Category: Uncategorized

Contrast the avoda zara philosophy promoted by Maharishi from the sealed masoret of T’NaCH, Talmud, and Siddur

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1918–2008) is best known for developing Transcendental Meditation (TM) and for his broader philosophies surrounding consciousness, meditation, and personal development. His teachings blend Eastern spiritual traditions with modern scientific insights, emphasizing the potential for personal and collective transformation through meditation.

Transcendental Meditation (TM), a simple technique where individuals meditate for about 20 minutes twice a day, focusing on a specific mantra. The practice aims to promote relaxation, reduce stress, and enhance overall well-being. Maharishi’s philosophy posits that there are different levels of consciousness, ranging from the individual ego to universal consciousness. Achieving higher states of consciousness is seen as vital for personal growth and societal harmony.

A significant aspect of his philosophy is the idea that individual well-being contributes to global peace. Maharishi advocated for group meditation initiatives, suggesting that collective practices could foster a more peaceful world. The heart of Maharishi’s teachings lies in the practice of TM, helping individuals achieve depth of consciousness and inner silence. Maharishi integrated Ayurvedic principles into his teachings, emphasizing natural health and the balance between body, mind, and spirit. He developed programs focused on stress reduction, creativity enhancement, and improved quality of life through meditation.

Maharishi’s Concept: The text outlines two realities: the “Absolute,” which is unchanging, and the “relative,” which is ever-changing. This duality is central to understanding life and consciousness. T’NaCH: In Judaism, God is often described as unchanging (Malachi 3:6: “For I, the Lord, do not change”). However this minor prophet contrasts with the day and night change between God in Heaven as depicted in the Book of בראשית, to the God within our hearts – revelation of HaShem at Sinai.

The Talmud encompasses the “world view” model of Sanhedrin common law courtrooms. Case/Din halacha serves as בניני אבות judicial precedents wherein the Gemara sugyot interpret and re-interpret different perspectives how to both understand the language of a sugya of Gemara; but most essentially to make, so to speak, a legislative review/משנה תורה-multiple different perspective analysis of the witness language of a specific Mishna.

The Maharishi’s concept of “Being”, for example, fails to address the ever present crisis of Jewish assimilation and intermarriage with Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – HaShem לא בשמים היא – a D’varim vision that Torah does not come from heaven post Sinai. A Talmudic example found in ברכות which presents an Aggadic story of a man forced to sleep in a grave-yard consequent to having an argument with his wife; there he has a dream of what when and where to plant his crops. This Aggada comes to instruct the mussar that Man can only do mitzvot in this world and not in the world to come. Meaning doing time-oriented commandments with the k’vanna לשמה fundamentally and absolutely requires a Yatzir Ha-Tov spirit which breathes tohor Oral Torah middot within the beating heart of a bnai brit Man living in this world.

The Talmud emphasizes the distinction between tefillah and prayer – comparable to the Divine Names whereby the Avot perceived God in the Heavens above as opposed to the post Sinai root faith that HaShem’s Divine Presence Shekinah breaths tohor middot within the Yatzir Ha-Tov within our hearts on this physical Earth below. Hence its directly forbidden to pronounce the Name of HaShem because this living spirit Name simply no more a word than its possible to compare anything in the Heavens, Seas, or Earth to HaShem.

Contrast the false Maharishi’s concept — his projected ability of individual beings to reflect the “Absolute”, this total narishkeit nonsense declares the notion of expanding mind and heart through awareness and harmony with universal being. This contrasts with HaShem understood in the Talmud as a local god which only the 12 tribes of Israel accepted at Sinai with the Universal Monotheistic theological rhetoric promoted by both Xtianity and Islam’s Universal Monotheistic God(s).

The Maharishi’s religious rhetoric narishkeit promotes mystical kabbalah excuses! His “Kabbalistic perspective” describes the process of personal and collective consciousness expanding as one engages more deeply with divine truth. Torah by contrast defines faith as צדק צדק תרדוף – pursue judicial common law justice in this world – specifically within the brit lands sworn as the eternal inheritance of the Avot chosen Cohen seed within only the borders of Judea. Sanhedrin Courts with their prophetic police mussar enforcers only have jurisdiction within the borders of Judea. Yonah being an exception due to the king of Assyria made a mass deportation of the people of the kingdom of Samaria deported to Assyrian lands by force.

T’shuva refers to b’nai brit remembering the sworn oath made unto the Avot that they would father the chosen Cohen people. After Yonah traveled to the kingdom of Assyria – the Babylonian empire conquered that kingdom shortly thereafter. Prophets never sent to Goyim who never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Contrast the Koran where it declares that prophets sent to all nations and lands to warn of approaching societal collapse; where those “prophets” speak in the native language of the people being warned! Goyim in all times and generations never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Prophets command mussar only to the chosen Cohen people who accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Hence the Koran, like the New Testament – both Av tuma avoda zara.

mosckerr
1.25.26 Maharishi and My Understanding of Judaism

A classic example of how MSM perverts and promotes a skewed narrative.

Christianity and Islam: Both religions have experienced periods of expansion and conflict. Historically, the spread of Christianity and Islam involved military conquests, colonization, and significant violence, often resulting in substantial loss of life. The Crusades (11th to 13th centuries) are a prime example where Christian forces engaged in violent campaigns to reclaim the Holy Land from Muslim control, resulting in extensive casualties. The early Islamic conquests (7th to 9th centuries) also resulted in substantial territorial expansion, often accompanied by military action and suppression of local populations.

The British Empire serves as a pertinent example of how these dynamics played out, particularly in relation to the spread of Christianity and the resulting violence. The British Empire, while primarily driven by economic interests, often employed the spread of Christianity as a justification for colonization. This included missionary activities that aimed to convert indigenous populations in regions like India, Africa, and the Pacific Islands.

The introduction of Western religious values frequently accompanied violent suppression of local religions and cultures. India: The British colonial rule led to significant social upheaval, with movements such as the Sepoy Mutiny (1857) in part a response to the imposition of Christianity and Western values. Africa: Missionary efforts were often coupled with military conquests, leading to conflicts with local tribes and cultures. Pacific Islands: The arrival of missionaries frequently preceded colonial annexation, often resulting in the eradication of local beliefs and practices through coercive means.

The Boer War (1899-1902) between the British Empire and the two Boer republics in South Africa demonstrated the violent outcomes of colonial ambition. As Britain sought control over the resource-rich region, it led to brutal military engagements. The use of concentration camps during the Boer War to manage Boer civilians resulted in significant suffering and loss of life. This method of containment and control foreshadowed similar tactics employed by the Nazis during the Holocaust, illustrating a disturbing legacy of colonial practices.

The spread of Christianity served dual purposes: to justify imperial conquest and to promote a moral narrative of “civilizing” missions. This often masked the violence and exploitation that accompanied colonial rule. The legacy of these actions remains a source of deep-seated tension and conflict in post-colonial societies. The historical narratives surrounding these expansions lead to ongoing debates about cultural identity, restitution, and the enduring impacts of colonial violence.

Christianity and Islam have driven human slaughter through their historical expansions, the British Empire’s experience illustrates how imperialism, using religion as a tool for justification, resulted in widespread violence and oppression. These complexities highlight the multifaceted nature of religious influence in human history, necessitating a nuanced understanding of how faith, imperial ambition, and conflict are interwoven. Recognizing these complexities is essential in contextualizing contemporary discussions around religion, politics, and cultural identity.

Learning to read between the lines in reading MSM fake reactionary news rhetoric propaganda.

The Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) is currently at the center of several controversies, especially regarding its relationship with federal immigration authorities, like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Recent events have highlighted discrepancies between state and federal data concerning noncitizens in custody and the handling of ICE detainers.

The Minnesota Department of Corrections’ recent counter-narrative following the shooting of Alex Pretti highlights a vital discourse on misinformation and the complexities of rival narratives in media reporting. This situation mirrors broader discussions about how different institutions frame incidents to serve their own narratives. Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen, was fatally shot by federal immigration enforcement agents, prompting an immediate reaction from the Minnesota DOC.

The DOC launched a website responding to what it termed “ongoing misinformation” from federal officials, particularly targeting statements made by Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino regarding a supposed suspect with a significant criminal history. In its statement, the Minnesota DOC refutes federal claims by clarifying two key aspects: The individual named by federal officials was not in Minnesota DOC custody and had a limited criminal record consisting only of misdemeanors. The DOC asserts that the DHS has repeatedly released inaccurate data about ICE detainers in Minnesota.

The federal stance, as presented by DHS, casts Pretti in a more dangerous light, describing him as armed and posing a threat during the incident. The contrasting narratives illustrate how competing institutions frame events to influence public opinion. Each organization focuses on specific details that align with their institutional goals— be it to maintain public trust or validate operational effectiveness.

Different narratives can lead to confusion and skepticism among the public, particularly when officials contradict one another. This situation can be compared to historical instances where institutions engaged in public relations battles to manipulate narratives. Similar to wartime propaganda, competing authorities often attempt to frame narratives to consolidate power, create scapegoats, or protect reputations. Historical parallels exist in various conflicts where misinformation influenced public sentiment toward enemy nations or allies. In today’s climate, competing media narratives often reflect institutional agendas, drawing attention to the critical role of verification and transparency in news reporting.

The confrontation between the Minnesota Department of Corrections and federal immigration authorities following the shooting of Alex Pretti exemplifies the dynamic nature of narrative framing in news reporting. Each institution’s efforts to assert its version of events demonstrate the complexities involved in public discourse regarding law enforcement and immigration issues. As authorities battle perceptions fueled by conflicting narratives, the importance of transparency, verification, and public trust becomes ever more critical in shaping informed societal views.

The Revelation of the Torah at Sinai vs. the worship of other Gods

Substance vs. Form … נמשל כנגד משל. Confusing the metaphor of the golden Ark for its Oral Torah interpretation as taught in the Book of D’varim 5th Book of the Torah 30:12 – השם “לא בשמים היא”.

The Talmud instructs that the mitzva of tefillah stands different from avoda zara prayer in that tefillah a matter of the heart while Goyim prayer to their God directed unto Heaven. Herein explains how the “story” of the Tabernacle and its vessels differentiates from the Names of God in the first Book of the Torah from the revelation of God at Sinai. Just as Moshe the most humble of all men – based upon HaShem the most humble of the Gods!

HaShem a local tribal god which only Israel accepted at Sinai to this very day. Post Sinai HaShem dwells within the Yatzir Ha-Tov within the hearts of Israel the chosen Cohen people alone. All other Gods live in the Heavens above. Hence the Torah says that Avraham called unto his god by the name El Shaddai and did not know the Name HaShem because he lived before the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.

Jewish assimilation & intermarriage with Goyim who never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai which permanently established the chosen Cohen people, and defines the mitzva to eternally war against Amalek/anti-semitism from generation to generation.