2007 June

I have certainly *perceived* — undergone, even — a great deal of shape-shifting over the past several decades. It’s no big deal to vibrate slightly differently than the standard 3-D, and to see that the so-called physical body is extremely susceptible to shape-imprinting.

FWIW the “dragon scent” at Whitehall is very strong, stronger even
than in Washington D.C. Not that there’s anything wrong with that of course — some of my best selves are dragons :-)

…it’s always hardest to see our own blind-spots — that’s part of
why it’s so fun to multiply ourSelf into many forms, so we can enjoy
a myriad of viewpoints!


…I’d maybe redefine conventional “work” as “working in someone
else’s dream” — ergo, hard, against the current — and true Work (not
distinguishable from play) as “working for oneSelf,” and therefore
effortlessly stressful, crystallinely fluid, agonizingly delightful,
neverending-now, and stilly dynamic — but not “hard” as convention would have it! :-)


Wow. By that definition [TM… lead[s] to enlightenment and …Mahesh Varma is…enlightened…], *I* am a TB! The mind boggles.

Personally, I’d define a TB as someone who believes that TM/TMSP are
the best, fastest, or probably even the *only* way to get to
enlightenment, and that MMY is the best, highest, or probably even
*only* Guru who is worth His salt. IOW, anyone who thinks “my way is
better than your way” is a TB. Otherwise, you’re leaving out whole
turns of the spiral, sandwiching a multicolored reality into black and white.

Your definition above does not even appear to allow for a genuine
Eclectic, who would hold the TM path is OK, but many other paths (or
non-paths) are equally OK. You seem to be saying we have to be “fer” MMY or “agin” him, period. Bush-consciousness.

Does your world really consist only of TB’s for MMY and TBs against him?


…Nature as the Great YES :-)


…[an organization having some TBS] appears to be a legitimate, even necessary, turn of the spiral of Life, embracing the transition from one’s first experience of identification with particular-consciousness ( POV-1; self-aggrandizement; id-chaos) to one’s first experience of identification with field-consciousness (POV-2; self-abnegation or id-submersion; other-aggrandizement, superego), wherein the Structure or packaging of the Field becomes of primary importance: a whole list of dos and don’ts to supress the antisocial chaos of stage-one, wherein those who follow our rules are like-Us and saved, and those who don’t follow our rules are unlike-Us and damned.

Without full immersion in and appreciation of this POV-2 Fundamentalism, we probably cannot move into the second harmonic of particular-consciousness — POV-3 Eclecticism: understanding the relativism of the rules, of the religions, of all the structures: appreciating the good in all of them *for those who need them;* taking the best and leaving the rest.

And without a full immersion in POV-3 Eclecticism, we probably cannot
fully Understand the second harmonic of POV-4 field-consciousness,
and open the Heart to embrace the utter paradoxical Perfection of All
That Is.

And without Understanding the emptifulness of field-THAT, how can we
truly comprehend its *collapse* into the particular POV-5 Body of
vibrating Bliss as something yet more enriching, the Physical Speech
of Ecstacy?

And without grasping the identity and continual oscillation of Large-
I and small-I, how can we begin to play with POV-6, which comprehends that in our ordinary-self we are the cause of *every* effect of consciousness; that our ordinary-self is Immense to our “particular” Selves, the devic-body that incarnates and structures every thought of our ordinary- self as divine mandate to form our paradise-playground?

And so on … ?


How about if we *also* believe in every other technique and non-
technique, and/or the enlightened status of Mr. fire-hydrant, Mrs.
apple-tree, and even You?


Perhaps it’s not really so much about whether or not other people
respond to you, but whether or not *you* respond to *him*.


[Comment on:…And all the while, despite countless vows to ignore me, he can’t stop talking about me]

…And vice versa, like two mirrors reflecting themselves into infinity! So beautiful! Author, author! :-)


I (still) understand what you think he wants; you believe
he’s unsuccessfully trying to get people to ignore you. You may be
right; I don’t know. Now, do *you* understand what *I* suggested?
Instead of merely repeating it, I will try rephrasing (see below).

Perhaps it’s not really so much about whether or not other people respond to you, but whether or not *you* respond to *him*.

I’m not tuned in to agree completely with what *you* are saying. It’s not that I didn’t understand it; I was offering a different look at it. To rephrase: I am suggesting that what Barry *says* he wants, and what he *really* wants, may not be the same thing. He *says* he wants people to ignore you; what he may really want, is to continue to engage you, to “nip” you — to do whatever it takes to irritate and get a rise out of you, virtually regardless of the seeming content of his posts. If so, I’d say his tactics appear to be working beautifully, and have been *for years*. N’est-ce pas?

…it was simply that you both *continue to pay attention to each other* — to resonate on the same frequency, more or less, he-said, she-said, into infinity. That’s all. That’s all that’s required. It really *is* quite beautiful.

…Maybe a part of him does [wants her to ignore him], and a part of him doesn’t. How can we really know?


I think it’s likely he has *always* been partly telling the truth, and partly lying, as he most likely consists of numerous particles who aren’t always in agreement, as I think he’s also said.

This does not make him particularly *spiritual* of course — just in
recognition of his own “brilliantly Eclectic multidimensionality” (if
you like him) or “horrendously slimy lack of integrity” (if you don’t like him). :-)

Personally, I’ve found that this awareness of all-the-varied-
particles has been a *huge* step toward actually *gaining* integrity,
particularly when I’ve *stopped* denying them/mindlessly identifying
with them and started truly Witnessing them, paying detached/loving
attention to them, hearing them and allowing them to hear Me, so that
we may come together into a physical synthesis that allows all our
goals to be met — truly allows us to sing together and manifest our
shared paradise.

…Now I *do* know that parts of us (or parts of me, anyway) indeed
appear to be essentially moronic, unthinking, repetitive habit-
patterns that continually fail to accomplish the stated motives of
the larger self. But I’ve found on closer look that these habit-
patterns are usually sustained because they *are* accomplishing their
own goals as best they might; they’re actually quite content with the
status quo, and/or are afraid of what the alternative(s) might bring
them. So that’s my hypothesis here: that on the level of the patterns
doing the interacting, both you and Barry *are* quite content with
the status quo. The fact that this status quo hasn’t changed in so
many years tends to support my hypothesis. In other words, it’s what
IS, so it must be Perfect! :-)

You yourself showed me this, when I was trying to “help” you into
seeing your own enlightenment: we don’t really need “help,” we just
need to be appreciated where we are. Well, now I *do* appreciate
where you are, very much, because *you* do, and you showed me that; you showed me your infinite beauty as You ARE. I was just commenting that I see the same infinite beauty between you and Barry as It IS, but if your bliss consists in not acknowledging that, then that’s also infinitely beautiful as It IS, and I am content with that. Either way, I bow down to your infinite resplendent beauty.

…All I can see is what he shows me about myself, the stories
and patterns we awaken between Us; In himself he is (as far as I can
see) Nothing/Everything/Pure Radiant ISness, just like everything and
everyone else. As he himself has pointed out, the very act of being
attended to, of having a number of minds read one’s posting, can be
quite a rush, quite addicting in itself. I wouldn’t at all be
surprised if *that* was what was really behind this lovely dance. I
do remember as a kid I *loved* to tease my brothers, to get a rise
out of them. Same thing, maybe. Attention, excitement, maybe even a fight! Yay! :-)

Years later, my younger brother very kindly lent me his diaries from
those years, and I found that I had unconsciously acted out this kind
of behavior on my siblings *invariably* right after my Dad had pulled
something really kooky, really violent, on us. (He was a brilliant
man, very charming, but had serious addictive and id-control issues,
rather like a dry drunk — stemming, perhaps, from temporal-lobe
injuries sustained from motorcycle accidents, or maybe not.) Anyhow,
even at the time I noticed that teasing my brothers and *getting them
to explode* (partially) relieved and expressed the anger I wasn’t
letting myself feel, and let me feel superior in the process. So,
yeah, getting them to feel shamed or embarassed was part of
the “fun,” as that also (partially) relieved my own layers of shame
and embarassment I wasn’t letting myself feel, but I *certainly*
didn’t want to be ignored. So that may be part of the dynamic here.

Or maybe not? I don’t know. On closer reflection, I recall that it’s
quite true my “demonic-patterns”  didn’t *at all* want to be nailed,
recognized, thrown into the spotlight of the Witness, forced to
recognize the pain of their own rebellion and (non)existence. They
would much rather have been ignored, allowed to survive and thrive in
darkness. So yes, that too well be part of the dance; you’re right!

…God knows, we all keep on doing what we’re doing until we show ourselves something better! :-) At any
rate, I was just trying to point out that there must be *something*
in it that’s working, and working well — it’s probably outlived
most of the individuals of most of the species on this planet! That
kind of longevity *alone* is worth tipping my hat to! :-)


…I don’t really see the people on FFL lined up into the two camps
you described, Turq, and I am not trying to heal Judy. I see nothing
in Judy that needs fixing, any more than I see anything in you that
needs fixing. I didn’t find when I tried to point out her a-priori
enlightenment, that she just “got mad.” Rather, she showed me rich
and lovely multisensory layers of a particle-self of mine that had
*not* been loved before — including constriction,  stagnation,
suffocation, deep shame, and finally, beneath it all, Love. That’s
how the process usually works for me — I introduce a Truth, process
the bodymind’s objections, and discover a deeper and richer synthesis
as all my particles come to Understand and be Understood in a whole
new light.

That’s my *only* “goal” in communicating with anyone here — to find
more of my unloved and underappreciated particles and to Understand
and Love them, and thereby to be Understood and Loved — to expand, to grow in simplicity, while simultaneously becoming more rich and subtle and nuanced and complex. It’s fun — generally delightful and immensely rewarding.

I do this because for me there is no real difference between a small
self and a large Self. Loving the small self is feeding oblations to
the large Self, expanding the influence of the large Self, helping
the Immense and the infinitesimal to appreciate each other as two
sides of the same coin. Being Shiva, utterly free, includes adoring
Shakti — every particle of Creation — as Shiva’s bodymind, the
perfect Lover.

Whether any of this has *any* bearing on what *you guys* go
through, “out there, outside of me” — if there *is* an “out there,
outside of me” — is of no real import to me; it’s not my business;
it can’t be my business. Shalom Shanti Shanti! :-)


…Even wounded, pain-filled, rebellious, critical, superior, supercilious,
arrogant, rage-filled, hate-filled, blaming, victimized, caught-in-a-
tape-loop, stuck-in-a-rut, unable-to-listen, particles in me
eventually have found their ultimate rest in the irresistible grace-
flow of Love initiated with TM and TMSP, and more miraculous still,
have even found that their very *rebellion itself* is and has always
been perfect waves of perfect expression on the immense Ocean of
His/my Being. There has never been an error.

If you wish, you may insert/imagine the obligatory “YMMV” here …




…and even particles so stuck-in-a-rut that they are in
complete denial that they *are* rage-filled, etc…!..have *also* found their rest in Our Being. These sometimes take a little longer to realize the pre-existent perfection, but what is time in the face of the timeless? :-)



My experience has been that Prana is like the covering of the Bodily
Light; the more it is effortlessly surrendered into the mantric grace-
flow of the Divine Teacher, the more the pre-existent radiance of the
Eternal Clear Light shines. The Clear Light is the Mirror of Consciousness, and shows itself to be the binding midpoint of Love and Bliss. These three — Love, Light and Laughter — are in turn a particular covering of Me, the Indescribable, the Unbound/Binding/Bound One, delighting in the adoration of Being every particle in my bodymind, playing in the stories of the fields of spacetime. From this vantage-point the progress has always been smooth and sure; at various points along the way such is most definitely *not* the case, much more like punctuated equilibrium, if not outright Hell on Earth … all most excellent stories, it turns out :-)

I did not go into detail yet again on early experiences of
refinement/cessation of breath and the absorption into the rapture of
the kundalini-flow up the sushumna through its chakras and into the
spherical golden-light-body, and of the later dissolution of this Solar
Witness into THAT, the Great Immensity, and so on, because I believe
I’ve said it all before, and you apparently continue to discount it, or
insist it’s not possible through the TM & TMSP program — perhaps
because I have not, 30 years after the fact, recalled or related every
infinitesimal “stage” like water-into-smoke or whatever that your
currently-adopted tradition holds to be of utmost importance as
a “criterion” for Awakening…?

Of course, the biggest joke is, we only truly Awaken when we realize
there *are* no criteria, no experiences, no stages, no *anything* that
can get us from Here to Here! :-)

If you have found TM/TMSP to be of no value in your Awakening, well and good; I wish you all the best; your path is perfect and all paths lead back to Me for those with the courage to follow the Self Alone, but I will yet again point out that your particular experience or interpretation of TM/TMSP, while certainly valid for you in this moment, is not universal.

…I can almost guarantee that *anyone* who’s afraid of downward turns on the wheel of samsara will certainly undergo them! More of Me to Love, and all THAT. :-) I’m familiar with Joan Shivarpita Harrigan’s Kundalini Vidya and her models of unsuccessful risings. I like her general outlay of subtle anatomy, and I’m sure she offers a wonderful service, but the nonculminating rising has certainly not been my experience.

This is not to say the TMO and its TM practitioners could not benefit
from incorporating a good deal more awareness of the Kundalini process. I suspect we all bring our own issues to our own birth. Some births are messy, some are not. Blockages certainly occur, and can often be resolved through breath, easy attention, etc. On the other hand, I suspect too much attention on the Kundalini-process itself could also be inimical to one’s true Awakening, as its presence or absence can be used as yet another criterion to deny the eternal perfection of the present, and for me at least, the conventionally understood Kundalini rising into the Golden Soul — while unimaginably powerful, blissful, clear, etc — was at most but a midway station, and perhaps not necessary for all — to actual Awakening into THAT, compared to which it was but a candle in the Sun.

I like much of what Joan S. Harrigan says, although we differ quite
emphatically on the placement and function of the Hrit padma. The
scriptures cited in Shyam Sundar Goswami’s Layayoga agree far more
closely with my own experience and Understanding on that — which I
find has been central to the understanding of the true relationship of
Shiva and Shakti, as well as to the understanding of the 1 and the 12,
the unfoldment of the 27 bodies of consciousness and so on.

…Yes, *its* real signs are indeed unmistakable once realized; the Self
alone recognizes the Self. Oddly enough, no one else does, I find :-)


I don’t know where you’re getting this from [TM administered without personalized instruction]; I certainly received all the personalized instruction I needed — both externally and (when ready) internally. Did you not get the instruction to leave when it was time? :-)

…Yes, and I would be the *last* to say that TM/TMSP is for everyone,
at all times … it’s always all about trusting the Self/self, or
whatever other “codependent illusion” you wish to hang your hat on,
until you remember there is no hat, no your, no you, etc. :-)

…Yes, you know, it’s a funny thing — when I was still one of
the “walking wounded” immediately before and after my own Awakening, I saw these “walking wounded” everywhere. Long after I had left the Movement and was practicing my own healing techniques, I would notice again and again that those coming for help were perfect mirrors of my own issues. I returned to the Dome last year and saw only a myriad of Divine Siddhas so beautiful I was reduced again and again to tears — perfect particles of my Absolute Being; perfection recognizing perfection! Who’s really been “healed” here — them or me, or is there any difference?  As a friend of mine recently said, “it’s all a co-dependent arising illusion!” I like that! :-)

Oh, and many thanks for reminding me of the Herukas — they are
*loads* of fun; really liven up an illusory party! Sal-saaaaa!

(By the way, I’m pretty sure Judy is a Dharmapala.)


.. that’s what I mean about getting that instruction.[self-reference]. Much of the “really good stuff” is on that level of knowing, I’m finding :-)

…I see her quite differently, now that my own anger/hurt/blame around the TMO has been healed. Essentially in this bodymind of awareness, she’s a Dharmapala of practically perfect diamond-mind!

…Lovable, yes. Curmudgeonly? I’d say “exacting” — upholding the
Dharma of Truth to a “T” — *not* supporting the TMO “party-line”
when it deviates from the Truth, but also *not* supporting a knee-
jerk/illogical attack on the TMO stemming from the hurt/anger/blame
cycle mentioned above.

…And again, I am *not* at all sure how relevant the chakra-petals are
to actual Awakening. And yet again, the misUnderstanding of the Hrit-
padma is nothing to sneeze at! :-)


[Comment on: (Jim Flanagan)…awakened hearts of others who don’t participate actively in any spiritual practice or meditation also find the Self friendly and blissful and attractive and happy, without necessarily knowing what it is that they are reacting to]

…perhaps we could say that’s the Self recognizing the Self, without its recognizing that it’s recognizing the Self :-)

…the “prana-binding” I found to be attenuated with every new
Realization moving into the ever-subtler and ever-more-“interior,”
but culminated only with Awakening, as Now and Always Self-evidently
Obvious, Understanding and Understood, that *all* experience
*depends* upon oneself, not the other way around: That Awakening,
emptifulfillment, is a-priori, independent of *anything* in
spacetime, including *any* state of consciousness, any stage of
Being: That we are the container, as well as the contained. Show’s
over, Folks — and THAT’s when the fun begins! :-)


…Only insofar as everyone is my past-present-futureself…


…this was part of the Awakening for me — That Awakening to
viscerally realize That is the container of time and space, of the
illusion of evolution itself. Where it counts, time and space don’t. As
the I I had been identifying with grew ever closer to surrendering to
the ever-present That, it became progressively more infuriated. It
became more and more clear that That is realizable only on That’s
terms, not on the terms of the co-dependent arising llusion’s.

Obviously utter emptifulfillment lies in That, and only in That, and in
the surrender of the illusion into That, but to enter That, I cannot be
particularly special in That. I cannot be particularly unique in That.
I cannot be particularly esoteric in That. I cannot have “achieved”
anything at all in That. I can only be utterly ordinary in That, so
unspeakably ordinary as to be as ungraspable as That Thatself. This
emptifulfillment was rightly seen as a death-wound to (and by) the
codependent arising illusion.

In His paradoxical embodiment of the sublime and the ridiculous, the
divine and the demonic, the special and the ordinary, MMY dealt me the
coup-de-grace, but His sword was so sharp that I had time to walk away, time to weep and rage at the exquisite agony, before my head fell off.

Not the Teaching I expected, not the Awakening I imagined, but instead, the coup de grace — the Cut of Grace. That’s what severed the outward-reaching ties of body, prana, mind, and Soul. The Cut of Grace, the Graceful Cut. He had the Grace to put me out of my misery.


Yes, I too was kind of laughing at how easily we can take an Eclectic Understanding and apply it in a Fundamentalist manner! :-)


…what appears to be the remnants of dualism. I’m finding as we
inquire into and integrate our self-righteously scripted reactions
around warmongers, liars, false gurus, misusers of power, etc. (“I’m
better than so-and-so!”) we see that after all we have been indulging
in the false-intellect, and have only been projecting our own dramas
onto the Emptiful perfection, withholding our all-inclusive Love and
superimposing an illusory snake upon an innocent string, and here and
now find that what had appeared to be “sin” only IS IS, indescribable,
radiantly beautiful, a perfect reflection of the Self — as it has always been!

Again, we’ve often found Byron Katie (“Loving what IS”) to be very useful in helping the divisive mind to catch up with Us :-)



Yes, I don’t know if it would be possible to sell out to a static Oneness and maintain one’s integrity — luckily the mind keeps showing us more promising particles to assimilate … YUM! :-)


…I find that we don’t lose discrimination, we actually gain more
discrimination, allowing the intellect to regain its innocent
transparency: we can acknowledge and move beyond each pain-
engendering story entirely by inquiring into its absolute truth,
acknowledging how it feels in the body, entertaining the feel of the
story’s absence, and playing with turn-arounds to the story,
recognizing it’s always deep-down about *us*.


…There are no other people — that’s why I said “as WE
inquire…” And absolutely, there are portions, particles, of me that
are still working this stuff out; we are constantly cycling through
our stories and returning again and again to the primordial

That’s the fun of it! I like to say, it’s not the stories that cause
the problem; it’s *believing that the stories are real*. This place
is a phenomenal playground — *anything we think, we manifest!* What a treat! What an absolute Grace-gift! Be God for a day! Multidimensional, multisensory Creation! It’s just that we’ve lost touch with how to operate the system, have forgotten how it works or even that it works and are unconsciously misusing our manifesting, having lost touch with our innocent divine-ordinariness and thinking ourselves the victim of someone else’s play, of someone else’s stories.

There was a great original Star Trek episode that evoked this
Understanding very neatly — the crew went down to a planet that
instantly manifested all their thoughts, and they were plagued with
their own monstrous nightmares until they figured out the nature of
the planet — whereupon they left, realizing they could return when
they had become more mature and learned how to think more
consciously. Well, that’s Earth!

Discrimination allows us to understand clearly it is all ourSelf
playing with itSelf, telling stories about ourSelf, whereupon we
cease to believe the stories and the suffering evaporates. The only
reason I use the typewriter at all to express my thoughts is, I
sometimes find that it appears to wake up *more* of my particles,
enlivening *more* of mySelf than if I don’t! In other words, it’s
fun! :-)


Yes, I have never been one to keep enlightenment a secret. I am just
pointing out that there may be much that remains to be done *after*
enlightenment, including realizing the relative and self-reflective
nature of all of our stories, of every particle in our awareness. In
fact, enlightenment or non-enlightenment are really not the issue;
removing the suffering around believing our stories may be practiced
through self-inquiry at any time, whether or not we tell
ourselves/others we’re enlightened :-)


I’m currently finding there is no difference. Love what is, and we
find is IS. Seeing a difference between is and IS, is maintaining a
false duality, believing our stories — withholding our unconditional
Love for certain experiences only, terming those IS, and relegating
the rest to the is-bin. Suffering. More of me to Love! :-)

…I am not advocating passive co-dependency and denial; I am not
advocating *any* particular action or non-action — just Inquiry.
When we actually inquire into and take responsibility for our own
stories, suffering disappears, the Self remembers the Self, and
action — whatever it may be — is fearless, dynamic, loving, and impeccable.

…Yes, the “appears to act like a dickhead, but really is a good man,
and I think I can change him” is probably the quintessence of denial –
– NOT loving what IS! We can tell if it’s a story meriting further
inquiry by checking our bodymind — how do we feel when we think this
thought, and so on. Does it hurt? Then it’s not true. Closer inquiry
may show he IS a dickhead, has been for 20 years, and he’s not
changing. That’s a relief — something I can’t fix, and don’t have to
take responsibility for! One step closer to the Truth.

Still closer inquiry, a turn-around or three, will show us we *don’t
know* what he is — that *I* am a dickhead, and *I* am not changing!
I haven’t been loving to mySelf by staying in this situation and
perpetuating this story. All of a sudden, the disempowerment stops —
no longer is *he* responsible for my happinesss; *I* am! At this
point, that story’s over, and the actors are free to do the next
obvious thing. Sometimes that may be to leave; at other times
the “other” actor *does* appear to change at that point, in automatic
reflection of our new Understanding — either way, we find ourselves
enjoying more Love, more freedom, more clarity, more bliss.

…again, genuine inquiry is not a prop for non-action and tolerance of the status quo — it will inevitably result in *change*
of the status quo to reflect our new Understanding. That’s the whole point! :-)

…I am finding the (now automatic) practice to be immensely useful in
dissolving suffering and quickly resolving my stories back into
primordial radiance. YMMV :-)

Quick note — Novus Ordo Seclorum translates as “New” (Novus) “Order” (Ordo) “of the Ages, Generations or Centuries”  (Seclorum or more fully Saeculorum being the genitive or possessive plural of Saeculum, “Age” or “Century” (viz. the French cognate siecle, as in fin-de-siecle, “end of the century”). “Secular” — from the adjective Saecularis, “worldly, secular, of the age” — would be a rather egregious mistranslation of Seclorum, the sort of “scholarship” Dan Brown’s supposedly-learned characters  frequently demonstrate, to the amusement of anyone who actually stayed awake through a decent humanities course in college, or were fortunate enough to take Latin in high school before it was phased out :-)

…The phrase is NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM, not NOVUS ORDO SAECULARIS. SECLORUM means “of the Ages,” or “of the Centuries,” whereas if they had meant “Secular” they would have used SAECULARIS. Check out Wikkipedia’s entry  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novus_Ordo_Seclorum for a nice discussion on the phrase’s origins and nuances :-)

…the literal translation is “A New Order of the Ages.” Feel free
to learn or re-learn Latin and see for yourself, or just take my word
for it, or check out the Wikipedia link I gave you before. Here it is
again:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novus_Ordo_Seclorum

…SECLORUM does *not* mean SAECULARIS. SECLORUM (noun, possessive plural) means, literally, “of the Ages,” and SAECULARIS (adjective) means “worldly, secular.” Again, feel free to take my word for it, or learn Latin for yourself, or consult Wikipedia regarding its nuances of meaning and its origins in Virgil’s Eclogues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novus_Ordo_Seclorum

I’ve said all I have to say on this subject, ad infinitum et ad
nauseam :-), and so this will be my last post on the subject of Novus
Ordo Seclorum.

…On second thought, don’t bother consulting Wikipedia, as apparently
someone with no understanding of Latin has revised it inaccurately to
support your “secular” stance since I first gave the link. They did
forget to take out the line which says, correctly, “The word seclorum
does not mean “secular”, as one might assume, but is the genitive
(possessive) plural form of the word saeculum, meaning (in this
context) generation, century, or age.”

However, the new editor has then completely contradicted this correct
statement by — after removing the reference to Dan Brown’s
mistranslation of the phrase — adding incorrect data like
the “Saecularis = Saeclorum” material you’ve posted here. I can
certainly understand the political motivation behind such a
mistranslation, as I too believe the “Founding Fathers” (not sure
where the Founding Mothers stood) were probably following a Masonic
rather than a Christian blueprint for this nation, but that’s no
excuse for bad scholarship, is it? :-)

…Thank you for giving me the impetus, and showing me how easy it is,
to join Wikipedia, where (probably to the infinite relief of almost
everyone on FFL) I have taken my sourced case against your argument
that secularis = seclorum. As for your further desire for proof that
seclorum is indeed the genitive plural form of seclum, I suggest —
if you don’t believe me — you heed any other Wikipedia contributor
who has actually studied Latin, like Bonus Onus, or consult any good
1st-year Latin textbook, or Google “2nd declension Latin” and come up
with something like this:

(Other than that, I’ll just mention that you probably mean “18th
century understanding of Latin,” instead of “17th century,” as you
wrote here and on Wikipedia — if you’re referring to the mostly-
Masonic “Founding Fathers”.)

Thank you too for bringing up yet more particles of self-righteous
fundamentalist fervor within me who think we absolutely *know* the
truth, despite our vast ignorance, and who apparently just cannot be
reached at this moment with anything other than awe-struck, silent,
unconditional Love. I stand humbled! This is Me! Wow. The strength of
my ignorance is the sheer force of Kundalini-Shakti Herself. I love
you/me/Us! Thank you again.



Actually, a surprising number of the better-educated Puritan leaders
were alchemists, mystical scientists, followers of John Dee (a far
more interesting character than Francis Bacon, IMO) — John Winthrop,
for example (as evinced by his fascinating library, some of the books
of which still contain John Dee’s signature and Monas Hieroglyphica),
and Winthrop’s sons and grandsons, and Richard Starkey, and Gershom Bulkeley, among others. It’s true that they believed that Salvation only came through Christ, and they (the Puritans especially) did their best to “save” as many Indians as possible, but that was hardly unique to their sect. Many of these men –like the famed Puritan missionary John Eliot — loved and respected Indians, and tried hard to faciliate their acquisition of European living standards, which many Indians themselves were more than willing to accept. Most
Indians were great respecters of what we might call “mana” — the spiritual power in a well-made object, and there is no denying that the Europeans had better technology and thus objects with better “mana”. When the tensions with the Indians escalated in the
1690s and the Indians began preparations for the disastrous King Phillip’s War, the highly influential Indian Supervisor Daniel Gookin tried very hard to defuse the situation, but hotter heads prevailed, and Gookin became most unpopular.


…Your clarity in appreciating the Mirroring of the Self, together with Your specific laughter-flavor of Self- recognition, never fails to tickle me :-)


I’d like to add something that ties into a recent discussion here on
FFL re past lives. While continuing to enjoy a heightened appreciation
and Love this morning of the Kundalini-Shakti flow of ignorance of my
Inner Fundamentalist, I came to notice I was standing in a Nazi
concentration camp, in front of a pile of dead Jews.

I was poking the top corpse with a fork and joking, “This pork looks
good; I’ll have this one for dinner,” while my adjutants dutifully
laughed. As “I” became fully aware of this scene and backed up to take more in, I noticed that the “I” who had been speaking was “Der Dicke” himself — “Fatso,” Hermann Goering, the biggest “pig” of them all. Talk about Self mirroring the Self!

Anyhow, it was obvious this particular “memory” or samskara surfaced
*because* Unconditional Love had ramped up enough to allow it out into the clarity of consciousness. Goering’s jape was no longer something “I would not do” because “I am better than that.” I am much clearer now on the utter unconditional Love that supports *everything* for the sheer unconditional Love of it, because it is what is, and what IS. Now, at last, *IT IS FINISHED!*

And again, lest anyone think I am *in any way* suggesting one should go and be a Nazi, or sit around and sigh beatifically, “Isn’t it perfect!” when a Nazi commits his depredations, please rest assured that I am most emphatically not. I am never suggesting any course of behavior — other than “do what you know to be right” — only upholding inquiry into what is until we see it IS, and come to know the unconditional Love upholding that which IS.

And again, I’m not saying I “was” Goering in some previous life — only
that Goering is one on-going aspect of Me who is teaching me some nice lessons in Self-appreciation and unconditional Love, as every particular one of Us is doing for every one of Us.



…I *greatly* enjoyed Firefly during its all-too-brief flight, though I think Deadwood was my favorite show of the past few years. That constant subtle shifting between monstrous/angelic in each character, with historical overtones in that fluid Shakespearean/Biblical rhythm of 19th-century autodidactic speech, spiced with marvelous mining-camp obscenities — Yum! Unbeatable! But then, I have not yet been drawn to watch The Sopranos, or Lost, so I’m a little behind the times :-)


…I’d not seen any evidence that *saecularis* retained the original meaning of *saeculum*; both of my etymological
dictionaries (Eric Partridge’s Short Etymological Dictionary of
Modern English and W. W. Skeat’s Etymological Dictionary of the
English Language) show it as (Late Latin), meaning “worldly, secular”
*deriving from* (but clearly different from) the (earlier Latin)
*saeculum*, meaning “generation, century, age” or (according to
Partridge, in Late Latin)”world.” Does your dictionary show it is an
adjective and give the “secular” definition at all?

(Either way, I’ve seen no evidence to imply that the noun *saeculum*
ever meant the adjective “secular”. Novus Ordo Seclorum still is
evidently best translated as “New Order of the Generations,” or “New
Order of the Centuries,” or “New Order of the Ages.” I suppose it’s
remotely possible one could translate it as “New Order of the
Worlds,” but given that that’s Late Latin and that the phrase comes
from the Classical Latin poet Virgil (as any 18th-century Latin
scholar would well know), such a translation would be pretty

Either way, translating it as “New Secular Order” is about as logical
as translating the cognate French phrase “fin de siecle” as “end of
the secular,” instead of “end of the century,” and writing a Dan
Brown novel about the secret fundamentalist sexist murdering land-
grabbing French conspiracy to restore monasticism at the close of the
19th century, right after transmuting the moon into green cheese.
Hey, why not? Anything’s possible, right? If we write a bad novel
asserting it, I’m sure we can pick up a few credulous believers!)


And as an interesting aside, the Freemason Founders were probably
*not* interested in a secular (in the sense of worldly, nonspiritual,
or irreligious) world-view; one of the requirements to becoming a
Mason is belief in a Supreme Being: atheists and polytheists not
being admitted. If certain scholars are correct in positing the roots
of Freemasonry in the Templars (likely IMO), and further correct in
positing that the original Templars stem from French descendants of
the Septimanian Jewish Exilarchs (possible, IMO), then this would
make perfect sense — Judaism being after all the ultimate and
original Monotheism…



…the ultimate and original Monotheist being Akhenaten, but some scholars are making an interesting case for Akhenaten’s being the original Moses…



This reminds me of that Science & Veda course in New Delhi in ’80-’81 when MMY said, “I never make mistakes”. This really poked me in my
small-mindedness and I must have radiated some pretty strong
incredulity, as MMY then looked over in my direction and added more
softly, “at least I don’t think so.” At the time I felt great outrage
at such rampant self-deception; now looking back I see how incredibly
*funny* he was Being. God, it must have been lonely to be the only
one in on the constant joke! (Or maybe he wasn’t; I don’t know. I
only know I wasn’t consciously in on it.)

It’s become so abundantly clear since then that the only *I* he has
ever been speaking from or of is my own Self; I just was never quite
Self-aware enough to see it then. And again, all gratitude to MMY and
the TMO for providing the latest course to really hammer it home to
those of us who have like me been a little slow to really get it! :-)


Oh, but he is … making (apparent) genuine mistakes; we all are :-)

…I see no need to rectify anything … (Not implying that I’m
homophobic :-) ) … Nor would I wish to rectify the attitudes and
activities of those who *do* wish to rectify things. It is *all*
error-free, but only from the all-inclusive (“Heart”) perspective of
utter appreciation. This too is perfect.

…Absolutely genuine from the noninclusive perspective, yes. This
suffering provides one of the best ways I have found for my
noninclusive perspectives to remember themselves, to provide the
impetus to continue searching until they have come home to “Me” and
to remember they have always been and shall always be “Me.”

Wouldn’t be the first [mistake], or even the first trillionth, I’ve
made today! But taken as a whole, it’s all always only perfect, in
stilly dynamic, ever-unfolding (p)re-cognition of amazement and
astonishment, the Greatest Show on (H)eart(h) :-)


I am constantly rectifying my “mistakes” as seen from my limited (particular) perspectives, and at the same time appreciating the perfection of everything as it IS, *including* the limitations of the dynamic particle-movements. From a limited perspective, I am *constantly* making mistakes; from a whole-hearted perspective I *never* make mistakes. As Turq has been known to say, Nature is a tragedy in close-up, and a comedy in long-shot. (Did I get that right, Turq?) Great drama, either way. (The analogy breaks down when we look at the close-up closely enough, and see it to be the same as the long-shot.) Believe in our stories, believe the movie, and we’re suffering, right there in the theatre with our mate on one hand and our popcorn on the other. And yet, it’s a great movie, isn’t it? :-)


Because it’s all one, we “bother”.

There is no need to rectify anything, *including* my current impulse to
clarify your apparent misapprehensions of my position(s).

I write this despite my suspicion that you really do *get* this, and
you’re just pulling my leg, because I do remember when I didn’t get it,
for many years, so I know that hypothetically not-getting this is
indeed possible and probably prevalent. So even if you *do* get this
and are just playing dumb, there are others who don’t, so this may be
actually heard somewhere, somewhen, by some Being actually seeking to come back to “Me.”

I also suspect that (as someone on FFL said recently — was it Curtis?
Or Judy?) not-getting this is a Piaget-like stage of Being, like a kid
who doesn’t get it that a tall narrow glass and a short fat one contain
the same amount of water. He won’t get it even if we pour the water
back and forth between the glasses all day long; he thinks it’s some
kind of a trick. He thinks either the tall glass is bigger, or the fat
glass is bigger — he can’t see that tall+thin = short+fat.

Nonetheless, I’ll pour the water a few more times, just for the fun of it.

There is no need to rectify anything, *including* my hypothetical
impulse to call the cops in your hypothetical home-invasion scenario.

My appreciation of the perfection of what IS *includes* all our
particular dynamic attempts to change what IS. It is both utterly still
*and* utterly dynamic, simultaneously. It is both silent *and* noisy,
simultaneously. It is both mistake-laden *and* error-free, simultaneously.

It contains all the slippery opposites in spacetime, because it is US,
and we’re more than spacetime, more than any particular story.

It is — we are — whatever we put our attention on and thereby evoke from the vasty deep.

Chopra has a good analogy — if we look at the movement of the crowd in
a train station, we see people rushing everywhere in apparent chaos,
and yet there is an underlying order; everyone’s needs are being met.

To me, that’s a great description of Life — everyone’s needs are being
met. If we don’t think our needs are being met, we look closer, feel
the emotion(s), be open to our deepest need in this moment, open our
heart to receive the divine perfection being offered to us in this
moment, be open to receiving both subtler and infinitely more fullness
more than we expected, almost certainly in a different flavor than we
expected. If we’re completely honest with ourself, completely open, we will find what we’ve been craving, and infinitely more. But again,
maybe only when we’re ready to see the two glasses of water are equivalent! :-)


I don’t know, Jim-ji; is that what I’m saying? Your summation is very
academic indeed for this poor scholar who speaks but little Latin and
less Greek.

But if I will shake a spear, and tilt quixotically at your wind-mill
(not unlike a quiet round of miniature golf), I might propose that
maybe that we’re holding ’em *and* folding ’em, simultaneously? :-)


Paired ox(zen), Pair o’ dice,
Snake-eyes, boxcars, fire and ice

One and one and one makes three,
Cube those cubes and get one free

Three-eyed Devi, freightcar from hell,
All is Sushumna; all is well,
All is Tiphareth; all is well,
All things large and small are well :-)


…I tend to conflate these two modes in my own Being, as for me
the Absolute is not really other than the relative and vice versa.
For me all the so-called opposites are merely multidimensional
labels, arbitrary placeholders to generate some story or other,
which can be a lot of fun if entered into in the right spirit (i.e, of disbelief).

I find this conflation is useful to relieve myself of the old
addictive need to think myself entirely within spacetime and so to
judge or blame or even recognize anyone or anything outside myself.
By holding myself entirely responsible for the quality of my own
creation, which is my own absolutely perfect mirror, I constantly
unfold new facets of myself I had never consciously imagined! Who
dreamed I would someday be a parent, and of such a multitude of
*odd*ly lovable children? :-)

…I would like to object mildly to calling my Understanding Neo-Advaitin, as I came by it (or it came by me) without study of or particular respect for any of these currently-fashionable teachers. Not that I have anything against them; many of them speak the Truth more clearly than I. This self-evident recognition merely awoke in me quite spontaneously when I saw that the so-called “path” was no longer getting me anywhere, nor did I wish anymore to *go* anywhere, or to measure myself anymore by any criteria but the Self alone. Everything was the same, and it became self-evident, crystal-clear, that all I ever wanted — eternal perfection, outside space-time — was already being offered to me; I had but to surrender to/insist upon it.

…my statement stands that I feel no need to rectify things, one of those things being the aforesaid impulse. The understanding that everything is perfect as it is (and as it IS) does *not* mean we are invested in its remaining that way, or are attached to changing it. Whatever emerges, we go with that, we let it be, and let it become, to whatever density of manifestation — thought, word, deed — that it wishes or needs, until love knows itself thoroughly to be love, and
we have fully digested some “new” particle of “Me”.

…Yes! In fact, for me they are the same, appearing to change only in
response to the approach we take to it, like the quantum reality’s
manifesting as wave or particle in response to the measuring instrument used.

…See, calling this the Neo-Advaitin shuffle or gobbledenonsense is
kind of like the kid calling it a trick when we pour the water from
the tall, narrow glass into the fat, short glass. There *are* no
mistakes, no karma, no suffering. And of course these exist in
abundance. Simultaneously, and arising into our awareness depending
on the instrument of inquiry used — heart or mind.

We might even go so far as to say that suffering is the echo we
give ourselves as feedback to tell our mind it is thinking
incorrectly, in a heartless manner. With enough such feedback,
eventually we get it, and subside into our own love-Being! :-)

But one of the great things about Earth is the sheer abundance of
world-views it offers. If you don’t like the “Neo-Advaitin” kids or
the langauge they use, no one’s making you hang out with them or
speak their language, are they?



You may be right; I’ve certainly seen (and of course, been) would-be
gurus who apparently warp and misuse the POV-4 one truth into an
apology for the status quo of the guru’s power-abuse, to perpetuate
blame, shame, and truth-denial and thereby to repress the gurus’
followers’ natural impulses to free themselves from an autocratic,
fundamentalist POV-2 regime. And again, *in no way* is this truth
intended as a substitute for action/inaction, or as a prescription for
any particular action/inaction.

Rather, it is intended as an impetus for inquiry into one’s own self-
righteousness, projection, blame, victimization and above all,
suffering. When one has healed most of these issues and is grounded in the love of Being the Self, one’s natural humor and fearlessness shreds the cobwebs of such attempted manipulations around one, and erstwhile sleepwalkers appear naturally to begin to share in that humor and delight and strength and Being the Self.

But again, it’s all about how we (unconsciously or consciously) treat
our own particles, for the eternally-pulsating nature of our Being-Consciousness-Bliss guarantees that however we think on the simplest levels (i.e. treat the particles of our Reality, our bodymind), we will then experience as our all-encompassing Reality (when we collapse into those particles and perceive our Reality through them). All of these particles are in actuality our own perfect radiance, the wholly innocent devas of our own body-mind, merely awaiting the programming we give them with our stories.

This is why it generally behooves us to avoid “smudging” or “smearing” anyone or anything in our Reality, for in truth we are then only smudging and smearing our own bodymind, and our perception of Reality will suffer for it. Not that there’s anything *wrong* with that, of course :-)


Comment on:

Q: Maharishi, if everything is, as you say, perfect
just as it is, why are we working so hard to change

A: That too is perfect just as it is.

…it blows apart the misconception that perceiving the perfection of what IS is merely a recipe to perpetuate a static status quo — something that apparently is *still* confusing a lot of people, if FFL is any indicator :-)

…how I “got” C.C. on one of my first residence courses… I was witnessing my brains out, and watching a tape by MMY *describing* witnessing and C.C., and *that* was what made the connection — “Oh my God — he’s talking about THIS!” Something I had had no words, no concept for before, though it had certainly been present. I can’t speak for everyone else in the audience, of course, but that surely worked for *me*. Thanks for giving me yet another reason to pass my gratitude back to MMY and Guru Dev, the Self behind my Self! You’re *still* a great TM-teacher, Barry :-)


Totally! Experience and Understanding simultaneously.

…You are reminding me of the absolutely mind-blowing way in this last course he brought up word for word virtually *everything* I had been thinking and saying in my own words over the decades since I had “left” TM and the TMO — most intensely my verbatim descriptions of Brahman to the administrator who was responsible for my admission to the course last year, and the “collapsing particle” creator/creature experiences I was enjoying so vividly at that moment on the course  — and then going into even more detail about my descriptions and Understandings than I consciously knew.

Constantly unfolding infinities of Self-reflection… My Self, His
Self, Guru Dev’s Self, Shiva’s Self, my Self, same, same, same,
same …. Over and over, until I realized far deeper Self-recognition
than I had dreamed possible.

…*lol* No time, no space, no problem! NEXT!


…On this latest course his [MMY] incredibly detailed and highly personal
omniscience, and his unbelievable Presence of Being, showed me
directly that he was clearly occupying and illuminating whole other
layers of my Self that I hadn’t known were there; that in fact this
*I* was a projection of *him*, who is a projection of Guru Dev, who
is a…and so on. And yet yes, it’s all very ordinary, very simple,
simply the Self. Anyhow this basically blew me away, into *intensely*
rich, overwhelmingly enjoyable devotion, and I have not normally been
a bhakti kind of guy. So yes, you might say I am projecting all of
this, but all I can say for sure is it is not the level of “I” that
was my normal hang-out spot, where it *is* pretty clearly MMY’s, or
at least MMY’s and mine when he is attending to me and I am attending to him :-) At any rate, the Self is showing the Self some wonderful Selves!

…with the Self having already realized the Self, I *had* no goal, other than to simply BE there. I knew that was all that was required of me. :-)

…Let’s take your case: when Judy speaks, is it possible that what you hear in her words is not necessarily what is really there, but what you *project* onto it because you’re focused on your goal (whatever it may be for you) and you “see” that goal in her? I think the answer to that is obvious to most of us here.:-)

But what if Judy were speaking back word for word what you had just
spoken to your closest friend that morning, or were thinking in
silence a moment earlier, and furthermore went into those words in
more and more detail until you saw *exactly* where you were coming
from, in far richer, deeper detail than you had known was there,
showing you layers and layers of intimacy, splendor, richness,
simplicity, unity, love? And this happened over and over and over and
over and over and over…? Let me tell you, whatever I was expecting
(and I wasn’t expecting much, that’s for sure, having been there and
done that and given the T-shirt away), *this* was *not* what I was
expecting from the old fellow or from myself or from the other course
participants. :-)

…I *was* able now to see new depths of enlightenment both in MMY and myself and in his supremely intimate identity with me, as in one sense the very source of my conscious I. And I was able to enjoy deeper enlightenment wherever I looked: even the Dome, that poor old hospital for the walking wounded was now my most glorious “particle accelerator,” a true siddhapura of fully enlightened beings, every one of Us one of the perfect particles in my bodymind. Is MMY “really” enlightened, outside of my appreciation of him? Are you? Who knows, and who cares?

Thanks to my Being on his course I am deriving a new and intensely
rich enjoyment and appreciation of the simplicity and power of my
Creator/cresture selves, of MMY and of everyone else. Since he was
the obvious source of my learning to BE, I consider him to be my
primary teacher. Now I also know him to BE my own BEING. Yes, BEING
is everywhere, but it also has an immense torrent at its source —
it’s like an ocean that also has an underwater fountain, and Guru Dev
and MMY are two source-points deep in that fountain, and I tend to
hang out or identify with an I in that same fountain, somewhat closer
to the surface… It’s all me, but then so are you, so why am I
writing this at all? :-)


Personally, I would neither classify myself as a seeker (more of a finder if anything :-) ), nor, depite what I’ve said about finding MMY as my deeper Self, as being guru-centered. I am *heartily* grateful to him for all he’s shown me, but I don’t do pujas to him, think about him much, etc. It’s not really a personality thing at all. Besides, I *still* wouldn’t call myself a particularly bhakti-oriented guy, in general :-)


Actually, it generally seems to be more like, Ahh! Another ME who actually *knows* s/he’s ME! Homecoming squared…


I laugh WITH myselves almost constantly, but it’s true, I don’t laugh
AT myselves nearly as often as I used to. I found that the one doing
the laughing was often not a very happy or loving aspect of myself —
was instead a rather sardonic, distancing, cold-hearted, superior,
and contemptuous “older-brother” or “Lucifer” aspect — and I’ve
somewhat attended to and healed the searing pain in that particle so
he doesn’t feel the need to poke fun at my other particles nearly as
much as he did — which is not to say we don’t often find ourselves
to be pretty lovably funny :-)


My memory must be slipping. I just remember good times and lots of laughter.



Oh, so now I gotta think?


A footnote on this exchange: In the traditional Christian view of
Witchcraft, the Devil offers or orders his followers to kiss his ass:
the so-called Osculum Infamum, the Obscene Kiss. However, in (Neo-)
Wicca (and perhaps original Wicca, if there was such), it is the High
Priest(ess) who kisses the ass of the new Initiate (in some versions,
this is part of a fivefold kiss, attending to various spots from toe
to head), and it appears likely that His or Her attention is intended
to awaken the aspirant’s Kundalini-shakti dormant there: Hence,
the “bumpy ride” comment. I apologize that this joke was probably too
abstruse and overly intellectual for many to get, although I am sure
some other hopefully-humorous resonances and harmonics were self-
evident to almost everyone :-)


…It might prove interesting to play some more with this implied
equivalency of the traditional Christian Devil and the Kundalini-Shakti

IIRC, the word “Devil” comes from the Greek *Diabolos* which in turn
stems from *Dia-bolein*, to throw across: to me implying the Devil as
one who is thrown (or throws himself) across a chasm; who has indulged in and is now caught in the illusion of prideful separation: caught like the unredeemed Kundalini-serpent at the bottom of the chakras, lost in the freezing,searing pain of fearful hatred of and unacknowledged passion for the ecstatic Oneness of her Creator.

At the same time, “fasten your seat belts … it’s going to be a bumpy
night,” is apparently from the movie, All About Eve. Eve, Havvah, Life,
*is* the Kundalini-Shakti herself, the Goddess of the Serpent. (And
the Mayic pairs of opposites constitute the Tree of Knowledge of Good
and Evil, partaking of which entails judgement or “false discrimination” catapulting one into separation from the One Creator Self.)

The last laugh *HA!* bursts forth when the rebellious self sees it has
been none other than the One Self all along; that in hurling itself
away from the Creator, it has *done the will* of the Creator, and when it recollects Who it IS, who it ALL IS, it’s all about Eve. The flying dragon, the dragon-fly, the Devil’s darning needle has stitched the One Self’s sutra, sewing a new thread of Unity, bringing the One Self to where it was *not*, expanding the range of infinity, and emerging triumphant in the remembrance of



Hey, Patrick; many thanks! — my wife and I both caught your son’s
movie on YouTube, and were *very* impressed. I can’t remember when I’ve seen more powerfully artistic cinematography. How old is your son?


To me, it often appears as if people are being willfully ignorant, choosing to play dumb w/r/t their own obvious a priori Enlightenment, and the self-evident perfection of all that is. Judy showed me otherwise a year or two ago, and I now know that it doesn’t seem that way to them, and that they are *not* (from their POV) consciously choosing to ignore the self-evident. I wonder if Judy’s Truth is not a whole lot like my Enlightenment: So self-evident, crystal-clear, that it is virtually impossible to believe other’s *can’t* see it and operate naturally from that place…?



Back around 2002 when I yet had a good bit of unresolved anger toward MMY and the TMO, but was not particularly aware of that anger on the surface, and thought I was making logical, helpful, reasonable posts, Judy often ate me for lunch. :-) Since then, over time, I’ve paid a lot of attention to my old MMY/TMO wounds, and watched a lot of them heal.

This doesn’t mean I have assumed or resumed a true-believer stance
w/r/t MMY and the TMO. My “program” has continued to dissolve and
morph beyond all recognition and description, becoming entirely
spontaneous and self-directed, moment to moment. While I enjoy some aspects of Stapathya-veda, I chose to buy a great Victorian house with a lovely south entrance, only 4 blocks from FF’s square. I moved to FF (again) primarily because of the love and companionship I feel
for the Wednesday-night Satsangers; I had no abiding interest in MUM, the TMO or the Domes. I don’t use MAPI herbs or Ayurveda. I’m not a great fan of Jyotish, although I’ve seen in the hands of an intuitive practitioner it can work healing wonders, like any other richly complex language. (My wife and I were most impressed with Shastri-ji.) I don’t particularly believe or disbelieve in MMY’s old SofC model, having in turn (1) swallowed it whole, (2) seen it as a fairy-tale construct of a single indivisible SofC, (3) had fun dividing C up into other models of my own, and (4) been blown away last year by far deeper understanding of, and congruence between, my models and MMY’s. I have no real opinion on the Rajas and the Raams, viewing them as an odd and occasionally-interesting drama that doesn’t at the moment have much to do with me.

Having been there myself (and in a deeper sense, being there now, as
what I see is all “me” :-)), I can understand your puzzlement at her
seeing angry faces where you do not. From where I stand now, though, it often appears that you actually *aren’t* thinking clearly or logically, but are instead making comments from a specific wounded/resentful feeling-level which make perfect sense to  — and only to — another person sharing that wounded/resentful feeling-level: That in fact you are communicating primarily to confirm your “ain’t MMY awful” feeling-level (this I notice far more consistently and far more “loudly” in Barry and Steve than in you, Curtis). This may not at all be *your* truth, and I’m OK with that. I know that in truth, you are none of the above — you are only and completely indescribably beautiful, radiant Being. And again, lest anyone think I am criticising anyone here, please know that I am not. It is, indeed, all me, and all indescribably perfect. I’m just describing me as clearly as I can in this moment.  Most of all, I feel happy and blessed to know you all! :-)


…I wouldn’t equate enlightenment with a compulsion to
return to a favorite emotion (or the opposite, either), but then
again, I don’t particularly see Judy that way. I *do* see her
intellect as generally crystal-clear, and that she won’t
tolerate “fuzzy” thinking. I think some of what you’re seeing as
outrage may be her belief that you must be “choosing” to think
fuzzily, i.e. to consciously lie, when IMO you almost certainly
aren’t. I know I wasn’t consciously “choosing to lie” when I would
make anti-MMY or anti-TMO statements; I was just wounded, angry and resentful and I tended to make baseless and illogical generalizations when coming from that space. (Perhaps it’s that sacred DNA in the base of my spine; I’m predominantly Irish.) God knows, my mind has *never* been well trained in logic, so you can imagine the shambles I was (unconsciously) in when coming from a victimized space! And now, the joke is, I can do nothing *but* lie! (Not true.) Whenever I make a statement, the opposite instantly surfaces to be appreciated as well (Not true.) :-)

…*I* am in over my head in a discussion of my state of awareness…:-)

Let’s just say I place no ultimate importance on the state my
awareness happens to be in right now, as it’s just another state.
Dang! Even That’s a lie. It’s the ONLY state. Liar! Liar! It’s
BEAUTIFULLY ordinary. Nope. My pants are on fire! (Who was it who
said Brahman was slippery? Oh yeah, me. And MMY. He also said *why* it was slippery: That the intellect, Buddhi, becomes so clear as to be virtually non-existent, revealing the substratum of the Atman, the Self, everywhere. And the Self is utterly indescribable, containing and transcending all opposites. That is pretty good, for a lie! :-) )

I *do* currently like to place a lot of attention on the particles in
my Being, as they love the lovin’ and it gets the juices flowing to
turn this burg into a hopping, popping, psychedelic paradise. Love is
the ultimate particle accelerator, baby! HOOah! :-)

…I don’t know. I could say Yes, but I could just as truthfully say No.
All of the above, none of the above. I can’t be pinned down, even by
saying I can’t. Because I can! Not! Can! Not! :-)

…I don’t know. (Do so! Do not!) Should it? (Shouldn’t it?) Was that
what they promised? Maybe I should ask for my money back? My selves are too virtual to be described, I think. Or don’t think. :-)

…So oppositely opposite as to be the same, maybe. I only know that I
am in no condition to ascribe to another what is not in myself, as I
am only seeing those values in those particles by virtue of the
essences in my own Being — which is why I may be entirely wrong on
my appraisal of Barry and Steve; I am only operating from and
creating on the resonance(s) of memory. In fact in one sense I am
absolutely wrong, for I *know* that ultimately there is only the
radiantly Indescribable Self singing in each particle of each of Us.

…I don’t take *Gospel* for Gospel, if it comes to that. :-)


…Sat Yuga has *always* been here, just as soon as we take responsibility for/surrender into it…


Hey, Happy Birthday, Curtis! :-D



Previous post:

Next post: