mean worship"
> > when He
> > said worship") is disingenous.
>
> Hmm, I can't recall ever saying anything like that.
Well you did Judy
> Do you have a quote?
Yes I do... For all the difference it will make.
You just deny what you said..then claim you meant something else.. Then
we will play your deluded game of semantics.
First you deny you said -
> > (as Judy has attempted to in the
> > past by saying things like-,
> > "Guru Dev did not mean worship"
> > when He
> > said worship")
Then I will go find it.
>
> <snip>
> > Well Paul by using the "Beacon of Light" you
> > have effectively ended
> > yours (as well as Judy's) argument that
> > "tm is not a religion"
> > because Mahesh himself states otherwise..
> > .."For our practice, we select only the suitable
> > mantras of personal
> > Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the grace of
> > personal Gods and make us
> > happier in every walk of life..."
> > http://www.trancenet.org/secrets/beacon/beacon2.shtml#27
>
> Here MMY was speaking *to Hindus* *as a Hindu*.
> To Hindus, TM can be a religious practice because
> they associate the mantras with gods.
Oh yes..that is what is termed as *pandering to an audience*
Afterall, Lil Mishmashi Mahesh Varma could not have been talking about
how he fabricated "tm".
snip
John Manning
>>John Manning wrote:
>>
>>>coldbluice wrote:
>>>
>>>>Micheal wrote:
>>>>But as both are
>>>>embodiments of the absolute Brahman,
>>>>it doesn't really matter.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes it does.. your "brahman" thingy does not exist nor has it ever
>>>existed!
>>>The "brahman" religion was a creation of the Brahmo Samaj. Once
>>>referred to as the "Brahmo" by the founder of the Brahmo Samaj-
>
> Mohan
>
>>>Rob Roy in 1826.
>>
>>
>>You're wrong, CBI.
>>The Upanishads certainly predate 'Rob Roy' in 1826:
>
>
> I agree John.. the Upanishds do in fact pre-date 1826.
>
> However the word "brahman" *does NOT* predate 1826, unless you are
> referring to the word "Brahmo" which became the foundation of the word
> "brahman" in 1826.
>
> In other words John, the word "brahman" *did not* exist prior to 1826.
You *are* wrong, CBI:
From verse 1: ‘Īsha Upanishad’
"Look not at this unreal world but at the reality of the pure Brahman by
which it shall be covered; our sense of the world must disappear into
the perception of the enveloping Reality."
*
Chandogya, 192-193
"The Self is hidden in the lotus of the heart. Those who see themselves
in all creatures go day by day into the world of Brahman hidden in the
heart. Established in peace, they rise above body-consciousness to the
supreme light of the Self. Immortal, free from fear, this Self is
Brahman, called the True. Beyond the mortal and the immortal, he binds
both worlds together. Those who know this live day after day in heaven
in this very life."
*
FROM: maitrayana-brahmaya-upanishad
FIRST PRAPATHAKA.
1. The laying of the formerly-described sacrificial fires is indeed the
sacrifice of Brahman. Therefore let the sacrificer, after he has laid
those fires, meditate on the Self. Thus only does the sacrificer become
complete and faultless.
*
SECOND PRAPATHAKA
'He who in perfect rest, rising from this body (both from the sthula and
stikshma), and reaching the highest light', comes forth in his own form,
he is the Self (thus said Sakayanya); this is the immortal, the
fearless, this is Brahman.'
[...]
'Now then this is the science of Brahman, and the science of all
Upanishads, O King, which was told us by the Saint Maitri.
[...]
"Brahman is," thus said one who knew the science of Brahman; and this
penance is the door to Brahman, thus said one who by penance had cast
off all sin. The syllable Om is the manifest greatness of Brahman, thus
said one who well grounded (in Brahman) always meditates on it.
Therefore by knowledge, by penance, and by meditation is Brahman gained.
Thus one goes beyond Brahman (Hiranyagarbha), and to a divinity higher
than the gods; nay, he who knows this, and worships Brahman by these
three (by knowledge, penance, and meditation), obtains bliss
imperishable, infinite, and unchangeable. Then freed from those things
(the senses of the body, &c.) by which he was filled and overcome, a
mere charioteer, he obtains union with the Self.'
*
FROM: Mandukya and Isha Upanishads
"It is the power of Brahman that makes
The mind to think, desire, and will.
Therefore
Use this power to meditate on Brahman.
*
"Brahman is the unborn (aja) in whom all existing things abide. (Rig Veda)
*
From: taittiriyaka-upanishad
FIRST ANUVAKA:
Adoration to Brahman! Adoration to thee, O Vayu (air)! Thou indeed art
the visible Brahman. I shall proclaim thee alone as the visible Brahman.
I shall proclaim the right. I shall proclaim the true Brahman.
FIFTH ANUVAKA.
1. Bhu, Bhuvas, Suvas, these are the three sacred interjections
(vyahriti). Mahakamasya taught a fourth, viz. Mahas, which is Brahman,
which is the Self.
****
will...@yahoo.com
> Although you are closer to the proximity of BrahmanadaJi's
> teaching than willytex.
>
Barry
of Om. Have you found what study he was quoting? Was it something an
institution like Benares Hindu University or the University of Calcutta?
- Barry2
premanandpaulmason
Whatever Guru Dev taught, the result was MMY, so if we value MMY, we
also value Guru Dev.
I should think that if TMers had an interest in what Guru Dev taught,
it would be in terms of his teaching about the nature and mechanics of
Re: MMY
TMers do NOT have to value MMY! TM is not a personality cult or a
religion. Valuing MMY has no place in the practice of TM whatsoever!
Re: Guru Dev
If someone is initiated into TM, it has to be in front of an image of
'Guru Dev' [usually a reproduction of a painting by Raj Varma, MMY's
uncle]. And the thought arises [naturally, spontaneously] 'Who is
he?'. The only answer forthcoming will be that he is MMY's teacher!
This information alone is not enough to satisfy, at least not many,
and not for long.
jst...@panix.com
coldbluice wrote:
> > jst...@panix.com wrote:
> > > coldbluice wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > To say "tm and the teachings of Sri BrahmanandaJi
> > > have similarities",
> > > and then attempt to disect BrahmanandaJi teaching
> > > to point as to
> > > eliminate any religous connotations
> > > (as Judy has attempted to in the
> > > past by saying things like-, "Guru Dev did not mean worship"
> > > when He
> > > said worship") is disingenous.
> >
> > Hmm, I can't recall ever saying anything like that.
>
> Well you did Judy
>
> > Do you have a quote?
>
> Yes I do... For all the difference it will make.
> You just deny what you said
No, I said I couldn't recall having said
anything like that.
Then I asked if you had a quote.
Do you? If so, let's see it.
premanandpaulmason
'Maharishi Mahesh Yogi' came to the West. As such any determination of
whether or not 'TM' is a religion, or is religious for its
practitioners, must be based on information dating from that time
alone. That MMY made comments about mantras prior to formally
declaring the Transcendental Meditation technique is not admissible
evidence for declaring TM a religion.
Yes, Brahmananda Ji had other 'students'. But as far as I know they do
not publish any information about this guru. But there are at least
two books of quotations from Shankaracharya Swami Brahmananda
Saraswati and also a very interesting book about his lifestory largely
comprised of quotes from the guru himself. Admittedly they are printed
in Hindi which puts most westerners at a disadvantage. But, contained
in these volumes is a large body of very interesting material giving a
lot of information regarding his teachings. It is in these books that
our best hope of understanding the man and his teachings are likely to
be found. There are recordings too. They are an additional valuable
resource.
jst...@panix.com
premanandpaulmason wrote:
> jstein said:- 'TMers "revere" him as the teacher of their teacher.
> Whatever Guru Dev taught, the result was MMY, so if we value MMY, we
> also value Guru Dev.
> I should think that if TMers had an interest in what Guru Dev taught,
> it would be in terms of his teaching about the nature and mechanics
of
> consciousness.'
>
> Re: MMY
> TMers do NOT have to value MMY! TM is not a personality cult or a
> religion. Valuing MMY has no place in the practice of TM whatsoever!
Goodness! No! TMers don't have to value MMY!
I never said they did!
But it's perfectly OK to value him if you feel
he's been of value to you, just as you would
any teacher, or mentor, or friend, or parent,
or political representative, or writer, or
artist, or performer, or anyone you feel has
been of value to you.
> Re: Guru Dev
> If someone is initiated into TM, it has to be in front of an image of
> 'Guru Dev' [usually a reproduction of a painting by Raj Varma, MMY's
> uncle]. And the thought arises [naturally, spontaneously] 'Who is
> he?'. The only answer forthcoming will be that he is MMY's teacher!
> This information alone is not enough to satisfy, at least not many,
> and not for long.
Actually, Guru Dev's picture is always present at
the front of the room for intro lectures, and as I
recall he's always introduced to the prospective
students, so they already know who he is by the time
they're instructed in TM.
As to further information, I've heard quite a bit
about him on subsequent courses and at advanced
lectures. We were once shown a videotape that had
old clips of Guru Dev, and MMY talking about him.
And teachers would reminisce about Guru Dev stories
they'd heard from MMY.
There's also information about Guru Dev in the Larry
Domash preface I mentioned to the first volume of
the Collected Studies. Have you had the chance to
read it?
You *seem* to have a major chip on your shoulder here,
but I'm not quite sure what it's about. Would you
care to clarify?
And would you like to comment on this?
premanandpaulmason
> > considered to be from 'wire' recordings of Gurudev Shankaracharya
> > Brahmanand Saraswati himself. There is also a recording of Shankara's
> > poem 'Bhaja Govindam' and an extended recording of the longer of the
> > two discourses [25mins appx] which are, as yet, unavailable on-line.
>
>
> That's great! I didn't know that his voice was ever recorded. Thanks!
>
> jrm
>
I intend to clear some of the crackling and make the files easier to
hear. Meanwhile, it is easy to copy any of these files which are
stored in .mp3 format by right-clicking the mouse and saving. It might
take a while but then you can listen whenever you want. I don't see
that one has to know Hindi to enjoy the satsangs [or enjoy his
infectious laughter] or know Sanskrit to enjoy the prayers.
bbri...@yahoo.com
> The term 'Transcendental Meditation' was first used some time after
> 'Maharishi Mahesh Yogi' came to the West. As such any determination
of
> whether or not 'TM' is a religion, or is religious for its
> practitioners, must be based on information dating from that time
> alone. That MMY made comments about mantras prior to formally
> declaring the Transcendental Meditation technique is not admissible
> evidence for declaring TM a religion.
During the practice of TM, the mantras are used as a meaningless sound,
so whether one is a Hindu or not, the correct practice of TM is secular
and always has been (in fact, the U.S. court that made the decision in
Malnak v. Yogi agreed with this, and said TM was religious only because
outside of the practice there was what amounted to religious
instruction in the Science of Creative Intelligence course, which
discusses issues normally associated with religion, therefore
disallowing the introduction of the TM/SCI package into New Jersey
public schools as an unconstitutional backing of religion by the
state). People are free to associate meanings with these mantras
outside of TM -- just as Irishmen can think about the color "green" in
ways that others do not -- but nobody practicing TM correctly is
thinking about these associations -- it's just not the way TM is taught
or correctly practised by people of any or no religious association.
Bob Brigante
premanandpaulmason
alt.meditation.transcendental I have mostly come to share findings of
my research. Sometimes I ask for help in finding further information.
There have been some really useful reactions which I appreciate. But
there are those from whom I detect an overwhelming adversarial
mentality, seemingly rooted in irrational preconceptions and
suspicions.
Anyone with a genuine curiosity about 'Guru Dev' or any of his
students, I would like to exchange with. But, henceforth, anyone who
merely wants to embroil me in their longstanding in-house fighting
will find me unavailable.
Jay Gurudev
premanandpaulmason
> Paul, in "Beacon Light" Maharishi seems to be quoting a study on the use
> of Om. Have you found what study he was quoting? Was it something an
> institution like Benares Hindu University or the University of Calcutta?
More likely he is relating it to Guru Dev's advice, that the
repetition of OM is designed to break attachment to the world. With
thousand-of-OMs one would succeed. He cited the case of a woman,
whilst she was doing OM meditation, her otherwise healthy sons died of
neglect. Guru Dev suggested that the sound SHRII was more suitable for
women, stating that 'Bhagavan Shankar' had taught this to Parvati.
[All this is contained in Satsang 73 of 'Shri Shankaracharya
Upadeshamrit']
Should you email me I can send you an Itrans copy of this satsang
which readily converts to Devanagari script with the help of free
program Itrans99.
Incidentally, on Guru Dev's chair were the Devanagari symbols for OM
and SHRII superimposed on one another.
jst...@panix.com
premanandpaulmason wrote:
> On the few occasions I have come to post at
> alt.meditation.transcendental I have mostly come to share findings of
> my research. Sometimes I ask for help in finding further information.
> There have been some really useful reactions which I appreciate. But
> there are those from whom I detect an overwhelming adversarial
> mentality, seemingly rooted in irrational preconceptions and
> suspicions.
Or maybe it's rooted in the tone and content
of some of your posts, which seem at least
secondarily to subtly denigrate Maharishi.
I'd be happy to point out specific instances
if you're puzzled as to how you're conveying
that impression.
Nothing wrong with being critical of Maharishi;
it's just that you appear to be sneaking in
your criticisms sideways. That, of course,
makes them more difficult to address.
I'm just suggesting that if you want to talk
about Guru Dev, you talk about Guru Dev and
leave MMY out of it; or if you want to criticize
MMY, you do so openly. Or both, of course.
> Anyone with a genuine curiosity about 'Guru Dev' or any of his
> students, I would like to exchange with. But, henceforth, anyone who
> merely wants to embroil me in their longstanding in-house fighting
> will find me unavailable.
Nobody's trying to embroil you in their
in-house fighting, Paul.
J.Rocha
>
>premanandpaulmason wrote:
>> On the few occasions I have come to post at
>> alt.meditation.transcendental I have mostly come to share findings of
>> my research. Sometimes I ask for help in finding further information.
>> There have been some really useful reactions which I appreciate. But
>> there are those from whom I detect an overwhelming adversarial
>> mentality, seemingly rooted in irrational preconceptions and
>> suspicions.
>Or maybe it's rooted in the tone and content
>of some of your posts, which seem at least
>secondarily to subtly denigrate Maharishi.
Paranoia, COD, etc.
>I'd be happy to point out specific instances
>if you're puzzled as to how you're conveying
>that impression.
"You're lying"
>Nothing wrong with being critical of Maharishi;
>it's just that you appear to be sneaking in
>your criticisms sideways. That, of course,
>makes them more difficult to address.
As difficult as if they didn't exist. :--(
>I'm just suggesting that if you want to talk
>about Guru Dev, you talk about Guru Dev and
>leave MMY out of it; or if you want to criticize
>MMY, you do so openly. Or both, of course.
"Face the issues"
>> Anyone with a genuine curiosity about 'Guru Dev' or any of his
>> students, I would like to exchange with. But, henceforth, anyone who
>> merely wants to embroil me in their longstanding in-house fighting
>> will find me unavailable.
>Nobody's trying to embroil you in their
>in-house fighting, Paul.
"Of course not Paul. How could you think that Paul. Your attempt of
refusing to face the issues has failed. "
etc. etc. etc.
jst...@panix.com
> >Nobody's trying to embroil you in their
> >in-house fighting, Paul.
>
> "Of course not Paul. How could you think that Paul. Your attempt of
> refusing to face the issues has failed. "
Hmm, looks like I was wrong.
Stu
You need to make a distinction between early TM and later TM. Early TM
clearly was secular. The technique was characterized as a way to
increasing health, mental abilities and the reduction of stress. It
has the exact parallel to Yoga classes that are taught in nearly every
health club in the west today without religious overtones.
Later, the organization began to branch out and TM became part of a
Vedic system that is clearly part of greater Hindu religion and
philosophy. TM itself may still be practiced merely as a health
practice, but with the Siddhas, Ayurvedic potions, housing, education,
politics, took TM (The organization) into the world of lifestyle.
Because it is a lifestyle practiced by relative few it does not achieve
the moniker of "religion" but it certainly can be called "cult" without
any reservations or provisos.
Furthermore the very fact that this issue comes up with such passion
suggests that there is a spiritual dimension to TM that we all
recognize. We have moved from ignorant westerners towards a greater
understanding of the subconscious realm provided by the experience of
meditation. Religious aspects of TM come to the fore.
Thus, a quote of MMY discussing the divine nature of the mantras to a
Hindu audience in the 50's starts to make a great deal of sense. For
we are not ignorant (or dare I say innocent) westerners anymore, but
seasoned sadhakas just like those Indians listening intently to MMY so
many years ago.
--
~Stu
jai guru deva
jst...@panix.com
Stu wrote:
<snip>
> Furthermore the very fact that this issue comes up with such passion
> suggests that there is a spiritual dimension to TM that we all
> recognize. We have moved from ignorant westerners towards a greater
> understanding of the subconscious realm provided by the experience of
> meditation. Religious aspects of TM come to the fore.
I think what we object to has to do with the
difference between "religious" and "spiritual."
Nobody denies TM is a spiritual technique, but
it isn't religious in any sectarian sense, but
that's how most people interpret and use the
term "religious." You don't have to be
religious in order to use TM as a technique
for spiritual development. By the same token,
if you *are* religious, it doesn't matter
*which* religion you practice in order to
use TM as a technique for spiritual development.
Stu
You and I agree. And certainly I have talked to and read of Priests
and Rabbis that would agree.
But there are sects of western religions that are offended by the idea
of identification with oness/first principal/god/whatever. We had a
dimwit on this group who prattled on and on about this matter. Whether
we like it or not he represents a large segment of the population who
firmly believe God is up there and we are down here and that is the way
the world goes 'round. We don't have to agree with him but we need to
respect his beliefs.
________________________
Just some other thoughts:
I have been drawn to Eastern Philosophy in that it best describes the
spiritual dimension of meditation, I have found that the early Greeks
have some very similar thoughts on the matter.
The ancient Greeks are the prototype idealists. Their philosophy
embodies a great respect for humanity, the human intellect, and the
power of human to reach towards a perfection that lives in the
imagination. For them this perfection is a integral part of human
political, social, religious and educational life.
This is the foundation of Western thinking. It gets lost on occasion,
and found when it is needed (think the renaissance and the
enlightenment). As I read Plato and Aristotle I am seeing shared
values of the eastern way. In this way it is possible to see how in
the 20th century we have gone off track with consumerism, scientific
materialism and fundamentalism. These certainly are the antithesis of
the ancient Greek ideal.
I imagine something of a "Western Dharma" in the writings of the
ancient Greeks that can easily be integrated with Eastern Dharma.
Arjuna's Dharma was that of a warrior in a community - he was asked to
erase his ego for his duty in greater community and ultimately to merge
with a common consciousness. But a "Western Dharma" would find Duty is
not only to ones community and family, but also to one's individuality
and freedom.
From the ancient Greeks and western philosophy we add the importance of
the individual who is expected to make his/her own moral judgments to
become a free thinking citizen.
TM is completely compatible with this form of idealism. And may be the
key to an integration of eastern and western world views in the 21st
century.
--
~Stu
premanandpaulmason
> Domash preface I mentioned to the first volume of
> the Collected Studies. Have you had the chance to
> read it?
I browsed it, but found nothing that adds to my understanding of the
teachings of either Guru Dev or MMY.
>
> You *seem* to have a major chip on your shoulder here,
> but I'm not quite sure what it's about. Would you
> care to clarify?
I haven't a clue what your referring to on this point.
>
> And would you like to comment on this?
>
> > I should think that if TMers had an interest in what Guru Dev taught,
> > it would be in terms of his teaching about the nature and mechanics
> of consciousness.'
There are many who have been taught the TM technique. It would be too
much to guess the reaction of so many.
premanandpaulmason
> it's just that you appear to be sneaking in
> your criticisms sideways. That, of course,
> makes them more difficult to address.
Believe you me I HAVE criticised him and very publicly too. I don't
need to resort to 'sneaking criticisms sideways' and I am quite
prepared to take time to respond to him about those criticisms.
Repeatedly, I have even invited his response to my biography of him -
but he chooses to remain mute.
If he does not wish to address the criticisms - that is his freedom.
But MMY no more needs someone to speak on his behalf than do you or I.
It is precisely because he does not satisfactorilly answer his critics
that he gives the impression that he is unable to account for himself
properly. I give specific coverage of this problem in Chapter 25 of
the on-line edition of his bio currently at www.paulmason.info
'He is not without critics amongst his peer group, there are others,
coincidentally also from the Jabalpur area of India, who have openly
disparaged him. According to Osho World Online Magazine- June 2004,
Osho (formerly Bhagavan Rajneesh) had this to say:-
"A sudra can be a yogi, and the name Maharishi is something to replace
"Swami," because in India things are such that if the name "Swami" is
missing, then people would suspect something is wrong. You have to put
something else there just to cover up the gap. He invented
"Maharishi." He is not even a rishi; rishi means "seer," and maharishi
means "great seer." He can't even see beyond his nose. All he can do
when you ask him relevant questions is giggle. In fact, I will call
him "Swami Gigglananda," that will fit him perfectly. That giggling is
not something respectable, it is really a strategy to avoid questions.
He cannot answer any question."
More serious are the allegations said to have been made by a
fellow-disciple of Guru Dev and now himself a Shankaracharya in his
own right, Shankaracharya of Dwarka, Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati in
an interview with a former TM teacher:-
"Q: Mahesh Yogi claims that he preaches yoga according to the
instruction of his Guru. The truth of the matter, however, is that
Guru Dev never asked anyone who is not a Brahmin by birth to go and
spread his teachings. What is your opinion?
Shankaracharya: This is true. In reality, preaching, initiating,
guiding people engaged in spiritual pursuits, is the duty of those who
are born in a Brahmin family. If he is a follower of Sanatan Dharma
(the Hindu religion), he should not do what he is doing. This is
against the orders of his Guru. Moreover, making others write puujya
(revered), calling himself Maharishi (a great seer) is totally
inappropriate. No assembly of saints has either conferred upon him a
title of Maharishi nor has announced him puujya. In the ashram he was
doing the work of typing and writing and translation. Then he became a
sadhu. However, he has never practiced yoga. It is said that Guru Dev
was given poison. Who gave that poison we don't know but we know that
there was poison in his body. When Guru Dev's body became unwell, then
we wanted him to go to Kashi to rest. But he (Mahesh) removed him from
that trip forcibly and took him to speak in Calcutta. There he died."'
jst...@panix.com
premanandpaulmason wrote:
> > Nothing wrong with being critical of Maharishi;
> > it's just that you appear to be sneaking in
> > your criticisms sideways. That, of course,
> > makes them more difficult to address.
>
> Believe you me I HAVE criticised him and very publicly too. I don't
> need to resort to 'sneaking criticisms sideways'
Well, but I'm talking about what you've been
saying in *this* thread, which is purportedly
about Guru Dev.
<snip>
> It is precisely because he does not satisfactorilly answer his
critics
> that he gives the impression that he is unable to account for himself
> properly.
I tend to agree with you on this point.
<snip>
> 'He is not without critics amongst his peer group, there are others,
> coincidentally also from the Jabalpur area of India, who have openly
> disparaged him. According to Osho World Online Magazine- June 2004,
> Osho (formerly Bhagavan Rajneesh) had this to say:-
Do you think the criticisms you quote from Osho and
Swaroopanand are fair and accurate?
(I'm leaving them in so you can comment on them if
you wish.)
jst...@panix.com
premanandpaulmason wrote:
> > There's also information about Guru Dev in the Larry
> > Domash preface I mentioned to the first volume of
> > the Collected Studies. Have you had the chance to
> > read it?
>
> I browsed it, but found nothing that adds to my understanding of the
> teachings of either Guru Dev or MMY.
You didn't read the part about how MMY "invented" TM
himself based on Guru Dev's teaching about the nature
and mechanics of consciousness, rather than having
adopted some of Guru Dev's techniques?
<snip>
> > And would you like to comment on this?
> >
> > > I should think that if TMers had an interest in what Guru Dev
taught,
> > > it would be in terms of his teaching about the nature and
mechanics
> > of consciousness.'
>
> There are many who have been taught the TM technique. It would be too
> much to guess the reaction of so many.
I meant in terms of relevance, not necessarily
their reactions.
Here's my point again: What TMers learn from MMY is
techniques and a teaching about the nature and
mechanics of consciousness. The techniques don't
seem to have come from Guru Dev, whose teaching role
was very different from MMY's in terms of who he
taught techniques and for what purpose. The common
element is rather the experientially based teaching
about the nature and mechanics of consciousness.
It appears to me that you're suggesting MMY has
attempted to keep information about Guru Dev from
TMers. What *I'm* suggesting is that there wouldn't
be much point for MMY to tell TMers about what Guru
Dev taught in terms of techniques; and that, on the
other hand, Guru Dev's teaching about the nature and
mechanics of consciousness is closely reflected in
MMY's own teaching about the same topic, so there's
no issue of its being kept from TMers.
If there were *differences* between these latter
teachings that MMY is withholding from TMers,
that would certainly be relevant. Are you aware
of any?
Dave Livingston
Rabbi, Priest, Imam: "We are not God. God is God."
Jew, Christian, Muslim: Long on "knowledge of God", shorter on how to
be still; as in "be still and know that I am God."
Hinduism: We are God, we are our neighbours, etc.
Shared means (TM as technique for being still), different ends; unless, of
course, the shared means lead inevitably to the same end. Moot point, imo.
Dave Livingston
On major philosophical issues, Plato and Aristotle are barely in the same
universe let alone on the same page. If one's reading suggests otherwise, its
time to stop reading and start studying.
Barry
There is certainly a lot written about non-attachment being the goal.
Most Indians I talk to scoff at the notion that Om is bad for
meditation. There are lots of Indian millionaires using mantras with Om.
I know a lot of TM'ers who didn't get rich from practicing TM and quite
a number who got poor. ;-) Those who did get rich probably would have
anyway if they hadn't practiced TM.
There was a book written by a son of an Indian guru I think back in the
early '80's though it may have been the early '90's. What I remember it
had a white cover with some circular orange design on it. His book was
mostly a biography of his father and how ridiculous his father became
for a person who was supposed to be a guru as he had to be cared for as
if he were a child. He also wrote on TM and the practice of mantras
without Om, his conclusion being that Om adds centeredness and TM'ers
seemed to be uncentered.
BTW, I assume some of your research has included some trips to India to
interview pundits and scholars? :)
- Barry2
jst...@panix.com
Dave Livingston wrote:
> (jst...@panix.com) writes:
<snip>
> > for spiritual development. By the same token,
> > if you *are* religious, it doesn't matter
> > *which* religion you practice in order to
> > use TM as a technique for spiritual development.
>
> Not disagreeing:
> Rabbi, Priest, Imam: "We are not God. God is God."
> Jew, Christian, Muslim: Long on "knowledge of God", shorter on how to
> be still; as in "be still and know that I am God."
> Hinduism: We are God, we are our neighbours, etc.
> Shared means (TM as technique for being still), different ends;
unless, of
> course, the shared means lead inevitably to the same end. Moot point,
imo.
Yup. In any case, as Lawson pointed out (in this
thread or another one? can't remember), in the Gita
MMY sez that in the highest state of Union, God and
the seeker decide between themselves whether to remain
separate or to unite (VERY rough paraphrase).
So you get to eat your cake and have it too, as it
were.
jst...@panix.com
Barry wrote:
<snip>
> In Indian philosophy breaking attachment to the world is a good
thing.
> There is certainly a lot written about non-attachment being the goal.
There's a difference, though, according
to MMY, between nonattachment that doesn't
kill one's interest in the world, and
nonattachment that causes one to lose
interest in it.
For householders, the former kind would
obviously be required; the latter kind
could be disastrous.
For renunciates, however, the latter would
be advantageous.
As I recall, MMY says OM is a suitable mantra
for would-be renunciates, but not for
householders.
John Manning
> Barry wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>In Indian philosophy breaking attachment to the world is a good
>
> thing.
>
>>There is certainly a lot written about non-attachment being the goal.
>
>
> There's a difference, though, according
> to MMY, between nonattachment that doesn't
> kill one's interest in the world, and
> nonattachment that causes one to lose
> interest in it.
>
> For householders, the former kind would
> obviously be required; the latter kind
> could be disastrous.
I guess if Brahman Consciousness is the goal, it includes everything; it
IS everything - nothing is not IT. I don't get how that would apply to a
renunciate, other than a matter of initial sadhana along the way. I
don't know.
> For renunciates, however, the latter would
> be advantageous.
>
> As I recall, MMY says OM is a suitable mantra
> for would-be renunciates, but not for
> householders.
I've heard Maharishi say that.
One guy I had initiated used OM instead of his TM mantra, against my
advise. He showed up at my door one day with a painted spot on his
forehead and wearing a dhoti - and then proceeded to lecture me. Last I
heard, he had gone off to India [he was about 19-20 yrs old].
His mother would often frantically call me to see if I knew his of his
whereabouts or if I had heard from him. I had not. He had previously
told me that he no longer had a mother - but I didn't share that comment
with her.
A very, very dear friend of mine, a TM teacher, Della Bernhard [who has
since passed away] attended the 'Beatle' TTC course in India. She told
me that at Maharishi's ashram there in Rishikesh, that it was very often
difficult to meditate because of the noisy sqwaking birds, the monkeys
that would unabashedly come into your room, and the incessant noise of
activity.
Maharishi, on that course, took the participants to an ashram or two for
renunciates where they used OM. Della told me that it was very peaceful,
but dead. No animal life was there; even birds were not seen.
jst...@panix.com
John Manning wrote:
> jst...@panix.com wrote:
<snip>
> > There's a difference, though, according
> > to MMY, between nonattachment that doesn't
> > kill one's interest in the world, and
> > nonattachment that causes one to lose
> > interest in it.
> >
> > For householders, the former kind would
> > obviously be required; the latter kind
> > could be disastrous.
>
> I guess if Brahman Consciousness is the goal, it includes everything;
it
> IS everything - nothing is not IT. I don't get how that would apply
to a
> renunciate, other than a matter of initial sadhana along the way.
Sure, I meant for sadhana. Once you're in Brahman
consciousness, you don't need a mantra, presumably!
(Or rather, you *are* the mantra...)
As I understand what MMY said, OM would make
things easier for person who undertakes to
become a renunciate, because the less interest
he has in the world, the less he'll be tempted
away from his practice.
Barry
ashram you'll see monks doing "worldly" duties like cleaning toilets,
etc. :)
Non-attachment means the phenomenal overwhelm you. In unity you connect
but it is a connection of consciousness not physical. You still are
not overwhelmed.
Om is generally not considered a good mantra by itself though it is
usable. It can be useful to reduce vata aggravation if you don't have
anything else available.
I got a kick out of Osho's comments on renunciation in the posting in
another thread here. He was spot on as renunciation is not necessary.
We think some people do it because they are in a state of depression. :)
- Barry2
premanandpaulmason
> Swaroopanand are fair and accurate? (I'm leaving them in so you can comment on them if you wish.)
>
I have no reason to doubt the veracity of either Osho or
Shankaracharya Swaroopanand Saraswati [who answered reasonably fully
the 13 questions put to him by Robert Kropinski]. However, as to the
issue of fairness, I am in considerable doubt. I think the peer
problem is a significant factor in MMY's reticence to talk about his
past.
But MMY is much MUCH more of a maverick than he is perceived to be,
thus far. And that makes him much much more of an enigma than people
imagine him to be.
But is either Osho or Swaroopanand right in believing that TM
technique is not an effective means to bliss and transcendence?
I have tried 'Transcendental Meditation' with a TM mantra, I have also
practised with a sound of my own choosing, and with no sound. From my
observation, the use of a TM mantra brings a perceptible light and a
blissfulness. Therefore I think that both Osho and Swaroopanand are
incorrect about the bliss aspect. However, whether it is an effective
means to transcend is less clear. The 'wheel' of the mind with its
four functions (spokes) [1. Manas = sensory, processing mind 2.Chitta
= storage of impressions 3. Ahamkara = Ego and 4. Buddhi = knows,
decides, judges, and discriminates.] keeps us very very busy. Only
those who are prepared to let go of any impression, sound, smell,
image or anything else will enjoy transcendence at the very hub of the
wheel. MMY claims transcendence needs no effort in TM, that it is
automatic, but unfortunately not all TMers have yet been able to
verify this claim. But perhaps that is not so very important? Being
blissful is not a bad achievement for sitting around for twenty
minutes or half an hour, with a pleasant sound bouncing around ones
bonce.
John Manning
The point is obviously that the goal is totally reachable in both cases
- as [I understand] is described in the Upanishads and the Vedic
literature - along with the Gita. But *the proper distinction* of the
two paths has to be made for optimum respective results.
The idea that IT already IS, is a given. Practicality demands that it be
done smoothly and easily with proper methods, whether one is a
renunciate or a householder.
jst...@panix.com
premanandpaulmason wrote:
> > Do you think the criticisms you quote from Osho and
> > Swaroopanand are fair and accurate? (I'm leaving them in so you can
comment on them if you wish.)
>
> I have no reason to doubt the veracity of either Osho or
> Shankaracharya Swaroopanand Saraswati [who answered reasonably fully
> the 13 questions put to him by Robert Kropinski].
OK, but I said *accurate*. I wasn't asking
whether you thought Osho or Swaroopanand was
lying.
(BTW, your inclusion of the bit about Guru
Dev supposedly being poisoned is an example
of the kind of nastiness I was saying I
think you sort of sneak in; not only has it
not been verified that Guru Dev was poisoned,
but it doesn't have much of anything to do
with the topic at hand. It doesn't even have
anything to do with the rest of what you
quoted.)
In any case, there are some rather stark
factual inaccuracies and failures of
understanding of what and how MMY actually
teaches in the rest of Swaroopanand's responses
to Kropinski.
With regard to the title of Maharishi, according
to the editor (a disciple) of Ramana Maharshi's
collected works, it is conferred on one who has
initiated a new spiritual path, by his followers.
Swaroopanand says it must be conferred by an
"assembly of saints." Was Ramana Maharishi given
the title by an assembly of saints, do you know?
However, as to the
> issue of fairness, I am in considerable doubt. I think the peer
> problem is a significant factor in MMY's reticence to talk about his
> past.
Possibly. But does that somehow in and of
itself diminish the value of his teaching?
Isn't that really the only relevant question?
> But MMY is much MUCH more of a maverick than he is perceived to be,
> thus far. And that makes him much much more of an enigma than people
> imagine him to be.
Than he is perceived to be by whom? And what do
you mean by "maverick"?
> But is either Osho or Swaroopanand right in believing that TM
> technique is not an effective means to bliss and transcendence?
<snip>
> wheel. MMY claims transcendence needs no effort in TM, that it is
> automatic, but unfortunately not all TMers have yet been able to
> verify this claim.
Sometimes there's some confusion between
"transcendence" meaning the experience of
transcendental consciousness and "transcendence"
meaning the process of transcending, to whatever
degree, even if transcendental consciousness per
se is not experienced. Just about every TMer can
verify it in the second sense.
There's also the matter of the difficulty of
verifying an experience of "nothing." That
can be quite elusive.
But perhaps that is not so very important? Being
> blissful is not a bad achievement for sitting around for twenty
> minutes or half an hour, with a pleasant sound bouncing around ones
> bonce.
Many TMers experience considerably more than
just "being blissful," of course, in their daily
lives as a result of their TM practice, whether
or not they're able to verify transcendental
consciousness.
(And that comment from you is another example of
what I'd consider a bit of sneaky criticism, in
the category of "damning with faint praise.")
premanandpaulmason
> himself based on Guru Dev's teaching about the nature
> and mechanics of consciousness, rather than having
> adopted some of Guru Dev's techniques?
This question concerns the genesis of the TM technique. As I have said
before and only very recently, MMY no more needs someone to speak on
his behalf than do you or I. But since he is not forthcoming on this
subject of how the TM technique came about, one has to cast one's net
somewhat wider than the confines of the TMO in order to properly chart
the evolution of TM.
From my research thus far, it would appear that TM is rooted in
Gurudev's teaching, to the extent that one might describe it as being
both adopted and adapted from Gurudev's mantra-japa teachings. But, in
contrast to Gurudev's teaching which included various adjunts to the
practise of manta-japa, TM is taught without any other attendant
practises or belief systems.
But MMYs presentation of the 'nature and mechanics of consciousness' -
that might well be something that MMY "invented". But it certainly
does not meet with universal approval, even amongst those who practise
TM. [I remember being shocked when in a SCI session when the guy next
to me dissapointedly remarked about MMY on video 'He's being very
woolly!']
premanandpaulmason
disciple of Gurudev and Swami ShantanandJi and also a very wonderful
radiant soul. He is a renunciate [who regularly performs 'mauna' - the
practise of not speaking]. but although a 'recluse' washes his own
clothes, goes shopping and often cooks his own food. He reads the
newspaper too. I was chatting to him about malas [rosaries] and he
explained the how of it. He taught me to mantra-japa 'OM NamaH
Shivaaya' with a rudraksha mala. I protested saying this was surely
not for Grihasthas [worldly people]. So instead he suggested I use a
sandalwood mala instead! This old man who for at least a decade has
declared himself '72' and as recently as a couple of years ago, is
still really fit and incredibly interested in everything that goes on
around him, takes a social responsibility and is fun!!! [But in spite
of this I cannot bring myself to do the mantra-japa with the
rudraksha, maybe I'll leave it until I'm '72'?]
Perhaps we need to abandon some of our preconceptions huh? - yes, I
think that's what Osho was talking about.
mdhut...@yahoo.com
jst...@panix.com wrote:
>
> Yup. In any case, as Lawson pointed out (in this
> thread or another one? can't remember), in the Gita
> MMY sez that in the highest state of Union, God and
> the seeker decide between themselves whether to remain
> separate or to unite (VERY rough paraphrase).
>
> So you get to eat your cake and have it too, as it
> were.
Ram Das wrote about this decision in his 1972 book "Grist for the
Mill" which I read for the first time recently. He said that until you
reached this state you have not achieved true free will, and then of
course, if you choose to merge in God, it's the last decision you make!
Dave Livingston
This exchange has put me in mind of Père Teilhard de Chardin, S.J. His
*The Phenomenon of Man* was published in the year he died, 1955, just as
TM was making the scene. A very remarkable man and an exceptional priest,
he gave his vision of Point Omega in which the universe finally becomes
God. Resistance, from any quarter, would appear to be futile according to
this vision.
Stu
(premanandpaulmason) said:
>> You didn't read the part about how MMY "invented" TM
>> himself based on Guru Dev's teaching about the nature
>> and mechanics of consciousness, rather than having
>> adopted some of Guru Dev's techniques?
>
> This question concerns the genesis of the TM technique. As I have said
> before and only very recently, MMY no more needs someone to speak on
> his behalf than do you or I. But since he is not forthcoming on this
> subject of how the TM technique came about, one has to cast one's net
> somewhat wider than the confines of the TMO in order to properly chart
> the evolution of TM.
>
> From my research thus far, it would appear that TM is rooted in
> Gurudev's teaching, to the extent that one might describe it as being
> both adopted and adapted from Gurudev's mantra-japa teachings. But, in
> contrast to Gurudev's teaching which included various adjunts to the
> practise of manta-japa, TM is taught without any other attendant
> practises or belief systems.
TM is not the only case of this. There are many Yogi's who came to the
west to teach Yoga separate from the belief systems. The Iyengar
tradition is extremely similar in this regard. Like TM eventually the
people practicing within the system start to get inquisitive and want
to know about the ontology to that explains their experiences in yoga.
A number of senior teachers have left the Iyengar system and pursued
systems that answered their questions. There are a number of people on
this NG who have gone on to competing yogic schools.
Yoga practiced only for the health benefits is called bhoga. It is
considered incomplete. It is as if the practice is for the bodily
pleasure only.
This profound lack on the part of the TMO may in fact be the fuel that
feeds your (Paul's) research into the world of Gurudev. I read a book
called "Our Spiritual Heritage" by Lynn Napper - that reads like a
person who is very much looking for answers about TM in much the same
way.
We came for Yoga and got bhoga.
>
> But MMYs presentation of the 'nature and mechanics of consciousness' -
> that might well be something that MMY "invented". But it certainly
> does not meet with universal approval, even amongst those who practise
> TM. [I remember being shocked when in a SCI session when the guy next
> to me dissapointedly remarked about MMY on video 'He's being very
> woolly!']
I don't think MMY invented any of it. He was just very clever at
retranslating classic Hindu concepts into a secular pseudoscientific
framework. I remember my shock when I started to read works of Hindu
writers (like Yogananda or George Feuerstein) who gave the actual
Sanskrit terms and historical context for neologisms like "creative
intelligence", "cosmic consciousness" or for that matter
"Transcendental Meditation".
There are no new ideas here, only repackaged ones.
--
~Stu
Stu
>>
>> Just some other thoughts:
>>
>> I have been drawn to Eastern Philosophy in that it best describes the
>> spiritual dimension of meditation, I have found that the early Greeks
>> have some very similar thoughts on the matter.
>>
>> The ancient Greeks are the prototype idealists. Their philosophy
>> embodies a great respect for humanity, the human intellect, and the
>> power of human to reach towards a perfection that lives in the
>> imagination. For them this perfection is a integral part of human
>> political, social, religious and educational life.
>>
>> This is the foundation of Western thinking. It gets lost on occasion,
>> and found when it is needed (think the renaissance and the
>> enlightenment). As I read Plato and Aristotle I am seeing shared
>> values of the eastern way.
>
> On major philosophical issues, Plato and Aristotle are barely in the same
> universe let alone on the same page. If one's reading suggests otherwise, its
> time to stop reading and start studying.
I was lumping the entirety of ancient Greece into one universe.
Imagine Pythagerus, Protagerus, Homer, all stirred into the same pot.
The point is that they shared an idealism that is quite in concert with
the idealism of Hinduism and Buddhism (Also thrown into the same pot.)
--
~Stu
premanandpaulmason
My trips to India follow their own course. Last trip, a few months
ago, was a case in point. I found myself going to places I had vowed
not to revisit [on account of the rigours and dangers of travelling in
the mountains]. I was rewarded in being blasted away by the presence I
encountered within and without Kedarnath temple and a meeting with
Swami SuryaSatyanand [allegedly a direct disciple of Guru Dev] who
passed on to me a copy of 'Amrit-Kana' - the book that Brahmachari
Mahesh put together on Guru Dev whilst the guru was still alive.
??????????
So, about the pandits and scholars... Do you know any that I might
interview?
premanandpaulmason
> > blissful is not a bad achievement for sitting around for twenty
> > minutes or half an hour, with a pleasant sound bouncing around ones
> > bonce.
> (And that comment from you is another example of
> what I'd consider a bit of sneaky criticism, in
> the category of "damning with faint praise.")
Really? Well, 'sneaky criticism' must therefore be in the eyes of the beholder.
jst...@panix.com
> way.
It's hard to understand how anyone could
think MMY doesn't discuss the spiritual
purpose and ramifications of TM, unless
they're basing that assumption only on the
intro lectures.
<snip>
> I don't think MMY invented any of it.
Of course he didn't invent any of it.
He was just very clever at
> retranslating classic Hindu concepts into a secular pseudoscientific
> framework. I remember my shock when I started to read works of Hindu
> writers (like Yogananda or George Feuerstein) who gave the actual
> Sanskrit terms and historical context for neologisms like "creative
> intelligence", "cosmic consciousness" or for that matter
> "Transcendental Meditation".
MMY gives the actual Sanskrit terms
as well, Stu. Not on the elementary
level, but you start hearing them very
quickly if you go any further.
jst...@panix.com
I suppose it's conceivable that you're not even
aware of how clearly your distaste for MMY comes
through just about every time you mention him.
But I'd be surprised if that were the case.
jst...@panix.com
premanandpaulmason wrote:
> > You didn't read the part about how MMY "invented" TM
> > himself based on Guru Dev's teaching about the nature
> > and mechanics of consciousness, rather than having
> > adopted some of Guru Dev's techniques?
>
> This question concerns the genesis of the TM technique. As I have
said
> before and only very recently, MMY no more needs someone to speak on
> his behalf than do you or I. But since he is not forthcoming on this
> subject of how the TM technique came about,
Except in the Domash essay, of course. Did you
read that part?
one has to cast one's net
> somewhat wider than the confines of the TMO in order to properly
chart
> the evolution of TM.
>
> From my research thus far, it would appear that TM is rooted in
> Gurudev's teaching, to the extent that one might describe it as being
> both adopted and adapted from Gurudev's mantra-japa teachings. But,
in
> contrast to Gurudev's teaching which included various adjunts to the
> practise of manta-japa, TM is taught without any other attendant
> practises or belief systems.
Well, actually there are a *lot* of "attendant
practices," and there's very definitely a "belief
system." Just not a *sectarian* belief system or
*sectarian* practices.
> But MMYs presentation of the 'nature and mechanics of consciousness'
-
> that might well be something that MMY "invented".
What I asked was whether you knew of any differences
between what MMY teaches on this score and what Guru
Dev taught. Do you?
> But it certainly
> does not meet with universal approval, even amongst those who
practise
> TM.
Did anyone suggest that it did?? And what relevance
would disapproval among TMers have to what we were
discussing?
> [I remember being shocked when in a SCI session when the guy next
> to me dissapointedly remarked about MMY on video 'He's being very
> woolly!']
It took me a *long* time before I understood what
he was talking about a lot of the time. Still
don't get all of it.
Of course, not understanding what he's saying and
not "approving" of it are two very different things.
Not only that, one may "disapprove" of a teaching
because one doesn't understand it well enough. I
was very resistant to certain ideas of MMY's because
I hadn't understood them in context.
Barry
A "recluse" is considered something different from a renunciate, though.
Renunciates, sometimes monks living in an ashram can still have a very
social life involved with others in the organization but just no
personal relationships. Recluses by definition would not be "joiners"
and would not become monks or renunciates. They can still as you
describe above live a householder life.
I know of some people who never had any intention of being "recluses" or
"renunciate" that seem to find themselves living that kind of life
anyway. They may have thought that they would eventually over the years
get married and have a family but the karma just never was their for it.
Even if they "try" to force the issue disaster results. In some cases
I've seen a person like that make a connection for a possible
relationship with the other party intensely interested and out of the
blue someone will come along and try to steal away that persons
interest. It is if that person is being told "no, you can not have a
family life." In fact often in these cases I see "no marriage" or
little support for marriage in their horoscope.
- Barry2
John Manning
*Direct experience* gives more cumulative understanding, verification
and validity to what Maharishi teaches about the 'nature and mechanics
of consciousness'. Judy's personal experience with TM is a clear example
expressed in a straightforward way, of that legitimacy. Judy rightly
accepts *no* BS in that dept.
Anyone who has directly experienced TC, CC, GC or even more advanced
states, by practising TM - cannot deny what Maharishi teaches *about*
these realities.
"These things cannot be understood clearly enough to bring satisfaction
on the intellectual level...*without the experience*."
~~ Maharishi, from his talk on 'The Seven States of Consciousness'
Barry
to another trip back there myself maybe in a couple years with my
tantric guru who can take me to visit some temples and tantrics in the
villages and jungles. I want to shoot some HDTV footage for a possible
documentary.
I'm not sure where you are going with your interests in India and I *do*
appreciate your efforts to try to uncover where the TM technique
actually came from. That is what seems to interest many people since we
probably assumed it was from the Shankaracharya tradition when Maharishi
said "the knowledge comes from Guru Dev." But the operative word here
is *knowledge*. Maharishi didn't say the *technique* came from Guru Dev.
It looks like Maharishi started out teaching something a little
different and changed it to something else. Perhaps because he wanted to
find some method that could easily be learned so that he could make
teachers.
Let me check with my teacher on pundits and scholars, the latter in this
case may be college profs who don't consider themselves "pundits" but
have researched these subjects. I also have some connections in India
that can help with different fields of interests. But it sounds like
you're doing quite well on this already ;-)
- Barry2
premanandpaulmason
You seem to pride yourself on being able to divine the inner unspoken
messages to my words. It is puzzling that you should indulge yourself
so, as all it achieves is the derailing any attempt at useful
communication.
jst...@panix.com
So you are entirely neutral about Maharishi?
tantr...@aol.com
> messages to my words. It is puzzling that you should indulge yourself
> so, as all it achieves is the derailing any attempt at useful
> communication.
Get used to it. :-)
But you might consider the possibility that its
entire purpose *is* to derail any attempt at
useful communication. Haven't you noticed that
such 'divination' tends to show up here when
someone is enjoying a conversation that doesn't
center around the 'diviner?'
It's not personal, Paul. People were starting
to pay attention to your posts and were ignoring
hers, that's all. Can't have that.
Unc
tantr...@aol.com
BTW, this suggestion doesn't involve any particular
divination on my part. It's merely an assessment
made on the basis of watching trends here at a.m.t.
over time.
I don't think this particular attempt to demonize
yet another relative newcomer to a.m.t. really has
that much to do with the cult of TM; it's about the
cult of Judy. She's the only one allowed to hold
"heretical" positions with regard to TM or MMY; any
other position indicates a failing on the part of
the person who doesn't agree with hers. That fail-
ing must be exposed.
I don't even think that her obvious reaction to
you has anything to do with your feelings about
Maharishi, Paul. As I suggested before, it's really
at a much more fundamental level. You and your
research are attracting too much attention, atten-
tion that should be focused on her. It's not a TM
thang; it's a territory thang. You're on her turf.
Have you ever encountered a male dog that never
learned to lift his leg to pee? Well, Judy is in
many ways a female dog who is compelled to lift
hers to pee. She wasn't peeing on you per se; she
was just marking her territory, and you got in the
way.
In my opinion, getting into a protracted argument
is not an effective approach; that is the whole
*reason* she starts such arguments, right? A sense
of humor and compassion is probably more effective
in the long run. It's better for your own sadhana,
and it drives her absolutely crazy to be either
laughed at or pitied.
Unc
jst...@panix.com
tantr...@aol.com wrote:
> > You seem to pride yourself on being able to divine the inner
unspoken
> > messages to my words. It is puzzling that you should indulge
yourself
> > so, as all it achieves is the derailing any attempt at useful
> > communication.
>
> Get used to it. :-)
>
> But you might consider the possibility that its
> entire purpose *is* to derail any attempt at
> useful communication. Haven't you noticed that
> such 'divination' tends to show up here when
> someone is enjoying a conversation that doesn't
> center around the 'diviner?'
Paul has hardly been around here long enough
to have noticed something like that, even if
it were the case, which, of course, it is not.
This is just Barry's latest ploy to try to
derail any discussions I might initiate and
solicit allies for himself. As far as he's
concerned, apparently, I cannot have anything
significant to say and so have no basis for
joining a discussion that interests me.
> It's not personal, Paul. People were starting
> to pay attention to your posts and were ignoring
> hers, that's all. Can't have that.
(Speaking of indulging in "divination"...)
Oh, and which posts of mine were people ignoring,
Barry? (Don't anybody hold their breath waiting
for him to cite any.)
In fact, as I pointed out to Bob Hopeless in
another thread, what I've been attempting to
do is not "derail useful communication" with
Paul, but rather to get him to make his
positions concerning MMY clear and explicit,
which is rather obviously something he doesn't
wish to do. He knows a position that isn't
stated explicitly can't be examined and
evaluated.
His sour attitude toward MMY has been pretty
evident in his posts. I'd like him to put his
problem with MMY on the table, but he's
repeatedly avoided responding directly to
my questions about it.
So in fact it is Paul who has been trying to
derail useful communication, while I've been
doing the opposite.
jst...@panix.com
tantr...@aol.com wrote:
<snip>
> I don't think this particular attempt to demonize
> yet another relative newcomer to a.m.t.
(Says Barry, proceeding to demonize me.)
really has
> that much to do with the cult of TM; it's about the
> cult of Judy. She's the only one allowed to hold
> "heretical" positions with regard to TM or MMY;
Patently untrue, and Barry knows it. Particularly
absurd in this case, since Paul's position with
regard to whether MMY invented TM or got it from
Guru Dev is *not* the "heretical" position--to the
contrary.
> any other position indicates a failing on the part of
> the person who doesn't agree with hers.
As is typical of Barry, he's become so enamored
of his own rhetoric he fails to notice that he's
ceased to make any sense.
What Barry's come up with here is a truism
that's universally applicable, not some peculiar
characteristic of mine.
> That failing must be exposed.
And this, of course, is what people *do* when
they discuss their disagreements: they try to
"expose" how the position they disagree with "fails."
As is his wont, Barry uses loaded language to
make his ridiculously obvious points seem more
profound. But the basic dynamics they describe
when you unload the language are, as noted,
universal.
> I don't even think that her obvious reaction to
> you has anything to do with your feelings about
> Maharishi, Paul. As I suggested before, it's really
> at a much more fundamental level. You and your
> research are attracting too much attention, atten-
> tion that should be focused on her. It's not a TM
> thang; it's a territory thang. You're on her turf.
It's amazing. Barry feels perfectly free to
jump into any discussion (as he should) and
would react with surprise and dismay if anyone
suggested he was trying to attract attention to
himself and away from the person he was
addressing, rather than simply responding to
something he found of interest.
But why is his current post *not* an example of
that very tendency? Why is his post *not* an
attempt to derail any useful communication in
which Paul and I might engage?
The thing is, Barry considers himself to be the
only person who gets to set The Rules on this
newsgroup. However, the Rules he sets apply only
to others, never to himself; he's always exempt.
<snip>
> In my opinion, getting into a protracted argument
> is not an effective approach; that is the whole
> *reason* she starts such arguments, right? A sense
> of humor and compassion is probably more effective
> in the long run. It's better for your own sadhana,
> and it drives her absolutely crazy to be either
> laughed at or pitied.
Barry has a strong predilection toward wishful
thinking.
premanandpaulmason
carelessly used the word, but I was prompted to use the term 'recluse'
as I believe it is the one used synonymously with the term 'sannyasi'
by MMY.
But it VERY difficult to be a recluse in India. I remember talking
with MMY's aide Brahmachari Sattyanand (himself a direct devotee of
Guru Dev). A friend, who was staying over the river, asked him where
she might go to find some quiet. He thought some time about this
question. He introspected some before the thought came to him, 'There
is a place some distance from Jabalpur' he confided. Check out the
maps, Jabalpur is a lonnnnnngggg way from Rishikesh.
Furthermore, if people get to hear that there is an Indian saint or a
respected Westerner who has gone and found themselves a quiet place to
be, in order to meditate - that becomes the new place to go!
John Manning
Do you have any current info on Brahmachari Sattyanand?
I've met him three times. Once when he conducted a course at Lake
Arrowhead, once at Humboldt, and another time at a Maharishi pow-wow at
the Kaiser estate at Lake Tahoe where I received an advanced technique
from him. I had traveled there with Charlie Lutes, Lynn Napper [who
wrote a book about Guru Dev and the Holy Tradition] and Jim Rimbey; the
SRM gang at that time.
Brahmachari Devendra was also there. He has since passed away.
will...@yahoo.com
> Do you have any current info on Brahmachari Sattyanand?
>
will...@yahoo.com
> Judy rightly accepts *no* BS in that dept.
>
will...@yahoo.com
> I base this on Larry Domash's brilliant introductory
> essay to the first volume of the Collected Papers,
> which had to have been approved by Maharishi.
>
Apparently Dr. Domash has been discredited and sent packing friom MUM.
In future printings of the Collected Papers his essay probably won't
appear.
will...@yahoo.com
> be much point for MMY to tell TMers about what
> Guru Dev taught in terms of techniques; and that,
> on the other hand, Guru Dev's teaching about the
> nature and mechanics of consciousness is closely
> reflected in MMY's own teaching about the same
> topic, so there's no issue of its being kept from TMers.
>
Apparently the Maharishi has kept Guru Dev's Sri Vidya cult to himself.
I can find no reference to it in either your's or Paul's writings. How
come?
John Manning
Was it a hyena or a vulture, Richard? Do you know?
will...@yahoo.com
> (BTW, your inclusion of the bit about Guru
> Dev supposedly being poisoned is an example
> of the kind of nastiness I was saying I
> think you sort of sneak in; not only has it
> not been verified that Guru Dev was poisoned,
> but it doesn't have much of anything to do
> with the topic at hand. It doesn't even have
> anything to do with the rest of what you
> quoted.)
>
BTW, neither Steve Perino nor John Manning have been "sneaky" when
posting the Guru Dev posion rumor. Apparently both Steve and John
actually believe it's true. Just for the record, I don't recall you
posting a rebuttal to their scurrilous accusations. Why not?
will...@yahoo.com
> His sour attitude toward MMY has been
> pretty evident in his posts.
>
perception. What is a sour attitude is when people like you don't
challenge Mr. Perino and Mr. Manning, who have repeadedly posted false
information and rumors concerning Maharishi, for example, that he is
guilty of murdering his Master and dispensing poison to students. Why
the double standard?
So far as I can tell, Paul is a pretty astute commentator - why pick on
him and not dispute the current rascals on this forum?
Oh! I get it - Perino and Manning are Bush-bashers.
Dave Livingston
Dave wants to start with Stu and Dave does not want to start with Stu,
which entails...
Stu has fired up the crock pot and is making Ancient Greek Stew.
The ingredients are to be not just the relatively bland combination of
Pythagoras, Protagoras, and Homer, but are to include Plato, Aristotle and
the entirety of ancient Greece. Obviously, one will need a very strong
stomach, particularly on detecting the hint of Gorgias and the
solipsist/nihilists. The pot itself Stu calls Idealism and the dish is
best described as "Man is the measure of all things", an idea that can be
traced through what was to be the next period of Greek history, the
Hellenic period, right up to and including modern and contemporary
Humanism.
Humanism is what Stu is trying to sell here.
The prototypical Greek stew was usually simmered until the next war, or
about 30 minutes. Those possessed of Idealist crock pots were an elite of
self-worshippers, totally dependent on the institution of slavery.
Which is not to say that the occasional slave didn't make it into the
elite. Plato cared so much for 'humanity' he had plans to enforce his
Republic and the holding of all property in common by an elite. (He
might even have succeeded, for a time, had it not been for the
untimely death of his man in the military.) Aristotle saw that we care far
more for personal property than we care about property held in common by an
elite. Stu mentions 'imagination', something virtually worshipped by our
society. Plato's idea of the imagination is that the Republic must be
continually protected from its use and effects; he would have banished
Homer and the other poets.
Well, there's a start.
jst...@panix.com
I've never seen John say that, and I almost never read
Steve's posts. Most people know by now not to take him
any more seriously than they take you.
John Manning
> will...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>Judy wrote:
>>
>>>(BTW, your inclusion of the bit about Guru
>>>Dev supposedly being poisoned is an example
>>>of the kind of nastiness I was saying I
>>>think you sort of sneak in; not only has it
>>>not been verified that Guru Dev was poisoned,
>>>but it doesn't have much of anything to do
>>>with the topic at hand. It doesn't even have
>>>anything to do with the rest of what you
>>>quoted.)
>>>
>>
>>BTW, neither Steve Perino nor John Manning have been "sneaky" when
>>posting the Guru Dev posion rumor. Apparently both Steve and John
>>actually believe it's true. Just for the record, I don't recall you
>>posting a rebuttal to their scurrilous accusations. Why not?
>
>
> I've never seen John say that,
If I did, I probably picked it up from ColdBlueIce [Steve Perino, a
known repeater of false information - like, as he puts it, "the Brahman
thingy" is false. It isn't] and repeated it. I was mistaken. It's *total
nonsense*. And I fully retract anything I might have said in that regard.