|
Home > Archive > Yoga > June 2005 > Shakespeare Was A Satvik Vegetarian
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Shakespeare Was A Satvik Vegetarian
|
|
| lackpurity 2005-06-10, 11:53 am |
| Shakespeare Was A Satvik Vegetarian
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Light...is/message/5451
My comments on "Taming of the Shrew:"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Light...is/message/5450
MM:
Shakespeare was a Param Sant Sat Guru. He was sent by the
Creator as a Guruavatar to save the sincere seekers. I've been
discussing Shakespeare, lately. His teachings are what is known today,
as Mysticism, Sant Mat, or Surat Shabd Yoga.
Paul Twitchell named the path, Eckankar.
Sincere seekers are welcome to join the group. I have other groups, as
well.
Michael Martin
| |
| lackpurity 2005-06-10, 11:53 am |
| I just remembered that Eckists do not necessarily follow the vegetarian
diet. Sorry! I was thinking of the connection to Kirpal Singh Ji
Maharaj, who was vegetarian.
Michael Martin
| |
|
| ECKists do not follow a veetarian diet! If the individual chooses to
follow such a diet for personal reasons, then fine... but no such
restriction is placed on members of Eckankar. Too bad you can't get this
sort of simple fact straight. So much for your mighty insights and
powers of observation, hey? <chuckle>
lackpurity wrote:
>
> I just remembered that Eckists do not necessarily follow the vegetarian
> diet. Sorry! I was thinking of the connection to Kirpal Singh Ji
> Maharaj, who was vegetarian.
>
> Michael Martin
| |
| lackpurity 2005-06-10, 5:58 pm |
| Do you think that Sant Mat is wrong, when it says that meat-eating
causes us to be choleric, or angy, as Shakespeare mentioned?
Many claim that meat-eating causes us to feel more agitated, which is a
hindrance to meditation. What is your opinion on that, Cher?
If Paul Twitchell was a follower of Kirpal Singh Ji Maharaj, then I
would think that he must have agreed to the vegetarian diet. Kirpal
Singh Ji Maharaj would not have accepted him, otherwise, I would think.
What is your opinion of this? I know that Mr. Twitchell diavowed any
connection to Kirpal Singh Ji Maharaj.
I was thinking linearly. I was not thinking to follow a Master, and
then suddenly reject the same teachings. That's how I think. Mr.
Twitchell must have thought differently, obviously.
Maybe you could discuss Mr. Twitchell's insights? That should be
interesting. Was it some insight, which might have caused this
apparent flip-flop? Was it some power of observation of his?
Michael Martin
| |
|
| If you're expected to sit for hours for on end in mediation, one would
understand that the density of meat products in the digestive tract
would begin to rot in the gut and cause discomfort. Meat is for lively
active people, not sedentary ones. <wink> Of course... cultural
exclusions based on over population and poverty also have a place to
play in topic. I could care less what people choose to do, so long as
they're aren't so ignorant as to keep imposing such a thing mistakenly
on others. <wink> Maybe no meat plays havoc with ones functioning brain?
Are you getting enough protein, michael? You might want to look into
that! Personally I think all things in moderation. I don't believe that
fanatical excesses are ever a healthy alternative.
As to Paul having been a follower of kirpal once upon a time... that
relationship was broken by both men long ago. You pretend to be
enlightened.... if want to know what Paul thought when he left kirpal
behind, then ask him. <smile>
lackpurity wrote:
>
> Do you think that Sant Mat is wrong, when it says that meat-eating
> causes us to be choleric, or angy, as Shakespeare mentioned?
>
> Many claim that meat-eating causes us to feel more agitated, which is a
> hindrance to meditation. What is your opinion on that, Cher?
>
> If Paul Twitchell was a follower of Kirpal Singh Ji Maharaj, then I
> would think that he must have agreed to the vegetarian diet. Kirpal
> Singh Ji Maharaj would not have accepted him, otherwise, I would think.
> What is your opinion of this? I know that Mr. Twitchell diavowed any
> connection to Kirpal Singh Ji Maharaj.
>
> I was thinking linearly. I was not thinking to follow a Master, and
> then suddenly reject the same teachings. That's how I think. Mr.
> Twitchell must have thought differently, obviously.
>
> Maybe you could discuss Mr. Twitchell's insights? That should be
> interesting. Was it some insight, which might have caused this
> apparent flip-flop? Was it some power of observation of his?
>
> Michael Martin
| |
| lackpurity 2005-06-10, 5:58 pm |
|
cher wrote:
> If you're expected to sit for hours for on end in mediation, one would
> understand that the density of meat products in the digestive tract
> would begin to rot in the gut and cause discomfort.
MM:
Unless we put forth a major effort, mind will remain scattered,
dominated by its centrifugal habits. Kabir Sahib mentioned that he
became emaciated due to longing, etc., and crows were pecking his legs,
thinking that he was a corpse. It is that kind of desire for success
in meditation, that will produce the good results.
> Meat is for lively
> active people, not sedentary ones.
MM:
An active body influences our mind. That is the point of it, and I
already mentioned that Rajasik and Tamasik foods tend to agitate the
mind. It seems to me that Satvik foods ought to appeal more to
Eckists, since they don't usually want to meditate for long periods.
<wink> Of course... cultural
> exclusions based on over population and poverty also have a place to
> play in topic.
MM:
This one doesn't seem very logical. There are over-populated countries
which are vegetarian to a great extent, but there are also
over-populated countries that are predominately meat-eaters. In
Indonesia, for example, then sometimes eat dogs.
> I could care less what people choose to do, so long as
> they're aren't so ignorant as to keep imposing such a thing mistakenly
> on others. <wink>
MM:
Who is imposing anything? A discussion isn't necessarily an
imposition.
> Maybe no meat plays havoc with ones functioning brain?
MM:
Evidence is to the contrary. Many of the brainiest people have been
vegetarians, such as Leonardo da Vinci.
> Are you getting enough protein, michael? You might want to look into
> that!
MM:
Oh, yes. I eat lots of dairy products, beans, etc.. That is no
problem.
> Personally I think all things in moderation. I don't believe that
> fanatical excesses are ever a healthy alternative.
MM:
Why do you call it fanatical? If something is logical, moral, and
helps with meditation, they why call it fanatical?
> As to Paul having been a follower of kirpal once upon a time... that
> relationship was broken by both men long ago.
MM:
Oh, yeah? I just read a couple of days ago, that Kirpal Singh Ji
Maharaj mentioned that disciples might leave him, but he would never
leave them. So, maybe your statement is lacking credibility? I'll
leave that one to the sagacity of the readers.
> You pretend to be
> enlightened.... if want to know what Paul thought when he left kirpal
> behind, then ask him. <smile>
MM:
The issue is not "what I want to know." The issue is that you're the
most prolific poster at alt.religion.eckankar, so I thought readers
might be interested in your comments.
I notice that you dodged quite a few of my questions.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> lackpurity wrote:
Michael Martin
| |
|
| Excuse me... for some reason you seem to think that i was engaging you
in conversation. That isn't true! I was simply correcting your
assumption that ECKist are vegetarians by design. Beyond that I don't
give a rats XXX what you think about any topic mm! I find you a cosmic
joke. Bye! <smile>
lackpurity wrote:
>
> cher wrote:
>
> MM:
> Unless we put forth a major effort, mind will remain scattered,
> dominated by its centrifugal habits. Kabir Sahib mentioned that he
> became emaciated due to longing, etc., and crows were pecking his legs,
> thinking that he was a corpse. It is that kind of desire for success
> in meditation, that will produce the good results.
>
>
> MM:
> An active body influences our mind. That is the point of it, and I
> already mentioned that Rajasik and Tamasik foods tend to agitate the
> mind. It seems to me that Satvik foods ought to appeal more to
> Eckists, since they don't usually want to meditate for long periods.
>
> <wink> Of course... cultural
>
> MM:
> This one doesn't seem very logical. There are over-populated countries
> which are vegetarian to a great extent, but there are also
> over-populated countries that are predominately meat-eaters. In
> Indonesia, for example, then sometimes eat dogs.
>
>
> MM:
> Who is imposing anything? A discussion isn't necessarily an
> imposition.
>
>
> MM:
> Evidence is to the contrary. Many of the brainiest people have been
> vegetarians, such as Leonardo da Vinci.
>
>
> MM:
> Oh, yes. I eat lots of dairy products, beans, etc.. That is no
> problem.
>
>
> MM:
> Why do you call it fanatical? If something is logical, moral, and
> helps with meditation, they why call it fanatical?
>
>
> MM:
> Oh, yeah? I just read a couple of days ago, that Kirpal Singh Ji
> Maharaj mentioned that disciples might leave him, but he would never
> leave them. So, maybe your statement is lacking credibility? I'll
> leave that one to the sagacity of the readers.
>
>
> MM:
> The issue is not "what I want to know." The issue is that you're the
> most prolific poster at alt.religion.eckankar, so I thought readers
> might be interested in your comments.
>
> I notice that you dodged quite a few of my questions.
>
>
> Michael Martin
| |
|
|
"lackpurity" <lackpurity@yahoo.com> wrote
> Do you think that Sant Mat is wrong, when it says that meat-eating
> causes us to be choleric, or angy, as Shakespeare mentioned?
I think that broadstroking all of humanity, or Shakespeare for that
matter, indicates a lack of objectivity.
>Many claim that meat-eating causes us to feel more agitated, which is a
> hindrance to meditation. What is your opinion on that, Cher?
Different 'stokes' for different folks.
> If Paul Twitchell was a follower of Kirpal Singh Ji Maharaj, then I
> would think that he must have agreed to the vegetarian diet. Kirpal
> Singh Ji Maharaj would not have accepted him, otherwise, I would
think.
> What is your opinion of this?
I'd guess Paul found the discipline wanting. See "Herb's the Magic
Healers".
> I know that Mr. Twitchell diavowed any
> connection to Kirpal Singh Ji Maharaj.
Nope, he never did that. That's another David Lane myth.
> I was thinking linearly. I was not thinking to follow a Master, and
> then suddenly reject the same teachings. That's how I think. Mr.
> Twitchell must have thought differently, obviously.
Obviously not the way you portray it.
> Maybe you could discuss Mr. Twitchell's insights? That should be
> interesting. Was it some insight, which might have caused this
> apparent flip-flop? Was it some power of observation of his?
I don't think there was a flip-flop except in the way you perceive
Paul's spiritual growth.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| lackpurity 2005-06-10, 10:56 pm |
|
cher wrote:
> Excuse me... for some reason you seem to think that i was engaging you
> in conversation. That isn't true! I was simply correcting your
> assumption that ECKist are vegetarians by design.
MM:
I had already mentioned that, before you ever jumped on my thread. If
that is not engaging me, then I don't know what is. You post didn't
contain just corrections, either, it contained allegations. Sometimes,
allegations need to be rebutted, which I promptly did.
> Beyond that I don't
> give a rats XXX what you think about any topic mm!
MM:
Your logic of posting when you really don't care, is pretty illogical,
if you ask me.
> I find you a cosmic
> joke. Bye! <smile>
MM:
You're welcome to your opinion. I also felt the need to rebut you on a
couple of items. Of course, you're free to ignore my rebuttals.
That's okay, and readers can ponder why you suddenly chose to follow
that course, when you posted to my thread. They might notice that I
wasn't posting to a thread of yours.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> lackpurity wrote:
| |
| lackpurity 2005-06-10, 10:56 pm |
|
Rich wrote:
> "lackpurity" <lackpurity@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
> I think that broadstroking all of humanity, or Shakespeare for that
> matter, indicates a lack of objectivity.
MM:
Evidence is clear. If you want to avoid facing the evidence, or
whatever, that's your prerogative. I'm discussing truth. Humanity can
do whatever it likes. Your sentence is quite ambiguous, IMHO. I'm
discussing Shakespeare, not all of humanity. Your allegation of a lack
of objectivity is pretty much meaningless.
>
> Different 'stokes' for different folks.
MM:
Some strokes are more beneficial for spiritual progress, than other
strokes. That's elementary.
> think.
>
> I'd guess Paul found the discipline wanting. See "Herb's the Magic
> Healers".
MM:
You'd guess? Guesses are sometimes worthless.
>
> Nope, he never did that. That's another David Lane myth.
MM:
Could you show me a quote, where he admits that he was a disciple of
Maharaj Kirpal Singh Ji? Are there such quotes in Mr. Twitchell's
books?
>
> Obviously not the way you portray it.
MM:
Obviously, you're loaded with one-liners. Do you have any quotes to
support your allegations?
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I don't think there was a flip-flop except in the way you perceive
> Paul's spiritual growth.
MM:
You're welcome to your opinion. I have mine, too.
Michael Martin
o
> |
> ~/|
> _/ |\
> / | \
> -/ | \
> _ /____|___\_
> (___________/
> Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| Hi Michael,
I have been intrigued by the nick u choose. and also not. I'm no master of
anyone or anything, but i do have an interest in health, marketing and
writing/communicating...especially with journalism/ads and the semantics of
spiritual writing. blah blah blah
"lackpurity" <lackpurity@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118423595.827597.110860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Do you think that Sant Mat is wrong, when it says that meat-eating
> causes us to be choleric, or angy, as Shakespeare mentioned?
>
On what basis could one judge Sant Mat right, or wrong on any issue? I'm not
sure the usual method is so useful. What is more important to me is what is
true, not what is right or wrong.
In the world of duality, if it is true that meat-eating causes us to be
angry, then it is equally true that NOT eating meat must cause "us" to be
NOT angry.
The question then becomes, have I ever seen an angry vegetarian, and well
the truth is yes, I have.
So when I look at the world around me, and see how people think and view
things, I know for myself that the the statement "meat-eating causes us to
be choleric, or angy" is not truth.
For me that's all I need to know. Seeing that the statement is however both
partly right and wrong, and neither at the same time, life becomes less
stressfull ..... at least as far as being angry is concerned. <smile>
> Many claim that meat-eating causes us to feel more agitated, which is a
> hindrance to meditation. What is your opinion on that, Cher?
>
My opinion is that, it;s not worth having an opinion about that.
The only important thing, only opinion worth pondering about, is what is a
hinderance to my meditiation, relaxation, health etc.
I also think it is a bonus when I don;t get agitated about what "many claim"
in the first place.
I trust my body to tell me what it needs, unfortunately my mind often
doesn't want to listen or to act on that knowledge. It thinks it needs
something else entirely, but that's just mind's opinion not truth.
I was told by a nutritionist type person, that after a detox, cleanse, or
fast, [and during as well] one of the best things to consume is a few
organic chickens ... the high concentrations of protien ansd other "stuff"
is incredibly effective at chemically bonding with toxic substances that
have been released from tissues and cells in the cleanse and thus safely
eliminating more of the said toxins and heavy metals etc quickly and
efficiently........ if this type of thing doesn;t occur near the end of a
fast/detox then much of the crap can be re-deposited into the body cells.
It was the "synergistic" properties of the organic chicken reacting in the
body [ that's slow boiled not deep fried btw ] not just the high protien
content that made the difference. Whilst vegetarian options are there they
were not felt to be as effective, and the quanties required were too much
for a normal person to eat in a day.
Of course, I donlt know if it's right or wrong, true or false, whatever. But
it rings true to me, as my body feels full of positive energy when i eat
organic free range chickens as much as when i eat organic chick peas.
<smile>
We raised chickens at home in the suburbs in the 60's before the world went
really crazy. Funniest thing was watching the chickens run around the yard
after their heads were chopped off. and they always tasted nice. A lot of
love and attention went into raising them.
> If Paul Twitchell was a follower of Kirpal Singh Ji Maharaj, then I
> would think that he must have agreed to the vegetarian diet. Kirpal
> Singh Ji Maharaj would not have accepted him, otherwise, I would think.
> What is your opinion of this? I know that Mr. Twitchell diavowed any
> connection to Kirpal Singh Ji Maharaj.
>
I think it doesn't matter. Such matters of gossip and opinions are
irrelevant to my own personal dietary needs.
Who KS accepted or didn;t accept as a student/chela/ has nothing to do with
good health and people's nutritional choices imho. What other people choose
to eat or not eat is none of my business. But I am interested in sharing
positive health and dietary tips to people. sharing knowledge never hurt
anyone. It's what people do with it that is the most problematic I believe.
Basically, everyone is different, everyone is unique, and the best person to
choose what is best, is the operson themselves. That takes time,
observation, interest, knowledge, intuition, and committment to work out
etc. imho.
> I was thinking linearly. I was not thinking to follow a Master, and
> then suddenly reject the same teachings. That's how I think. Mr.
> Twitchell must have thought differently, obviously.
>
That's an interesting way to think.
> Maybe you could discuss Mr. Twitchell's insights? That should be
> interesting. Was it some insight, which might have caused this
> apparent flip-flop? Was it some power of observation of his?
>
> Michael Martin
>
So it appears to me that maybe you aren't really interested in discussions
about "Shakespeare Was A Satvik Vegetarian"
or the anecdotal benefits of vegetarianism, but a discussion about Paul
twitchell's choices, insights and how he thought.
and you want that discussion to take place across these newsgroups.
alt.meditation.shabda,alt.meditation,alt.consciousness.mysticism,alt.religion.eckankar,alt.yoga
I think that's interesting.
People have told me you claim to be a Sant Mat master or teacher. Is that
true?
Cheers Sean
| |
| JerryC 2005-06-10, 10:56 pm |
| basic logic:
(A implies B) does not imply (not A implies Not B)
Just weighing in
J
"Sean" <santimvahNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3_SdnXQGbLqK3DffRVn-1w@inspired.net.au...
> Hi Michael,
>
> I have been intrigued by the nick u choose. and also not. I'm no master of
> anyone or anything, but i do have an interest in health, marketing and
> writing/communicating...especially with journalism/ads and the semantics
> of spiritual writing. blah blah blah
>
> "lackpurity" <lackpurity@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1118423595.827597.110860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> On what basis could one judge Sant Mat right, or wrong on any issue? I'm
> not sure the usual method is so useful. What is more important to me is
> what is true, not what is right or wrong.
>
> In the world of duality, if it is true that meat-eating causes us to be
> angry, then it is equally true that NOT eating meat must cause "us" to be
> NOT angry.
>
> The question then becomes, have I ever seen an angry vegetarian, and well
> the truth is yes, I have.
>
> So when I look at the world around me, and see how people think and view
> things, I know for myself that the the statement "meat-eating causes us to
> be choleric, or angy" is not truth.
>
> For me that's all I need to know. Seeing that the statement is however
> both partly right and wrong, and neither at the same time, life becomes
> less stressfull ..... at least as far as being angry is concerned. <smile>
>
>
>
>
> My opinion is that, it;s not worth having an opinion about that.
>
> The only important thing, only opinion worth pondering about, is what is a
> hinderance to my meditiation, relaxation, health etc.
>
> I also think it is a bonus when I don;t get agitated about what "many
> claim" in the first place.
>
> I trust my body to tell me what it needs, unfortunately my mind often
> doesn't want to listen or to act on that knowledge. It thinks it needs
> something else entirely, but that's just mind's opinion not truth.
>
> I was told by a nutritionist type person, that after a detox, cleanse, or
> fast, [and during as well] one of the best things to consume is a few
> organic chickens ... the high concentrations of protien ansd other "stuff"
> is incredibly effective at chemically bonding with toxic substances that
> have been released from tissues and cells in the cleanse and thus safely
> eliminating more of the said toxins and heavy metals etc quickly and
> efficiently........ if this type of thing doesn;t occur near the end of a
> fast/detox then much of the crap can be re-deposited into the body cells.
>
> It was the "synergistic" properties of the organic chicken reacting in the
> body [ that's slow boiled not deep fried btw ] not just the high protien
> content that made the difference. Whilst vegetarian options are there they
> were not felt to be as effective, and the quanties required were too much
> for a normal person to eat in a day.
>
> Of course, I donlt know if it's right or wrong, true or false, whatever.
> But it rings true to me, as my body feels full of positive energy when i
> eat organic free range chickens as much as when i eat organic chick peas.
> <smile>
>
> We raised chickens at home in the suburbs in the 60's before the world
> went really crazy. Funniest thing was watching the chickens run around the
> yard after their heads were chopped off. and they always tasted nice. A
> lot of love and attention went into raising them.
>
>
> I think it doesn't matter. Such matters of gossip and opinions are
> irrelevant to my own personal dietary needs.
>
> Who KS accepted or didn;t accept as a student/chela/ has nothing to do
> with good health and people's nutritional choices imho. What other people
> choose to eat or not eat is none of my business. But I am interested in
> sharing positive health and dietary tips to people. sharing knowledge
> never hurt anyone. It's what people do with it that is the most
> problematic I believe.
>
> Basically, everyone is different, everyone is unique, and the best person
> to choose what is best, is the operson themselves. That takes time,
> observation, interest, knowledge, intuition, and committment to work out
> etc. imho.
>
>
> That's an interesting way to think.
>
>
> So it appears to me that maybe you aren't really interested in discussions
> about "Shakespeare Was A Satvik Vegetarian"
>
> or the anecdotal benefits of vegetarianism, but a discussion about Paul
> twitchell's choices, insights and how he thought.
>
> and you want that discussion to take place across these newsgroups.
> alt.meditation.shabda,alt.meditation,alt.consciousness.mysticism,alt.religion.eckankar,alt.yoga
>
> I think that's interesting.
>
> People have told me you claim to be a Sant Mat master or teacher. Is that
> true?
>
> Cheers Sean
>
>
>
>
| |
|
| How many newsgroups did you troll with this piece of crap you're so
proud of mm? Hmmm? I checked and from what I could tell you blasted at
least 7 groups with this freakin vanity trip of yours! Freakin loser!
tsk.....
lackpurity wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> cher wrote:
>
> MM:
> I had already mentioned that, before you ever jumped on my thread. If
> that is not engaging me, then I don't know what is. You post didn't
> contain just corrections, either, it contained allegations. Sometimes,
> allegations need to be rebutted, which I promptly did.
>
>
> MM:
> Your logic of posting when you really don't care, is pretty illogical,
> if you ask me.
>
>
> MM:
> You're welcome to your opinion. I also felt the need to rebut you on a
> couple of items. Of course, you're free to ignore my rebuttals.
> That's okay, and readers can ponder why you suddenly chose to follow
> that course, when you posted to my thread. They might notice that I
> wasn't posting to a thread of yours.
>
| |
|
| Advanced logic:
That (A implies B) is not necessarily a sound foundation to start with.
But if that's all you have, it's a start. <G>
cheers
"JerryC" <JerryC@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:9oedndwvK7782TffRVn-og@adelphia.com...
> basic logic:
>
> (A implies B) does not imply (not A implies Not B)
>
> Just weighing in
> J
>
> "Sean" <santimvahNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3_SdnXQGbLqK3DffRVn-1w@inspired.net.au...
>
>
| |
| Leigh 2005-06-10, 10:56 pm |
| Beyond launching a discussion, what's your point, Michael? Shakespeare
was certainly a paramatma, as are we all. That he was a Satvik
Vegetarian is absolutely preposterous. He was certainly a great
observer of the human condition and the "humors" as they were called at
the time. But this tells you absolutely nothing of his own persona and
how he maintained it. And as you well know, very little is known about
either.
lackpurity wrote:
> Shakespeare Was A Satvik Vegetarian
> Shakespeare was a Param Sant Sat Guru. He was sent by the
> Creator as a Guruavatar to save the sincere seekers. I've been
> discussing Shakespeare, lately.
| |
| JerryC 2005-06-10, 10:56 pm |
| Super duper advanced logic:
I was just answering your question
<<<In the world of duality, if it is true that meat-eating causes us to be
angry, then it is equally true that NOT eating meat must cause "us" to be
NOT angry.>>>
Ans NO!
@--@
\____/
"Sean" <santimvahNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:86udnZx8hpfx1zffRVn-tA@inspired.net.au...
> Advanced logic:
>
> That (A implies B) is not necessarily a sound foundation to start with.
>
> But if that's all you have, it's a start. <G>
>
> cheers
>
>
> "JerryC" <JerryC@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:9oedndwvK7782TffRVn-og@adelphia.com...
>
>
| |
| JerryC 2005-06-10, 10:56 pm |
| But you know! I always thought that Shake utilized the sound current in a
way above and beyond his peers. He definitely had an ear for audible
unfoldment. I have always regarded him a musician. The rest is a mystery I
guess.
J
"Leigh" <lgrif@mymailstation.com> wrote in message
news:1118456755.916102.66070@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Beyond launching a discussion, what's your point, Michael? Shakespeare
> was certainly a paramatma, as are we all. That he was a Satvik
> Vegetarian is absolutely preposterous. He was certainly a great
> observer of the human condition and the "humors" as they were called at
> the time. But this tells you absolutely nothing of his own persona and
> how he maintained it. And as you well know, very little is known about
> either.
>
>
> lackpurity wrote:
>
>
| |
| empty room 2005-06-10, 10:56 pm |
| On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 02:02:37 GMT, cher <gruendemann@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>How many newsgroups did you troll with this piece of crap you're so
>proud of mm? Hmmm? I checked and from what I could tell you blasted at
>least 7 groups with this freakin vanity trip of yours! Freakin loser!
>tsk.....
To think all Michael did was invite people to join in a discussion in
one of his email lists...
Ah yes, Eckankar the spiritual path.... Such warmth and compassion
for others... Such understanding and openness to different ideas and
views.... Such dedication to truth... Such humbleness and humility...
And the Eckankar members attain all this without ever practicing any
meditation! Truly amazing.... It just goes to show that Paul T. must have
really known what he was doing when he mixed and matched all those
plagiarized passages from so many different sources and threw in
a bunch of his own made up stuff into the mix to boot. All his lies about
Rebazar Tarzs speaking all those plagiarized words must have really
helped too! People who say "like attracts like" must have it wrong.
Just look and see for yourself at what it all has lead to! :-D
empty room - 975th Living Truth Master
| |
| Leigh 2005-06-10, 10:56 pm |
| Hi Jerry:
The "buzz" is that he had "Cosmic Consciousness", isn't
it? Whether this is what Michael means by "Param Sant" I don't know.
And anyway, there's no way for us to determine either, anyhow. But
"teacher"? I might go for that. He was certainly using his plays to
communicate. He was holding up a very smart mirror for folks to see a
reflection in. And isn't the whole development of the English language
somewhat musical? From Old English, to Middle English, to Modern
English? But there's no question he had a good "ear" for life, love,
and so-on.
JerryC wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> But you know! I always thought that Shake utilized the sound current in a
> way above and beyond his peers. He definitely had an ear for audible
> unfoldment. I have always regarded him a musician. The rest is a mystery I
> guess.
>
> J
>
> "Leigh" <lgrif@mymailstation.com> wrote in message
> news:1118456755.916102.66070@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| |
|
| <smile> hi jerry
really super duped whooper advanced logic. hehehee
it wasn;t a question ... it was a proposition... or maybe a presumption.
You see, really, my fundamental point was that A implies B is where the
primary mis-take is being made. maybe assumption would be a better word.
Because if that was true, then not A implies not B would also be true most
of the time.
However, I do see your point that where A does in fact imply B, that the
opposite of not A implies not B, is not necessaryily true either. That
shoots down my primary argument though, so isn;t helpful. <smile>
I get that ...... TY ...... I appreciate the limitations [some days]
What would be good to know is the cause of anger. I really doubt it's
because I ate a quarter pounder with cheese <G>
cheers
Rabbit Hole Investigator
"JerryC" <JerryC@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:096dnctsHtdV1jffRVn-sA@adelphia.com...
> Super duper advanced logic:
>
> I was just answering your question
>
> <<<In the world of duality, if it is true that meat-eating causes us to be
> angry, then it is equally true that NOT eating meat must cause "us" to be
> NOT angry.>>>
>
> Ans NO!
>
> @--@
> \____/
>
>
>
>
> "Sean" <santimvahNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:86udnZx8hpfx1zffRVn-tA@inspired.net.au...
>
>
| |
| empty room 2005-06-11, 9:04 am |
| On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 13:42:38 +1000, "Sean" <santimvahNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>What would be good to know is the cause of anger. I really doubt it's
>because I ate a quarter pounder with cheese <G>
Maybe it is caused by your ignorance...
empty room - 975th Living Truth Master
| |
| JerryC 2005-06-11, 9:04 am |
| Anger is a step up for some.
And!
The cow gets angry.
Or!
In fairness! I try to only eat chicken. (i dont like fish).
My daughter emmy (emmyc.com) age 15 gets angry when we eat meat!
"Sean" <santimvahNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:VMqdnW97Y9stwDffRVn-gw@inspired.net.au...
> <smile> hi jerry
>
> really super duped whooper advanced logic. hehehee
>
> it wasn;t a question ... it was a proposition... or maybe a presumption.
>
> You see, really, my fundamental point was that A implies B is where the
> primary mis-take is being made. maybe assumption would be a better word.
>
> Because if that was true, then not A implies not B would also be true most
> of the time.
>
> However, I do see your point that where A does in fact imply B, that the
> opposite of not A implies not B, is not necessaryily true either. That
> shoots down my primary argument though, so isn;t helpful. <smile>
>
> I get that ...... TY ...... I appreciate the limitations [some days]
>
> What would be good to know is the cause of anger. I really doubt it's
> because I ate a quarter pounder with cheese <G>
>
> cheers
> Rabbit Hole Investigator
>
>
> "JerryC" <JerryC@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:096dnctsHtdV1jffRVn-sA@adelphia.com...
>
>
| |
|
|
"empty room" <emptyroom@emptyroom.emptyroom> wrote in message
news:j7oka1ls50s86r1ilcf94e8qmhsjrpr9uu@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 13:42:38 +1000, "Sean" <santimvahNO@SPAMyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Maybe it is caused by your ignorance...
>
Maybe it;s caused by the number 42.
> empty room - 975th Living Truth Master
| |
| empty room 2005-06-11, 9:04 am |
| On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:44:06 +1000, "Sean" <santimvahNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>Maybe it;s caused by the number 42.
That is a possibility... After all it is the answer to a
number of other things... :-D
empty room - 975th Living Truth Master
| |
|
|
"JerryC" <JerryC@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:KY6dnfupjuuk_DffRVn-hg@adelphia.com...
> Anger is a step up for some.
>
> And!
>
> The cow gets angry.
>
> Or!
>
> In fairness! I try to only eat chicken. (i dont like fish).
> My daughter emmy (emmyc.com) age 15 gets angry when we eat meat!
>
I was thinking that's great. I can understand her likely sensitiviites about
this, really I do, and i think it;s great especially if the family honours
and respects those and therefore don't eat meat either [or around her]
...... If this is how strongly she feels about it, it must be important to
her. I think anything that allows enough space to accomadate the individual
needs and feelings of all family members [or those co-habitating] is a good
thing. It's when they are hard to accomadate makes them all the more
valuable to all concerned. finding total agreement isn;t so easy.
and it's fine to promote a healthier options and for most people moving
towards a vegetarian whole food, and less processing, refining, dairy, and
meat products the better imho for a whole lot of reasons.
I'd prefer not to see vegetarianism put up as some sort of spiritual
yardstick though, that's all. Like if you are ur OK, and if you eat meat or
eggs or whatever the "rule" happens to be that somehow ur less than
spiritually, unethical, or automatically wrong. We all have our reasons for
doing things. we all feel more strongly about some things than others.
honouring these different things in others is a good thing to do, imho.
>
> "Sean" <santimvahNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:VMqdnW97Y9stwDffRVn-gw@inspired.net.au...
>
>
| |
|
| I was thinking this post was not worth dignifying with a response, but
one thing seemed worth correcting.
"lackpurity" <lackpurity@yahoo.com> wrote
> Rich wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> MM:
> Could you show me a quote, where he admits that he was a disciple of
> Maharaj Kirpal Singh Ji?
Several.
Can you show a quote were Paul disavowed a connection to Kirpal?
> Are there such quotes in Mr. Twitchell's books?
Yes.
What we do know it that Paul wrote about Kirpal until the end of 1966.
More importantly, Harold has talked about him several times.
So no disavow cover-up conspiracy theory holds up.
If you didn't know, read this: http://makeashorterlink.com/?M29B14D3B
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| lackpurity 2005-06-11, 9:04 am |
|
cher wrote:
> How many newsgroups did you troll with this piece of crap you're so
> proud of mm? Hmmm? I checked and from what I could tell you blasted at
> least 7 groups with this freakin vanity trip of yours!
MM:
So what? How many Sant Mat books have been plagiarized? If you want
to play with numbers, we can do that. Speaking of numbers how many
thousands of postings have you blasted Usenet with?
Your charge of vanity is meaningless. Posting doesn't equate to
vanity, necessarily. One could post just to share spiritual truths
with the world, for example.
>Freakin loser!
> tsk.....
MM:
What am I losing? It seems that you've completely ignored my forty
years of meditation. That's your prerogative. Some seeds always fall
on barren ground, and its not the fault of the seed, nor of the sower.
Michael Martin
[vbcol=seagreen]
> lackpurity wrote:
| |
| lackpurity 2005-06-11, 9:04 am |
|
empty room wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 02:02:37 GMT, cher <gruendemann@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
> To think all Michael did was invite people to join in a discussion in
> one of his email lists...
>
> Ah yes, Eckankar the spiritual path.... Such warmth and compassion
> for others... Such understanding and openness to different ideas and
> views.... Such dedication to truth... Such humbleness and humility...
> And the Eckankar members attain all this without ever practicing any
> meditation! Truly amazing.... It just goes to show that Paul T. must have
> really known what he was doing when he mixed and matched all those
> plagiarized passages from so many different sources and threw in
> a bunch of his own made up stuff into the mix to boot. All his lies about
> Rebazar Tarzs speaking all those plagiarized words must have really
> helped too! People who say "like attracts like" must have it wrong.
> Just look and see for yourself at what it all has lead to! :-D
>
> empty room - 975th Living Truth Master
MM:
Yes, Cher's hypocrisy is a bit much. She complains because I
cross-posted two messages to a total of seven groups. Big Deal. That
is not against Google rules, and I was on topic in all the groups.
Usenet has thousands of newsgroups. What about all the plagiarizing of
Sant Mat books? I wonder if she will comment on that? It seems she
likes to pick and choose.
Michael Martin
| |
|
| What religion do you follow, oh great judgmental anonymous poster? You
sure do sit in judgment of others! Now I can't recall a time or place in
history where a hooded figure with no identity was actually the
judge.... seems to me it was the executioner! And they wore a hood
because they were socially unclean and had to hide their identity for
survival! Of course they didn't actually do the legal work, they just
pulled the lever or dropped the axe. Is that your karma? Were you an
executioner in a past life?
empty room wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 13:42:38 +1000, "Sean" <santimvahNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Maybe it is caused by your ignorance...
>
> empty room - 975th Living Truth Master
| |
|
| JerryC wrote:
>
> Anger is a step up for some.
>
> And!
>
> The cow gets angry.
I just read a story on odd news that a cow had been arrested for killing
a man! <smile> He was being held until his owner could be found. I'm
serious! Check odd news on yahoo news. <smile>
> Or!
>
> In fairness! I try to only eat chicken. (i dont like fish).
> My daughter emmy (emmyc.com) age 15 gets angry when we eat meat!
Teenage girls are an enigma that even God refuses to deal with. LOL....
She'll probably calm down .... after menopause. <grin>
[vbcol=seagreen]
> "Sean" <santimvahNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:VMqdnW97Y9stwDffRVn-gw@inspired.net.au...
| |
| lackpurity 2005-06-11, 9:04 am |
|
Rich wrote:
> I was thinking this post was not worth dignifying with a response, but
> one thing seemed worth correcting.
>
>
> "lackpurity" <lackpurity@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>
> Several.
MM:
Well, let's see them!
> Can you show a quote were Paul disavowed a connection to Kirpal?
MM:
I don't claim to know all the details of Eckankar history. You're
saying that Mr. Twitchell didn't remove Maharaj Kirpal Singh Ji's name
from his manuscript, and replace it with another name? That is what
MKSJ mentioned, and it is on the net. It was a question and answer
session, I believe, and MKSJ was discussing that manuscript written by
Paul Twitchell. Are you saying all that is a myth?
>
> Yes.
MM:
Well, don't hold back, for goodness sake!
> What we do know it that Paul wrote about Kirpal until the end of 1966.
MM:
What was Paul's position after 1966? Don't hold back!
> More importantly, Harold has talked about him several times.
MM:
My goodness, then, what did Harold say, pray tell? Do you like to play
games, or what?
> So no disavow cover-up conspiracy theory holds up.
> If you didn't know, read this: http://makeashorterlink.com/?M29B14D3B
MM:
I don't have time to read the whole book. Could you direct me to the
pertinent parts?
Michael Martin
>
> ` o
> |
> ~/|
> _/ |\
> / | \
> -/ | \
> _ /____|___\_
> (___________/
> Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| Rich wrote:
>
> I was thinking this post was not worth dignifying with a response, but
> one thing seemed worth correcting.
>
> "lackpurity" <lackpurity@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>
> Several.
>
> Can you show a quote were Paul disavowed a connection to Kirpal?
>
>
> Yes.
>
> What we do know it that Paul wrote about Kirpal until the end of 1966.
>
> More importantly, Harold has talked about him several times.
>
> So no disavow cover-up conspiracy theory holds up.
> If you didn't know, read this: http://makeashorterlink.com/?M29B14D3B
Michael Martin has been shown this information time and again, and he
constantly forgets because when he's being ignored on usenet he shows up
on a.r.e. flaming Eckankar with this same line of false statements.
<shrug> I guess this is as close to being exciting as he can manage.
<chuckle>
>
> ` o
> |
> ~/|
> _/ |\
> / | \
> -/ | \
> _ /____|___\_
> (___________/
> Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| lackpurity 2005-06-11, 9:04 am |
|
Sean wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> I have been intrigued by the nick u choose. and also not. I'm no master of
> anyone or anything, but i do have an interest in health, marketing and
> writing/communicating...especially with journalism/ads and the semantics of
> spiritual writing. blah blah blah
>
> "lackpurity" <lackpurity@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1118423595.827597.110860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> On what basis could one judge Sant Mat right, or wrong on any issue?
MM:
On the basis of whatever intellect we have, whatever discernemnt we
have. We can do the best we can.
> I'm not
> sure the usual method is so useful. What is more important to me is what is
> true, not what is right or wrong.
MM:
Then? It's the same thing.
> In the world of duality, if it is true that meat-eating causes us to be
> angry, then it is equally true that NOT eating meat must cause "us" to be
> NOT angry.
>
> The question then becomes, have I ever seen an angry vegetarian, and well
> the truth is yes, I have.
MM:
So what? Are you justifying meat-eating?
> So when I look at the world around me, and see how people think and view
> things, I know for myself that the the statement "meat-eating causes us to
> be choleric, or angry" is not truth.
MM:
Well, you are opposed to a lot of people. I just posted an article at
Light From Sound Oasis Yahoo Group about the types of food. It is not
just Sant Mat that mentions Satvik, Rajasik, and Tamasik food. Satvik
food tends to calm us, while rajasik food tends to agitate us, making
us prone to anger. It doesn't make us angry, necessarily, but makes us
more likely to fly off the handle.
> For me that's all I need to know. Seeing that the statement is however both
> partly right and wrong, and neither at the same time, life becomes less
> stressfull ..... at least as far as being angry is concerned. <smile>
MM:
Well, you can disagree with Sant Mat, the Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita,
many Yogas, etc.. That's your prerogative. :-)
[vbcol=seagreen]
> My opinion is that, it;s not worth having an opinion about that.
MM:
That's your prerogative. Do you believe in doing meditation, at all?
> The only important thing, only opinion worth pondering about, is what is a
> hinderance to my meditiation, relaxation, health etc.
MM:
I thought that was exactly what we were discussing?
> I also think it is a bonus when I don;t get agitated about what "many claim"
> in the first place.
>
> I trust my body to tell me what it needs, unfortunately my mind often
> doesn't want to listen or to act on that knowledge. It thinks it needs
> something else entirely, but that's just mind's opinion not truth.
MM:
Well, it's your preogative to trust your body.
> I was told by a nutritionist type person, that after a detox, cleanse, or
> fast, [and during as well] one of the best things to consume is a few
> organic chickens ... the high concentrations of protien ansd other "stuff"
> is incredibly effective at chemically bonding with toxic substances that
> have been released from tissues and cells in the cleanse and thus safely
> eliminating more of the said toxins and heavy metals etc quickly and
> efficiently........ if this type of thing doesn;t occur near the end of a
> fast/detox then much of the crap can be re-deposited into the body cells.
MM:
Yuk.
> It was the "synergistic" properties of the organic chicken reacting in the
> body [ that's slow boiled not deep fried btw ] not just the high protien
> content that made the difference. Whilst vegetarian options are there they
> were not felt to be as effective, and the quanties required were too much
> for a normal person to eat in a day.
>
> Of course, I donlt know if it's right or wrong, true or false, whatever. But
> it rings true to me, as my body feels full of positive energy when i eat
> organic free range chickens as much as when i eat organic chick peas.
> <smile>
MM:
I've been lacto-vegetarian for 40 years. That rings true for me.
> We raised chickens at home in the suburbs in the 60's before the world went
> really crazy. Funniest thing was watching the chickens run around the yard
> after their heads were chopped off. and they always tasted nice. A lot of
> love and attention went into raising them.
MM:
Would it be funny to be reincarnated as a chicken, and have it happen
to you?
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I think it doesn't matter. Such matters of gossip and opinions are
> irrelevant to my own personal dietary needs.
MM:
You mean both sides are right, in your opinion? I believe in trying to
lead a good moral life, myself. That means loving my neighbors,
including chickens. I think we might find, on judgment day, that what
we did during our life did matter, quite a bit, actually.
> Who KS accepted or didn;t accept as a student/chela/ has nothing to do with
> good health and people's nutritional choices imho.
MM:
MKSJ was the Master, not the chela. He taught vegetarianism, to keep
from accruing lots of karma, by the killing of birds, animals, or fish.
It is also more healthy, as many studies have shown.
> What other people choose
> to eat or not eat is none of my business. But I am interested in sharing
> positive health and dietary tips to people. sharing knowledge never hurt
> anyone. It's what people do with it that is the most problematic I believe.
MM:
Yes, and I assume that MKSJ was sharing his knowledge with Mr.
Twitchell.
> Basically, everyone is different, everyone is unique, and the best person to
> choose what is best, is the operson themselves.
MM:
If we have a history of choosing less than the best, then why should we
choose the best now? Saints have pointed out that we have all sinned.
That is choosing less than the best. You seem to have a lot of
confidence in yourself. Why?
> That takes time,
> observation, interest, knowledge, intuition, and committment to work out
> etc. imho.
MM:
Yes, but our history often indicates that we suffered a lack of
intuition.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> That's an interesting way to think.
MM:
It's called Sat Guru Bhakti. I took it seriously.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> So it appears to me that maybe you aren't really interested in discussions
> about "Shakespeare Was A Satvik Vegetarian"
MM:
I was interested in that, of course. Cher went off on a tangent, so I
brought that up. She brought up my insights and observations, so I
just included the question about Mr. Twitchell's insights and
observations.
> or the anecdotal benefits of vegetarianism, but a discussion about Paul
> twitchell's choices, insights and how he thought.
MM:
Two can play at Cher's game. If she wants to question my integrity,
then I can raise all sorts of questions.
> and you want that discussion to take place across these newsgroups.
> alt.meditation.shabda,alt.meditation,alt.consciousness.mysticism,alt.religion.eckankar,alt.yoga
>
> I think that's interesting.
MM:
Why? Are you interested in knowing the truth about Shakespeare?
> People have told me you claim to be a Sant Mat master or teacher. Is that
> true?
MM:
Yes, I'm a Sant Mat teacher. I have 41 years of experience in it.
> Cheers Sean
MM:
Best to you, Michael Martin
| |
| lackpurity 2005-06-11, 9:04 am |
|
cher wrote:
> Rich wrote:
>
> Michael Martin has been shown this information time and again, and he
> constantly forgets because when he's being ignored on usenet he shows up
> on a.r.e. flaming Eckankar with this same line of false statements.
> <shrug> I guess this is as close to being exciting as he can manage.
> <chuckle>
MM:
I don't claim to know all about Eckankar history. I don't have time to
read the book. Could you tell me which chapter, at least, has the
pertinent info? I've read a transcription of what Maharaj Kirpal Singh
Ji mentioned about that manuscript, and later the changing of his name
to some other Guru's.
It seems to be a choice, whether to believe you, or to believe Kirpal
Singh Ji Maharaj. I'd be happy to read the pertinent quotes, but I
don't have time to read the whole book.
Michael Martin[vbcol=seagreen]
>
| |
|
| lackpurity wrote:
>
> cher wrote:
>
> MM:
> So what? How many Sant Mat books have been plagiarized? If you want
> to play with numbers, we can do that. Speaking of numbers how many
> thousands of postings have you blasted Usenet with?
False pretense does not justify your crossposting and flamebaiting here!
Or did you completely forget the topic of this thread already? LOL....
This is what you do when you're being ignored, michael... you flame
a.r.e. and pretend that you're superior. The sign of an inmature being
who is seeking a broad stage for his vanity! I post on one group unless
I'm telling you what a dumb XXX I think you are! <smile>
> Your charge of vanity is meaningless. Posting doesn't equate to
> vanity, necessarily. One could post just to share spiritual truths
> with the world, for example.
Michael, you wouldn't know a spiritual truth if it hit you upside the
head like a rock! Seriously.... you're oblivious to truth... just ask
any member of Sant Mat what they think of michael martin, and then have
a good belly laugh at their answers! <chuckle>
>
> MM:
> What am I losing? It seems that you've completely ignored my forty
> years of meditation. That's your prerogative. Some seeds always fall
> on barren ground, and its not the fault of the seed, nor of the sower.
You spent 40 years and this is all you got? Not even a teeshirt? LOL....
You hapless dupe! You could of at least got green stamps for all that
time. ROTFLMAO..... Honey, you're Sant Mat's answer to Robert McElwaine!
LOL..... Prissy little snot!
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Michael Martin
>
| |
|
| lackpurity wrote:
>
> empty room wrote:
>
> MM:
> Yes, Cher's hypocrisy is a bit much. She complains because I
> cross-posted two messages to a total of seven groups. Big Deal. That
> is not against Google rules, and I was on topic in all the groups.
> Usenet has thousands of newsgroups. What about all the plagiarizing of
> Sant Mat books? I wonder if she will comment on that? It seems she
> likes to pick and choose.
>
> Michael Martin
Flamebait! Whatever was taken from Sant Mat, most certainly was fixed
because Eckankar doesn't have any fools like you proudly claiming 40
years of meditation to end up on usenet to get attention for his
yahoogroups religion! ROTFMAO......
| |
|
| lackpurity wrote:
>
> Rich wrote:
>
> MM:
> Well, let's see them!
>
>
> MM:
> I don't claim to know all the details of Eckankar history. You're
> saying that Mr. Twitchell didn't remove Maharaj Kirpal Singh Ji's name
> from his manuscript, and replace it with another name? That is what
> MKSJ mentioned, and it is on the net. It was a question and answer
> session, I believe, and MKSJ was discussing that manuscript written by
> Paul Twitchell. Are you saying all that is a myth?
>
>
> MM:
> Well, don't hold back, for goodness sake!
>
>
> MM:
> What was Paul's position after 1966? Don't hold back!
>
>
> MM:
> My goodness, then, what did Harold say, pray tell? Do you like to play
> games, or what?
>
>
> MM:
> I don't have time to read the whole book. Could you direct me to the
> pertinent parts?
>
> Michael Martin
LOL.... You spent 40 years in meditation to end up without a teeshirt
desperately seeking attention on usenet! LOL.... Believe me, you have
the time to read what Rich posted. LOL.... Trust me.... you truly have
the time. LOL....
[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
| lackpurity 2005-06-11, 9:04 am |
|
Sean wrote:
> "JerryC" <JerryC@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:KY6dnfupjuuk_DffRVn-hg@adelphia.com...
>
> I was thinking that's great. I can understand her likely sensitiviites about
> this, really I do, and i think it;s great especially if the family honours
> and respects those and therefore don't eat meat either [or around her]
> ..... If this is how strongly she feels about it, it must be important to
> her. I think anything that allows enough space to accomadate the individual
> needs and feelings of all family members [or those co-habitating] is a good
> thing. It's when they are hard to accomadate makes them all the more
> valuable to all concerned. finding total agreement isn;t so easy.
>
> and it's fine to promote a healthier options and for most people moving
> towards a vegetarian whole food, and less processing, refining, dairy, and
> meat products the better imho for a whole lot of reasons.
>
> I'd prefer not to see vegetarianism put up as some sort of spiritual
> yardstick though, that's all. Like if you are ur OK, and if you eat meat or
> eggs or whatever the "rule" happens to be that somehow ur less than
> spiritually, unethical, or automatically wrong. We all have our reasons for
> doing things. we all feel more strongly about some things than others.
> honouring these different things in others is a good thing to do, imho.
MM:
You want to make the rules? Shakespeare was a Param Sant Sat Guru, and
he was teaching the disciples according to the orders of the Supreme
Being. I think, for the vast majority of us, if we don't follow the
rules of someone in touch with God, then we will go around in circles,
like ships without rudders, forever. Shakespeare's words on
meat-eating, "It is expressly forbidden."
Michael Martin
[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
|
| lackpurity wrote:
>
> Sean wrote:
>
> MM:
> I was interested in that, of course. Cher went off on a tangent, so I
> brought that up. She brought up my insights and observations, so I
> just included the question about Mr. Twitchell's insights and
> observations.
You added your comments about Paul Twitchell in a second post to our
group, an afterthought of flame bait in your mass crossposting spams! I
posted after those first two posts, michael. Shifting responsibility
onto someone else for what you started is cowardly!
>
> MM:
> Two can play at Cher's game. If she wants to question my integrity,
> then I can raise all sorts of questions.
You just proved you have no intergrity! You tried to lay this lame
attempt to flame bait all these groups with your agenda about Paul
Twitchell onto me you coward! tsk....
>
> MM:
> Why? Are you interested in knowing the truth about Shakespeare?
He wouldn't ask you if he was! LOL....
>
> MM:
> Yes, I'm a Sant Mat teacher. I have 41 years of experience in it.
Not according to Sant Mat! <smile>
>
> MM:
> Best to you, Michael Martin
| |
| lackpurity 2005-06-11, 9:04 am |
|
Leigh wrote:
> Beyond launching a discussion, what's your point, Michael?
MM:
In three words, Sat Guru Bhakti. You can include meditation.
> Shakespeare
> was certainly a paramatma, as are we all.
MM:
I don't think we should be putting the cart before the horse. It
wouldn't serve any purpose. It might inflate our ego. We are beggars,
in the beginning, in my opinion.
> That he was a Satvik
> Vegetarian is absolutely preposterous.
MM:
A one-line allegation, and noticeably without any substantiation. His
own writings indicate otherwise.
> He was certainly a great
> observer of the human condition and the "humors" as they were called at
> the time. But this tells you absolutely nothing of his own persona and
> how he maintained it. And as you well know, very little is known about
> either.
MM:
I've done 41 years of Sant Mat meditation. In case you don't know, you
can learn a lot by meditation. You can become omniscient, in fact.
Michael Martin
[vbcol=seagreen]
> lackpurity wrote:
>
| |
| lackpurity 2005-06-11, 9:04 am |
| Yes, Jerry C. Shakespeare did mention that Sound pulls us to the True
Home.
Michael Martin
| |
| lackpurity 2005-06-11, 9:04 am |
|
Leigh wrote:
> Hi Jerry:
> The "buzz" is that he had "Cosmic Consciousness", isn't
> it? Whether this is what Michael means by "Param Sant" I don't know.
MM:
He was God in human form. Others might have their own concept of what
cosmic consciousness is. Shakespeare mentioned in one of his Sonnets,
that there had a never been a man on earth greater than he.
> And anyway, there's no way for us to determine either, anyhow.
MM:
We determine all truths by meditation. In the meantime, there is
nothing wrong with having faith in the truth, whether we have realized
it, or not.
> But
> "teacher"? I might go for that. He was certainly using his plays to
> communicate. He was holding up a very smart mirror for folks to see a
> reflection in. And isn't the whole development of the English language
> somewhat musical? From Old English, to Middle English, to Modern
> English? But there's no question he had a good "ear" for life, love,
> and so-on.
MM:
There has never been a greater teacher, nor will there ever be.
Michael Martin
[vbcol=seagreen]
> JerryC wrote:
| |
|
|
"lackpurity" <lackpurity@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118492273.830381.203190@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> empty room wrote:
>
> MM:
> Yes, Cher's hypocrisy is a bit much. She complains because I
> cross-posted two messages to a total of seven groups. Big Deal. That
> is not against Google rules, and I was on topic in all the groups.
> Usenet has thousands of newsgroups. What about all the plagiarizing of
> Sant Mat books? I wonder if she will comment on that? It seems she
> likes to pick and choose.
>
> Michael Martin
>
Well what a surprise ..... so it only took two cross-posted messages before
playing the plagiarising card. Wow. Whatever happened to Shakespeare? <G>
But seeing you brought it up Michael, then here is something people might
like to consider. I don't mind commenting by way of referring anyone
interested to doug marman book.
Have been doing some browsing and came across this chapter today in fact. I
thought this section is really excellent and includes Paul talking about the
position he was in with needing to make corrections to his earlier writings
and basically admitted his earlier understandings as he had written them out
for others, were wrong in some respects.
There's a quote that pretty well clarifies his thoughts on some of the
traditioanl Sant mat ideas and that KS and sant mat was not the source of
his inner training which was Rebazar Tarz and ECKANKAR
The chapter also covers DL's cover up theory, Tigers Fang, lots of comments
by Paul, why Paul discovered later that RT was his real inner teacher and
not KS, and what motivated the Kirpal Singh name redactions etc.
Of course people can make up their own minds anyway they like.... but I
think the following is worth being aware of for it;s own sake.
Here is an extract from Doug Marman's Dialogue in the Age of Criticism
Chapter Five
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Five.htm
In my effort to be as thorough as possible, I think it would be remiss if I
left this chapter without addressing a few more issues that arise here.
First, although we cannot know for sure what Paul's motivations really were
for his sudden change from openly discussing his teachers, and even though I
think I have offered what appears to be a reasonable explanation, this
doesn't in itself explain why Paul went so much further than simply removing
references to Kirpal Singh.
Why, for example, did Paul replace references to Swami Premananda? Why
would he change references to Jesus?
Paul did leave us some clues to answer these questions. For example, if
we go back to the earlier quote in this chapter, we can see that Paul had
not only replaced Kirpal's name with Sudar Singh, but had changed the
location of his visit from Washington D.C. to New York City. If Paul had
taken out Kirpal's name to remove any association with Kirpal, then it
certainly makes sense that Paul was changing the location for the same
reasons - to remove this association as well.
It is interesting that Paul was making a number of other association
changes to his teachings at this time. He made great efforts to remove all
references to "bilocation," for example, since it was creating the wrong
impression in people's minds. Paul wrote and spoke about this a number of
times, explaining that he was not referring to astral projection but
something very different. Paul finally seized on the term, Soul Travel, to
better describe this movement of consciousness.
Paul also began introducing new terms, such as ECK, Mahanta and Sugmad.
Paul explained himself here as well, that he wanted to use terms that did
not evoke preconceived images, because otherwise people thought he was just
talking about the Christian idea of spirit and God, or the Hindu idea of a
guru.
At one point, near the end of his life Paul said (from the book,
Difficulties of Becoming the Living ECK Master, pages 118-120):
There's one thing I want to break in here and say something about. For
example, when you write an article upon ECK, or the aspects of ECK...the
more you say or use the work ECK within the paragraph, the more powerful
your message becomes to get across to the reader. Or, in the same token, the
more when you're speaking and talking to people as an audience, or even in a
conversation, the more that you use the word ECK, you will find that it
becomes a symbol or a channel for the power to flow through...
The light will shine through or will use this word as a channel to let
it flow out to the audience or the readers. You'll also find the same
principle applies to the word, Mahanta, the Living ECK Master, or the word,
Paulji...
I used to use this a great deal in the early days when I was writing or
testing out something to find out just how far it would go. Now, you don't
have to speak this word out loud, but you can put this word down as
something within your mind. You can let it flow through the mind and set it
up as a symbol, or set up the face of the Mahanta and let it flow through
that.
If people don't know and don't understand this so far, it's because I
have never talked about it. I've never gotten my message across...that this
is the way it works...
The word, ECK, or the symbol of EK used, is the powerhouse through
which it comes through. The word, Mahanta, or the face of the Master is that
in which the power comes through, and this is the principle that you'll have
to learn in your own writings, your own speeches from the stage, and the way
to get it across to the public. It is the channel through which the ECK
power flows...
One time somebody asked me, from the audience, just how would I ever
define ECK. This was when I was making a talk in the early days, and I
replied that if you have to ask, you're never going to know what ECK is.
Therefore, we have this problem of working between information or data
[on one hand] and the emotions [on the other.] This is a [point] which we
must bear in mind - that we are as a whole, or a race, an emotional group of
people. But we [also] cannot work [without] the intellect...so there must be
a balance between the two.
Paul is explaining here that the teachings of ECKANKAR are not
communicated through the descriptive use of words alone, but also through
their symbolic use. The emotions can catch this inner current, but the
intellect still needs to see and learn how this operates as well. However,
while Paul is describing something very interesting here, it should be
remembered that when we use the terms, ECK or ECKANKAR, while thinking of
the organization, then it will not act as this symbol for spirit in the same
way. We must be referring to that Inner Reality, if we want these words to
act as channels for Spirit.
In another very memorable piece, Paul went on at length explaining that
he didn't want ECKists to use the term "my soul" or "your soul" since we are
really speaking of Soul, Itself. He was trying to show that in choosing the
right terms and phrases that we are in fact speaking in a form that others
who are spiritually aware will catch and understand. That we are using
language to describe something beyond language, and therefore by taking and
using these newly established terms we can more readily evoke the meanings
we are trying to describe.
In Paul's last words before his death, at the Cincinnati Seminar, as
recorded in the book, Difficulties of Becoming The Living ECK Master, pages
134-135, he said:
A lot of the impressions that I first set out in my first work, I'm
having to go back and redo these things and try to correct them. I'm like
the fellow who felt his way along in a college course. They told him he had
to write a book in order to keep in the work, and he didn't know what to
say. He had to go and he had to do something, but when he did, he got it all
wrong. And by getting it all wrong, ten years from there, he had to go back
and correct his book and rewrite it, and nobody believed him because they
were believing the first impression of what he made. And this is the
position I'm in.
If you follow what is being described here, you will see that in all
these ways Paul was choosing associations. He was trying to avoid or remove
associations that carried preconceived connotations and replace them with
new terms that could act as symbols and clear channels, making it easier for
others to connect with the Reality that our language does not have words
for.
In doing all this, Paul was bringing to ECKANKAR a freedom from past
traditions while incorporating the elements from them that were vital. The
concept of spiritual lineage was important, but the restrictions, traditions
and worship that go along with physical lineage was not. Therefore, Paul
described the spiritual line of ECK Masters, not for its historical accuracy
based upon historical records, but to show that as the Sufis say there is
always one who is the spiritual Pole of the world, and this light has passed
from continent to continent, from race to race, from culture to culture,
down through time.
Therefore, when Kirpal changed his attitude toward Paul, and Paul began
to remove Kirpal's name from his writings, replacing it with Sudar Singh or
Rebazar Tarzs, Paul also began to see a whole new direction for his teaching
of ECKANKAR. It was one wholly connected to an inner source, not tied to
history or tradition, or even his own past.
If you want to see for yourself how this occurred to Paul, go back to
the early part of this chapter and compare the paragraphs where Paul
replaced the names of Kirpal Singh and Meher Baba. Can you see the
difference in inner awareness from those passages once the names of the ECK
Masters is used? This is because these names become channels for the inner
teachings, just like the word ECK or Mahanta that Paul spoke about in his
quote.
Through all of these changes, Paul was trying to move our attention to
his new vision of the whole. He was also removing those religious references
that seem to make it difficult for people to grasp these teachings in a new
light.
There is another very significant element that Paul introduces into
ECKANKAR. It is best understood by quoting Paul's own words from his
Introduction to his book, The Tiger's Fang:
The book [The Tiger's Fang] came out of personal experience. What is
written on these pages is not as important as the recording of those worlds
that few Souls, other than saints, have ever visited.
Some will say this book is the wild fantasy of a highly developed
imagination, but one must understand that there is nothing in the world of
God without some degree of truth. Even fantasy is cast out of the material
cloth of God, so how can fantasy be a complete untruth?
This statement should stagger the mind of man and shake the foundation
of the teachings of orthodox religions, philosophies, and metaphysical
concepts. However, I am prepared to make my statements out of pure
experience and one must remember that all experiences are unique only to the
experiencer.
Although many have read this quote, I'm not sure everyone has
understood what Paul is saying here. Paul says that The Tiger's Fang "came
out of personal experience." He is not saying this book is a literal record.
Paul is also saying that nothing is really made up in the imagination since
all images are the reflections of some inner truth, and therefore fiction
can come closer to truth than non-fiction.
These are not the sayings of someone who cares about ritual and
tradition or historical lineages. These are the sayings of someone who wants
only to express that spiritual reality so that others can make inward
contact in the greatest possible way, including the use of stories, journeys
into the invisible worlds, love poetry, history from a spiritual
perspective, or inner psychology for the seeker of God, as Paul's many books
have displayed.
This is not about a teaching that can be reduced to writing, as with
many religions. Rather this is about expressions of a spiritual truth in the
form of hints and clues that can connect us and align us to the inner
realities themselves. Paul was doing exactly what he said we was doing;
bringing the teachings of ECKANKAR out into the open from the inner worlds.
He was putting clothes on the naked experiences of Soul.
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Five.htm
| |
|
|
>
> MM:
> I don't have time to read the whole book. Could you direct me to the
> pertinent parts?
>
> Michael Martin
Sure ............... Chapter Five is a good start.
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Five.htm
it's an easy read .... take your time Michael. no hurry.
sean
| |
|
|
> MM:
> I don't claim to know all about Eckankar history. I don't have time to
> read the book. Could you tell me which chapter, at least, has the
> pertinent info? I've read a transcription of what Maharaj Kirpal Singh
> Ji mentioned about that manuscript, and later the changing of his name
> to some other Guru's.
>
> It seems to be a choice, whether to believe you, or to believe Kirpal
> Singh Ji Maharaj. I'd be happy to read the pertinent quotes, but I
> don't have time to read the whole book.
>
> Michael Martin
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Five.htm
| |
|
| lackpurity wrote:
>
> cher wrote:
>
> MM:
> I don't claim to know all about Eckankar history. I don't have time to
> read the book. Could you tell me which chapter, at least, has the
> pertinent info? I've read a transcription of what Maharaj Kirpal Singh
> Ji mentioned about that manuscript, and later the changing of his name
> to some other Guru's.
It would be the companion chapter to the one where david lane makes this
claim and Doug proves he's wrong! Frankly I think this is a flimsy
excuse from you again in trying to rationalize your intrusion on a
newsgroup that you apparently have absolutlely no knowledge of. <shrug>
I guess you'll carry this one to your death instead of admitting you got
caught red handed flamebaiting and crossposting. What a cheap way to
wiggle out of your own actions. <shrug>
> It seems to be a choice, whether to believe you, or to believe Kirpal
> Singh Ji Maharaj. I'd be happy to read the pertinent quotes, but I
> don't have time to read the whole book.
Rich gave you the link... read it or don't, I could care less. Your
choice. Lazy flamebaiting crossposting troll! sheeeeesh......
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Michael Martin
| |
|
| lackpurity wrote:
> MM:
> You want to make the rules? Shakespeare was a Param Sant Sat Guru, and
> he was teaching the disciples according to the orders of the Supreme
> Being. I think, for the vast majority of us, if we don't follow the
> rules of someone in touch with God, then we will go around in circles,
> like ships without rudders, forever. Shakespeare's words on
> meat-eating, "It is expressly forbidden."
>
> Michael Martin
Ignoring once again the silly spiritual claims you make about historical
figures, what proof do you have that Shakespeare was a vegan? "It is
expressly forbidden" could apply to anything out of context!
| |
|
| >
> MM:
> You want to make the rules? Shakespeare was a Param Sant Sat Guru, and
> he was teaching the disciples according to the orders of the Supreme
> Being. I think, for the vast majority of us, if we don't follow the
> rules of someone in touch with God, then we will go around in circles,
> like ships without rudders, forever. Shakespeare's words on
> meat-eating, "It is expressly forbidden."
>
> Michael Martin
>
Rules and guidelines are fine, but they are still only rules and guidelines.
There are always greater principles and spiritual laws that both guide and
yet supercede all rules and guidelines.
It's irrelevant to me what Shakespeares words or edicts on meat-eating were.
or Sant Mats or jenny craig for that matter. ;-)
and if you don't want to eat meat, that's fine by me too.
| |
| lackpurity 2005-06-11, 9:04 am |
| Have you read Mr. McElwaine's comments regarding what happened with
Darwin Gross? Did you read what he mentioned about Free Speech?
Michael Martin
| |
|
| http://www.hospitalityguild.com/His...d10.htm#England
In case anyone is interested in what information there is on diet in
this time period. Frankly the choices were based on survival with what
was available and not on any eastern philosophy. <wink>
Sean wrote:
>
>
> Rules and guidelines are fine, but they are still only rules and guidelines.
>
> There are always greater principles and spiritual laws that both guide and
> yet supercede all rules and guidelines.
>
> It's irrelevant to me what Shakespeares words or edicts on meat-eating were.
> or Sant Mats or jenny craig for that matter. ;-)
>
> and if you don't want to eat meat, that's fine by me too.
| |
|
| No doubt a hero of yours! Did you notice that he has his own newsgroup
and a designation of being a usenet kook?
lackpurity wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Have you read Mr. McElwaine's comments regarding what happened with
> Darwin Gross? Did you read what he mentioned about Free Speech?
>
> Michael Martin
> cher wrote:
| |
|
| cher wrote:
>
> lackpurity wrote:
>
> Ignoring once again the silly spiritual claims you make about historical
> figures, what proof do you have that Shakespeare was a vegan? "It is
> expressly forbidden" could apply to anything out of context!
for those who are curious about the diet... you know, the pretense that
michael used to start this nonsense.... try
http://www.pbm.com/%7Elindahl/food.html Medieval and Renaissance Food
Homepage
| |
|
|
"lackpurity" <lackpurity@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118494236.296141.120390@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Sean wrote:
>
> MM:
> On the basis of whatever intellect we have, whatever discernemnt we
> have. We can do the best we can.
>
>
> MM:
> Then? It's the same thing.
>
>
> MM:
> So what? Are you justifying meat-eating?
>
No. Questioning the semantics being used and the rationale behind them. 
>
> MM:
> Well, you are opposed to a lot of people. I just posted an article at
> Light From Sound Oasis Yahoo Group about the types of food. It is not
> just Sant Mat that mentions Satvik, Rajasik, and Tamasik food. Satvik
> food tends to calm us, while rajasik food tends to agitate us, making
> us prone to anger. It doesn't make us angry, necessarily, but makes us
> more likely to fly off the handle.
>
Michael, either it says causes us to be angry, or it doesn't. Your last
sentence is not the same thing that you wrote before. They are completely
different meanings to me.
Which one do you agree with?
>
> MM:
> Well, you can disagree with Sant Mat, the Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita,
> many Yogas, etc.. That's your prerogative. :-)
>
Thanks, gladly so, and I also disagree with the Christian Bible, most
versions, much prefer the Essene Gospels and gnostic texts, if that matters
at all.
above all else i trust my own instincts about what is suitable for me in
2005 where I live and my own personal needs and circumstances. If that
disagrees with the Books of Law or your interpretations, then so be it.
>
>
> MM:
> That's your prerogative. Do you believe in doing meditation, at all?
>
Yes ...... what other's claim about it, or how many other people do it, or
who wrote about it first, or last, is irrelevant. I take the same apporach
with my diet.
>
> MM:
> I thought that was exactly what we were discussing?
>
No, you were discussing what other people claim [opinions] about meat eating
being a hinderance to mediatation.
I was talking about myself.
>
> MM:
> Well, it's your preogative to trust your body.
>
Sure is.
>
> MM:
> Yuk.
>
Well, that's life in a body.
>
> MM:
> I've been lacto-vegetarian for 40 years. That rings true for me.
>
See perfect. You know whats good for you, and i know whats good for me.
Wonderful. Itl;s good to share such things with others who are looking for
more information to help themsleves and then they can make their own
decisions.
>
> MM:
> Would it be funny to be reincarnated as a chicken, and have it happen
> to you?
>
Yeah ... what difference does it make? It's an experience. Had my head
chopped off as a human many a time so having it chopped off as a chicken
sounds like a breeze to me.
There's a lot worse things that could happen right?
The chicken didn;t feel a thing Michael, clean cut with an axe. the running
around is just a bio-electrical after effect of the body. Chicken Soul
wasn;t running around the yard in pain or anything.
>
>
> MM:
> You mean both sides are right, in your opinion? I believe in trying to
> lead a good moral life, myself. That means loving my neighbors,
> including chickens. I think we might find, on judgment day, that what
> we did during our life did matter, quite a bit, actually.
>
I loved the chickens Michael. Whilst i'm not 100% with loving my neighbours,
as yet no heads have fallen, so doing better than some lives. <smile>
anyway, my point was that it doesn't matter to me about differences of
opinion on the issue of meat eating between KS and PT or myself.
>
> MM:
> MKSJ was the Master, not the chela. He taught vegetarianism, to keep
> from accruing lots of karma, by the killing of birds, animals, or fish.
> It is also more healthy, as many studies have shown.
>
I'm not speaking against vegetarianism at all, and agree it is in itself a
healthy diet and postive life choice for people.
The prinicple i foillow is that those choices should be based upon what is
right for the individual in the now, and not based just on the opinions or
writings of any religious teaching, even shakespeare.
as soon as we say there is only one right way to do something, imho, we have
lost The Way.
>
> MM:
> Yes, and I assume that MKSJ was sharing his knowledge with Mr.
> Twitchell.
>
Yes.
All I'm saying is that is no basis on which I should make choices about what
I put in my mouth. And there is no value imho for religionists suggesting
that they have any idea about others personal karmic situation based upon
the food that they eat.
>
> MM:
> If we have a history of choosing less than the best, then why should we
> choose the best now? Saints have pointed out that we have all sinned.
> That is choosing less than the best. You seem to have a lot of
> confidence in yourself. Why?
>
Experience walking in my shoes.
"If you're into guilt you're playing God. The universe is created so it;s OK
to make a mistake. If you feel guilty about what you have done, you're
saying it's not OK to make mistakes." anon.
"We learn wisdom from failure much more than from success : we often
discover what will do; by finding out what will not do : and probably he who
never made a mistake never made a discovery." Samuel Smiles
>
> MM:
> Yes, but our history often indicates that we suffered a lack of
> intuition.
>
Not so imho. More often it is a lack of faith in our intuition that we then
choose to ignore.
Intuition is a natural assett that none of us lack. What we lack is the will
to accpet it, place our attention on recognising it and then using it, for
it is everywhere around us and within us, it is a part of us, there is no
lack of it. ... only a lack of trust or attention on IT.
>
>
> MM:
> It's called Sat Guru Bhakti. I took it seriously.
>
I'm sure you do.
>
>
> MM:
> I was interested in that, of course. Cher went off on a tangent, so I
> brought that up. She brought up my insights and observations, so I
> just included the question about Mr. Twitchell's insights and
> observations.
>
>
> MM:
> Two can play at Cher's game. If she wants to question my integrity,
> then I can raise all sorts of questions.
>
Aren't you questioning the integrity of Paul and Eckankar with this series
of posts?
Nothing wrong with discussions about PT's choices, insights, etc.
>
> MM:
> Why? Are you interested in knowing the truth about Shakespeare?
>
Not really. But it was interesting to learn some people saw him as an
eastern guru.
>
> MM:
> Yes, I'm a Sant Mat teacher. I have 41 years of experience in it.
>
wow, ok. u must know ur sant mat then.
btw i think ayurveda has a lot going for it too.
In a perfect world, i may well be a very happy vegetarian one day. <smile>
take care
sean
>
> MM:
> Best to you, Michael Martin
>
| |
|
| >
>
> MM:
> There has never been a greater teacher, nor will there ever be.
>
Why limit Life?
| |
| JerryC 2005-06-11, 11:54 am |
| Isn't this great teacher (Shake) considered to been a plagiarist?
J
P.S. I consider shake to indeed be a great teacher and master of something
quite etheric.
and I cannot say one way or another what states of consciousness he was
experiencing.
"Sean" <santimvahNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:w8mdnY1mM9NXnDbfRVn-iw@inspired.net.au...
>
> Why limit Life?
>
>
>
| |
|
| Yes, he is known to have plagiarized material. Of course in his day he
was the equivalent to Aaron Spelling so who can judge commercialism at
its best? <wink> Dynasty, anyone? LOL....
JerryC wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Isn't this great teacher (Shake) considered to been a plagiarist?
>
> J
>
> P.S. I consider shake to indeed be a great teacher and master of something
> quite etheric.
> and I cannot say one way or another what states of consciousness he was
> experiencing.
>
> "Sean" <santimvahNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:w8mdnY1mM9NXnDbfRVn-iw@inspired.net.au...
| |
| empty room 2005-06-11, 11:54 am |
| On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 12:21:17 GMT, cher <gruendemann@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>empty room wrote:
>
>What religion do you follow, oh great judgmental anonymous poster? You
>sure do sit in judgment of others! Now I can't recall a time or place in
>history where a hooded figure with no identity was actually the
>judge.... seems to me it was the executioner! And they wore a hood
>because they were socially unclean and had to hide their identity for
>survival! Of course they didn't actually do the legal work, they jus | | |