"All Natural Law also is based on fear..."
eki
Maharishi, May 21 press conference:
(fear.wav, 315 KB)
To get the whole picture, one has to listen
to the press conference from about 1:20 onwards.
http://mou.org/media/replay.cgi
George DeForest
he gives the example of two wrestlers.
one is total Silence, the other is total Dynamism;
each in its fullness wants to annihilate the other...
each is totally afraid the other will annihilate him!
this fear is the *basis* of all Natural Law???
What a concept!
eki
DeForest) wrote:
>this is a most amazing thing Maharishi is talking about!
>
>he gives the example of two wrestlers.
>one is total Silence, the other is total Dynamism;
>each in its fullness wants to annihilate the other...
>each is totally afraid the other will annihilate him!
>
>this fear is the *basis* of all Natural Law???
>What a concept!
>
<Psalms 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom:>
At least in principle "of the LORD" above could IMO be either
subjective or objective genitive (possessive): either the Lord is
afraid, or one should be afraid of the Lord. It'd be interesting
to know whether that's the case as to the original Hebrew text.
< a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his
praise endureth for ever.>
arf
in fear.
Maharishi always used to say that folklore and
religious traditions about "fear of God" were not good,
that they limited a culture. They intimidated and
limited a human being, limited a person's development.
So???
arf
John Manning
My computer is unable to retrieve this audio or video transmission,
other than the statement from Maharishi in the title of this thread. Is
there a transcript?
John Manning
Stu
wrote on 6/15/03 2:36 PM:
> This fear thing is an interesting simile. Two wrestlers
> in fear.
>
> Maharishi always used to say that folklore and
> religious traditions about "fear of God" were not good,
> that they limited a culture. They intimidated and
> limited a human being, limited a person's development.
> So???
>
> arf
MMY in this discussion was not referring to a "fear of God". He was
referring to the tension between Silence and Dynamism or the Transcendental
and the commonplace worlds. Matter versus Antimatter. Unfortunately he
resorted to an anamorphic metaphor to describe this tension. How can
"silence" *fear* or *want to annihilate*. By definition "silence" is in a
state of non-being. There is no there there.
There is a contrast between Silence and Dynamism. But isn't the metaphor
more of a calm pond agitated by the splash of a pebble?
Are not the regular patterns of the waves Natural Law?
--
~Stu
eki
wrote:
This might be your problem:
The tinyurl.com/eclb is an audioclip on my "website".
You have go to the mou.org and choose May 21. You
need Windows Media Player or Real Player. You can
get a free player from:
Judy Stein
> in article 3eece618....@news.netidea.com, arf at arf...@hotmail.com
> wrote on 6/15/03 2:36 PM:
>
> > This fear thing is an interesting simile. Two wrestlers
> > in fear.
> >
> > Maharishi always used to say that folklore and
> > religious traditions about "fear of God" were not good,
> > that they limited a culture. They intimidated and
> > limited a human being, limited a person's development.
> > So???
>
> referring to the tension between Silence and Dynamism or the Transcendental
> and the commonplace worlds. Matter versus Antimatter. Unfortunately he
> resorted to an anamorphic metaphor to describe this tension.
"Anamorphic" means without form. I find that confusing in
this context. Did you perhaps mean "anthropomorphic," of
human form?
If so, I think you nailed it above. MMY was trying to provide
some insight into something extremely abstract with the "fear"
metaphor.
How can
> "silence" *fear* or *want to annihilate*. By definition "silence" is in a
> state of non-being. There is no there there.
Or a state of pure Beingness, nonlocal, no boundaries, no
distinctions, no-thingness.
I'm not sure "antimatter" above is right, though, in the physics
sense; antimatter has the same distinctions matter has, just the
opposite ones from matter, doesn't it? "Nonmatter" maybe.
> There is a contrast between Silence and Dynamism. But isn't the metaphor
> more of a calm pond agitated by the splash of a pebble?
That sounds awfully good, but something in the back of my
mind is objecting to it for some reason. I can't quite
tease it out. I haven't listened to the MMY audio, though.
The "fear" thing also reminds me of MMY's analysis of the first
words of the Rig Veda, where he talks about the infinite Absolute
"collapsing to its point value," then "recoiling" from that
constriction and sort of exploding into the relative, into
infinite relative diversity, in an attempt to get back its
infiniteness.
But then once there is infinite diversity, it doesn't want to
lose the diversity and go back to being Absolute. So there's
the same tension MMY is talking about--I *think*.
Hey, Lawson, you've done some wonderful explanations of this
in the past--can you give us a replay?
> Are not the regular patterns of the waves Natural Law?
They would be in the stone-in-the-pond metaphor. Very nice.
> >> On 15 Jun 2003 09:15:03 -0700, george....@usa.net (George
> >> DeForest) wrote:
> >>>
> >>> he gives the example of two wrestlers.
> >>> one is total Silence, the other is total Dynamism;
> >>> each in its fullness wants to annihilate the other...
> >>> each is totally afraid the other will annihilate him!
A wrestler is already relative, which shows you can't take
the "fear" metaphor literally.
> >>> this fear is the *basis* of all Natural Law???
> >>> What a concept!
> >>>
> >> <Psalms 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom:>
> >>
> >> At least in principle "of the LORD" above could IMO be either
> >> subjective or objective genitive (possessive): either the Lord is
> >> afraid, or one should be afraid of the Lord. It'd be interesting
> >> to know whether that's the case as to the original Hebrew text.
Wow. Eki, that *would* be interesting. I bet you could find
something on this on Web sites about Kabbalah (Kaballah?).
John Manning
For some reason my Real Player froze yesterday. I don't know why. It's
working fine today and I was able to view the video. But thanks eki.
John
Stu
jst...@panix.com wrote on 6/16/03 5:03 AM:
> Stu <nos...@no.spam> wrote in message news:<BB1252C2.1EC30%nos...@no.spam>...
>> in article 3eece618....@news.netidea.com, arf at arf...@hotmail.com
>> wrote on 6/15/03 2:36 PM:
>>
>>> This fear thing is an interesting simile. Two wrestlers
>>> in fear.
>>>
>>> Maharishi always used to say that folklore and
>>> religious traditions about "fear of God" were not good,
>>> that they limited a culture. They intimidated and
>>> limited a human being, limited a person's development.
>>> So???
>>
>> MMY in this discussion was not referring to a "fear of God". He was
>> referring to the tension between Silence and Dynamism or the Transcendental
>> and the commonplace worlds. Matter versus Antimatter. Unfortunately he
>> resorted to an anamorphic metaphor to describe this tension.
>
> "Anamorphic" means without form. I find that confusing in
> this context. Did you perhaps mean "anthropomorphic," of
> human form?
I accidentally pulled a Petrus there. You are correct. I was referring to
the problem associated with giving non-humans human attributes.
>
> If so, I think you nailed it above. MMY was trying to provide
> some insight into something extremely abstract with the "fear"
> metaphor.
>
> How can
>> "silence" *fear* or *want to annihilate*. By definition "silence" is in a
>> state of non-being. There is no there there.
>
> Or a state of pure Beingness, nonlocal, no boundaries, no
> distinctions, no-thingness.
>
> I'm not sure "antimatter" above is right, though, in the physics
> sense; antimatter has the same distinctions matter has, just the
> opposite ones from matter, doesn't it? "Nonmatter" maybe.
That sentence was the vestige of Star Trek metaphor I pulled out because it
was silly. I was trying to remember how they separated the matter and the
anti matter and all I could remember was they used dilithium crystals. In
this case the dilithium crystals would represent natural law.
>
>> There is a contrast between Silence and Dynamism. But isn't the metaphor
>> more of a calm pond agitated by the splash of a pebble?
>
> That sounds awfully good, but something in the back of my
> mind is objecting to it for some reason. I can't quite
> tease it out. I haven't listened to the MMY audio, though.
>
> The "fear" thing also reminds me of MMY's analysis of the first
> words of the Rig Veda, where he talks about the infinite Absolute
> "collapsing to its point value," then "recoiling" from that
> constriction and sort of exploding into the relative, into
> infinite relative diversity, in an attempt to get back its
> infiniteness.
>
> But then once there is infinite diversity, it doesn't want to
> lose the diversity and go back to being Absolute. So there's
> the same tension MMY is talking about--I *think*.
This works as well. Note that the tension is not equal on both sides. The
Active side needs to embody the tension to not return to the absolute. The
absolute by definition stays consistent and unmoving.
>
[snip]
--
~Stu
Lawson English
"Judy Stein" <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
[...]
> Hey, Lawson, you've done some wonderful explanations of this
> in the past--can you give us a replay?
>
Haven't heard the audio either. The silence dynamism dichotomy doesnt' sound
right though since silence contains dynamism within itself.
Judy Stein
I meant the "collapse of fullness to its point value" routine,
which I sort of butchered in my post and hoped you could
improve on (you know, MMY's exposition on "Agni").
Michael
but I am reminded of another lecture, where MMY relates to fear by the
Absolute. he said fullness is afraid of emptiness, and that's why it
is running away from emptiness. That's why the absolute is on the
move.Of course the emptiness is not really there, but the fear is
there, and it is that fear that moves the absolute, and as we all
know, how could the absolute move, since its already everywhere, so it
creates this space within itself, which is maya. It anticipates a
space where it is not; its only an imagined space, and within that
space there is movement, which is the orirgin of creation.
I think that MMY uses fear in a way, that it anticipates of something
that is not really there, i.e. that is illusiory. He also explains
thereby how the negative, the shadow entered creation. There is a
verse in the Upanishad that says that the creation moves because of
fear. The fear of the fullness for the emptiness is only the fear of a
chance, of a possibility. So the absolute, fearing its own lack is
constantly on the run, until it recognizes its own fullness within the
emptiness. In Unity, when the cycle ends. Or so, as far as I remember,
as its long time ago.
george....@usa.net (George DeForest) wrote in message news:<54fbbe7f.03061...@posting.google.com>...
John Manning
eki wrote:
(snip)
> To get the whole picture, one has to listen
> to the press conference from about 1:20 onwards.
>
> http://mou.org/media/replay.cgi
I watched the portion of the video in question. Characteristically (in
my view), Maharishi has taken a left turn. His statement that "All
Natural Law also is based on fear" is another example of his disconnect
with a genuine representation of the truth - as he uses a 'wrestling'
analogy.
Divinity - even enlightenment - is N O T based on fear. Maharishi's
bullshit trip in this regard is totally foreign to the real functioning
of life; and to the genuine hope for it's fulfillment in this world.
That particular statement is (again in my view) representative of his
abject failure to inspire anyone to buy his current crap trip. He can
blab on TV all he wants, but he really has almost zero connection to
anyone's meaningful life.
Watching Bevan Morris on the video was an almost nauseating experience.
I'd never seen the guy before. My gawd, what a humiliation for
Transcendental Meditation.
FURTHER: After that gem, I watched Maharishi avoid the question about
the distinction between Jyotish astrology which supposedly outlines
one's destiny (a current part of his cash cow), and free will. He
basically reverted to TM as a means to access one's own treasury - and
didn't answer the question at all.
My bottom line: TM is a direct way to God. Maharishi is full of shit.
Even what Maharishi calls 'sleepy humans' recognize love as the basic
component and motivation of life - even animals and plants recognize
this. And W H E R E does that love come from? Could it be inherently
created? Love IS the basic criteria of life. Maharishi just gives it lip
service and doesn't represent it at all other than as an aside, and
limited to his proclamation of "the will of God". What a sham.
The idea that 'fear' (with his analogy of 'wrestlers') is the basis of
Maharishi's "Natural Law", relegates his definition of human life to
dogs fighting for bones for survival.
Genuine love is totally missing from Maharishi here. Or it's relegated
to a dismissive definition in his ongoing blabber.
Even TM itself is based on "more charming levels of depth of
consciousness". NOT fear.
FWIW: Charlie Lutes told me personally that Maharishi took a left turn
when he bought into the phony science (more cash) thing and developed a
deaf ear to God. All you have to do is to look at Bevan Morris (his
spokesperson) for one minute - and look at the current TM organization
at large, to draw your own conclusions. I will have nothing to do with
any of that.
TM itself (in my eyes) is a wonderful gift from God through Guru Dev -
which is probably the experience of hundreds of thousands of people. But
(again, in my eyes) Maharishi is full of shit - and literally has a
TOTAL disconnect with current human life or any truly meaningful reality
with actual human experience.
He's clever and has 'something' as an individual. But he takes a crap
just like I do.
EVEN FURTHER: As I watched the video Maharishi was asked if 'experience'
was dependent on having a physiology. TRANSLATION: If you don't have a
physical body, does one have any 'experience'?
Maharishi said that without the 'physiology', nothing is there. There is
nothing there to experience anything. What Maharishi failed to indicate
is the continuity of transcendental consciousness and that each human
being has a 'physiology' in subtler realms (which he clearly has talked
about in his earlier days - even more recently in reference to one's
'Absolute body'). There ARE subtle bodies! Maharishi acts as if there
aren't. That's bullshit. It's even cruel to suggest otherwise. It
implies that physical human life itself is meaningless.
My own personal experience with Maharishi in this regard was at my
Teacher Training Course when I asked him if one had attained Unity
Consciousness would they be like Krishna or Brahma or Shiva. His answer
was (paraphrased), "No, that would require a series of incarnations and
experiences in your subtle bodies."
Maharishi is full of shit. His current crapola trip reaches no one. I
don't know how he keeps a straight face. I wish I could tell him
personally. But it really wouldn't reach him anyway. Kinda like trying
to talk to George W.
John Manning
Dan
DeForest) wrote:
>this is a most amazing thing Maharishi is talking about!
Al I got was a message asking me to give my credit card details so
they could deduct money from it every month.
Dan
John Manning
Bingo!
John Manning
>
> Dan
willytex
John - Now that is the pot calling the kettle black! Have you ever
considered getting checked for signs of schizophrenia?
From: John Manning (joh...@terra.com.br)
Subject: Fear is the opposite of love
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2003-06-12 20:29:05 PST
'Transcending' is the conscious experience of gradually becoming aware
of the all-comprehensive reality of the basis of creation itself.
> I'd never seen the guy before. My gawd, what a
> humiliation for Transcendental Meditation.
Sounds like you can't even understand human love, let alone love of God.
Maybe you could post a photo of yourself here, so we can make up our own
mind who looks best when they are preaching. Your post is an embarrasment to
all TM meditators.
Has anyone else noticed that it's mostly the 'TM teachers' who get all bent
out of shape over TM?
Judy?
"John Manning" <joh...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:3EEEA25C...@terra.com.br...
arf
<joh...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>My bottom line: TM is a direct way to God. Maharishi is full of shit.
>Even what Maharishi calls 'sleepy humans' recognize love as the basic
>component and motivation of life - even animals and plants recognize
>this. And W H E R E does that love come from? Could it be inherently
>created? Love IS the basic criteria of life. Maharishi just gives it lip
>service and doesn't represent it at all other than as an aside, and
>limited to his proclamation of "the will of God". What a sham.
>
M used to speak of love, and he used to associate it
with the levels of development beyond cosmic
consciousness -- especially God Consciousness.
<snip>
>The idea that 'fear' (with his analogy of 'wrestlers') is the basis of
>Maharishi's "Natural Law", relegates his definition of human life to
>dogs fighting for bones for survival.
>
To me it does sound very different from the tone he
used in the early days. Hard to know what his point is
in communicating this way. I don't suppose that he or
the organization would speak of fear as such a
fundamental contituent of existence when trying to
recruit new meditators -- too negative sounding.
arf
Back by popular demand
"George DeForest" <george....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:54fbbe7f.03061...@posting.google.com...
> this is a most amazing thing Maharishi is talking about!
>
> he gives the example of two wrestlers.
> one is total Silence, the other is total Dynamism;
> each in its fullness wants to annihilate the other...
> each is totally afraid the other will annihilate him!
>
> this fear is the *basis* of all Natural Law???
Does not make sense does it? Fear is not enlightened.
"There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear
has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."
Michael
Mueller translates "terror", but I heard Maharishi quoting it as:
"Through fear of Brahman the fire burns"
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/upan/up06.htm
Katha Upanishad,
SIXTH VALLI
2. 'Whatever there is, the whole world, when gone forth (from the
Brahman), trembles in its breath. That Brahman is a great terror, like
a drawn sword. Those who know it become immortal.'
3. 'From terror of Brahman fire burns, from terror the sun burns, from
terror Indra and Vayu, and Death, as the fifth, run away.'
han...@telda.net (Michael) wrote in message news:<c4b2aca1.03061...@posting.google.com>...
Judy Stein
There is no May 21 press conference on that Web site.
Judy Stein
Never mind. I found it.
Back by popular demand
"eki" <ekiheik@dee_double-u_pee.net> wrote in message
news:3eece243...@news.koti.soon.fi...
> On 15 Jun 2003 09:15:03 -0700, george....@usa.net (George
> DeForest) wrote:
>
> >this is a most amazing thing Maharishi is talking about!
> >
> >he gives the example of two wrestlers.
> >one is total Silence, the other is total Dynamism;
> >each in its fullness wants to annihilate the other...
> >each is totally afraid the other will annihilate him!
> >
> >this fear is the *basis* of all Natural Law???
> >What a concept!
> >
>
> <Psalms 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom:>
Not the fear as in the two wrestlers, but the fear as in respect.
Judy Stein
you turned your brain off while you were watching the
tape and read your own agenda into what MMY said.
John Manning <joh...@terra.com.br> wrote in message news:<3EEEA25C...@terra.com.br>...
<snip>
> The idea that 'fear' (with his analogy of 'wrestlers') is the basis of
> Maharishi's "Natural Law", relegates his definition of human life to
> dogs fighting for bones for survival.
How you could draw that conclusion I can't imagine. The
"fear" bit is almost an aside, just for one thing. Before
he mentions it, he goes into a long explanation in terms of
the "wrestlers" of silence and dynamism being on the highest
level of *alertness* to each other. Then when he says there's
a theory in the Vedic literature that silence and dynamism are
afraid of each other, he keeps giggling, as if he recognizes
how absurd it sounds. He doesn't dwell on it, just mentions it
in passing as an interesting way of putting it.
When he was talking about the "wrestlers" being "alert," I
had more of an image of martial artists, each poised on the
razor's edge of alertness to counter instantly whatever move
the other makes--a very highly developed state of consciousness.
(I wonder if that's what he had in mind as well, and "wrestlers"
was the nearest English equivalent he could come up with at the
moment.) Natural law, then, would be what flows from this
optimum state of alertness to each other of silence and
dynamism.
I'm pretty sure the metaphor is limited to that poised state of
alertness before the actual fighting starts. I don't think
he extended it to the combat phase. But even if he did, it
would still be on an extremely abstract level, not having
anything to do with brute force or violence or doing damage.
It was obvious that he was speaking on an extremely
abstract level about the nature and mechanics of
consciousness; how you get from that to "dogs fighting
for bones for survival" just boggles my mind.
The question he was responding to, incidentally, was how the
brain, a small organ, could possibly support the experience
of the infinite. I must admit I couldn't follow his explanation
(the "wrestlers" bit was in the latter part of it), but it didn't
seem to me that he was just babbling; it sounded as though he
had a very clear idea of what he was explaining. I had the sense
if I listened to it a few more times, and maybe could ask questions
of someone who understood it, it would turn out to be meaningful.
But very, *very* abstract.
And it just had *nothing* to do with *humans* being afraid of
each other.
(I've rearranged what you said from your original post.)
> Divinity - even enlightenment - is N O T based on fear. Maharishi's
> bullshit trip in this regard is totally foreign to the real functioning
> of life; and to the genuine hope for it's fulfillment in this world.
He wasn't saying anything like that. You're taking him MUCH MUCH
too literally.
> That particular statement is (again in my view) representative of his
> abject failure to inspire anyone to buy his current crap trip. He can
> blab on TV all he wants, but he really has almost zero connection to
> anyone's meaningful life.
The question about the brain seeming too small to contain
infinity was a good theoretical one, and he gave a very meaty
answer to it. If you were inclined to doubt that it was
possible for a human being to experience infinity, and you
could follow his argument (which, as I say, I couldn't this
first time through), you might well be reassured that it *was*
possible. The question was certainly meaningful to the person
who asked it. How would *you* answer it?
> Watching Bevan Morris on the video was an almost nauseating experience.
> I'd never seen the guy before. My gawd, what a humiliation for
> Transcendental Meditation.
Geez, that was your first exposure to Bevan? Yes, he's just
about totally unwatchable.
> FURTHER: After that gem, I watched Maharishi avoid the question about
> the distinction between Jyotish astrology which supposedly outlines
> one's destiny (a current part of his cash cow), and free will. He
> basically reverted to TM as a means to access one's own treasury - and
> didn't answer the question at all.
I didn't get to that part, but the free will/determinism question
is incredibly complicated, and I'm not surprised he didn't want
to get into it. On the other hand, it's also possible he did
answer with a sort of koan, but you didn't get it. When I have a
chance I'll see if I can find that part. You can either deal
with the question with an extremely elaborate discussion, or with
a koan-type statement, because you're dealing with something that's
paradoxical on the level of duality.
> My bottom line: TM is a direct way to God. Maharishi is full of shit.
> Even what Maharishi calls 'sleepy humans' recognize love as the basic
> component and motivation of life - even animals and plants recognize
> this. And W H E R E does that love come from? Could it be inherently
> created? Love IS the basic criteria of life. Maharishi just gives it lip
> service and doesn't represent it at all other than as an aside, and
> limited to his proclamation of "the will of God". What a sham.
My impression is that he takes love for granted, takes it for
granted that it will develop to its fullest as one's
consciousness evolves. I know love is your big hobby-horse,
but it's always bored me to hear lengthy disquisitions on love.
There isn't anything you can *do* about love except experience
it as it happens to you. No amount of talking about love, no
amount of exhortation about how it's the basic component and
motivation of life, is going to make anyone more capable of being
loving, of one's fellow humans or of God. There really isn't any
point to it. You can't teach love. I think he's quite right not
to try, and focus instead on the mechanics of consciousness by
which love develops spontaneously.
There is one tape he made about love that said pretty much all
there was to say about it in a teaching context--the tape called
"All Love Is Directed to the Self." That probably horrifies you,
right? For me, it was revelatory. (Note that's the big-S Self.)
> Genuine love is totally missing from Maharishi here. Or it's relegated
> to a dismissive definition in his ongoing blabber.
Seriously, John, I think you've got a huge blind spot here.
> Even TM itself is based on "more charming levels of depth of
> consciousness". NOT fear.
He never suggested TM was based on fear. Where do you GET this
stuff?? You're sounding like the Peterrhoid!
Judy Stein
<snip>
> To me it does sound very different from the tone he
> used in the early days. Hard to know what his point is
> in communicating this way. I don't suppose that he or
> the organization would speak of fear as such a
> fundamental contituent of existence when trying to
> recruit new meditators -- too negative sounding.
HE WASN'T TALKING ABOUT FEAR IN THE HUMAN SENSE.
Sheesh!
It was a *metaphor* for an *abstraction*. And he
thought the notion was *funny*--he kept giggling as
he talked about it. Moreover, he only mentioned it
in passing; it certainly wasn't his *theme*, but
rather another way to think about what he was trying
to explain concerning the opposing qualities of
silence and dynamism and how they give rise to
consciousness. Before he mentioned the fear metaphor
he went on for some time using the term "alertness."
It seemed obvious to me he thought that was a more
appropriate metaphor.
John Manning
Judy Stein wrote:
>
> John, I find this post from you astonishing.
I am no match to your razor sharp intellect dear Judy, but I will
respond as best as I can.
It's as if
> you turned your brain off while you were watching the
> tape and read your own agenda into what MMY said.
I wouldn't say that I have any 'agenda' other than to express my own
views in support of TM and also what I personally regard as less than
genuinely meaningful and relevant to human life as, to me, the TMO under
Maharishi has become. Maharishi's organization, at least to me, is
reflective of his talk here. In the latter regard I could be totally
wrong. But it's how I really feel about it. Any other 'agenda' I might
have would be that I would just wish that everyone would be happy.
>
> John Manning <joh...@terra.com.br> wrote in message news:<3EEEA25C...@terra.com.br>...
> <snip>
> > The idea that 'fear' (with his analogy of 'wrestlers') is the basis of
> > Maharishi's "Natural Law", relegates his definition of human life to
> > dogs fighting for bones for survival.
>
> How you could draw that conclusion I can't imagine.
Just the statement that "All Natural Law also is based on fear..." is
offensive to me and I totally disagree with it. TOTALLY! It suggests
just what I said.
The
> "fear" bit is almost an aside, just for one thing. Before
> he mentions it, he goes into a long explanation in terms of
> the "wrestlers" of silence and dynamism being on the highest
> level of *alertness* to each other. Then when he says there's
> a theory in the Vedic literature that silence and dynamism are
> afraid of each other, he keeps giggling, as if he recognizes
> how absurd it sounds. He doesn't dwell on it, just mentions it
> in passing as an interesting way of putting it.
I actually thought of that; that he was just giving an insight into
those dynamics. But his failure to clarify it, left his statement
intact.
>
> When he was talking about the "wrestlers" being "alert," I
> had more of an image of martial artists, each poised on the
> razor's edge of alertness to counter instantly whatever move
> the other makes--a very highly developed state of consciousness.
> (I wonder if that's what he had in mind as well, and "wrestlers"
> was the nearest English equivalent he could come up with at the
> moment.) Natural law, then, would be what flows from this
> optimum state of alertness to each other of silence and
> dynamism.
I still disagree that 'fear' is the basis of Natural Law - though I
concede that Maharishi may have been indicating a very subtle analysis;
the fact that he didn't express it further - still leaves that
impression.
>
> I'm pretty sure the metaphor is limited to that poised state of
> alertness before the actual fighting starts. I don't think
> he extended it to the combat phase. But even if he did, it
> would still be on an extremely abstract level, not having
> anything to do with brute force or violence or doing damage.
Reminds me of Charlie Lutes saying that the war of Armageddon actually
takes place within the individual.
>
> It was obvious that he was speaking on an extremely
> abstract level about the nature and mechanics of
> consciousness; how you get from that to "dogs fighting
> for bones for survival" just boggles my mind.
The comment that "All Natural Law also is based on fear" kind of leads
to that conclusion when adequate clarification is not provided.
> The question he was responding to, incidentally, was how the
> brain, a small organ, could possibly support the experience
> of the infinite. I must admit I couldn't follow his explanation
> (the "wrestlers" bit was in the latter part of it), but it didn't
> seem to me that he was just babbling; it sounded as though he
> had a very clear idea of what he was explaining.
I've noticed that many times it 'seems' that way with him. And he 'may'
be correct. My point is that his words are disconnected from the
practical experience of life. It's as if he assumes that his abstract
dissertation has a practical link to human experience. Other than the TM
itself, I see nothing in that regard - particularly with Bevan and the
beyond absurdity current TMO. Maharishi's failure to clarify his
statement that "All Natural Law also is based on fear" is characteristic
to me of his other failures with his unending new and discarded
'programs'. They have no justification, just like his statement. I'm not
kidding about this at all.
I had the sense
> if I listened to it a few more times, and maybe could ask questions
> of someone who understood it, it would turn out to be meaningful.
> But very, *very* abstract.
For a Global press conference, I think that Bill Clinton could have done
MUCH better to actually get the message across.
>
> And it just had *nothing* to do with *humans* being afraid of
> each other.
I didn't say that it did.
>
> (I've rearranged what you said from your original post.)
>
> > Divinity - even enlightenment - is N O T based on fear. Maharishi's
> > bullshit trip in this regard is totally foreign to the real functioning
> > of life; and to the genuine hope for it's fulfillment in this world.
>
> He wasn't saying anything like that. You're taking him MUCH MUCH
> too literally.
I've spent countless, countless hours listening to Maharishi and
noticing that he has made many, many such proclamations without
justifying them.
> > That particular statement is (again in my view) representative of his
> > abject failure to inspire anyone to buy his current crap trip. He can
> > blab on TV all he wants, but he really has almost zero connection to
> > anyone's meaningful life.
> The question about the brain seeming too small to contain
> infinity was a good theoretical one, and he gave a very meaty
> answer to it. If you were inclined to doubt that it was
> possible for a human being to experience infinity, and you
> could follow his argument (which, as I say, I couldn't this
> first time through), you might well be reassured that it *was*
> possible. The question was certainly meaningful to the person
> who asked it. How would *you* answer it?
I have no doubts whatsoever that the most significant inner spiritual
component of human life (all of life for that matter) doesn't depend on
the size of the human brain. To me, from my own experience, all of life
flourishes when love happens. It is inconceivable to me that "All
Natural Law also is based on fear". Infinity (the Absolute) is the
accepted basis, in this discussion, of all of existence. It is
incongruous to me that love doesn't flow from that source. Perhaps
Maharishi was merely speaking about subtle technicalities. But as I said
above, he didn't clarify his statement.
> > Watching Bevan Morris on the video was an almost nauseating experience.
> > I'd never seen the guy before. My gawd, what a humiliation for
> > Transcendental Meditation.
>
> Geez, that was your first exposure to Bevan? Yes, he's just
> about totally unwatchable.
>
> > FURTHER: After that gem, I watched Maharishi avoid the question about
> > the distinction between Jyotish astrology which supposedly outlines
> > one's destiny (a current part of his cash cow), and free will. He
> > basically reverted to TM as a means to access one's own treasury - and
> > didn't answer the question at all.
>
> I didn't get to that part, but the free will/determinism question
> is incredibly complicated, and I'm not surprised he didn't want
> to get into it.
On the other hand, it's also possible he did
> answer with a sort of koan, but you didn't get it.
When I have a
> chance I'll see if I can find that part. You can either deal
> with the question with an extremely elaborate discussion, or with
> a koan-type statement, because you're dealing with something that's
> paradoxical on the level of duality.
He didn't answer the question Judy. No koans were there that I noticed.
>
> > My bottom line: TM is a direct way to God. Maharishi is full of shit.
> > Even what Maharishi calls 'sleepy humans' recognize love as the basic
> > component and motivation of life - even animals and plants recognize
> > this. And W H E R E does that love come from? Could it be inherently
> > created? Love IS the basic criteria of life. Maharishi just gives it lip
> > service and doesn't represent it at all other than as an aside, and
> > limited to his proclamation of "the will of God". What a sham.
>
> My impression is that he takes love for granted, takes it for
> granted that it will develop to its fullest as one's
> consciousness evolves. I know love is your big hobby-horse,
> but it's always bored me to hear lengthy disquisitions on love.
> There isn't anything you can *do* about love except experience
> it as it happens to you. No amount of talking about love, no
> amount of exhortation about how it's the basic component and
> motivation of life, is going to make anyone more capable of being
> loving, of one's fellow humans or of God. There really isn't any
> point to it. You can't teach love. I think he's quite right not
> to try, and focus instead on the mechanics of consciousness by
> which love develops spontaneously.
Aah, I disagree with that dear Judy. Love can be taught in its
expression to others, even in feeble and weak attempts. Love can be
expressed in music and lyrics and literature that touch the hearts of
others. Love can even be taught in the embracing statements of genuine
statesmen and the flowing love from parent to child. Love isn't reserved
for 'enlightened' people - it is the breath and life of all of humanity.
>
> There is one tape he made about love that said pretty much all
> there was to say about it in a teaching context--the tape called
> "All Love Is Directed to the Self." That probably horrifies you,
> right? For me, it was revelatory. (Note that's the big-S Self.)
>
> > Genuine love is totally missing from Maharishi here. Or it's relegated
> > to a dismissive definition in his ongoing blabber.
>
> Seriously, John, I think you've got a huge blind spot here.
I could be wrong. Yes. But I cannot deny the love I feel for God and
humanity. Though I'm not technically 'enlightened', I cannot dismiss my
own personal experience.
>
> > Even TM itself is based on "more charming levels of depth of
> > consciousness". NOT fear.
>
> He never suggested TM was based on fear.
> Where do you GET this
> stuff??
"All Natural Law also is based on fear" ---MMY
> You're sounding like the Peterrhoid!
Yikes Judy! That was below the belt.
Of course I'm grateful to Maharishi for Transcendental Meditation. But I
really don't abide with his ineffectual rhetoric or his goofy
organization.
You can rip me if you wish and maybe I'll learn something (again). But
what I've written is how I truly feel.
With total respect,
John
George DeForest
> This is the Upanishad to which MMY's lecture most likely refers to.
> Mueller translates "terror", but I heard Maharishi quoting it as:
> "Through fear of Brahman the fire burns"
>
> http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/upan/up06.htm
> Katha Upanishad,
>
> SIXTH VALLI
> 2. 'Whatever there is, the whole world, when gone forth (from the
> Brahman), trembles in its breath. That Brahman is a great terror, like
> a drawn sword. Those who know it become immortal.'
>
> 3. 'From terror of Brahman fire burns, from terror the sun burns, from
> terror Indra and Vayu, and Death, as the fifth, run away.'
my copy of Upanishads has a footnote, that points to a very
similar verse, in http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/upan/up08.htm
TAITTIRIYAKA-UPANISHAD SECOND VALLI EIGHTH ANUVAKA
(1) 'From terror of it (Brahman) the wind blows,
from terror the sun rises;
from terror of it Agni and Indra,
yea Death runs as the fifth.'
eki
wrote:
>
>
>
>eki wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>> To get the whole picture, one has to listen
>> to the press conference from about 1:20 onwards.
>>
>> http://mou.org/media/replay.cgi
>
>I watched the portion of the video in question. Characteristically (in
>my view), Maharishi has taken a left turn. His statement that "All
>Natural Law also is based on fear" is another example of his disconnect
>with a genuine representation of the truth - as he uses a 'wrestling'
>analogy.
>
I think MMY might be referring to Brihadaranyaka Upanishad:
dvitiiyaad vai bhayaM bhavati
which could be translated for instance like:
"Fear (bhayam), indeed (vai), arises (bhavati) from a
"second" [not-first] (dvitiiyaat).
Perhaps that refers to the "distinction" between the Absolute
and the Relative (which only "exists" because of "fear", or stuff??)
(a relevant Sanskrit word:
bhIma
Meaning mf(%{A})n. fearful , terrific , terrible awful formidable ,
tremendous RV. &c. &c. (ibc. , fearfully &c.) ; m. Rumex Vesicarius L.
; N. of Rudra-S3iva A1s3vGr2. Un2. Sch. ; **of one of the 8 forms of
Shiva** Pur. ; of one of the 11 Rudras Pur. ; of a Devagandharva MBh.
; of one of the Devas called Vajn5amush ib. ; of a Da1nava ib.
Katha1s. ; of a Vidya1dhara Katha1s. ; of a son of the Ra1kshasa
Kumbhakarn2a Cat. ; of the second son of Pa1n2d2u (also called)
Bhima-sena and Vr2iko7dara ; he was only the reputed son of PñPa1n2d2u
, being really the son of his wife Pr2itha1 or Kunti1 by the wind-god
Va1yu , and was noted for his size , strength and appetite) MBh. Ka1v.
Pur. &c. ; of sev. other men AitBr. MBh. Hariv. &c. ; pl. the race of
Bhima MBh. ; (%{A}) f. a whip L. ; a bullock's gall-stone L. ; N. of a
form of Durga1 Hariv. ; of an Apsaras R. ; of sev. rivers MBh. ; of a
district Ra1jat. ; of a town Buddh.)
eki
DeForest) wrote:
>Michael <han...@telda.net> wrote:
>> This is the Upanishad to which MMY's lecture most likely refers to.
>> Mueller translates "terror", but I heard Maharishi quoting it as:
>> "Through fear of Brahman the fire burns"
>>
>> http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/upan/up06.htm
>> Katha Upanishad,
>>
>> SIXTH VALLI
>> 2. 'Whatever there is, the whole world, when gone forth (from the
>> Brahman), trembles in its breath. That Brahman is a great terror, like
>> a drawn sword. Those who know it become immortal.'
>>
>> 3. 'From terror of Brahman fire burns, from terror the sun burns, from
>> terror Indra and Vayu, and Death, as the fifth, run away.'
The word for "terror" above seems to be "bhayam" (fear).
Here's the ITX text:
yadida.n ki.n cha jagat.h sarvaM praaNa ejati niHsR^itam.h .
mahad.hbhayaM vajramudyataM ya etadviduramR^itaaste bhavanti
bhayaadasyaagnistapati bhayaattapati suuryaH .
bhayaadindrashcha vaayushcha mR^ityurdhaavati paJNchamaH .. 3..
Simplified that might look something like:
yad idaM kiM cha ("whatever there is") jagat (world) sarvaM (whole)
praaNa [<-praaNe]* (in breath) ejati (trembles?) niHsRtam (when gone
forth) mahad-bhayaM (great fear) vajramudyataM ("drawn sword") ya etad
vidur (those who know it) amRtaas te (immortal they) bhavanti (become)
bhayaad asya agnis tapati (through fear of that [brahman?] fire burns)
bhayaat tapati suuryaH (through fear sun shines?),etc.
*) praaNe [locative of praaNa] + ejati --> praaNa ejati (through
sandhi; two 'e´s' can't be in succession, or stuff)
Michael
Do we need to fear? Yes, we need to fear, a second term of Bush for
example. That your civil rights will be cut, that nuclear weapons will
be used, however 'mini' they may be. This fear is good because it
alerts us to the immanent dangers of this administration. The more
people are alert and watchful, the less the actual danger will be. If
germans would have been more alert in 1933, and if they would have
read what was actually written in 'Mein Kampf', WWII and the Holocaust
would not have happened.
Fear is a biological necessity to avoid unnecessary suffering. And it
does provide us with the necessary alertness. To borrow a metaphor
from a different tradition, fear or shock can move your assemblage
point (Castaneda). It can stop the mind. But I agree with you, that
fear shouldn't be the bottomline. If the TM movement induces fear in
you, then you shouldn't deal with it, but free youself from it
completely. But its wrong to assume, that this is so for everybody.
Fear of God in the sense of an awe-inspiring presence, or even a shock
is described in many different traditions including the Bible, the
Upanishads and the Gita (just think of Ch.11 where Arjuna begs Krishna
to withdraw again the fearful vision he made him share). I think this
is due to the experience of the ego in the presence of the Infinite.
Ignorance is certainly afraid of the Light, and when we are still
identified with the ego, this might be the ego's first reaction. This
fear will subside once the ego-identification ceases. Many people are
afraid of transcendence. The limited is afraid to loose its
boundaries. In the Gita it is said, also a favorate quote of MMY, that
only a little of this practise releases one from great fear. Fear
should not be the bottom-line of our relationship to God (or one's
master respectively). But respect and awe are okay. I agree with you
that love should be the dominating feature.
I don't think that MMY was advocating fear of God as the dominating
sentiment in his lecture. As to what Judy wrote it was more of a
highly philosophical, esoteric lecture. I remember, as I already have
posted, a similar lecture which was one of the most subtle and
mind-boogling ones I ever heard of him, which was mainly about,
Shiva/Shakti in indian terms, a series of lectures on wholeness, where
he speaks about the 'fullness of fullness' and the 'fulness of
emptiness', and how, naturally the fullness always moves towards the
emptiness to erase it (emptiness being Maya). In this context, he also
spoke about the fullness being afraid of emptiness, quoting the verse
from the Upanishad (Katha or Taittirya), how out of fear of him the
wind blows. I am sorry I cannot give you the full logic here, but only
some indication, but I am sure some people here still remember the
lecture series. Maybe its called 'Spiritual Development'. I think that
MMY thereby gives fear a place in his system of thought, but it is in
no way the dominating place. When I looked up 'fear' and 'upanishad'
at Google, by far the most quotes are about loosing all fear. I think
this represents MMY's system better.
John Manning <joh...@terra.com.br> wrote in message news:<3EEFDC34...@terra.com.br>...
Judy Stein
> Judy Stein wrote:
> >
> > John, I find this post from you astonishing.
>
> I am no match to your razor sharp intellect dear Judy, but I will
> respond as best as I can.
Don't sell your intellect short. I wouldn't even make the
attempt if I didn't think you were up to it.
> It's as if
> > you turned your brain off while you were watching the
> > tape and read your own agenda into what MMY said.
>
> I wouldn't say that I have any 'agenda' other than to express my own
> views in support of TM and also what I personally regard as less than
> genuinely meaningful and relevant to human life as, to me, the TMO under
> Maharishi has become.
Yeah, it's the latter, I think, that came to the fore here,
and I think it seriously distorted your view of what he said,
turning it into something actively malignant and wrong and
destructive, when it was really just another of his explanations
of very abstract levels of consciousness.
It's almost contradictory. You complain that he doesn't have
anything to say that's relevant to everyday existence, and in
this case, in a sense, you're right, because he was dealing with
incredibly subtle abstractions on the level of consciousness that
most folks aren't anywhere near ready to experience directly.
But you're *objecting* to what he said as though it had great
and immediate relevance on a practical level, as if it could
do people harm somehow. I mean, either there are practical
implications to his thesis, or there aren't! You can't have
it both ways.
I don't think there was anything practical in that explanation;
it was purely theoretical. He wasn't *advocating* anything by
it other than transcending.
> > John Manning <joh...@terra.com.br> wrote in message news:<3EEEA25C...@terra.com.br>...
> > <snip>
> > > The idea that 'fear' (with his analogy of 'wrestlers') is the basis of
> > > Maharishi's "Natural Law", relegates his definition of human life to
> > > dogs fighting for bones for survival.
> >
> > How you could draw that conclusion I can't imagine.
>
> Just the statement that "All Natural Law also is based on fear..." is
> offensive to me and I totally disagree with it. TOTALLY! It suggests
> just what I said.
OK, you explain to me the steps by which you get from "All
natural law is based on fear"--IN THE SENSE MMY MEANT IT, i.e.,
as a metaphor for an abstraction--to his definition of human
life being that we're dogs fighting for bones for survival.
> The
> > "fear" bit is almost an aside, just for one thing. Before
> > he mentions it, he goes into a long explanation in terms of
> > the "wrestlers" of silence and dynamism being on the highest
> > level of *alertness* to each other. Then when he says there's
> > a theory in the Vedic literature that silence and dynamism are
> > afraid of each other, he keeps giggling, as if he recognizes
> > how absurd it sounds. He doesn't dwell on it, just mentions it
> > in passing as an interesting way of putting it.
>
> I actually thought of that; that he was just giving an insight into
> those dynamics. But his failure to clarify it, left his statement
> intact.
Geez. He'd already clarified it in great detail. The "fear" bit
was just a postscript to that part of the explanation--"Oh, by the
way, and this is how the Upanishads describe it..." You're making
it the main event and understanding "fear" much too literally.
> > When he was talking about the "wrestlers" being "alert," I
> > had more of an image of martial artists, each poised on the
> > razor's edge of alertness to counter instantly whatever move
> > the other makes--a very highly developed state of consciousness.
> > (I wonder if that's what he had in mind as well, and "wrestlers"
> > was the nearest English equivalent he could come up with at the
> > moment.) Natural law, then, would be what flows from this
> > optimum state of alertness to each other of silence and
> > dynamism.
>
> I still disagree that 'fear' is the basis of Natural Law
Do you see that "fear" could be just an extreme way of
describing mutual alertness? I got the distinct sense MMY
thought "fear" was too concrete, almost hyperbolic. And remember,
again, that even "alertness" is an anthropomorphic metaphor for
something very deeply abstract.
- though I
> concede that Maharishi may have been indicating a very subtle analysis;
> the fact that he didn't express it further - still leaves that
> impression.
It shouldn't, given everything that came before the mention
of "fear." "Fear" didn't need any further explanation in the
context of what he'd already said.
> > I'm pretty sure the metaphor is limited to that poised state of
> > alertness before the actual fighting starts. I don't think
> > he extended it to the combat phase. But even if he did, it
> > would still be on an extremely abstract level, not having
> > anything to do with brute force or violence or doing damage.
>
> Reminds me of Charlie Lutes saying that the war of Armageddon actually
> takes place within the individual.
Well, that's somewhat similar, yes. (According to knowledgeable
Muslims, that's what "jihad" refers to as well, interestingly
enough--the inner struggle.)
But even the individual's inner struggle is more concrete and
immediate than what MMY was talking about. That silence and
dynamism might be said metaphorically to be "afraid" of each
other doesn't imply fear on the part of the individual. It's
just on a totally different level.
> > It was obvious that he was speaking on an extremely
> > abstract level about the nature and mechanics of
> > consciousness; how you get from that to "dogs fighting
> > for bones for survival" just boggles my mind.
>
> The comment that "All Natural Law also is based on fear" kind of leads
> to that conclusion when adequate clarification is not provided.
Well, again, I invite you to explain the steps by which you get
from one to another. I have no idea what they are, so I can't
address them, but I'm virtually positive one of them is a great
big misstep that has led you way off base.
> > The question he was responding to, incidentally, was how the
> > brain, a small organ, could possibly support the experience
> > of the infinite. I must admit I couldn't follow his explanation
> > (the "wrestlers" bit was in the latter part of it), but it didn't
> > seem to me that he was just babbling; it sounded as though he
> > had a very clear idea of what he was explaining.
>
> I've noticed that many times it 'seems' that way with him. And he 'may'
> be correct. My point is that his words are disconnected from the
> practical experience of life. It's as if he assumes that his abstract
> dissertation has a practical link to human experience.
Well, if it doesn't, if it's purely theoretical with no connection
to human experience, why are you so rabidly objecting to it?
Other than the TM
> itself, I see nothing in that regard - particularly with Bevan and the
> beyond absurdity current TMO. Maharishi's failure to clarify his
> statement that "All Natural Law also is based on fear" is characteristic
> to me of his other failures with his unending new and discarded
> 'programs'. They have no justification, just like his statement. I'm not
> kidding about this at all.
I would never assume you were kidding about it. But I can't see
the connection between his failure to clarify the statement (although
I think you're mistaken about that too, as I pointed out above) and
what goes on with his programs. I think it's apples and oranges.
> I had the sense
> > if I listened to it a few more times, and maybe could ask questions
> > of someone who understood it, it would turn out to be meaningful.
> > But very, *very* abstract.
>
> For a Global press conference, I think that Bill Clinton could have done
> MUCH better to actually get the message across.
Hey, if Bill Clinton were in Unity consciousness, I'm quite sure
he could (especially given that English is his native language
and he's not 80-plus years old). What a concept, Bill Clinton
in Unity consciousness. The right wing would have to assassinate
him.
> > And it just had *nothing* to do with *humans* being afraid of
> > each other.
>
> I didn't say that it did.
Then why should it be such a problem??
> > > Divinity - even enlightenment - is N O T based on fear. Maharishi's
> > > bullshit trip in this regard is totally foreign to the real functioning
> > > of life; and to the genuine hope for it's fulfillment in this world.
> >
> > He wasn't saying anything like that. You're taking him MUCH MUCH
> > too literally.
>
> I've spent countless, countless hours listening to Maharishi and
> noticing that he has made many, many such proclamations without
> justifying them.
He didn't say divinity was based on fear. You're bashing him for
not justifying a statement he didn't make!
And in any case, he *did* justify what he *did* say in everything
that came before. He wasn't introducing a new concept when he
mentioned the "fear" business; again, it was just a postscript to
the "alertness" concept he'd been describing at some length prior
to that point.
<snip>
> I have no doubts whatsoever that the most significant inner spiritual
> component of human life (all of life for that matter) doesn't depend on
> the size of the human brain.
Right. Now explain why you have no doubts. Make a case for
the brain being able to "contain" infinity.
To me, from my own experience, all of life
> flourishes when love happens. It is inconceivable to me that "All
> Natural Law also is based on fear". Infinity (the Absolute) is the
> accepted basis, in this discussion, of all of existence. It is
> incongruous to me that love doesn't flow from that source. Perhaps
> Maharishi was merely speaking about subtle technicalities.
YES YES YES. He was speaking about subtle technicalities.
He never said love didn't flow from the Absolute. That's an
extrapolation *you* made.
Look, what you're saying is like extrapolating from the fact
that two fighters are prepared to beat each other up to
claiming that means they beat their wives. Doesn't follow.
Two different spheres. They can be the world's most vicious
fighters and still be extremely loving and tender toward their
wives.
The big problem is you're anthropomorphizing the "fear" thing.
It's just a metaphor for an extremely abstract dynamic.
<snip>
> > No amount of talking about love, no
> > amount of exhortation about how it's the basic component and
> > motivation of life, is going to make anyone more capable of being
> > loving, of one's fellow humans or of God. There really isn't any
> > point to it. You can't teach love. I think he's quite right not
> > to try, and focus instead on the mechanics of consciousness by
> > which love develops spontaneously.
>
> Aah, I disagree with that dear Judy. Love can be taught in its
> expression to others, even in feeble and weak attempts. Love can be
> expressed in music and lyrics and literature that touch the hearts of
> others.
Love can be *expressed*, yes, but that's different from teaching
someone how to love.
Love can even be taught in the embracing statements of genuine
> statesmen and the flowing love from parent to child.
Love can be *exemplified* in that way, yes, but that's still
different from teaching someone how to love.
Love can be *evoked*. There are an awful lot of TMers who
feel very great love for Maharishi. There are still more
(myself included) who don't really feel love *for* him but who
have the sense everything he does arises from his love for
humankind. We just don't see blathering on endlessly about
love as a necessary criterion for *being loving*.
Love isn't reserved
> for 'enlightened' people - it is the breath and life of all of humanity.
Who said it was? That love is *perfected* in enlightenment
doesn't mean it only exists in enlightenment.
<snip>
> > > Genuine love is totally missing from Maharishi here. Or it's relegated
> > > to a dismissive definition in his ongoing blabber.
> >
> > Seriously, John, I think you've got a huge blind spot here.
>
> I could be wrong. Yes. But I cannot deny the love I feel for God and
> humanity. Though I'm not technically 'enlightened', I cannot dismiss my
> own personal experience.
That seems to me to be a complete non sequitur. Nobody suggested
you don't feel love for God and humanity. And how would that mean
genuine love is totally missing from Maharishi?
> > > Even TM itself is based on "more charming levels of depth of
> > > consciousness". NOT fear.
> >
> > He never suggested TM was based on fear.
> > Where do you GET this
> > stuff??
>
> "All Natural Law also is based on fear" ---MMY
The "fear," in the sense MMY was using the term, is
what makes deeper levels of the mind more charming!
> > You're sounding like the Peterrhoid!
>
> Yikes Judy! That was below the belt.
Well, sorry, but, sheesh, I just don't think you're
making any sense with this. It's *so* off-base that it's
really difficult to put a finger on where you've gone
wrong. It's truly baffling. It's as strange as the media
pouncing on Al Gore's "earth tones" and somehow making that
into an indication that he was unfit to be president. It's,
like, huh?
You know, I'm thinking back to your very moving account of
MMY saying you should steal if you have to in order to learn
TM. Other people freaked out and condemned MMY for having
advocated stealing, but you very properly pointed out it
was a bit of hyperbole that expressed how strongly he felt
about TM's value. You also said that you thought he began
to weep after he said it.
There are two points here. First, if he didn't love humanity
desperately, why would he have such strong feelings about the
value of TM that they would make him actually weep?
Second, how come you were able to see past the literal meaning
of what he was saying in that case, yet you seem to want to
hold him responsible for a literal meaning of "fear"?
That's why I'm so amazed at what you've said about him in this
thread. You just seem to have shut off your capacity for
insight, which is considerable, as your take on the "stealing"
anecdote exemplifies.
willytex
> who get all bent out of shape over TM?
> Judy?
From: Judy Stein (jst...@panix.com)
Subject: Re: "All Natural Law also is based on fear..."
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2003-06-17 18:09:20 PST
John, I find this post from you astonishing. It's as if
you turned your brain off while you were watching the
tape and read your own agenda into what MMY said...
Judy - Thanks for pointing out the flaws in John's reasoning.
John Manning
Having read through (twice, very slowly and thoughtfully) our
discussion, I tend to agree more with your position; particularly in
reference to two things. First that Maharishi 'was' referring to a very
subtle and abstract concept - and second, as you pointed out, the
mistaken interpretation of the 'stealing' quote.
But for the record, 'I' would never say that all Natural Law is based on
fear. It could too easily be assumed to be literal in the practical
daily life sense. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if most people who
heard it - 'especially' from Maharishi - would interpret it that way. I
did. And apparently a few others in this thread did as well.
John
Judy Stein
<snip>
> But for the record, 'I' would never say that all Natural Law is based on
> fear. It could too easily be assumed to be literal in the practical
> daily life sense. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if most people who
> heard it - 'especially' from Maharishi - would interpret it that way. I
> did. And apparently a few others in this thread did as well.
I agree, particularly if they didn't listen to the lengthy
explanation that preceded his mention of the "fear" part, or
if they just read the quote.
I wouldn't blame anybody for being puzzled by it. It was
your making it the focus of a denunciation, without stopping
to wonder whether there might be more to it (or in this case,
less!) than was immediately apparent, that I was objecting to.
I'm glad I was at least able to suggest a different
perspective. I wish I had the time to go back and listen
again to the whole thing and see if I could absorb more
of his main thesis. I wish there were a transcript of
it--I absorb more from reading usually than I do from
hearing, especially when it's very abstract.
John Manning
Again for the record. In my view, LOVE is the basis of all natural law
which includes all of life; all of existence. Fear is NOT that basis!
And Maharishi's statement "All Natural Law also is based on fear..."
which is easily (by your accepted analysis) incorrectly adopted by Bevan
types AND even supposed objective people in this thread - under our
apparently agreed terms, false on a practical level. That goes to the
core of Maharishi's failure to adequately, conscientiously and
responsibly communicate his views - particularly to a 'global' news
conference. And it further supports, at least to me, my view that
Maharishi is totally out of 'connection mode' with others. (I don't see
any big crowds running to buy his latest cash for enlightenment
'program'.)
The Basis of Life is Love, and its genuine reciprocal expression.
I continue to contend that even though some people claim that Maharishi
is in Unity Consciousness, that he is abjectly inept at running his own
organization - which is painfully embarrassing just as it is. And by his
making statements to a global news conference that likely would be
interpreted as we both have agreed - it only further confirms to me my
own experience with him and his history of falling short of his claimed
capability of personally representing what he teaches - even apart from
TM. That's likely why he has, in the disappointed eyes of thousands of
people like myself, resorted to making cash from his ancillary Ayervedic
industry. People like Deepok Chopra are not stupid. Neither are people
who have been meditating for many years. And neither is the public.
(except in the USA when it comes to Bush.)
"The purpose of creation is the expansion of happiness." ---Maharishi
Mahesh Yogi
Fear is an antithesis to this purpose - and is part of it only in the
sense that Michael (in his post in this thread) indicated.
I could go on. It's not necessary.
My grandfather repeated over and over again to me that "you can't argue
with results boy". I totally support TM for its results in my own life.
I can only conclude, from my grandfather's statement and my direct
experience - that Maharishi (apart from bringing TM to millions of
people - which is a grand accomplishment for which I'm grateful), is
inept and incompetent otherwise. He had the help of a generation of
people who needed TM just to emotionally survive. He needed "US". I will
even say that, at this point, he's a human opportunist attempting to
perpetuate his own personal legacy.
My father also repeated to me that every human being has feet of clay -
and those humans to whom we look as 'superior' have nothing that we do
not have ourselves. That is my view of Maharishi - regardless of his
proclaimed 'status' by others.
John
Melvin Dullman
> Again for the record. In my view, LOVE is the basis of all natural law
> which includes all of life; all of existence. Fear is NOT that basis!
Perhaps the words 'love' and 'fear' are being used anthropomorphically to
refer to the forces of attraction and repulsion found at all levels of
nature. The Big Bang repelled everything apart and gravity pulls everything
together. Also the forces within an atom, or something.
Melvin
People often ask me 'Melvin, do you know what you're talking about?' and I
say 'Why, do I sound like I do?'
John Manning
Melvin Dullman wrote:
>
> John Manning <joh...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> news:3EF13F91...@terra.com.br...
> > Again for the record. In my view, LOVE is the basis of all natural law
> > which includes all of life; all of existence. Fear is NOT that basis!
>
> Perhaps the words 'love' and 'fear' are being used anthropomorphically to
> refer to the forces of attraction and repulsion found at all levels of
> nature.
You're not as dumb as I thought you were (in this regard). That apparent
conflict is resolved in it's mutual source which can be directly
experienced via TM.
The Big Bang repelled everything apart and gravity pulls everything
> together. Also the forces within an atom, or something.
Good stuff here Melvin D.
John Manning
Lawson English
Eki's quote of a Upanishad that said exactly what MMY said?
MMY was merely referring to that Upanishad, obviously.
You're still obsessed with how awful MMY is, and will use any excuse to tear
him down. Sad, in my opinion.
--
"And advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific
genotypes may
transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically
useful tool."
-page 72, REBUILDING AMERICA'S DEFENSES
Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century
A Report of The Project for the New American Century
September 2000
http://www.newamericancentury.org
"John Manning" <joh...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:3EF13F91...@terra.com.br...
Michael
> People often ask me 'Melvin, do you know what you're talking about?' and I
> say 'Why, do I sound like I do?'
Actually, yes.
Judy Stein
> Judy Stein wrote:
<snip>
> > I wouldn't blame anybody for being puzzled by it. It was
> > your making it the focus of a denunciation, without stopping
> > to wonder whether there might be more to it (or in this case,
> > less!) than was immediately apparent, that I was objecting to.
>
> Again for the record. In my view, LOVE is the basis of all natural law
> which includes all of life; all of existence. Fear is NOT that basis!
> And Maharishi's statement "All Natural Law also is based on fear..."
> which is easily (by your accepted analysis) incorrectly adopted by Bevan
> types
Not by "Bevan types." Whatever one's opinion may be of Bevan
as a person, he is *very* good at understanding and expounding
MMY's teaching. That's one of the reasons MMY has made him such
a big cheese in the movement. He is not the type to listen to a
sound bite and go galloping off on the wrong track.
AND even supposed objective people in this thread - under our
> apparently agreed terms
*My* term was "puzzled," not "incorrectly adopted." And I
stipulated that they would be puzzled *particularly* if
they hadn't heard the whole thing.
, false on a practical level. That goes to the
> core of Maharishi's failure to adequately, conscientiously and
> responsibly communicate his views - particularly to a 'global' news
> conference.
The global news conference heard his *whole* explanation, not
just the sound bite.
If you're suggesting that MMY is a bad communicator because he
doesn't cater to folks who aren't paying attention and are
likely to go off half-cocked, well, you could make a case for
that, I suppose.
But as I said, anyone who heard what came before that sound
bite should at least have been aware that it was an aside,
not the main event, and that it was not meant literally.
Anyone who heard even just the sound bite should have been
aware that he thought the "fear" metaphor was a pretty funny
way of putting it. He chuckled all the time he was describing
it, a clear signal that one needed to be careful how one took
it. That signal was his concession to those who weren't paying
attention.
<snip>
> The Basis of Life is Love, and its genuine reciprocal expression.
And you know damn well MMY would agree with you 100 percent.
He did NOT say the basis of *life* was fear.
Nor did what he *did* say cast any doubt or diminish in any way
that love is the basis of life. Apples and oranges. Two different
levels.
C'mon, John. Whatever reasons you may have for disliking MMY,
you've picked a very bad basis for supporting your case.
<snip>
And by his
> making statements to a global news conference that likely would be
> interpreted as we both have agreed
Don't put words in my mouth. Or rather, don't take words out of
my mouth. My stipulation was they'd be "puzzled"--they wouldn't
be sure what he meant--and especially if they hadn't heard the
entire explanation--which the global news conference *did* hear.
If you're not sure, you reserve judgment, or better yet, you
*ask*. You don't launch into a denunciation.
<snip>
> "The purpose of creation is the expansion of happiness." ---Maharishi
> Mahesh Yogi
>
> Fear is an antithesis to this purpose - and is part of it only in the
> sense that Michael (in his post in this thread) indicated.
Right. And as was clear from the rest of what he said. Fear
*would* be an antithesis to this purpose, except that what he
said wasn't posed as an antithesis to it. You can't have an
antithesis between premises that deal with entirely different
levels of abstraction. There's no contradiction or inconsistency
whatsoever between those two statements.
ColdBluICE
> This is the Upanishad to which MMY's lecture most likely refers to.
> Mueller translates "terror", but I heard Maharishi quoting it as:
> "Through fear of Brahman the fire burns"
> http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/upan/up06.htm
> Katha Upanishad,
Namaste Sir Micheal, most poiltely..i have *once again caught you*
re-handed quoting *your(PERSONAL) favorite* DISCREDITED paid hack
writer- F. MAx Mueller.
From your own link..
-..The Sacred Books of the East (SBE) series, comprising fifty
volumes, was issued by the Oxford University Press between 1879 and
1910. It has translations of key sacred texts of Hinduism, Buddhism,
Taoism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, and Islam. The series
was edited by the famous linguist Max Müller, who also produced many
of the translations..
source- http://www.sacred-texts.com/sbe/index.htm
As we both are well aware F. Max Mueller could not even understand
spoken Sanskrit, nor able to read or write Sanskrit Lets just say he
was illerate..
Please see links cited.
-..No wonder Arthur Schopenhauer acerbically said, "I cannot resist a
certain suspicion that our Sanskrit scholars do not understand their
texts any better than the higher class of school boys their Greek and
Latin."
http://www.atributetohinduism.com/FirstIndologists.htm#The%20First%20Scholars
-..Another revealing incident of Mueller's glaring ignorance was when
a brahmana came from India to meet the famous Sanskrit scholar. When
he came face to face with Mueller and spoke to him in chaste Sanskrit,
Mueller admitted that he couldn't understand what the gentleman was
saying!
-..Swami Dayananda Saraswati, the founder of the Arya Samaja, was so
disgusted with the level of Mueller's knowledge of Sanskrit that he
likened him to a "toddler learning to walk". He wrote:
-.."Prof. Max Mueller has been able to scribble out something by the
help of the so called 'tikas' or paraphrases of the Vedas current in
India."
(source: Satyartha Prakash Third Edition p. 278). Note: Swami Dayanand
Saraswati commented very negatively on Max Mueller's knowledge of
Sanskrit by saying that his depth of understanding is like a Aak plant
among the trees (Indian Sanskrit scholars).
-..It was Max Mueller who said: "I do not shrink from saying that
their religion (Hinduism) is dying or dead. And why? Because it cannot
stand the light of day. The worship of Siva, Vishnu and other popular
deities is of the same, nay, in many cases of a more degraded and
savage character than the worship of Jupiter, Apollo and Minerva. It
belongs to a stratum of thought which is long buried beneath our
feet…"
(source: In the matter of conversions…- By M V Kamath indiainfo.com).
-..All this from the man (Max Muller) who has Bhavans named after him
all over India. Muller's purpose was to uproot Hinduism!!
-..Muller concluded : "But the ancient religion of India is doomed,"
"and if Christianity does not step in, whose fault will it be?"
(source: Missionaries in India: Continuities, Changes, Dilemmas - By
Arun Shourie ASA Publications ASIN 8190019945 p. 139).
- http://www.atributetohinduism.com/FirstIndologists.htm#The%20First%20Scholars
It is a *historical FACT* that- F. Max Mueller had a personal agenda
to destroy the Native Religion of BharatVarsh/India, and fabricated
this notion of 'brahman thingy'.
It is also true that you and willytex admire this *Discredited
Illerate Hack writer/LIAR* as some sort of guiding light and authority
on the Vedas.
Here are willytex's own words regarding; his own fascination and
dedication with F. Max Mueller. In the post(below- "Brahma"-06/21/02)
he *in fact praises* the efforts of the British (and other writers-F.
Max Mueller specifically) in their attempts to re-write Indian history
and the Vedas..
> From: willytex (will...@yahoo.com)
> Subject: Brahma
> View this article only
> Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
> Date: 2002-06-21 22:33:34 PST
> No, it was the British who collected the Vedic fragments from
> recitations by the Indian pundits, translated the words,
> and published them.
> Thanks to the British and other European scholars we now have
> a complete series of translations collected in the
> "Sacred Books of the East" Series published by
> the Oxford University Press and the Harvard Oriental Classics.
Back by popular demand
>
>
> Melvin Dullman wrote:
> >
> > John Manning <joh...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> > news:3EF13F91...@terra.com.br...
> > > Again for the record. In my view, LOVE is the basis of all natural law
> > > which includes all of life; all of existence. Fear is NOT that basis!
> >
> > Perhaps the words 'love' and 'fear' are being used anthropomorphically
to
> > refer to the forces of attraction and repulsion found at all levels of
> > nature.
>
> You're not as dumb as I thought you were (in this regard).
Coming from John, is that a compliment or an insult? ;-)
willytex
> was illerate...
Mr Perino - As we are both well aware that you cannot read nor write
any Sanskrit and that you've never even been to India in the first
place. You didn't even know that in Sanksrit Literature the word
'Brahman' refers to the Paramatman, the Transcendental Absolute, as
stated in the Brahma Sutras of Badarayana.
So, you're dumberer than F. Max Mueller - at least he had a job in
Academia - you're still a housepainter by trade. Go figure.
John Manning
Lawson English wrote:
>
> Can't speak to MMY's status or even what he said, but did you just IGNORE
> Eki's quote of a Upanishad that said exactly what MMY said?
>
> MMY was merely referring to that Upanishad, obviously.
>
> You're still obsessed with how awful MMY is, and will use any excuse to tear
> him down. Sad, in my opinion.
The greatest sadness Lawson, in 'my' opinion, is what Maharishi has done
with his organization.
John
John
Lawson English
>
>
> Lawson English wrote:
> >
> > Can't speak to MMY's status or even what he said, but did you just
IGNORE
> > Eki's quote of a Upanishad that said exactly what MMY said?
> >
> > MMY was merely referring to that Upanishad, obviously.
> >
> > You're still obsessed with how awful MMY is, and will use any excuse to
tear
> > him down. Sad, in my opinion.
>
>
> The greatest sadness Lawson, in 'my' opinion, is what Maharishi has done
> with his organization.
Just what do you think his organization is for?
--
The people who wrote these words are now running this country. Doesn't
anyone care?
'And advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific
John Manning
Lawson English wrote:
>
> "John Manning" <joh...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> news:3EF236CF...@terra.com.br...
> >
> >
> > Lawson English wrote:
> > >
> > > Can't speak to MMY's status or even what he said, but did you just
> IGNORE
> > > Eki's quote of a Upanishad that said exactly what MMY said?
> > >
> > > MMY was merely referring to that Upanishad, obviously.
> > >
> > > You're still obsessed with how awful MMY is, and will use any excuse to
> tear
> > > him down. Sad, in my opinion.
> >
> >
> > The greatest sadness Lawson, in 'my' opinion, is what Maharishi has done
> > with his organization.
>
> Just what do you think his organization is for?
Making money by selling enlightenment to wealthy people for $1 million
dollars. Hawking Ayervedic products.
Raising the price for TM has basically eliminated its propagation.
Almost every TM teacher is not teaching.
I live in Rio de Janeiro (approx. 6 million people). The TM center that
was here has been closed. It's the same everywhere. There are ZERO TM
centers in most of the major capitals of the world. ZERO. Even though
the TMO is reported to have $2 billion in assets.
There is no infrastructure left at the level of the actual people. There
are no support mechanisms and there is no TM teaching happening for the
thousands of TM teachers. (That's just for starters.)
John
Lawson English
But what is the organization for?
John Manning
I think that Bob Brigante's website www.mumbull.com can give a most
thorough answer to your question. Far better in scope and range than
anything I could provide.
John
John Manning
Kinda weak Judy, considering the implications that others here so easily
accepted the literal meaning. That's not to mention the global community
who, for the most part, doesn't have clue one.
>
> <snip>
> > The Basis of Life is Love, and its genuine reciprocal expression.
>
> And you know damn well MMY would agree with you 100 percent.
Actually, my actual experience with him would indicate that he might
not. Nobody contradicts this autocrat in real time. His 'authority' HAS
to remain intact. And none of his meagerly paid flunkies dare to say
that the emperor has no clothes - even when it's obvious.
> He did NOT say the basis of *life* was fear.
ALL Natural LAW includes a basis. That would necessarily include *life*.
He said that that basis is fear. "All Natural Law also is based on
fear...". Simple. I've agreed to accept your arguments with the
reservations I described. But my point about it remains.
> Nor did what he *did* say cast any doubt or diminish in any way
> that love is the basis of life. Apples and oranges. Two different
> levels.
> C'mon, John. Whatever reasons you may have for disliking MMY,
> you've picked a very bad basis for supporting your case.
My 'case' as you put it, goes far beyond this singular 'alleged' faux
paux (affecting others in a broad public global context) - which is so
obvious by being made a header in this thread and accepted as *truth*.
It goes to the central core of what Maharishi is doing and has done with
his organization and the hundreds of thousands of TMers and potential
TMers that he has abandoned. It is a clear example of his disconnect
with "people" that WAS (in the early days) his primary intent to
embrace.
You may think that last statement to be a non-sequitur. It is not, in
the sense that it shows an overall pattern within the herein context.
That's just a very small but immediate example of what he does to
perpetuate his game.
Some have seen beyond it. Deepock Chopra certainly did. FWIW the
Beatles, to their credit did too. There are likely tens of thousands of
ex meditaters who also feel the same way FOR THE SAME REASONS.
All I can do is refer you to Bob Brigante's website www.mumbull.org to
get a complete picture of his pathetic distortion of not only TM and its
DIRECT meaning to human life, but his self-important arrogant and crass
disregard for legitimacy in the genuine meaning of REAL human life.
Bob's website is a totally in-depth expose' on all of this. And while
Bob seems to think that Maharishi is a naive dupe of those around him -
I hold Maharishi totally and directly responsible for his own words,
actions and organization.
As far as I remember, you have never addressed what Charlie Lutes said
circa 1971 (paraphrased): "Maharishi has taken a left turn. He has
developed a deaf ear to God. He's doing his own thing." I would add:
"Just like any arrogant, cashed CEO would."
>
> <snip>
> And by his
> > making statements to a global news conference that likely would be
> > interpreted as we both have agreed
>
> Don't put words in my mouth. Or rather, don't take words out of
> my mouth. My stipulation was they'd be "puzzled"
I didn't see any posts from others in this thread where even one person
expressed being "puzzled".
(snip)
> be sure what he meant--and especially if they hadn't heard the
> entire explanation--which the global news conference *did* hear.
>
> If you're not sure, you reserve judgment, or better yet, you
> *ask*.
Ask who??? Bevan? Chortle.
> You don't launch into a denunciation.
We've gone over this.
>
> <snip>
> > "The purpose of creation is the expansion of happiness." ---Maharishi
> > Mahesh Yogi
> >
> > Fear is an antithesis to this purpose - and is part of it only in the
> > sense that Michael (in his post in this thread) indicated.
>
> Right. And as was clear from the rest of what he said. Fear
> *would* be an antithesis to this purpose, except that what he
> said wasn't posed as an antithesis to it. You can't have an
> antithesis between premises that deal with entirely different
> levels of abstraction. There's no contradiction or inconsistency
> whatsoever between those two statements.
Agreed. But that wasn't my point in all of this. I believe that I have
made a most significant expression about that *apart* from the immediate
above.
You and I seem to disagree on Maharishi's intentions and legitimacy.
Bevan Morris introduced him as a person in Unity Conciousness. If
Maharishi has 'Unity Consciousness', I would prefer to do without that
version for my own life. I go by practical and meaningful results in
human lives. And my own experience with TM has been TOTALLY contrary to
what Maharishi is currently saying and doing. Other than providing TM in
the beginning, Maharishi has become a less than a credible advocate.
If you've ever read about Guru Dev (there is a biography available), you
would really see the stark and radical difference. And if you personally
were to hang around with Maharishi for any length of time, (knowing you
as I have come to know you), you would likely become even more offended
than I am. Unless you got 'charmed'. That's his ace. That's the limit of
his 'mastery'. After you're charmed, you become his willing servant.
Tough to accept? Hey Judy, it's reality. Give it a try, eh?
My expressed point of view remains.
John
"Everyone just wants to be happy." MMY
willytex
> > you've picked a very bad basis for supporting your case.
Judy - It doesn't matter what the issue is, John is going to object for the
simple reason that he thinks that the Maharsihi doesn't love him anymore.
John is not attempting to make a rational argument here - you are correct -
he is a Petroid, pure and simple.
From: John Manning (joh...@terra.com.br)
Subject: Re: "All Natural Law also is based on fear..."
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2003-06-20 19:10:15 PST
In my view, LOVE is the basis of all natural law which includes all of
life...
From: John Manning (joh...@terra.com.br)
Subject: Re: "All Natural Law also is based on fear..."
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2003-06-20 19:10:15 PST
Actually, my actual experience with him would indicate that he might not...
"John Manning" <joh...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:3EF3BC68...@terra.com.br...
George DeForest
two warriors in combat (like the MMY "wrestlers" image).
this one comes from another teacher.
Relaxation is Just Being Natural
Q - "Osho, How can one get out of the trap the mind creates of never
being quite blissful in the moment, and being patient, letting the
grass grow by itself? I'm always wanting to move faster, to push the
river, and missing the beauty of it taking me in its own time. Would
you please comment?"
A - "IT IS ONE OF THE ETERNAL questions. The East has come up with
something very close to the truth. There are religions born in India
and religions born outside India; the religions born outside all
believe in one life -- that is, seventy years. Naturally, one is in a
hurry; one has to be in a hurry -- such a small life and so much to
do, so much to experience, so much to explore. That's why the Western
mind is speedy, wanting to do everything faster and faster, quickly,
because his conception of life is too small. You cannot blame him.
The religions born in India have an eternal expanse -- life after
life. There is no hurry, there is no haste. But man is so stupid that
you solve one question, and out of the solution a thousand other
questions will arise. The idea of many lives was really to help you to
relax: there is no hurry; the eternity is yours, so don't run, just
walk the way you go for a morning walk -- at ease, relaxed.
That was the idea of the people who gave the conception of
reincarnation, but people are such that rather than becoming relaxed,
they became lazy. They said, "There is no hurry, so why bother even to
walk? Running is out of question but even to go for a morning walk,
what is the need? Eternity is ours -- you can go any time for your
morning walk."
The East became poor because of this, because no technology was
evolved. Technology is just to make things quickly, to produce things
faster than man can do with his own hands. The people remained poor,
went on becoming poorer. The idea was good, but the consequences
proved not to be good.
The West has just the opposite idea -- of a small life. It created
great tension and anxiety, but it created technology, scientific
developments, richness, comfort, luxuries; it created everything. But
the man inside was lost, because he was always running. He was never
where he was; he was always going for something else. And that goal
where you can stop never comes. So in the West people have means of
speed, and they are going fast. But don't ask them, "Where are you
going?" Don't waste their time in asking such stupid questions! All
that matters is that they are going fast; it does not matter where
they are going and why they are going.
Both ideas have failed. Eastern religions have not been of help;
Western religions have not been of help. They both tried to give you
an idea, but they never gave you an insight into your own being.
That's where I differ.
For example, your question is that you understand, "Relax and let the
grass grow by itself," but still you go on pushing.
No, you don't understand. The first thing for you to understand is
that you don't understand the meaning of the grass growing by itself.
If you understand that, the pushing, the forcing, will disappear. When
I say it will disappear, I am not saying it will stop. It will differ
with different people.
If you understand what it means that the grass grows by itself... such
a vast universe is going so silently, so peacefully; millions of solar
systems, millions of stars moving day in, day out, from eternity to
eternity... If you understand that existence is happening, it is not
doing, then if pushing is your nature you will accept it. It is not a
question of stopping it, because that will be again doing. You simply
understand that things are happening, that this is how you are: that
you push, that you force. Then there is a great acceptance of it, and
in that acceptance, the tension disappears.
For a few others the pushing may disappear -- if it is not part of
their nature, if they are imitating somebody else, if they are
competing with somebody else and because everybody else is pushing,
they are pushing. It may stop, understanding that things are
happening, and you need not unnecessarily bother about them; you can
enjoy silently the way things are happening. You can contribute
without any anxiety anything that comes naturally to you; but not
beyond that.
So each individual will have different things happening out of the
same understanding. If pushing is your nature, then there is nothing
wrong in it. Enjoy it, push as much as you can -- but with a song and
with a dance, and without being worried that you are pushing. This is
you. This is your grass, and it grows this way. There are grasses and
grasses.
Just one thing has to be remembered, that anything that you are doing
is joyfully done, rejoicingly done -- that's enough. Different people
will be doing different things, and the world needs that different
people should do different things. It is the richness of the world,
that all are not alike, and should not be alike. But on one point they
should meet; and that is the cosmic center of being relaxed.
IN JAPAN they have developed strange things for meditative purposes...
Japan has done a tremendous service to humanity. Meditation was
developed in India, but it remained a very limited phenomenon -- just
sitting in a lotus posture witnessing your thoughts, becoming silent.
It did the work, but Japan tried different dimensions, strange
dimensions: swordsmanship, but with meditation. Two swordsmen bent
upon killing each other have to remain centered in themselves without
tension, without fear, without anger, without revenge, just playful.
To the observer it is a question of life and death, but to those two
meditators it is playfulness. And a strange thing has been observed
again and again: if both the meditators are of the same depth in
meditation, nobody wins, nobody is killed. Even before one person
raises the sword to hit the other person at a certain point -- even
before he has done that -- just that idea of his has reached to the
other, and his sword is ready to protect him.
It is impossible to declare who is the winner. Ordinarily it is
difficult to think of swordsmanship and meditation, aikido and
meditation, jujitsu and meditation, wrestling and meditation. But in
Japan they have tried every dimension possible, and they have found
that it doesn't matter what you are doing; what matters is, are you
centered?
If you are centered then you can do anything and it will not create
any tension; your relaxation will remain the same.
So don't be worried about pushing. Just try to understand that we are
so small compared to this immense universe; what we do or don't do
makes no difference to existence. We are not to be serious about it. I
was not here and existence continued; I will not be here, and
existence will continue. I should not take myself seriously.
That is a fundamental understanding of a meditator -- that he does not
take himself seriously. Then relaxation comes automatically. And with
relaxation, whatsoever is natural to you continues, and whatsoever is
not natural to you falls on its own accord."
Osho, Beyond Psychology, Chapter 11
Judy Stein
> this is another angle on the spiritual dimension of
> two warriors in combat (like the MMY "wrestlers" image).
> this one comes from another teacher.
Wow, that Osho was wiser than a lot of folks give him credit
for. This is great stuff, George.
Here's the key point:
> Japan tried different dimensions, strange
> dimensions: swordsmanship, but with meditation. Two swordsmen bent
> upon killing each other have to remain centered in themselves without
> tension, without fear, without anger, without revenge, just playful.
>
> To the observer it is a question of life and death, but to those two
> meditators it is playfulness. And a strange thing has been observed
> again and again: if both the meditators are of the same depth in
> meditation, nobody wins, nobody is killed.
Nobody wins, nobody is killed!
It seems different from what MMY says because, according to
Osho, there is *no* fear. But before he cited the "fear"
metaphor from the Upanishads, MMY described the same
situation as involving *alertness*. You can't be completely
alert without being completely relaxed, because if there's
tension it will impinge on your alertness.
I note again that when MMY mentioned the "fear" metaphor, he
kept chuckling, which suggests to me that he thought it was
not really a totally appropriate way of putting it.
So I strongly suspect he and Osho had very much the same
idea in mind, Osho with regard to human beings, MMY with
regard to Silence and Dynamism. The "fear" thing is a red
herring. It's the perfectly balanced "alertness" of Silence
and Dynamism toward each other that generates natural law.
In the martial arts analogy, natural law would be the sequence
of action/reaction of the two combatants' moves generated
from their mutual alertness. And because of that balance,
the sequence is not destructive.
"Fear" is a poor metaphor because it suggests tension and
lack of balance. But fear does involve alertness, even if
it's impaired by tension. So the metaphor isn't totally
off base, just misleading if you take it literally.
Judy Stein
much to do with the "natural law based on fear" issue, but it's
very much on target on its own terms.
george....@usa.net (George DeForest) wrote in message news:<54fbbe7f.03062...@posting.google.com>...
[Quoting Osho]
<snip>
> If you understand what it means that the grass grows by itself... such
> a vast universe is going so silently, so peacefully; millions of solar
> systems, millions of stars moving day in, day out, from eternity to
> eternity... If you understand that existence is happening, it is not
> doing,
Existence is happening, not doing--I love that.
then if pushing is your nature you will accept it. It is not a
> question of stopping it, because that will be again doing. You simply
> understand that things are happening, that this is how you are: that
> you push, that you force. Then there is a great acceptance of it, and
> in that acceptance, the tension disappears.
>
> For a few others the pushing may disappear -- if it is not part of
> their nature, if they are imitating somebody else, if they are
> competing with somebody else and because everybody else is pushing,
> they are pushing. It may stop, understanding that things are
> happening, and you need not unnecessarily bother about them; you can
> enjoy silently the way things are happening. You can contribute
> without any anxiety anything that comes naturally to you; but not
> beyond that.
There has always been a bit of confusion in the TM context about
the extent to which enlightenment alters behavior (especially in
terms of whether you can tell whether somebody is enlightened
by observing their behavior). Osho puts it beautifully here,
I think. Behavior that is part of your nature won't change with
enlightenment, but if the behavior is generated by stress, it's
not natural to you, and it will change as you become free of
stress.
> So each individual will have different things happening out of the
> same understanding. If pushing is your nature, then there is nothing
> wrong in it. Enjoy it, push as much as you can -- but with a song and
> with a dance, and without being worried that you are pushing. This is
> you. This is your grass, and it grows this way. There are grasses and
> grasses.
>
> Just one thing has to be remembered, that anything that you are doing
> is joyfully done, rejoicingly done -- that's enough. Different people
> will be doing different things, and the world needs that different
> people should do different things. It is the richness of the world,
> that all are not alike, and should not be alike. But on one point they
> should meet; and that is the cosmic center of being relaxed.
Geez, that's well said! Kudos to Osho. He sure had a gift for
words and clear explanations.
Judy Stein
> Judy Stein wrote:
> >
> > John Manning <joh...@terra.com.br> wrote in message news:<3EF13F91...@terra.com.br>...
> As far as I remember, you have never addressed what Charlie Lutes said
> circa 1971 (paraphrased): "Maharishi has taken a left turn. He has
> developed a deaf ear to God. He's doing his own thing."
I'm not sure how I could "address" it. I think Charlie was wrong.
I don't consider Charlie the be-all, end-all, ultimate source of
information or interpretation on Maharishi. Charlie had his own
big blind spots, and certainly his own ideas about how the movement
should be directed. I'd say what Charlie really meant is that MMY
had taken a left turn from what Charlie thought he should do, and
a deaf ear to Charlie.
<snip>
> If you've ever read about Guru Dev (there is a biography available), you
> would really see the stark and radical difference.
Right. They were very different individuals with very different
personalities, approaches, and missions.
And if you personally
> were to hang around with Maharishi for any length of time, (knowing you
> as I have come to know you), you would likely become even more offended
> than I am. Unless you got 'charmed'. That's his ace. That's the limit of
> his 'mastery'. After you're charmed, you become his willing servant.
>
> Tough to accept? Hey Judy, it's reality. Give it a try, eh?
I'm sorry, how do you suggest I "give it a try"? Apply for a job
at Vlodrop?
John Manning
Judy Stein wrote:
>
> John Manning <joh...@terra.com.br> wrote in message news:<3EF3BC68...@terra.com.br>...
> > Judy Stein wrote:
> > >
> > > John Manning <joh...@terra.com.br> wrote in message news:<3EF13F91...@terra.com.br>...
> <snip>
> > As far as I remember, you have never addressed what Charlie Lutes said
> > circa 1971 (paraphrased): "Maharishi has taken a left turn. He has
> > developed a deaf ear to God. He's doing his own thing."
>
> I'm not sure how I could "address" it. I think Charlie was wrong.
> I don't consider Charlie the be-all, end-all, ultimate source of
> information or interpretation on Maharishi. Charlie had his own
> big blind spots, and certainly his own ideas about how the movement
> should be directed. I'd say what Charlie really meant is that MMY
> had taken a left turn from what Charlie thought he should do, and
> a deaf ear to Charlie.
I accept that as your honest and valid opinion. And Charlie *did* have
some glaring blind spots. He was very often in the dog house with his
wife Helen because of them - of which he told us often. Knowing Helen
like I did, I could only imagine that her dog house for Charlie was
quite effectively unpleasant. But they were both, to the end, unfailing
supporters of Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation; and deeply loved,
respected and admired by literally thousands of people who had been
touched by them.
>
> <snip>
> > If you've ever read about Guru Dev (there is a biography available), you
> > would really see the stark and radical difference.
>
> Right. They were very different individuals with very different
> personalities, approaches, and missions.
>
> And if you personally
> > were to hang around with Maharishi for any length of time, (knowing you
> > as I have come to know you), you would likely become even more offended
> > than I am. Unless you got 'charmed'. That's his ace. That's the limit of
> > his 'mastery'. After you're charmed, you become his willing servant.
> >
> > Tough to accept? Hey Judy, it's reality. Give it a try, eh?
>
> I'm sorry, how do you suggest I "give it a try"? Apply for a job
> at Vlodrop?
I really think that you have no need to do anything like that at all.
And it would probably interfere with your already remarkable and fully
solid understanding of, and direct experience with TM.
Maharishi is an autocrat. Within his environment there is little room
for 'creativity' or 'individuality' outside of his purview.
He's the boss.
Many have recognized this first hand - and because of it have left the
organization (people like Deepok Chopra). And those who have remained
within that context, are merely his puppets and parrots (like Bevan
Morris). The incompetent and bizarre infrastructure and direction of the
TMO that you see today (clearly defined at Brigante's www.mumbull.com)
is the direct result of that. I don't think that you would abide it for
very long dear Judy.
John
Uncle Tantra
>> circa 1971 (paraphrased): "Maharishi has taken a left turn. He has
>> developed a deaf ear to God. He's doing his own thing."
>
>I'm not sure how I could "address" it. I think Charlie was wrong.
>I don't consider Charlie the be-all, end-all, ultimate source of
>information or interpretation on Maharishi. Charlie had his own
>big blind spots, and certainly his own ideas about how the movement
>should be directed. I'd say what Charlie really meant is that MMY
>had taken a left turn from what Charlie thought he should do, and
>a deaf ear to Charlie.
Well said, and "seen." That's the way it
was. As far as I could tell, Maharishi,
living pretty much in the present all the
time, was incapable of holding a grudge.
As far as I could tell, Charlie, living some-
where else (present, past, who can fuckin'
tell?) was incapable of NOT holding a grudge.
Therefore when Maharishi disagreed with
his (Charlie's) view of things, he was disagreeing
with the cosmic view of things. Yeah, right.
Unc
John Manning
............
> As far as I could tell
And,
> who can fuckin' tell?
It's a bit less than sterling truth - but not seemingly dishonest in
intent.
What a tragic comedy. :-) :-(
John
>
> Unc
Lawson English
news:19b3c03e.03062...@posting.google.com...
> Here's another bit I like from this Osho quote. Doesn't have
> much to do with the "natural law based on fear" issue, but it's
> very much on target on its own terms.
> Geez, that's well said! Kudos to Osho. He sure had a gift for
> words and clear explanations.
Bhagvan Shree Rajneesh always had a way with words. However, to paraphrase
Krishnamurti, look at the actions of those he gathered around him (ole
Krishnamurti said look at the guru's actions, but I think the point holds,
once removed).
And for any IDIOT (yes this means YOU) who thinks that MMY's followers are
anywhere near as messed up as "Osho's," I remind you to look at the tale of
two cites: Fairfied/MVC vs Rancho Rajneesh, and keep your mouth shut before
you chew your foot off at the neck.
Or perhaps you SHOULD keep on chewing, til you disappear like the construct
did in Heinlein's _Glory Road_.
John Manning
Having read most of his books (which are quite numerous), I found OSHO,
aka Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, to be a rippingly brilliant man.
Interestingly, his assessment of TM was that it's main event is that
it's a good way to fall asleep and has nothing to do with
'enlightenment'. I don't agree with him about that at all, having
experienced TM myself.
I've found it interesting over the years how the different 'gurus' cut
each other down. Maybe ya just gotta find out for yourself.
"Transcendental Meditation isn't a group effort, it's a do-it-yourself
method to full enlightenment." ...Charlie Lutes
John
Melvin Dullman
Lawson English <engl...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bd39po$nke$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> And for any IDIOT (yes this means YOU) who thinks that MMY's followers are
> anywhere near as messed up as "Osho's,"
Saying MMY's followers are less messed up than Osho's is hardly very high
praise. They are supposedly practicing the greatest known spiritual
technique, which is claimed to be the essence of all religions: the direct
experience of the Divine. Yet you say only that they are less messed up than
some other group? There is something seriously amiss here.
Melvin
Jeff Evans
> "Transcendental Meditation isn't a group effort, it's a do-it-yourself
> method to full enlightenment." ...Charlie Lutes
>
> John
Indra concsiousness "( ? )Maharishi
Jeff Evans
be working with beginners whereas other Gurus may be dealing with more
developed souls . The success of the Guru may be hard to judge by such a
superficial standard as the apparent messed upness of the followers. I think
they once tried an ashram swap between MMY and Osho but had a lot of trouble
persuading John Grey to return. A picture comes to mind of Bevan sitting
naked cross legged lifting layer upon layer of blubber trying to find his
kundalini release valve, and the sweat just dripping off him.
"Lawson English" <engl...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bd39po$nke$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
Jeff Evans
isnt even aware yet how messed up he is , so being less messed up could be a
good thing.news:vfah6mc...@corp.supernews.com...
Judy Stein
> news:19b3c03e.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > Here's another bit I like from this Osho quote. Doesn't have
> > much to do with the "natural law based on fear" issue, but it's
> > very much on target on its own terms.
> [...]
>
> > Geez, that's well said! Kudos to Osho. He sure had a gift for
> > words and clear explanations.
>
> Bhagvan Shree Rajneesh always had a way with words. However, to paraphrase
> Krishnamurti, look at the actions of those he gathered around him (ole
> Krishnamurti said look at the guru's actions, but I think the point holds,
> once removed).
>
> And for any IDIOT (yes this means YOU) who thinks that MMY's followers are
> anywhere near as messed up as "Osho's,"
Um, excuse me, Lawson, you're responding to my post. Could you
have been directing this remark to me? Did you assume that
because I said Osho had a gift for words and clear explanations,
therefore MMY's followers are as messed up as Osho's were?
I'm not sure I'm following that logic.
I haven't heard anything about Osho's followers, so I have no
basis for comparison. Have you?
Rajneesh's followers, however, or at least some of them, were
about as messed up as you can get.
Rajneesh's own actions were pretty messed up as well, by all
accounts I've heard or read.
("Osho" was the name Rajneesh took after being expelled from the
U.S. Since I haven't come across any negative reports of Osho
or his followers, I'd assume the name change signaled some
kind of major housecleaning of his act, but I could be wrong.)
Rajneesh seemed to be a species of Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde. The early
accounts of life on his ashram at Antelope, even those by followers
who had later turned strongly against him, were positively idyllic.
Judy Stein
Actually Lawson's words were "anywhere near as messed up."
Lawson English
I was directing my remarks towards various folks on the newsgroup who take
every opportunity to bash MMY, the folks in Fairfield, etc., because they
disagree with "where the TM movement is heading" (whatever that means).
> I'm not sure I'm following that logic.
"This means YOU" refers to the people who DO make that kind of claim. Didn't
mean "YOU, JUDY," but "YOU (the guys who are thinking this)." Sorry I didn't
make it clear.
>
> I haven't heard anything about Osho's followers, so I have no
> basis for comparison. Have you?
Change the name means change the person? They're keeping a lower profile
then they used to. Perhaps he doesn't have followers any more or perhaps he
does, but based on what I saw of his organization, they can blend quite well
when they want to.
>
> Rajneesh's followers, however, or at least some of them, were
> about as messed up as you can get.
>
> Rajneesh's own actions were pretty messed up as well, by all
> accounts I've heard or read.
>
> ("Osho" was the name Rajneesh took after being expelled from the
> U.S. Since I haven't come across any negative reports of Osho
> or his followers, I'd assume the name change signaled some
> kind of major housecleaning of his act, but I could be wrong.)
>
Since Rajneesh's writings were well-received before the Antelope, Oregon
incident (and I'm from Tucson, where many/most of the homeless were
recruited to become "citizens" of Antelope and vote his folks into office so
I may know more details than you do), I don't think we can judge his
followers based on his writings since his writings have ALWAYS been elegant.
Thats how he made his reputation back when he was a professor of philosophy
in India.
> Rajneesh seemed to be a species of Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde. The early
> accounts of life on his ashram at Antelope, even those by followers
> who had later turned strongly against him, were positively idyllic.
I used to hang with the Dyonisiun Rajneesh followers at their main HQ in
England. Never actually started wearing red underwear like a few American
GIs I knew but they were fun to dance with. There was nothing "horrible"
about any of them; BUT, they were a minority of the people living in the
community, and had to fit in. In Antelope, they took the community over, and
it became what it came.
In Fairfield, the TMers "took the community over" too: a siddha is now the
Mayor of Fairfield, and there's 2 or 3 siddhas on the city council. However,
unlike Antelope, there's been no national scandals associated with the
administration of Fairfield, and the townsfolk didn't flee the area in
disgust. As far as I can tell, they like or dislike the mayor just the same
as people do any other mayor based on whether they agree or disagree with
him on various policies. Its not a *TMer* running the city, its a mayor who
happens to practice TM running the city.
HUGE difference.
John Manning
Apparently Guru Dev didn't attain enlightenment in a group.
John Manning
Uncle Tantra
>develops
>> Indra concsiousness "( ? )Maharishi
>
>Apparently Guru Dev didn't attain enlightenment in a group.
Not to start an argument but to point out an
assumption so common most who make it
don't realize they're making an assumption,
who said Guru Dev was enlightened?
Could it be the same folks who assume
Maharishi is enlightened even though (to
the best of my knowledge) he has never
claimed to be? :-)
Assumptions are interesting. They may be
true, they may not, but every so often it's
good to recognize them *as* assumptions
so you can analyze them anew with
"beginner's mind" and see if you really
believe them or not...
Unc
Lawson English
news:20030622095650...@mb-m25.aol.com...
People believe that MMY can float around the room, too. As far as I know,
he's never claimed for himself anything more than what he's claimed for
other people: hopping like a frog.
Melvin Dullman
Why are they messed up at all?
willytex
> it's a do-it-yourself method to full enlightenment."
John - That might explain why Charlie didn't teach TM - according to the
Maharishi, Transcendental Meditaiton is a group effort, not a do-it-yourself
method. Full enlightement is based on karma, and that's certainly a group
effort,is it not?
"John Manning" <joh...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:3EF5288C...@terra.com.br...
>
>
willytex
John - We are all one, that's what Guru Dev said. Guru Dev didn't say that
he was enlightened due to his own efforts - in fact, Guru Dev said that he
owed everything to his Guru, including enlightenment.
"John Manning" <joh...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:3EF5ADE0...@terra.com.br...
willytex
Jeff - Sounds like you're being hypocritical here. I don't know the guy, but
it's not a spiritual crime to be overweight.
> ...lifting layer upon layer of blubber trying to find his
> kundalini release valve, and the sweat just dripping off him...
Mis-direction - being skinny or fat has nothing to do with the kundalini
release valve. The Swami that lives at Barsana Dham has a rather large tummy
himself, and Bhagavan Nityananda was overweight, and so was Swami Sivananda.
In fact, there are probably thousands of overweight gurus in India and
elsewhere. And, what about Lord Ganesha?
"Jeff Evans" <parad...@winshop.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ef5...@hawk.winshop.com.au...
willytex
John - Indeed!
"a satisfied TM customer and fan of Maharishi since 1968" - Bob Brigante
John Manning
willytex wrote:
>
> > Apparently Guru Dev didn't attain enlightenment in a group.
>
> John - We are all one, that's what Guru Dev said. Guru Dev didn't say that
> he was enlightened due to his own efforts - in fact, Guru Dev said that he
> owed everything to his Guru, including enlightenment.
Was Guru Dev's guru a 'group' Willytex?
John Manning
willytex wrote:
>
> > "Transcendental Meditation isn't a group effort,
> > it's a do-it-yourself method to full enlightenment."
>
> John - That might explain why Charlie didn't teach TM - according to the
> Maharishi, Transcendental Meditaiton is a group effort, not a do-it-yourself
> method. Full enlightement is based on karma, and that's certainly a group
> effort,is it not?
Wrong again Willytex. The Self reveals Itself to Itself by Itself. And
BTW, according to Buddha himself, he (Buddha) became enlightened in Kali
Yuga by rejecting groups and gurus and teachings and going off on his
own. Was it the Bodhi tree that he sat under? Maybe you could say that
the leaves of the tree were his 'group', eh?
Melvin Dullman
> The standard we are measuring against is the average man in the street -
who
> isnt even aware yet how messed up he is , so being less messed up could be
a
> good thing.
Astoundingly, the average man in the street is a creature much like me and
you. It's axiomatic that the person who leaves his own back yard and goes on
a quest, eventually returns to his back yard and finds, right there in his
own back yard, exactly what he was searching for. I suggest that there is a
state of consciousness beyond enlightenment. After reaching enlightenment,
enlightenment will be forgotten and this new state occurs. In it one
realizes he is no different from anybody else. Thus one has gone full circle
and arrives right back where he started.
Melvin
Mrs Dullman jokes:
When the doctor called my mother to tell her that her check came back, she
replied, "So did my arthritis."
John Manning
willytex wrote:
>
> > Far better in scope and range than anything I could provide.
>
> John - Indeed!
>
> "a satisfied TM customer and fan of Maharishi since 1968" - Bob Brigante
Yeah. I said that about Bob.
Have you read the website Willytex? I doubt it. Maybe you should, eh?
Stu
melvind@oy_veda.com wrote on 6/22/03 5:03 PM:
>
> Jeff Evans <parad...@winshop.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3ef557bc$1...@hawk.winshop.com.au...
>> The standard we are measuring against is the average man in the street -
> who
>> isnt even aware yet how messed up he is , so being less messed up could be
> a
>> good thing.
>
> Astoundingly, the average man in the street is a creature much like me and
> you. It's axiomatic that the person who leaves his own back yard and goes on
> a quest, eventually returns to his back yard and finds, right there in his
> own back yard, exactly what he was searching for.
That only applies to the average man on the street who goes on a quest for
lawn furniture.
For those few that take a few minutes a day to reflect on life the quest is
different.
Though they too can use a nice set of lawn furniture.
___
Dull Stu
J.Rocha
>> Melvin
>> Mrs Dullman jokes:
>> When the doctor called my mother to tell her that her check came back, she
>> replied, "So did my arthritis."
When the doctor told mine that the pain in her left leg was due to aging, she said
"impossible ! My right leg is as old, and it doesn't hurt !"
Melvin Dullman
Stu <nos...@no.spam> wrote in message news:BB1BC113.1EFC8%nos...@no.spam...
> in article vfcgv2g...@corp.supernews.com, Melvin Dullman at
> melvind@oy_veda.com wrote on 6/22/03 5:03 PM:
his
> > own back yard, exactly what he was searching for.
>
> That only applies to the average man on the street who goes on a quest for
> lawn furniture.
>
> For those few that take a few minutes a day to reflect on life the quest
is
> different.
>
> Though they too can use a nice set of lawn furniture.
> ___
> Dull Stu
Hmmm, not exactly a side splitter but any humor here is greatly appreciated,
believe me.
J. Rocha quipped:
> When the doctor told mine that the pain in her left leg was due to aging,
she said
> "impossible ! My right leg is as old, and it doesn't hurt !"
Good one Senor Rocha, but I think you're pulling my leg, right?
willytex
John - Yes, Bob described you TM teachers as 'goofs' and feckless leaders,
who couldn't even run a local TM Center, much less a world-wide movement.
You are the TMO, John.
"Maharishi doesn't know about the wrongdoing of Pakistani leaders (or any
other leaders) because he doesn't read the papers, and the goofs who
surround him have their own agenda in what they choose to tell him about the
world. It's Maharishi, because of his lack of cultural and political
knowledge (a lack which is filled with the distorted world-view of
Maharishi's loony advisors), who needs to dump his loser managers from
crackpot-ville and call on the practical business and academic world for
advice, paying whatever it takes to get effective management for the TM
movement, to get a level of practicality in marketing TM that matches the
great practical value of TM and other Vedic knowledge."
willytex
John - He appeared to be an individual, but that was maya. In fact,
all the gurus in the Shankara Sampradaya form a group, collectivley,
in a line going back all the way to the Adi Shankara - collective
conciousness.
Before that, the line went back to the historical Buddha, who called
the group the Sangha - and he said you could depend on it for your
salvation - swear on it, even.
Maharishi's philosophy seems to rest on the idea of groups and group
conciousness.
It is an illusion that we are individuals with pluralistic souls.